One of the most tenacious claims of Darwinists is with respect to the randomness of evolution. And yet the claim that natural selection alone can generate the complexity that we see, that it can in the phrase of Richard Dawkins climb Mt. Improbable, has always been open to question, and never properly demonstrated. In a book by that name, Climbing Mt. Improbable, Dawkins has fiercely defended the idea and yet manages to obscure the analog of computer programming with statements about particular coding structures that simply don't work, and leave us suspicious of the falseness of such claims. Dawkins has further confused the issue by claiming that, while mutation might be random, natural selection is non-random, due to its interaction with the environment. But this has changed the meaning of the word 'random' by putting it into a different context. From the beginning natural selection was considered a random process of random evolution, because of the blindness of the process itself, and its lack of any directional, teleological, or transtemporal components. 

Part of the problem is the failure to properly observe the facts, which should decide the question. Tracking a sequence of evolutionary forms to detect the direct evidence of natural selection has only marginally been performed, if at all. In most cases, the idea is simply asserted without proof, for reasons having to do, it seems, with the needs of the paradigm of Darwinism. And the observation of real evolution is difficult, that is clear. We can relatively easily track the descent of forms as evolution, but to correctly grasp how this happens in terms of dynamics is altogether less easy. Darwinists from the beginning have slid into a facile form of preconception about the way evolution occurs, even as they disguise this failure with the successes of discovery in the realm of the particulars of evolutionary history. 

It comes as a shock therefore as we discover the evidence of the eonic effect to see that it shows us an unexpected process moving in a pattern of non-random emergent evolution, with an actual 'driver' doing the work of climbing Mt. Improbable, that is, reaching a series of historically improbable states after a series of transitions that ratchet history to a new level of emergent action. We can easily detect this process, whatever its significance, and we are left with the realization that sheer happenstance, as many have said from the start, is insufficient to generate order, that an explicit 'extra' process is required to do that. So the perception of the eonic effect puts a large minus next to the claims for natural selection, and forces us to take into account the need for definite 'macro' processes beside the 'micro' factor of natural selection to account for the timed and bootstrapping action of real evolutionary progression. And this raises at once questions of evolutionary directionality, indeed, even teleology, vital questions that, however, don't require immediate answers as we reach at best the threshold of their consideration. We can see that in history a definite evolutionary process is at work, and that this shows directionality, subject to the limits of our analysis as observers. The reason this insight can occur is that we have the example of history itself, which forces us to observe data at close range and over short intervals, a requirement easy to forget when we gaze backward at deep time and generalize about huge intervals of time, which we have barely observed at all. We could not suspect that high-speed dynamical processes can be at work over ranges difficult for us to observe. 

In that sense world history comes to our rescue because of the comparative richness of its data set, and the requirement that we chronicle its incidents as they actually happened in their totality. 

And in that sense the eonic effect gives us a direct perspective on the real meaning of the term 'climbing Mt. Improbable'.