Leading Yale Professor Pushes Back Against Darwin’s Theory of Evolution

Via 21st Century Wire – August 4, 2019

Was Darwin wrong? Bring this question up in mainstream academia and you’re likely to be attacked by colleague and media operatives alike, if not run-out of any institution you’re working at.

According to some, the ‘glory days’ of science are over. In The End of Science, author John Horgan contends that, “Science will keep extending and tweaking its current paradigms, like evolution by natural selection and the big bang, but there won’t be any more comparably profound ‘revelations or revolutions.’”

Others are taking this inquiry a bit further, and actually dismantling the highest sacred cows of science, including the seemingly untouchable: Darwin’s theory of evolution. They are asking a fundamental question: since new evidence and knowledge that functioning proteins are extremely rare, then maybe Darwin should be replaced with a theory of intelligent design? If so, then the following two questions are essential:

  • Has modern science developed institutionalized dogmatic belief structures that are similar to that of the church?
  • Has Darwinism really failed?

Probing for answers…

‘The origin of species is exactly what Darwin cannot explain’

Jennifer Kabbany from College Fix writes…

David Gelernter, a famed Yale University professor, has publicly renounced his belief in Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, calling it a “beautiful idea” that has been effectively disproven. Gelernter, who is known for predicting the World Wide Web and has developed many complex computing tools over the years, is today a professor of computer science at Yale, chief scientist at Mirror Worlds Technologies, member of the National Council of the Arts, and a prolific author.

In May, the Claremont Review of Books published a column by Gelernter headlined “Giving Up Darwin.” In it, he explained how his readings and discussions of Darwinian evolution and its competing theories, namely intelligent design, have convinced him Darwin had it wrong.

In particular, he cited Stephen Meyer’s 2013 book Darwin’s Doubt as well as The Deniable Darwin by David Berlinski. The professor expanded on his views in an interview with Stanford University’s Hoover Institution that was published last week.

Gelernter stops short of fully embracing intelligent design, both in his essay and during his interview. He said in his interview he sees intelligence in Earth’s design, and has no quarrel with ID proponents, but notes the world is a mess, its suffering far outweighs its goodness.

“My argument is with people who dismiss intelligent design without considering, it seems to me — it’s widely dismissed in my world of academia as some sort of theological put up job — it’s an absolutely serious scientific argument,” Gelernter said during his interview. “In fact it’s the first and most obvious and intuitive one that comes to mind. It’s got to be dealt with intellectually.”

Gelernter conducted his interview alongside Meyer and Berlinski, and the three weighed in on the problems facing Darwinian and neo-Darwinian evolution.  Watch:


Gelernter said an ideological bent has taken over the field of science. There are good scientists doing good work, “but we have a cautionary tale in what happened to our English departments and our history departments could happen to us, God forbid,” he said.

Gelernter said he likes many of his colleagues at Yale, that they are his friends, but when he looks at “their intellectual behavior, what they have published — and much more importantly what they tell their students — Darwinism has indeed passed beyond a scientific argument as far as they are concerned. You take your life in your hands to challenge it intellectually. They will destroy you if you challenge it.”

Continue this story at College Fix

 

7 responses to “Leading Yale Professor Pushes Back Against Darwin’s Theory of Evolution”

  1. Political forces, lies, propaganda, rear their ugly heads in Science also, not just literature, music, art, government, and offices of lawyers, judges, and politicians.

    A good rule of thumb on whether to believe something is whether you can understand it and see whether it’s true or false. If you cannot see then file it in the unknown category until more evidence shows where it belongs.

    So called scientists have been caught red handed faking evidence, fudging numbers, and lying down through the ages. Numbers don’t lie but people who write them sometimes do.

  2. Darwinism displays a kind of superficial logic that doesn’t stand up to close scrutiny.

    Most people blindly accept “relativity”, probably because they expect it to be too complex for “ordinary Human Beings” to understand, but anyone who takes the trouble to really investigate Einstein’s “great work” will find it even more nonsensical than Darwinism.

    In projecting his own perversions and weaknesses onto the entire Human Race, Freud too is proven to have been a fraud.

    Science is now too politicised to dare to tell the truth – about practically anything. What was once a genuine quest for knowledge is now reduced to pseudo-religious dogma that none dare question for fear of the consequences.

  3. The most obvious flaw in Darwin’s theory about man descending from apes, is the question of why the apes stayed behind and did not develop into more intelligent creatures than they are. Also, you would think that other species like various kinds of birds would also by now have produced some more “intelligent” offspring.

    Then, what of the word “descending” so often used by the evolutionists to kick God out of every equation and aspect of our lives and to impose on Western society the dogma that man in descended from apes is no more special or devine in reality than any other animal? Oh yes, man may have “descended” through time branching from a limb of the tree of life into a separate species. But why in images is the tree of life always growing from the ground upwards was the word “descended” or “descending” still used? Why did they not say that the species known as man “ascended” from common ape-like ancestors. They obviously had a delima.

