A New Theory
Faithful Syence #21
For three days last week, I attended (online) a conference held in Oxford, England, on “Biological Relativity in Evolution”. Speakers included many of the pioneering scientists who are part of the “Third Way” movement and the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis view of evolution. In general, they challenge some of the prevailing dogmas of the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution by random mutations and natural selection. A partial list of the speakers included Denis Noble (the organizer of the conference), Eva Jablonka, Pamela Lyon, James Shapiro, Michael Levin, Richard Watson, Joanna Xavier, John Mattick, Abir Igamberdiev, Addy Pross, Raju Pookottil, Blaise Agüera y Arcas, and Laura Weydrich. Some of these people were also involved as editors and chapter writers of the MIT Press book Evolution “On Purpose”: Teleonomy in Living Systems (2023).
The takeaway message of the enormous amount of material presented, including experimental data and novel paradigms, is clear: Neo Darwinism is no longer the only version of a scientific theory of evolution in biology.
Neo-Darwinism is based on a strong degree of gene-centrism; the Third Way describes a host of non-genetic mechanisms, including epigenetics, the role of transposons, bioelectricity, cognition-based choice, and natural genetic engineering of the genome by cellular processes. Neo-Darwinism assumes a random production of mutations in protein coding genes, while the Third Way includes non-random mutations and deals with the great majority of DNA sequences that code for small RNA strands with widespread regulatory functions. Neo-Darwinism posits natural selection as the major driving force for evolutionary change. The Third Way also deals with cellular physiological forces and codes beyond the genetic code that not only select for favored phenotypes but actively participate in their coming into being.
Neo-Darwinism and The Third Way have much in common. Most of the proponents of both are non-theists. Both accept common ancestry and the basic principles of adaptation and natural selection. But they differ widely on the mechanisms and details of how life has come to be what it is today. They also have little in common regarding their basic philosophical and metaphysical views of the nature of life.
The bottom line is this. It is no longer feasible to say “I don’t believe in evolution” or “I accept the theory of evolution” without specifying which version of the theory you are talking about.
I will just add that some folks have remarked that my recent book Beyond Evolution: How New Discoveries in the Science of Life Point to God (Tyndale, 2025) goes too far in suggesting that the standard model of neo-Darwinism is outdated and needs revision. This conference has made it clear that, if anything, I did not go far enough.
I will be discussing more on this subject in future posts, once I have had a chance to process the tons of information presented at this landmark conference. Meanwhile, I pray you all had a happy new year and a joyous Christmas and are now ready to face the delights and challenges of these times, fortified by our creator and guide, Jesus Christ.
I learned about the "Third Wave" of evolutionary synthesis the past year. The idea is very interesting. I'm curious why this hasn't been discussed that much in regular evolution conferences.
The gene-centrism is certainly not the whole picture. But for many nonbiologists, the dogma of DNA to RNA to Protein is still the prevailing understanding: https://youtu.be/XX7PdJIGiCw?si=dkGGXEpdtOBbNzvw
My lab focuses on evolutionary developmental genetics, which is part of the extended evolutionary synthesis. How evo shapes devo, or visa versa is a growing and exciting field. Especially with the rise of AI tools.
Thanks for the update on the world of biology! You mention that the philosophical underpinnings of traditional Darwinism and the Third Wave ideas are very divergent. Could you elaborate on what the philosophical implications/underpinnings of the Third Wave idea set are?