Changes

In 2005, Massimo Pigliucci, in a book review for the prestigious science journal ''Nature'', wrote: "The clamour to revise [[Neo-Darwinism|neo-darwinism]] is becoming so loud that hopefully most practising evolutionary biologists will begin to pay attention. It has been said that science often makes progress not because people change their minds, but because the old ones die off and the new generation is more open to novel ideas."<ref name="arn">http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2008/07/25/how_much_of_evolutionary_theory_needs_fi</ref> In July 2008, Elizabeth Pennisi

In 2005, Massimo Pigliucci, in a book review for the prestigious science journal ''Nature'', wrote: "The clamour to revise [[Neo-Darwinism|neo-darwinism]] is becoming so loud that hopefully most practising evolutionary biologists will begin to pay attention. It has been said that science often makes progress not because people change their minds, but because the old ones die off and the new generation is more open to novel ideas."<ref name="arn">http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2008/07/25/how_much_of_evolutionary_theory_needs_fi</ref> In July 2008, Elizabeth Pennisi

wrote in the prestigous science journal ''Science'': "Seventy years ago, evolutionary biologists hammered out the modern synthesis to bring Darwin's ideas in line with current insights into how organisms change through time. Some say it's time for Modern Synthesis 2.0."<ref name="arn" />

wrote in the prestigious science journal ''Science'': "Seventy years ago, evolutionary biologists hammered out the modern synthesis to bring Darwin's ideas in line with current insights into how organisms change through time. Some say it's time for Modern Synthesis 2.0."<ref name="arn" />

==== Atheist Jerry Coyne and Templeton Foundation friction related to revamping evolutionary ideology ====

==== Atheist Jerry Coyne and Templeton Foundation friction related to revamping evolutionary ideology ====