Your post of the "21st Century View" of evolution is interesting. What strikes me, however, is that the theory of "non-random" or directed genomic change renders natural selection unnecessary. My problem with evolutionary theory is the lack of evidence for gradualism and the random mutations Darwin hypothesized as transitional forms. Although he doesn't like to admit it, Gould's punk-eek theory is an attempt to reconcile evolutionary theory to this lack of evidence. The article makes an obligatory genuflection toward natural selection, but if genetic change is non-random, and indeed is directed at the cellular level in response to new circumstances or needs, as the article suggests, there is no real necessity for natural selection to sort through a bunch of random mutations to select a "winner."
Natural selection and its popular counterpart "the survival of the fittest" are, however, at the core of the social-Darwinist gospel. I suspect the determinist ideas associated with social-Darwinism, including natural selection, will not be given up without a fight.
What strikes me, however, is that the theory of "non-random" or directed genomic change renders natural selection unnecessary.You read it, and you probably have a good idea of those who won't read it or who will try to diminish the assertions it contains. What do you think of the last line?
Indeed, it is possible that we will eventually see such information-processing capabilities as essential to life itself.