    On one hand they wanted to instill the idea that like a tree, the tree of life grew naturally entirely on its own from the earth and branched out like a tree into different species. In their Occam-like reasoning no God was necessary for that view. The origin was not a God for the tree and clearly not some preconceived seed for all life, but rather our origins were simply the primordial slime of the earth, and in that respect we had no need to posit God or a divine Creator. The scientist Laplace (1749 – 1827) said this to Napoleon about 40 or 50 years before Darwin wrote his evolutionary theory of man, such that for our own beginnings, purpose and existence there was entirely no need of God, and we came entirely from dust of the earth without the planning of any divine, loving, personal and superior being.

    On the other hand, to say that mankind “ascended” from the apes would suggest that we have some purpose above us. This would be anathema to the sechums (secular humanists) who run things. it would psychologically help all those archaic religionists directing our attention to ethereal ends, and it would further restrict us in their archaic morality from exercising our natural monkey-like instincts, especially in sexual matters.

    The pragmatic, materialist, sechums run the world and they have replaced the authority of God with their own. Our modern scientific research and application they have liberated from all moral restraint with no reverence for human life or the hand of God in all of creation. All of the scientific pragmatism and liberties over human life which the Nazis exercised are now common place throughout the world. We will continue under their control, with one monstrous disorder and fallacy after another, either until our own destruction, or until we unite and replace them.

  4. If you disagree with Evolution and Genesis, what is the third option?

    Extraterrestrials who own and operate planets and seed them with lifeforms.

    Not so far fetched now that we have learned about genetic engineering.

    What will we do in the near future? Go into space and seed planets? Absolutely.

    What makes us so naive to think that humans are not a seeded race?

    Where’s our fur? Who built the pyramids? Why did civilization just pop out of nowhere when it should of take a million years to evolve?

    The smoking gun is our chromosome count. We humans have two less than all the other apes and monkeys. How did that happen?

    https://anunnakiabominations.wordpress.com/2017/08/23/the-46-chromosomes-smoking-gun-of-alien-intervention/

    “The smoking gun of alien manipulation of human DNA is our 46 chromosome count, unlike all other apes and monkeys which have 48. There is no known Natural Selection mechanism that explains 46 Chromosomes, a mitrochondrial Homo Erectus Eve would not be able to reproduce and pass down her mutation. No 48 chromosome ancestor could successfully mate with a 46 and produce offspring, in fact that individual would be for purposes of reproduction sterile.”

    By Darwin’s own reasoning 46 chromosomes is impossible. If a genetic alteration occured how could a 46 breed with a 48? Can’t happen. And if it did where’s all the 48’s?

  5. IMHO there two beggars dressed in purple (with my apologies to N Tesla)
    The XIX Century C Darwin & the XX Century A Einstein !

  6. If every species evolved from every other species, where are the intermediate stages? Why no half-mouse, half-fish? Why no furry Humans? If evolution was right, there’d be no distinct species, but every transitional phase between (for example) chimps, gorillas and Humans co-existing, making differentiation impossible. It wouldn’t be a case of “missing links”, but a continuous progression, no distinct species, just “life”.

    No offence to Yukon Jack, but the “seeding” theory merely shifts the problem off-world. Perhaps we are a product of a higher civilisation (rather than an even higher intelligence that we know as “God”), but it still leaves the question as to how intelligent life came about, wherever in the universe it may have happened. We ask where WE came from, but if we say we were created by aliens, where and how did those aliens come into existence? It just evades the issue by saying “we came from somewhere else” and ignores the question as to how life itself originated.

    Scientists, even the real ones, can’t even create a blade of grass, and yet they deny any suggestion of an intelligent designer.

  7. It is incredible on one level and sadly amusing on another that atheist scientists who believe in the THEORY of evolution but cannot explain (nor provide evidence for) how the first extremely complex single cell developed nor have any control over their own existence i.e. had no say in how they came into existence nor have any say when they are going to cease existing on this plane (unless they take their own lives of course) deny the creation of a highly-structured and finely-tuned universe (for which the evidence is irrefutable) by an All-Powerful, All-Knowing Intelligent Creator. Not only this but the Creator has provided infinite evidence of His existence, Which is not surprising of course given His infinite nature. I suppose when you are in complete darkness it is impossible to see the evidence even it is right before your very eyes.. And speaking of evidence there is of course absolutely no evidence in the fossil record of any intermediate stages, when, if evolution was not a theory but a fact, there should have been a plethora of such stages. It is time humanity realized that Darwin’s theory is just another perception – management (mind control) strategy used by those diabolical forces who seek global dominance, a goal which is only possible of course when most forget from whence they came and what is their purpose on this plane.