dilute micro
esse quam videri
When someone keeps wanting to talk about 'Darwinism' rather than what actual evolutionary biologists are up to these days, it always makes me profoundly suspicious.
I don't think you really know what evolutionary biologists are 'up to'. In our discussion so far you've been out to lunch. You can't answer the question I asked.
I think it's fair enough to talk about 'Darwinism' if you make it clear you mean some historical movement, or 'pop Darwinism' or the state of evolutionary theory before the modern synthesis with genetics and or something, but the way it's being used above seems to me quite shifty.
The ideas of Gould and Margulis, or at least the ones that actually stood up to scientific scrutiny, are part of modern evolutionary biology alongside selection, genetics and a whole bunch of other stuff. There is debate about how those pieces fit together to be sure, but someone claiming that e.g. selection no longer plays any role at all has either been seriously misled or is trying to mislead. Thing is, if someone makes such a claim it is easy to show that it is false, whereas waving fuzzy terms like 'Darwinism' around especially if you're conflating what the quote above describes as that word's 'neutral' meanings with the creationist ones, makes it easier to mislead without being shown to be factually wrong. Given that the creationists are doing PR and cultural engineering, rather than trying to get the facts straight, this is a convenient move for them and one which it pays to be alert to.
Did you even know who Margulis was before I mentioned her? I believe you did a search on the net and suddenly know so much, and top that off with declaring her theory proven true.
Who claims "selection no longer plays any role"? Who's misleading?