In the wake of a new article critiquing Darwin and citing the ID group we might reference our huge number of posts on the issue, starting with J.G.Bennett’s engaging perspective, one of which I am critical but which actually finds a new approach to the question. Bennett’s work is provocative because it suggests something like spooky physics stands behind evolution: his idea of time, eternity and hyparxis, while hardly science suggests how ‘timeless’ form factors lurk behind temporal realizations. Sorry, fascinating but not yet science.
Beyond that we have our discussions of the eonic evolution of civilization, a topic that should be required reading for anyone who has been stranded in postdarwinian puzzlement.
To deal with evolution requires learning how to visualize complex transformations stretching over long periods of time, almost impossible. But the eonic effect in world history gives an example so to speak. While this is not organismic evolution it is none the less ‘evolution’ of some kind. To see this requires careful study.
The eonic model is in many ways your next assignment after seeing the failure of darwinism.
The eonic effect shows one way that evolutionary directionality can work itself out in practice as a series of discrete intervals and transformations, a sort of generalized punctuated equilibrium. But there is a mysterious form factor that we don’t see and this makes any theory of speciation problematical. The issue of the Cambrian falls into place in that context (which doesn’t quite explain it): we see that form factor suddenly reify in a temporal dimension.
The issue of evolution ends up inconclusive. The ID group has perhaps frittered away their successful challenge to darwinism in the quagmire of ‘intelligent design’. The problem with the latter is that it is used to connect with theistic design in history in the manner of the Old Testament.
It is not valid to use arguments against darwinism to prop up religious historicism.