I think that it is not so much a question of revising ‘evolution’ theory as finding one that works for the first time. Here the model of ‘evolution’ in WHEE can help, because the term ‘evolution’ goes into free fall in a situation that has no genetic connection. We use the term all the time for any kind of developmental situation. So it is not a big deal to ‘revise’ the usage. The word hardly has a usage, while the Darwinian version is simply up in the air.
The model in WHEE is a reminder that if ‘random evolution’ fails, and surely it must, then the basic task of a theory of evolution must be to have a map of the construction of complex entities. So look at a factory and remind yourself, after natural selection fantasies collapse, that a complex object must be constructed according to complicated design rules (and design here has no theological implications) and this leaves biological evolution in the limbo of our own (heck, that’s too hard, let’s stick with natural selection) difficulties with complex objects.
Biology has spent so long on the wrong explanation that the above comes as a shock. The evolution issue in WHEE is a very special case in the sense that ‘man in history’ constructs his own civilization, but a close look shows a more subtle situation where this self-evolution is part of a larger system that guides creativity. That is not at all what darwinism suggests.
I think that the problem is not easy to solve because in the end the limits of observation prevent us from seeing how nature ‘evolves’ complex entities, and in any case current can’t allow any kind of directional process. But it is hard to see how the ‘construction of complex objects’ can be other than teleological. Review the options, as above, and it sinks in that we hardly know how evolution occurs at all.