When I say “Neo-Darwinism,” I mean the Modern Synthesis. Since I think we both have read a lot of content on this debate, I will not be so presumptuous as to try to change your mind in this post or others. For my view on Neo-Darwinism, I will simply provide an extended quotation from Noble and Noble’s Understanding Living Systems (CUP, 2023), xix-xx. I will then respond to what you said about the data and what I think is involved theologically. First, the quotation:
This book addresses four fundamental misunderstandings about living organisms. In the first half of the twentieth century, and particularly in the late 1960s and early 1970s, ideas on living organisms and their evolution were formulated in what became known as the Modern Synthesis. For this there were four main pillars: (1) that changes in the structure and function of organisms in one generation could not be passed on through the germ line - this dogma was formulated by August Weissmann in 1883 and, in the mid-twentieth century, became a fundamental part of a gene-centric dogma; (2) that organisms could not alter their genes, so causation was held to be a one-way process, from gene to organism functionality; (3) that the organism was best viewed as a passive vehicle for retaining genes in a ‘gene pool’ and, most significantly, that the behaviour and function of organisms was controlled to this end (this gave birth to the selfish-gene concept, popularised by Richard Dawkins in his selling book, The Selfish Gene); (4) that evolution occurs through small random changes in genes (gene mutations) that are passively selected in the process of natural selection. What we show in this book is that none of these pillars is correct, or stands as originally formulated.
The data are, of course, available to all. The question is, how do we interpret said data. Do we think organisms are passive vehicles, like machines, or do we think that living organisms are actively involved in what is going on? Personally, I actually feel that there is a lot of both going on. And I think we need the curiosity to modify pre-existing paradigms when necessary. To do so is not to devalue the work of others or to ignore what they had right. It is to build on a foundation.
Theologically, I think that living systems display something like what biblical authors convey concerning human responsibility and divine determinism. (I am not here trying to interpret the scientific evidence through the Bible or vice versa, just noticing possible connections.) I guess I would extend “human responsibility” to “creaturely responsibility.” Noble and others are keen to stress free will in life. I would be keen to suggest that there is something to what the scientific determinists are saying, as well. I do think free will is there, but there is something else, too. Evolutionary convergence (see Simon Conway Morris) also points in the direction of some sort of “control” to what life can/will do.
I would say that humans have attained a moral awareness of what they are doing that a cell, an ant, and a dog do not have in the same way. However, I think that the mystery of good and evil is present all the way down. Moreover, I think that what we would call good and evil are both necessary for the formation of life as we know it, including humanity. Thus, life is the “struggle for existence” (Darwin) and it is also a story of cooperation (as is widely recognized). Good and evil are present all the way down, and we as humans have become aware of that. I think this is all supported biblically/theologically.
As I interpret the data scientifically and theologically/philosophically, I am persuaded that the Modern Synthesis is not the best model. I am not out to undermine established science or to overlook data, I just think we need to reevaluate our paradigms.