You are entitled to disagree and I think I understand you.
However this post confirms again that you are using an “idiosyncratic” definition of evolution based on an incorrect understanding of mainstream science. By “idiosyncratic” definition, I mean you define evolution with a personal definition that one has to talk to you about to understand. Everyone is entitled to personal definitions, but is confuses conversations irrecoverably when we can’t recognize the more important definition is not within us, but with in the field. That is our fixed point.
Let me point out some of your mistakes here (so you see why I am making this assessment)…
I never said every detail was agreed upon and correct. But look at all the controversies. Scientists on both sides still say they agree with evolution. By this, they mean they all agree with “common descent.” This is agreed upon, and appears correct.
But also, our position is not predicated on the assumption that science is correct. Rather, we believe science is “provisional.” In important ways, that asserts that science is never fully correct.
I agree. Why would you think I see things otherwise?
This is anachronistic. Like talking about the difficulty of finding a place to put all your washing boards and telegraphs. Mainstream science, does not operate with a neoDarwinian model of evolution. The neoDarwinian model was falsified a long time ago in science.
There are three different definitions of Darwinism, and you are confusing them as if they are the same.
-
The scientific model of positive selection dominated change, “neo Darwinism”, that was falsified by genetic data in the 1960s and 1970s.
-
The philosophy of atheism that uses evolution as a key tenet, and is promoted by people like Dennett and Dawkins. This, in no way at all, is science. It is not part of science. This precise view is not even common among scientists. Rather, it is anti-religious sentiment masquerading as science. When I talk about “mainstream science’s” understanding of evolution, it specifically rejects this view as non-scientific.
-
Some people imprecisely use Darwinism as a synonym for “modern evolutionary theory” or the “modern synthesis”. This is not a good use of the term for a wide range of reasons. Most importantly, in is often mistaken for the other two definitions, and it is ahistorical. Modern evolutionary theory mainly holds “common descent” in common with Darwin’s views (and some of its consequences). But positive selection dominated change (as Darwin conceived it) is not at all dominant as he thought. For example, ecology (and neutral drift) are important too, but that has been known for a long time (ecology was even recognized by Darwin himself) and is not at all denied by people who use Darwinism by this definition.
With those uses in hand, it becomes clear your error. You think Dawkins and Dennett are correctly representing the science. They are not. Period.
This shows the failings of your idiosyncratic definition.
The selfish gene is NOT part of mainstream science. It is Darwinism by definition #2, so of course I do not care to explain it favorably. Rather, I emphasize that it is atheism in scientific clothing, and should be treated as such.
The “survival of the fittest” is also misterming here. We have always opposed euthenasia and eugenics, but “survival of the fittest” scientifically is a description of what we directly observe, and it is not even the whole story.
This is just false. Ecology has been part of the evolutionary story since Lamark, even before Darwin. I know of no thinker that denies the importance of ecology. Just look how they talk about the KT event, and how dramatic reshaping of the environment after extinction of the dinosaurs enabled the rise of mammals. I understand that you are captured by ecological explanations of evolution. Great. But let’s not pretend that this some thing new. It is deeply embedded in both early, recent, and current evolutionary thought.
On the other hand, the real newcomer to the conversation is genetics. That has changed everything. Darwin, at the time, did not even know what DNA was. Genes were abstract entities. We know what they are now, and we can measure them directly.
This is not what I said.
Dawkins seeks to explain evolution in light atheism. We seek to explain evolution in light of Jesus.
Mainstream science, however, takes no sides here. It just studies evolution, without placing it in a philosophical context.
If you do not like the way how mainstream science thinks of evolution, go become a scientist. It is not our role to be a scientific corrective to evolutionary biology here at BioLogos. Rather, we do care to correctly represent the science (because there is nothing to fear from it), and offer theological correctives when necessary.