The question of evolution has been so confused that it is very hard to follow any criticisms of the standard darwinian theory. And the intersection with religion creates still more confusion. But the study of the macro effect can help here. You can say that it isn’t about evolution in deep time, and that’s true, but darwinists have no real claim on that either. They don’t have the data about how evolution occurred in deep time, data at close range that can answer basic questions. How did language evolve? We have no data on that. We don’t even know if homo erectus had language. We can’t just say ‘natural selection’. we have no evidence of that. In general we have to have evidence over very short time spans, impossible in deep time. Note this does not mean we can’t deduce that ‘evolution’ occurred. The changes over time show that evolution is real, but its mechanism is not clear.
So claims for natural selection theory, as in this case, are simply speculation, and this criticism is repeated over and over again for almost all periods.
The data in world history is at very close range, especially since the invention of writing, after 3500 BCE. We start to accumulate data at the level of centuries.
And thus we can ask, can this small snippet give us any clues? We are in luck: it can and we catch the shortest glimpse of a development process in civilization in two and a half, almost three beats, and we can deduce immediately a few suspicions about real evolution. This is not the evolution of organisms, but it is still evolution.
We learn a few things:
we see how a non-random pattern (e.g. the Axial Age) is a smoking gun…
we can see that evolution in this case operates in discrete steps, a stroke of luck, but that is very logical, i.e. sudden change or ‘evolution’ happens over a short interval and then stops as the continuous history of the entity continues. The discontinuous process returns later and resumes, etc… We are in luck and this is the simplest and most obvious way to do ‘evolution’: a process does something active on an object, then stops and waits, and then after a timed interval becomes active again. Almost any engine acts this way.
History shows us a very brief sequence of three such beats and we are left tantalized, but pretty sure at least that darwinism is a fiction. It is not absolutely conclusive, but darwnists claim any non-random evolution is impossible. But we see that is not the case. Random evolution is very implausible. An example close at hand, like civilization’evolving’ is going to tell us something about orgnismic evolution. Most of all we see an example of non-random evolution, and it gets very complicated very fast. No way around that.
There is much more here. And we have to be suspicious earlier evolution was like this. But we see that random evolution is false.
This view comes with a catch: we see the ‘engine cycles’ but not really how it works. But we can see that it is a directed process that operates with a formal pattern that is applied to an organism, whatever the details. That is completely natural. Darwinists assume that random chance builds complex forms piecemeal. Over and this has been criticized. But biologists can’t figure out why they are wrong. We can’t have it both ways. If evolution is non-random, then it must have some kind of directing plan. It can also apply random evolution to put the changes made from the plan to the test in a real situation, but that is no contradiction.
So history gives us a very short glimpse of ‘evolution’ of some kind, and this confirms logical assumptions and suspicions, and at least we can withdraw our assent to the stupid claims for Darwin’s theory.