Usually, you would not expect Darwin critics like me to feel compelled to school evolutionists about the details of their own theory.
Applying darwinian thinking to history, greek history no less, sounds almost ludicrous given the analysis of the eonic effect. Darwinists are turning into theoretical dinosaurs and in any case cannot see how club-footed darwinian thinking is when applied to cultural ‘evolution’…We can only invite these almost extinct darwinians to examine the eonic effect, and especially the question of the greek archaic and punk eek effect…
Based on your comments, I don’t think you sufficiently appreciate how much the study of humanity is in a pre-Darwinian “natural history” stage—mountains of information that need to be organized by the right theoretical framework. This is the theme of my newest book This View of Life: Completing the Darwinian Revolution. The study of human history is a sterling example. The very idea of a unifying theoretical framework and the need for quantification is foreign to most historians and inimical to some. This is why the efforts of evolutionary historians, who employ quantitative methods to test evolution-informed hypotheses, are so important. Once seen from the right perspective, history provides a fossil record of human cultural evolution that puts the biological fossil record to shame! Do you really think that ancient Greek history would not benefit from such an analysis?
If this trait turns out to be widespread, it may help explain some puzzling aspects of animal behavior: specifically, how animals that are definitely not able to learn much individually appear to know things.
Coyne is sure this is going to come as a rude shock, to our colleague and contributor Dr. Behe in particular, “a slap in the face of IDers like Michael Behe — a fish slap like the one below.”