You link didn't take me to the article in question but never mind.
I read the article thanks. Mueller's message is summed up in the conclusion...
This is an exciting period in evolutionary biology. The principal Darwinian research tradition is upheld, but the specifics of evolutionary theory structure are undergoing ferment, including the revision of some of its traditional elements and the incorporation of new elements. Instead of privileging selected mechanisms such as random variation, genetic control and natural selection, the multitude of factors that dynamically interact in the evolutionary process will be better expounded by a pluralistic theory framework. Current evolutionary research already reflects this pluralism, and as many of its underlying concepts have drifted from the standard theoretical paradigm, an adjusted evolutionary framework that adequately synthesizes the multitude of new theoretical elements has become a necessity. The EES represents one possibility for such integration.
If you'd like to know why I said Borg's article is propagandist rubbish....
Gerd Müller, a highly regarded Austrian evolutionary theorist, recently gave a presentation, published in Interface Focus, in which he admitted Charlies Darwin’s theory largely avoids explaining how life originated and how complexity developed.
He "admitted" no such thing, Darwin's theory didn't deal with abiogenesis, why would he need to make such an admission?
I'd be interested to see where you think he "admits" that "Charles Darwin's theory" avoids explaining how complexity developed, I couldn't see where he said that.
..................................
Müller did not espouse any creationist or design beliefs, but his presentation demonstrated that even the most staunch advocates of evolution are forced to admit the theory has many holes. The presentation was devastating “for anyone who wants to think that, on the great questions of biological origins, orthodox evolutionary theory has got it all figured out,” Discovery Institute experts wrote on their organization’s blog.
Where is the implication that there are "many holes"? Or that anyone is forced to admit that there are "many holes"....
Nowhere.
Where does he mention origins?
Nowhere.
Who thought that evolutionary theory had "it all figured out"?
No one.
......................................
Müller’s admission offers a particularly damning critique since answers to questions about how things originated and how complexity developed form the basis for all origin theories. He also referred to the concept of macroevolution, the idea that one species can evolve into a totally different species, as “vague” and advised proponents of an expanded framework of evolution to avoid the term altogether.
This is a complete misrepresentation of Mueller's article to try to imply that there is some sort of doubt or lack of evidence for "one species evolving into a totally different species".
In the article Mueller is describing the issues that can occur due to the term "macroevolution" being ill-defined.
...................................
Many Christians reject the theory of macroevolution because the Bible teaches that God created everything according to its kind. Somewhat less controversial is the theory of microevolution, which refers to changes or adaptations within a species. For example, dog breeders can breed a dog that sheds less, but it’s still a dog. But they can’t breed a dog that can fly. Many evolutionists believe microevolutionary changes lead to macroevolution, but Müller admitted even evolutionary experts argue among themselves about whether microevolutionary adaptations actually produce macroevolution.
LOL, utter rubbish, this is not discussed, hinted at, or implied by Mueller. The sad thing is that creationists eat this crap up because it's what they want to hear.
Mueller admitted no such thing, it's pure propaganda.
...................................
Even within evolutionary circles, Müller noted, a large number of scientists recognize that the standard theory of evolution needs to be revised or replaced altogether: “A rising number of publications argue for a major revision or even a replacement of the standard theory of evolution, indicating that this cannot be dismissed as a minority view but rather is a widespread feeling among scientists and philosophers alike.”
Well, that's the point of his essay, he goes on to say...
In the present essay, I will concentrate on the arguments and debates triggered by one particular alternative to the standard theory that has become known under the term extended evolutionary synthesis (EES). This proposal for an integration of revised and additional components of evolutionary theory into a coherent explanatory framework, as recently elaborated by Laland et al.
How is incorporating new areas of research into the theory a bad thing?
The whole tone of Borg's article is that a "leading evolutionist" is somehow admitting that the theory of evolution is flawed, whereas the whole point of Mueller's article is that...
"Since the last major theoretical integration in evolutionary biology—the modern synthesis (MS) of the 1940s—the biosciences have made significant advances. The rise of molecular biology and evolutionary developmental biology, the recognition of ecological development, niche construction and multiple inheritance systems, the ‘-omics’ revolution and the science of systems biology, among other developments, have provided a wealth of new knowledge about the factors responsible for evolutionary change. Some of these results are in agreement with the standard theory and others reveal different properties of the evolutionary process. A renewed and extended theoretical synthesis, advocated by several authors in this issue, aims to unite pertinent concepts that emerge from the novel fields with elements of the standard theory."
