whats main point of the passage , author's tone, does author agree with Jason Scott

[a_sin]

In this thought-provoking book, Ron Amundson, professor of philosophy at the University of Hawaii at Hilo, illustrates two sides, historical and philosophical, of what he regards as the unbridgeable contrast between the Evolutionary Synthesis and today's evolutionary developmental biology, or Evo-Devo. Repeatedly, through the pages of this readable work, the author equates this contrast to other dichotomies such as function vs form, population vs ontogeny, adaptationism vs structuralism, and even transmission genetics vs developmental genetics. However, as aptly remarked by Jason Scott Robert(2005), there is much more to modern evolutionary biology than the adaptationism of 40 or 50 years ago against which Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin launched a famous attack with their spandrels paper. Furthermore, Evo-Devo is far from monolithic, and there is much more to it than developmental genetics. As a consequence of these simplifications, the book fails to cover the issue in the full range of its aspects. Nevertheless, it opens avenues to a well-deserved revisitation of many points of received wisdom, in both the historical and the conceptual aspects of the debated field. As for the historical dimension, Amundson blames Ernst Mayr and other prominent representatives of the Evolutionary Synthesis for having deliberately forged a biased perspective through which the history of 19th-century biology has been severely distorted. The most pernicious consequence of this Synthesis-dominated historiography is the support it provided to the forced removal of development from evolutionary biology.

[shud]

Main point is to critic on the Amundson book and explains how it challenges other theories of modern evolutionary biology but it fails to covers full range of aspects.

 

Author is optimistic and supportive of Amundson's views.

 

Author does not provide his judgement for Scotts view but quoted few attacks against him.