http://history-and-evolution.com/whee4th/chap3_1.htm: Climbing Mt. Improbable: The Eonic Effect
The argument of WHEE: World History and the Eonic Effect explicates an actual example of something that climbs Mt. Improbable: world history’s embedded ‘driver’, which gets the term (eonic, or macro) evolution. To follow this example in detail can be illuminating. Nothing climbs Mt. Improbable without help, and we see the way the real complexity of the question plays out. The argument, however, is very hard for many readers. That’s because the data one needs to visualize the situation requires reading a lot of books. The data is incomplete so the argument remains heuristic.
The use of the term ‘evolution’ throws many for a loop: here’s the argument: anything showing developmental logic (in this case an actual sequence) is ‘evolution’ by common usage: we use the term all the time in that sense. So our developmental model ‘expresses’ evolution. And the question arises: was the earlier evolution of man like this? We don’t know but we get a few inklings.
What if the data shows ‘design’: is the term ‘evolution’ correct? The answer is tricky but simple: the term ‘evolution’ is used, not as a theory name, but as a descriptive category, the way we use it in common parlance. Vix. the ‘evolution the novel’….There is no theory there, only an example partially empirical.
So the ‘evolution’ we see in civilization is simply a reference to a clear developmental sequence, partially observed, to be sure. If the argument suggests ‘design’ then the term evolution still applies. We speak of the ‘evolution’ of the novel’, but that clearly is a design argument: the novelists. So it hardly matters: the ‘term’ evolution in this usage is a bit sloppy, but still ‘about right’.
The ‘process’ of ‘evolution’ that climbs Mt. Improbable in world history is highly elusive: all we can do is follow its trail empirically
Is there a hidden designer in world history? You be the judge! Check out WHEE….