What is ‘Darwinism’? I was speaking recently with 2 biologists. One was falling in love (incomplete verb) with the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES), quite flowery rhetoric by this biologist. She passed me a lemon at the end of our meeting, which came from her garden. The science is interesting even if it is challenging many past assumptions and current assumptions held by those with a rather small ‘basket of goods,’ as economists like to say.
The other is also a historian of biology, and the answer was so starkly in contrast to the first answer (could we say it was more full of life?), heaping down rebuke upon revisionists and poseurs with sharp, accurate and detailed assessments not just of facts, but also of the people speaking them, the context, the surrounding evidence that leads to understanding a ‘field’ of study far beyond just doing something within the field itself. Taken in that light, to even ask the question of 'If Darwinism… [add anything]" comes across as presumptuous (neutrally meaning full of assumptions) at the start. The historian needs to check her or his facts of history that were recorded and that can now be seen by some of us in various media regarding the original Modern Synthesis (MS) or now the Extending/-ed Modern Evolutionary Synthesis (EMES). BL can have more focuses on showing such contributions, even while keeping a distant distance from them.
There are then not many worries about conflating whatever is currently called ‘Darwinism’ or Neo-Darwinism in whichever district thse particular linguistic term is being uttered. It is easier to rest it as an aside, rather than central.
So I would like to see “If Darwinism…” unpackaged please, as if it is something that exists in peoples’ minds - to be able to see better what it is that you are asking. This BL place apparently has few (not none) antagonisms with Darwin himself, as a naturalist (proto-scientist) of his time. They seem even to really like Darwin at BioLogos, whohoo, Charles! Am I not misunderstanding this aspect of BL corp. culture?
What if maybe less than 5% of BioLogos readers would start with anywhere near the definition of ‘Darwinism’ that I would start with? Of course, it is highly probable that hypotheticals could be “discoursed” (oops), but not clear who can make it out from hypotheticals to actual defining “Darwinism” that satisfy even 1/2 of every person “discoursing” here.
So why then even raise the specter of “Darwinism” at BL, as if the IDM any longer can be allowed to set the terms of the engagement, at all rather than simply putting it aside and just (c’est la vie) letting it be?