The extended evolutionary synthesis as a complete replacement of the existing theory of evolution or modern synthesis is not widely accepted among biologists. Even among those that favor an extended view there is a difference of opinion over whether it replaces the existing theory or augments it by asserting a less gene-centric perspective. This controversy among the greater or lesser groups of scientists does not arise out of rejection from a dogmatic position comparable to a belief in religion. Rather, it arises out of the very real and necessary skepticism of science and the need for robust data to support radical claims and come to the most and best informed conclusions. Continually citing a few sources without explanation or failing to explain how existing views are wrong or incomplete isn't good enough. Frankly, it reveals a pretty thin understanding of the science by those that carry out such silly undertakings.
The amusing thing is that both the modern synthesis and the EES are theories of evolution and, if the evidence warrants it, the success of the EES is still the success of a scientific theory explaining the evidence of evolution that is observed and not the manifestation of a religious declaration. The acceptance of a better theory does not make those that accepted a previous theory or version somehow dogmatic believers as if their acceptance were somehow a belief-based view. The modern synthesis is currently the best explanation we have for the observations and acceptance of it is based on the evidence, the explanatory power and the predictive ability of the theory. Powers that have been demonstrated quite frequently and I predict will continue so. No one is claiming it is perfect, ultimate theory or that it no longer rates extension, but extension is not replacement and it does not mean that a particular, individual religious view becomes an objective, default replacement of one or the other theoretical positions.
The main objective of the rejection of science on this thread has had that latter view as its basis. That the natural skepticism and controversy in science over details and explanations means the complete breakdown of science and un-evidenced religious explanations become the sole answer to observation or the means to deny or wave off those observations. Ultimately, it is another, more grandiose version of a gap argument where the attempt isn't just to argue in the gap, but to manufacture the gap by any means including falsely attributing inherent qualities of evil to scientific theories that have never been demonstrated to exist. Then declare a believed view as the winner by default. Never mind that there are literally tens of thousands of alternative, competitive and contradictive believed views vying for the position and not just a single one. And none of those have objective evidence to favor one over the other let alone over the evidenced and reasoned explanations of science. It is an irrational and obvious folly visible to all except apparently those churning out pages of text to attempt it.
In my personal opinion, monotheists do not really understand the Word of God even as some seem to imply that ability for themselves, and interpretations vary widely, but science is the best means we have to explain the Work of God, the world and the universe around us.
Again, I’m not advocating for the extended evolutionary synthesis, the EES is not a widespread view. The widespread view is the fact that the ToE (modern synthesis) has failed and should be replaced. See #781 and #911.
Both the modern synthesis and the EES emerged on the basis of an assumed axiomatic view of evolution, the very notion that evolution must be true before the evidence and regardless of any evidence to the contrary.
The modern synthesis is a false theory based on false assumption as already proven by the 21st century finds of molecular biology (see #781). Regardless of that failure, the false axiomatic status of the ToE didn’t change.
Regardless of that failure, scientists continue trying to provide explanation based on evolution. As if the disproved assumptions of the theory (MS) that contradicts empirical evidence don’t render the theory itself false.
Even so Scientists already acknowledged the fact that the MS contradicts the empirical evidence of the real world, yet they didn’t give up on evolution. It must be evolution one way or another. They chose to hold tight to an unjustified axiom no matter what.
Acknowledging the 21st century scientific finds that disproved all assumptions of the MS is not an attack on science. Science is ever changing/progressing and correcting itself. On the other hand, Intentional concealment/denial of latest scientific finds is without any doubt an attack on science and the very fact that science gradually corrects itself. The route/endeavor towards better understanding of reality must continue even if some are in favor of suppressing its progress.
Progress never means that science is at the finish line. The route is long. Science can only keep progressing.
In many cases, the more we progress, the more we realize that the target is much farther.
The cell as a building block of life was understood by Darwin to be simple enough that it can spontaneously emerge in a warm pond. The more we acquired knowledge, the more we understood that a single living cell is an extremely complex structure beyond imagination. The more we know, the more we realize that the original target is moving much further away and the more we see that all of our assumptions were false, nonetheless continued to willingly hold tight to an unevidenced premise.
Our pursuit to understand reality is an endless route. Some may think observations/experimentations are enough or the only means to understand reality. They are wrong. It’s never about the data; it’s always about logical/neutral interpretations of the data and following the trail of evidence wherever it leads.
The essence of naturalism is the principle that naturalism is intended/promoted as a “posteriori” view. It's not/should not be a commitment in advance to certain ontology of any kind. Evidence should be followed where it leads.
Naturalism is not an absolute commitment but rather a provisional commitment that should be open to revision even for what may be perceived as a radical kind of entities, forces or relations.
In principle, Naturalism as a posteriori view should accommodate any conclusion driven by data no matter how radical it appears to be. No assumption of any kind should be established as a priori tell the data is first examined. That is exactly the logical error that can be seen in actual application of naturalism, which is the strict adherence to unjustified false priori without any data to support it.
We cannot hold a position merely on the basis of its alignment with what we want to accept as true. We don’t get to dictate the route or what lies beneath at the finish line even before we get there, if we seek the truth, we may only follow the route/evidence wherever it leads, and as we move forward, we’ll get a better chance to see what is actually there.
