Tuesday, August 27, 2019

Renowned Yale Professor -- "Giving Up Darwin"--Considering Intelligent Design

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF

A renowned writer and Yale University computer science professor has denounced Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution, because "there are too many holes and science has grown past Darwin."

However, he says, scientists have made a religion of Darwin and can't let him go.

Regarding Intelligent Design: "I'm not quite there yet, but it deserves serious consideration"---as the science community turns on him.

Be informed.

Darwinism is too old, science has outgrown it.

Professor David Gelernter, whom the New York Times has called the "rock star" of science, has turned his back on Darwin and is saying, although he is "not there yet," he believes Intelligent Design" should be given serious consideration by the scientific community.

He has written an essay titled, "Giving Up Darwin" in which he outlines the "many holes in Darwinism," noting that Darwin's theory is "too old to be a probable scientific theory."

He says the main problem with Darwin is the lack of fossils in the fossil record. There just aren't enough fossils to back up his theory.

He says, "Darwin's theory predicts that new life forms evolve gradually from old ones in a constantly branching, spreading tree of life." He says Darwin was also worried about the lack of fossils.

He notes the development of new species is really not present in science. "Most species enter the evolutionary order fully formed and then depart unchanged," he says.

And he says this:

Perhaps the biggest flaw with Darwinism, he writes, is how hard it would be to randomly make new functional proteins. Darwinian evolution depends a huge number of them. Our understanding of molecular biology developed after Darwin. His theory doesn’t fit well with this new understanding.

Gelernter carefully reviews the evidence, and his article provides a very helpful short guide to the problem. He cites Douglas Axe, a distinguished scientist, who has calculated the chances of hitting a stable protein that performs some useful function, and might therefore be preserved by natural selection, are only 1 in 1077. That’s just one of the many, many proteins needed for any organism.

Gelernter summarizes the evidence. “Immense is so big, and tiny is so small, that neo-Darwinian evolution is — so far — a dead loss. Try to mutate your way from 150 links of gibberish to a working, useful protein and you are guaranteed to fail. Try it with ten mutations, a thousand, a million — you fail. The odds bury you. It can’t be done.”

Gelernter says he will always respect Darwin, but science has outgrown his theory. We now know that a good deal of what he theorized is not happening.

Although the professor doesn't personally agree with Intelligent Design [yet] he told The Stream, "It's an absolutely serious argument," noting that it is the "first, and obviously most intuitive theory that comes to mind."

Darwinism has become a religion.

In an interview with the Hoover Institute back in June, Gelernter explained the prevailing wind in academic circles that blows against someone who would challenge Darwin's theory.

"I have to distinguish between the way I've been treated personally, which has been very courteous and collegial way by my colleagues at Yale, they're nice guys and I like them, they're my friends."

"On the other hand," he says, "when I look at their intellectual behavior, what they publish, and much more important, what they tell their students, Darwinism has indeed passed beyond a scientific argument."

He explains, "As far as they are concerned, take your life in your hands to challenge it intellectually. They will destroy you if you challenge it."

He says:
"What I've seen, in their behavior intellectually and at colleges across the West, is nothing approaching free speech on the topic. It's bitter rejection, not just---a sort of bitter, fundamental, angry, outraged, violent rejection which comes from nowhere near scientific intellectual discussion."

He continues, "I've seen that happen again and again"--- "I'm a Darwinist, don't you say a word against it, or, I don't wanna hear it, period."

The professor says, "I'm attacking their religion. It's a big issue for them."

It should be a "big issue" for every parent and grandparent as well. This is one more issue where education is teaching a theory---an old debunked one at that---as science.

These are the folks that discredit and ban Creationism because it's merely a religious belief, while they cloister in the temple of their own beliefs, based on an outdated theory.

And they persecute those who deny faith in Darwin.

Be Informed. Be Discerning. Be Vigilant. Be Prayerful.


  1. Point of clarification: According to the video you've linked, the probability of randomly producing a stable protein isn't 1 in 1077; it is 1 in 10 to the 77th power. Not sure if your superscript or exponent feature didn't come through in your blog, but wanted to point that out since it's a significant difference.

