Wolfe is to be commended for trying to break out of the Darwin paradigm, but the result will be a stalemate. However, the stance that man didn’t evolve at all is of interest, not because it is true but because the term ‘evolution’ in public discussion is incoherent. If ‘evolution’ isn’t darwinian then its meaning is up in the air.
We have tried in WHEE to deal with this ambiguity, in a slightly different context. One idea is to consider that the term ‘evolution’ means development, its common usage, and that a theory of organismic/human evolution must be about development. But remarkably biologists can’t deal with such a simple idea because it suggests teleology. But it is doubtful if we can avoid that conclusion. Our model of history suggests a two level interpretation: the higher directional and the lower adaptational. That leaves the question of the source of this higher process. It is interesting that physicists have struggled with fine-tuning arguments, etc, and a ‘Goldilocks principle’ is cited in WHEE. We don’t know the source of ‘evolution’ in cosmic terms: the onset of life and onwards hasn’t been solved, what to say of homo sapiens and his language. We have suggested that a complex of features in man might have emerged in a complex: language, mind, soul, ethical behaviorism, art/creativity, and these might emerge as a ‘stage of development’ in a larger directionality to life. Scientists just can’t accept that, and the proof is still missing, but it is dishonest for scientists to constantly promote the natural selection hype of darwinism to cover their tracks. Why not just be honest? The issue of evolution has made the whole of science suspect. At this point such a strategy isn’t going to give ammunition to religionists critics of evolution. If they are creationists, it is not hard to critique their views. If they are ID-ists their work is actually often suggestive and useful. A critique of ID is already primordial since the time of Kant. And naturalistic design is a factor to be reckoned with. To train students in the idea that complex biochemical machines can arise by chance is a form of stultification. Beyond that the obsession to make darwinian natural selection some proof against design is almost laughable at this point. Why do scientists persist in this deception? Dawkins may be beyond intelligence here, but a simple admission of the facts of the debate by scientists could be helpful. Religion isn’t going to make a comeback based on the design argument.
As to the question of language, a close study of WHEE can show how the ‘macro’ factor intangibly but in a clear outward fashion manipulates the higher cultural factors of language in the complex cited above. We can at least get a rough idea as to how evolution works.