http://history-and-evolution.com/whee4th/intro1_1_1.htm: The perspective in WHEE: World History and the Eonic Effect, throws people for a loop, first, because it is no longer the simplistic ‘natural selection’ theory, which is simply wrong, and because any serious explanation is going to be much harder and much less easily summarized in a simple piece of darwinian boilerplate.
Further the book is about world history: how could this tell us anything about evolution in deep time? The answer is, first, that the book is about world history. From there, if it can help to explain earlier evolution, fine, otherwise its claims are on world history which exhibits a very remarkable pattern of non-random evolution. Why do we use the term ‘evolution’? That’s easy. The term is used in a host of situations to mean anything that show development over time. So the real issue is whether ‘evolution’ in world history has any connection with earlier human evolution. We can’t answer conclusively, but the argument at least reminds us that darwinism almost certainly fails to explain human evolution. We suspect now that something like what we see in world history proves true for earlier evolution, in a form adapted to that different context.
The point is that once the pipe dream of natural selections is exposed, explanation becomes very difficult because it requires some still unknown type of theory that can handle directionality.
I think the behavior of people like Dawkins and his fan club are close to destroying the reputation of science. The critics has been persistently trying for an entire generation since the eighties of the last century to point to the obvious. If it were a question of pointing to the unobvious that would be one thing. But, as Fred Hoyle made clear, the whole game collapses at step one: statistics and the failure of natural selection to reckon with the improbable. In a trained science community that put men on the moon you would think that a warning from Hoyle would make people stop and think. But, no, Hoyle is mostly ridiculed. That has made innumerable scientists who must know better tacit supporters of the theory. So the disgrace deepens as rightwing religious groups take up the task of pointing to the obvious. For scientists to preach anti-religion in this context of ceding science horse-sense to ID groups is hard to fathom.
Part of the reason is the immense power of people like Dawkins to wave their hand and ostracize critics, to say nothing of getting them fired from science jobs. It is a strange situation. In mouseclick you can find clear and sound arguments exposing Dawkins Climbing Mt.Improbable and its computer program. Google ‘dawkins climbing mt. improbable refutation’ and you get http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/molecular_biology_06.html. Here’s creationist website, no less, that exposes the computer program in Dawkins’ book: http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/molecular_biology_06.html
These web sites have been online since the nineties. And yet they have had zero effect on the promoters of the paradigm. This is puzzling, and a little alarming. It shows that science training is not effective in training people to think. And the Darwin blogs, compared to such as Uncommon Descent and Evo-News, which have daily discussions of evolution issues beyond darwinism, are unable to match the vigorous discussion of issues. They seem to sense they are licked and can’t discuss anything directly given the vulnerability of the natural selection foundation.
This going to be a permanent blot on the record of science, and that’s sad. This kind of failure can only be propaganda in action.
The study of world history can show us the way developmental entities can’t follow randomness of innovation. It must be part of a larger system of great complexity.
WHEE introduces a different set of issues, and may be confusing at first. But in the few cases where we can directly observe evolution we can see that randomness has to be defeated: climbing mt. improbable requires an uphill driver, and there is not real way around it.
The book does not propose a rival theory: in this case such a theory would be very complicated: instead it creates an outline and shows that the data in this outline exhibit a dynamic mediating randomness. Noone else is able to demonstrate an evo-uphill-driver in action, one additional reason the debate stalls.