    1. Correct. 10 to the 77th power is the correct figure. Most scientists don't look beyond 10 to the 45th power as they conclude anything larger (or smaller -10 to the minus 45th ) is the practical limit of possibility. 10 to the 77th power is approaching the number of atoms in our solar system. In other words 10 to the 77th odds is impossible.

    2. I'm really glad you mentioned that correction. When I read "1 on 1077" I thought "that doesn't sound at all correct, as those are pretty good odds." 1 in 10^77 makes a lost more sense. Thanks.

  2. FAF Darwin non-Science

    In truth...
    Darwinism was an absurd "theory" that questionably qualified as even a 'theory' from a scientific standpoint.

    The complexity of one living cell is so far beyond the potential for "natural selection" OR "mutation" to create is so far beyond probability as to make its protagonists embarrassingly unrealistic.

    A single-celled creature could never be created from slime in a pond, regardless of how much time you give it. To suggest that "given enough time" it could be created from inert matter and then transform into a German nuclear scientist is sadly laughable from either a scientific or rational standpoint. One giant barricade among thousands of others is to suppose that the single celled organism could "evolve" (thru natural selection and mutation) into a distinct male and females with incredibly complicated reproductive organ/stems is patently absurd.

    Anger and closed mindedness comes when the truth (reality) is just too difficult to accept. Those who wish to believe that somehow all this complexity in nature and thousands of unique species with millions of unique organisms that depend on their shared ecosystem for simple survival could come from "chance"...are those who desperately NEED to believe that there is no God of creation. Once any individual admits that God is likely or even necessarily a reality, then the question of their accountability to that God becomes the unacceptable imagined restrictive nightmare they WILL NOT accept!

    We all know we are sinners; that we are self-centered; that we lie and steal and break the commandments on all levels throughout our lives. Thus the "I'm a good person" illusion only works if we imagine there is no such thing as a "just God" who will hold us accountable for how we use the free will, intellect, emotion, and "image of himself" which he breathed into us at our creation.

    THEY ARE RIGHT! There is no hope for us to solve this problem of being 'good enough', unless Gods' standards are intentionally compromised to be low, which would be the ultimate oxy-moron of all time. The only hope we have would be if God actually provided us with the solution that did not depend on our own "goodness" but on His 'goodness and mercy'.

    He did so. He came in the person of Jesus Christ to offer himself as the conduit through which we can have a chance to have the incredible love relationship with our Creator that He originally intended when He created us. All we need to do is accept the "free gift" on His terms...

    Eph 2:8-10
    8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith-and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God- 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do. (NIV)

    Problem is..."we don't get to have that and be in control at the same time". To do so requires "faith', and the desperate need to be in control is evidence of the lack of faith. So...we can choose. If we choose to "sincerely believe' a lie, how incredibly foolish it is for us to think God will honor our self-centered blind justification for not accepting His gift because we are "sincere". Yes...a very "un-scientific" approach to salvation.

    Truth is a lonely warrior


  3. What we need is science and the Bible working together. I wonder if a scientist could examine a bottle of wine to determine how old it is. What would they use? carbon dating? I don't know. I'm not a scientist.

    I wonder if anyone in the Bible ever saw a dinosaur. There are actually not a whole lot of dinosaur bones around in the earth that we know of. Many are in Montana. Many are found in the Americas, some are also found in Asia, but those places are far from Israel, where the entire Bible was written from.

    Israel is a small speck on the globe, right? So what if all the dinosaurs were in Montana? Would anyone in Israel ever see one? What about Noah? Well maybe they all died by then. Maybe Grisly bears ate them, or maybe eagles. Nothing can beat an eagle in a fight right? The way they take down a bear is they can swoop down from hundreds of feet above, from behind them, an rip out their eyes with their talons, and in a week or two they have lots of bear meat, right?

    Or maybe the dinosaurs just died of whatever, disease or who knows? The Bible lands are quite small compared to the whole earth. I'm just saying that some things are plausible, and should be considered.

    Ever notice that when God says something, we tend to think we know it all, and really, we know nothing at all?

  4. I think a scientific mind would admit that if the age of wine that Jesus made at a wedding in

    Canna of Galilee (this "beginning" of miracles that he did) could not be determined accurately by science, then science can't say for sure how old the earth is, right?


Faith and Freedom welcomes your comment posts. Remember, keep it short, keep it on message and relevant, and identify your town.