It'll take me some time to go through the Behe thread. In the meantime, in a nutshell, Evolution 2.0 is not about NS + RM being the route. Instead the cell itself is intelligent. It has other tools, epigenetics, transposition, horizontal gene transfer, symbiosis, etc. that allow evolution to proceed. (From there then natural selection would be relevant.) Its not random at all, or scarcely so, but is based on the intelligence of the cell itself.
My guess is Perry wouldn't come on here. But to get an example I did interview him for my podcast.
https://healthsovereign.com/understanding-dna-and-evolution-2-0-for-health-with-perry-marshall/
https://healthsovereign.com/science-taking-200-years-to-correct-itself-with-perry-marshall/
And that second part touches on the DISC. In fact so does Perry's experience. The guy is a marketer and Christian, not a biologist. He's come from a different field completely, sidestepping the DISC, and created the biggest scientific prize ever. Meanwhile, he has gotten the backing of biologists and other scientists doing so.
I am listening to the second of your two links. I like the conversation I am hearing (except for the ads!). It essentially amplifies on the whole DISC question, and it is nice to hear how open you both seem to be about the follies of modern science. For example you mention 'dark matter' which could equally well be an indication that the Newtonian/GR equations do not work at very long distances. I feel that physicists tend to explain away anomalies with ideas like 'dark matter' because they assume their equations are fundamental, they don't need to think like earlier scientists and recognise that an equation might only have a certain range of validity - think of PV=nRT! If GR were a less exalted theory, people would say "this theory is useful, but seems to break down at galactic scales, and also in situations of extreme density which produce singularities!".
However, I'd like to explore this idea that the cell is intelligent, and the idea that this somehow solves (or might solve) all the problems that the Intelligent Design crowd are throwing up. Incidentally, people like Michael Behe are respected biochemists, and they write about biochemistry - I think their ideas should be accepted as valid alternative theories.
I guess my first question is, if you want to get away from RM+NS, can you do it in the various ways you mention?
1) Epigenetics is amazing, and it introduces all these markers that get stuck on the DNA (and also on the histones) that moderate the expression of the DNA within a multi-cellular organism and down a few generations. Now maybe this helps organisms to evolve (assuming there is some way of taking the information encoded in those tags and moving it to a permanent location), but this whole mechanism had itself to evolve - so epigenetics means were are more flexible organisms than we thought - but all that extra flexibility had to come from somewhere.
2) I am sure the other mechanisms you mention are important, but those genes that got transferred (say) had to appear from somewhere. The ID crowd have estimated the density of useful proteins in 'protein space' - every possible sequence of amino acid residues. They conclude that the evolution of this set of basic proteins can't be explained by cell intelligence or any of these fancier ideas, because that requires the pre-existence of yet more extreme complexity.
3) Even relatively primitive prokaryotic organisms have rather sophisticated mechanisms inside such as the infamous bacterial flagellum. Is it suggested that these cells had to have a level of cellular intelligence sufficient to conceive of such a structure and then assemble the DNA to realise the structure?
Put another way, aren't you still depending on RM+NS to kick things off?
We have somewhat intelligent robots operating on Mars. However, these machines needed to be designed, and even if some of that designing was done by computers, ultimately all of that is grounded in the ingenuity of human beings, and they need a link back home to get anything useful done.
Biologists like J Scott Turner seem to recognise the same thing, although he refers to it as 'Agency' in his book "Purpose and Desire". Indeed, I just discovered he wrote this:
https://www.esf.edu/efb/turner/publication pdfs/The pause.pdf
David