Still Unexplained

Third Way Evolution & the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis

In the decades following On the Origin of Species, Darwin’s vision of evolution driven by natural selection acting upon random variations—“Darwinism”—gradually infiltrated biology. Then, in the first half of the 20th century, Darwinism incorporated new discoveries about chromosomes, Mendelian inheritance, genetics, and DNA, which led to the “neo-Darwinian” model of evolution, sometimes called the “modern synthesis.”

Things were generally peachy until the late 20th/early 21st century, when some biologists began to acknowledge that neo-Darwinism had a glaring explanatory deficit: the origin of biological novelty. Neo-Darwinism is well-suited for explaining small-scale changes in gene frequencies due to changing selection pressures—“microevolution”—but is ill-suited to account for the origin of new complex biological features like wings, eyes, or body plans—“macroevolution.” For growing numbers of biologists, Darwin’s quest to explain the “origin of species” remained unresolved, leading to the oft-quoted phrase that the modern synthesis “explained the survival of the fittest, but not the arrival of the fittest.”

Over the past few decades, evolutionary biologists have increasingly broken with neo-Darwinism and have begun coalescing around alternative evolutionary models. Sometimes called the “Extended Evolutionary Synthesis” (EES) or “Third Way” evolution, these models are ultimately entirely blind, materialistic accounts of the history of life that reject intelligent design (ID). But there are some positives.

A Smorgasbord of Alternative Proposals

In my experience, because they have often faced mistreatment and censorship at the hands of neo-Darwinists, Third Way evolutionists tend to be far more open to dialogue, pro-free speech, and candid about weaknesses in evolutionary models. Last year, Oxford University biologist Denis Noble, who founded TheThirdWayofEvolution.com, declared, “Neo-Darwinism is dead,”¹ and University of Chicago biologist James Shapiro acknowledged that “The ID argument has a valid point with regard to the explanatory limits of neo-Darwinism.”² In another instance, leading EES proponents admitted in Nature that the field of evolutionary biology uses unhealthy practices to keep intelligent design at bay:

The mere mention of the EES often evokes an emotional, even hostile, reaction among evolutionary biologists. Too often, vital discussions descend into acrimony, with accusations of muddle or misrepresentation. Perhaps haunted by the spectre of intelligent design, evolutionary biologists wish to show a united front to those hostile to science.³

But anyone hoping Third Way evolutionists will unify around some clear, simple idea that can serve as an alternative to Darwin’s vision of “evolution by natural selection” is going to be sorely disappointed. Not only do Third Way evolutionists reject ID, but they will usually officially say their models incorporate the centrality of natural selection. Where they often depart from neo-Darwinism is in rejecting claims that mutations are random and that evolution is undirected or “purposeless.” Ultimately, what Third Way evolutionists offer is a smorgasbord of ideas intended to supplement or buffer natural selection in the quest to explain evolution in totally materialistic terms. These include:

• Evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo), where mutations that occur early in development might have great effects downstream that can greatly change the body plan. Think saltations (abrupt changes) producing hopeful monsters. But the evidence shows that early developmental mutations kill embryos before they can produce new body plans.

• Natural genetic engineering, where organisms increase mutation rates or target sections of their genome with transposable elements in response to stress, in blind hope that something useful might evolve.

• Neutral evolution, where biologists actually do de-emphasize the role of natural selection in favor of the view that random “neutral” changes build biological complexity … somehow.

• Neo-Lamarckian inheritance, where epigenetic changes acquired during an organism’s lifetime can be passed on to offspring.

• Horizontal gene transfer, where organisms can receive genes from neighbors, rather than only from parents.

• Symbiosis, where new types of organisms evolve by cooperation rather than competition.

• Niche construction and teleonomy, where organisms purposefully reshape their environments.

Still No Enchilada

There are other ideas too, and ID theorists see many of them as interesting proposals that may have limited explanatory capacity. For example, natural genetic engineering and epigenetic changes suggest pre-programmed mechanisms where organisms appear intelligently designed to respond to environmental cues and “evolve” within limits. But ultimately, the big enchilada—the origin of new complex biological features—remains just as unexplained by the EES as it was under neo-Darwinism. •

Notes
1. “Science Is Reconsidering Evolution,” YouTube (2024).
2. James Shapiro, “Evolution Is Neither Random Accidents nor Divine Intervention,” Academic Questions (Spring, 2024).
3. Laland et al., “Does Evolutionary Theory Need a Rethink? Yes, Urgently,” Nature, 514:161–164 (Oct. 9, 2014).