The "evolutionary synthesis" refers to articles published in 1938-1940, prior to molecular biology.
_________________________________________________________
The queston on the table is whether evolutionists consider mutation to be "random" = non-directed. I said "yea" and was told "nay." So I gave a link to TalkOrigins intro which seems to be a respected place to find out the RIGHT answers about evolution which seems to agree with me.
Now you are talking about terminology timeframes but talk origins used the quote I pulled as representative of the modern synthesis meaning "current."
So are you saying talk origins is wrong and the Modern Synthesis does include directed mutation? Or are you just making a minor point about terminology?
I don't know where you are headed, but this is from Futuyma's newest edition (note I cannot find the language you quoted above from the old edition in the new one).
"Environmental factors may affect the rate of mutation, but they do not preferentially direct the production of mutations that would be favorable in organism's specific environment" p.26, 3rd edition.
Does this help you?
There are instances where the rate of mutation appears to vary with environmental stress. There may be bacteria that have directed adaptations to specific stresses. There is no reason in principle why there couldn't be adaptive programs that only affect the genome. I don't think this line of research has turned up much. Mutation appears to be mostly stochastic, but it's of research results, not an article of faith.