The problem is, 'genetic drift' is not remotely controversial. Even Kimura's strong claim that drift is responsible for most genetic changes is a respectable position, and the debate is a rather pedestrian one of 'exactly how much change is drift versus selection' (like in the nature-nurture debate, the expert consensus has settled down to a centrist 'both do a lot and how exactly much of each depends on a lot of details and context'). Hard to see why Dyson thinks it's so exciting or a dangerous heresy. I was expecting more when he brought up Darwin...