The problem with the new atheism is hard to pinpoint. One way is to look at the eonic model in its gorgeous, but unsettling detail which shows design on the scale of world history, WHEE. We see all the most spectacular phenomena in evidence, but the ‘god explanation’ doesn’t work anymore. It is a funny situation, theists and atheists are both confounded, the first for losing ‘god’s’ action in history, the second for a self-blinkered perspective that can’t see design in nature. I have no solution to the design argument, nor any agenda for the god question, but the logic of world history is super-sophisticated, and speaks of stupendous design, yet mimics a garden variety feedback device in the attempt systems analysis to the phenomenon of historical evolution.
People trained in reductionist sciences simply turtle down and become silent. They refuse to discuss, answer questions, respond to evidence, or, for that matter, say hello. We saw it here long ago, when a group of the science/atheist set declared this website off limits, noone could even comment without being a suspected heretic.
I find that odd indeed. Partly it is ostrich behavior: you must close the outside in your mind and focus on the basic canon. And darwinism is part of the canon, and it is a fatal flaw of the new atheism.
In the study of world history we see the piece de resistance for a design theorist, the appearance of complex art in a mechanical rhythm or systematics. That is downright baffling. Not even a god explanation makes sense of it. This takes the form, in one case, of asking, why does the appearance of the greatest modern music suddenly cluster around the modern divide? That’s a study in something almost spooky because mechanical and most design arguments force bail out. It forces a question: how can creativity emerge in a mechanical system?