This paper deals in detail with a fairly recent philosophical debate centered around the ability of the theory of natural selection to account for those phenotypical changes which can be argued to make organisms better adapted to their environments. The philosopher and cognitive scientist Jerry Fodor started the debate by claiming that natural selection cannot do the job. He follows two main lines of argumentation. One is based on an alleged conceptual defect in the theory, the other on alleged empirical problems in it as well as empirical alternatives to it. Four philosophers and two biologists respond in a way that displays what might easily be described as fallacious. The paper relies on the ideal model of critical discussion of pragma-dialectics to offer a step-by-step analysis of the whole debate, which extended for four issues of the London Review of Books, from October 2007 through January 2008. This pragma-dialectical analysis is carried out by constant reference to the various questions (problems, issues) that arise in the debate. The analysis includes as much detail as possible both in Fodor’s original argument and in the critics’ various comments as well as Fodor’s replies along two rounds of debate. Since a simple negative evaluation in terms of fallacies is out of the question in view of the proved argumentative accomplishments of the participants, an alternative explanation is offered: the undeniable derailments in strategic maneuvering are due to the fact that, whilst ostensibly discussing the theory of natural selection, Fodor’s detractors are worried by an underlying issue, namely, the dangers of discussing the merits and demerits of natural selection as a theory of evolution in a venue as exposed to the general public as the London Review of Books, given the religiously inspired movements that threaten the teaching of evolutionary biology in schools.

本文详细讨论了最近一场围绕自然选择理论解释那些表型变化的能力的哲学辩论，这些变化可以被认为是使生物体更好地适应其环境。哲学家和认知科学家 Jerry Fodor 通过声称自然选择不能完成这项工作来开始辩论。他遵循两条主要的论点。一种是基于理论中所谓的概念缺陷，另一种是基于理论中所谓的经验问题以及它的经验替代方案。四位哲学家和两位生物学家的回应方式表明了可能很容易被描述为谬误的事情。本文依托语用辩证法批判性讨论的理想模型，对整个辩论进行了逐步分析，并延伸到了《论语》的四个问题。伦敦书评，从 2007 年 10 月到 2008 年 1 月。这种语用辩证分析是通过不断参考辩论中出现的各种问题（问题、议题）来进行的。该分析在福多的原始论点和批评者的各种评论以及福多在两轮辩论中的答复中都包括尽可能多的细节。鉴于参与者已证明的论证成就，不可能对谬误进行简单的负面评价，因此提供了另一种解释：战略机动中不可否认的脱轨是由于这样一个事实，虽然表面上讨论的是自然选择，福多的批评者担心一个潜在的问题，即，伦敦书评，鉴于宗教启发的运动威胁到学校的进化生物学教学。