Dr Paul Allen

An  interesting paper  was recently published by David Depew and Bruce Weber in the journal Biological Theory . The paper bears the title "The Fate of Darwinism : Evolution After the Modern Synthesis." Its abstract summarizes the article's contents: We trace the history of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis , and of genetic Darwinism generally, with a view to showing why, even in its current versions, it can no longer serve as a general framework for evolutionary theory . The main reason is empirical. Genetical Darwinism cannot accommodate the role of development (and of genes in development) in many evolutionary processes. We go on to discuss two conceptual issues: whether natural selection can be the "creative factor" in a new, more general framework for evolutionary theorizing; and whether in such a framework organisms must be conceived as self-organizing systems embedded in self-organizing ecological systems. This paper is interesting in at least t

Image via Wikipedia I recently received a copy of  John F. Haught 's new book  Making Sense of Evolution: Darwin, God, and the Drama of Life . Haught is a Senior Fellow in Science and Religion at Woodstock Theological Center , Georgetown University and Professor of Theology Emeritus. He testified at the Dover trial on Intelligent Design back in 2005. His book opens some interesting topics for discussion and is certainly worth a few posts.  The first chapters of the book deal with Darwin, Design, and Diversity ... with Dawkins and Dennett as counterpoint (we can throw in some Coyne for variety).  There is an assumption - in Darwin at some level, but more pronounced in our science and faith discussions today - that either there are scientific explanations for design and diversity or there are theological explanations for design and diversity.  The scientific explanations rule out the need for theological explanations. Theological explanations in the presence of scientific exp