I will admit that I didn't read the entire article but this seems to be covering an argument among scientists about the mechanisms that cause new traits to occur in organisms. What specifically does this article say that evolutionists are retreating from?
There is not a consensus; the project is not finished. There are many ideas and opinions held by those who have been invited to participate in the project. Some have already abandoned NeoDawinism. Some don't think 'natural selection' plays a role. Some insist there must be a self-organizing force inherent in matter, much like I've seen you hinting after. Others think NeoDarwinism can be salvaged with a major overhaul.
As you know because you have been involved in this to some extent, for some time now there have been persistent rumors that the Modern Synthesis (MS) in evolutionary biology is incomplete, and may be about to be completed. Such suggestions have been received with skepticism by a number of biologists, including some of the very originators of the MS.
The challenge seems clear to us: how do we make sense, conceptually, of the astounding advances in biology since the 1940s, when the MS was taking shape? Not only we have witnessed the molecular revolution, from the discovery of the structure of DNA to the genomic era, we are also grappling with the increasing feeling – for example as reflected by an almost comical proliferation of "-omics," that we just don’t have the theoretical and analytical tools necessary to make sense of the bewildering diversity and complexity of living organisms.
What is less clear is how much talk of an Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES) is actually going to coalesce into an organic conceptual structure capable of significantly augmenting the existing synthesis, while at the same time retaining the many key advances of Darwinism and neo-Darwinism – from population genetics theory to our still evolving understanding of the nature of species, to mention just two. The goal of the proposed symposium is, in fact, to accept the challenge and ask a number of prominent biologists and philosophers (see preliminary list of topics and contributors below) who have worked for an advancement of evolutionary theory exactly (or even approximately) what a meaningful EES would look like.
Another thing I noticed was how some, rather than abandoning 'natural selection', have adopted a creationist view that it is a conservative rather than creative agent. I suggest, however that creationists should re-evaluate, and drop it altogether. Should the evolutionists drop it, you will be behind the curve and have to play catch-up. 'Natural selection' must either be tautological or have no meaning at all.
There seems to be no indication among the scientists that evolution may not have occurred.
Would not any scientists following the facts to their logical conclusion be disqualified from participating?
There seems to be no indication that natural selection was going to be put aside as one of the mechanisms of evolution.
I haven't worked out the numbers, if it should come to a vote. But more than one of them have indicated it is greatly overrated and misunderstood.
Well, here
Natural selection was only part of Darwin’s Origin of Species thinking. Yet through the years most biologists outside of evolutionary biology have mistakenly believed that evolution is natural selection.
A wave of scientists now questions natural selection’s relevance, though few will publicly admit it. And with such a fundamental struggle underway, the hurling of slurs such as "looney Marxist hangover", "philosopher" (a scientist who can’t get grants anymore), "crackpot", is hardly surprising.
When I asked esteemed Harvard evolutionary geneticist Richard Lewontin in a phone conversation what role natural selection plays in evolution, he said, "Natural selection occurs."
Lewontin thinks it’s important to view the living world holistically. He says natural selection is not the only biological force operating on the composition of populations. And whatever the mechanism of passage of information from parent to offspring contributing to your formation, what natural selection addresses is "do you survive?"
In an aside, Lewontin noted natural selection’s tie-in to capitalism, saying, "Well, that’s where Darwin got the idea from, that’s for sure. . . . He read the stock market every day . . . . How do you think he made a living?"
Stanley Salthe, a natural philosopher at Binghamton University with a PhD in zoology – who says he can’t get published in the mainstream media with his views – largely agrees with Lewontin. But Salthe goes further. He told me the following:
"Oh sure natural selection’s been demonstrated . . . the interesting point, however, is that it has rarely if ever been demonstrated to have anything to do with evolution in the sense of long-term changes in populations. . . . Summing up we can see that the import of the Darwinian theory of evolution is just unexplainable caprice from top to bottom. What evolves is just what happened to happen."
(about midway through the article)
Implicit in those discussions is the fact that nobody's employing "change in alleles", or any of the other watered-down definitions. Change is inevitable. When people are even 3% serious, they don't bother with such nonsense.
They also see that "mutation and natural selection" cannot produce the desired results: a plausible story.
There appears to be no redefinition of evolution or the basic premises of evolution.
Really? You mean the same basic premises Erasmus Darwin and Lamarck accepted? There is still a desire to account for the world we live in and the life we see while denying it was all created.
If you mean the pathetic redefinitions which have been promoted on this forum, it's quite obvious they have something else in mind.
Why should a shortfall in knowledge about the internal workings of evolution prevent us from teaching what we do know?
I never said it should. I think it's a great topic for a "Social Studies" or history class, this phenomenon of evolutionism.
See my examples of your "X" statement.
"We insist on indoctrinating you and your children with the idea that the force of gravity exists between 2 masses. We haven't worked out what the mechanism of gravity is, but that's none of your concern."
Gravity is defined.
"We insist on indoctrinating you and your children with the knowledge that Jesus is the sacrifice for the forgiveness of your sins. We haven't worked out Why God required Jesus to be sacrificed in order for God to forgive us, but that's none of your concern."
Teaching knowledge is not indoctrination. You might want to rephrase your parody of a false analogy.
If you wish to discuss specific portions of the article, then I will read the article and respond.
Thanks for the offer. It may be a bit premature to discuss some things. It should prove amusing if they're able to cobble anything together. Very amusing. But I am not yet such an expert evolutionologist that I can predict the outcome. My best guess is that they'll be ignored after a brief period of hype. Inertia is inertial.
