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.