You’ve stated some elements of the “modern evolutionary synthesis,” but not put them into the form of a clear definition, which makes it hard to relate the elements.
That said, let’s look at the two lists of elements you mention:
Variation
Inheritance
Selection
Time
Mutation
Gene Flow
Drift
Natural Selection (a repetition from the first group?)
Now, does Denton reject any of these elements? Does he say that one or more of them plays no role in evolution? Can you show me where he says so? I know of no place in his works where he denies the reality of any of these elements.
Does Denton perhaps weight these elements differently from other evolutionary theorists? Well, if so, since you’ve given no indication of the proper weighting of each element, then weighting them differently from other theorists wouldn’t put one outside the modern evolutionary synthesis. Your description is so loose – basically just a list of elements – that anyone who accepts them all, in any weighting whatsoever, would be within the synthesis. If you want to exclude anyone based on weighting, you have to put more specifics into it.
So based on your non-definition and imprecise account, we can’t say the Denton rejects any of your key elements, or weights them wrongly. Thus far, then, he is not outside of the modern evolutionary synthesis as you have explained it.
Now:
Yes, I know that perfectly well.
Not so fast. It depends on what is meant by “guidance” or “direction.” If you mean miraculous intervention into the natural order, then no, Denton’s version explicitly does not involve that. Once the evolutionary process starts, it continues via natural causes. But if you mean something else, then you have to say what it is.
In any case, if Denton does not reject any of the elements you say are found in the modern synthesis, but only adds an element – the element of design – then his view of evolution could be seen as a supplementation of that synthesis rather than a complete alternative to it. I’m not saying that this is in fact the case; I’m saying that based on what you’ve said about the synthesis, Denton could be onside with it in every respect except his acceptance of a role for design. In other words, he would be an “evolutionist” (by your standards, being within the synthesis) who affirms “evolution” (as you understand it, including not only common descent but also the list of causes that you give), but would argue that there is a neglected element that should be added to the synthesis, i.e., design.
If you say, no, Denton does not merely supplement the synthesis with one new element, but actually rejects a major part of the synthesis, the “Darwinian” part (mutation filtered by selection), that’s already covered, since he doesn’t say the Darwinian causes don’t exist; he affirms them, but just weights them less than, say, Dawkins would. And you’ve given no indication of a cutoff point where “too little of Darwinian causation” would exclude one from the synthesis.
Curiously, you make no mention of some things which are part of modern evolutionary thought – endosymbiosis and horizontal gene transfer. You also don’t discuss the contributions of evo-devo theorists at all; are they not part of the modern synthesis? Or are all their ideas covered under your other categories? I doubt it, since some of them, like Stuart Newman, deal with factors from physics and geometry which don’t seem to fit under your categories. Thus, your account of “the modern evolutionary synthesis” seems to be both incomplete, and vague. I don’t get the impression that you have anything like a mastery of current evolutionary theory at your fingertips. I therefore have no confidence in your ability to apply your loose grab-bag of concepts to the thought of Denton, especially since it’s evident to me that you haven’t read very much (if any) of his most recent work.