According to this essay, creativity is driving human evolution:
What is "evolution"? It has various definitions, but I would like to focus on this one:
The scientific theory explaining the appearance of new species and varieties through the action of various biological mechanisms (such as natural selection, genetic mutation or drift, and hybridization). Since 1950, developments in molecular biology have had a growing influence on the theory of evolution. In Darwinian evolution, the basic mechanism is genetic mutation, followed by selection of the organisms most likely to survive.
Source - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evolution
"Genetic mutation, followed by selection". This is NOT what the National Geographic essay is talking about.
No, those who salute human creativity and its impacts are really talking about the forced division of humanity into two sub-species, the "haves" and the "have-nots". You can find an excellent discussion of that phenomenon here:
What is a species?
A species is often defined as the largest group of organisms in which two individuals can produce fertile offspring, typically by sexual reproduction.
Source - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species
While the haves and the have-nots theoretically still can produce fertile offspring, they seldom do so. The willful separation of the two groups may soon drive humanity into two species which no longer can interbreed. Then what?
The haves seek to circumvent Darwinian evolution. They live in environments which are isolated from the natural world. So far, the changes which stem from their "creativity" are not passed to future generations by genetic mutation. In fact, it could be argued that it is the machines created by the haves which are evolving, not the haves themselves. And "transhumanism" really won't change that.
The have-nots, on the other hand, are subject to all the cruelties of Darwinian evolution. They eat bad food (if they eat at all), drink bad water, live in crappy housing, receive substandard or no medical care. If any humans are evolving in the Darwinian sense, it is they.
So what will happen on the day the Internet and/or the machines fail the haves? Most of them cannot perform the simple tasks required to survive in the "real" world. Here is proof of that:
Therefore, it's likely the haves will die out and the have-nots will survive. Doesn't that suggest that instead of driving our evolution, creativity is driving us backward?