![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/02\/Darwin.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nA growing number of scientists are abandoning the evolutionary theory once proposed by Charles Darwin<\/strong><\/span><\/a>, as it simply does not hold up to scientific scrutiny.<\/span><\/p>\n One of these Darwin dissenters is David Gelernter, a well-known writer and professor at Yale University<\/strong><\/span><\/em><\/a> who has publicly announced that he is now done with Darwin\u2019s theory because it has too many \u201choles,\u201d and is painfully outdated.<\/span><\/p>\n On the other hand, \u201cintelligent design,\u201d as it is often called, should not be dismissed, according to Gelernter, because it is a \u201cserious\u201d theory backed by evidence that, in many cases, is far more compelling than anything Darwin and his acolytes have ever presented.<\/span><\/p>\n In Gelernter\u2019s view, it is a real shame that \u201cfree speech\u201d about opposing theories like this are often squelched through scientific consensus to Darwinism, which he says has become its own \u201creligion\u201d to many of the academics who adhere to it.<\/span><\/p>\n Writing in an essay that he entitled, \u201cGiving Up Darwin,\u201d Gelernter notes that one of the foundational tenets of Darwin\u2019s theory of evolution, the idea that a given life form has the ability to evolve into a completely different life form, has basically never been adequately demonstrated using the scientific method.<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cDarwin\u2019s theory predicts that new life forms evolve gradually from old ones in a constantly branching, spreading tree of life,\u201d Gelernter explains in his essay.<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cThose brave new Cambrian creatures must therefore have had Precambrian predecessors, similar but not quite as fancy and sophisticated,\u201d he adds. \u201cThey could not have all blown out suddenly, like a bunch of geysers. Each must have had a closely related predecessor, which must have had its own predecessors.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n For more about how the scientific establishment rejects opposing theories to Darwinism not as a matter of science, but as a perpetuation of the \u201creligion\u201d of evolution, be sure to check out ScienceTyranny.com<\/strong><\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n Gelernter also points out in his paper that it remains a \u201cnear impossibility\u201d to create a functional stable protein, which means it is even more impossible for one to just pop up randomly in nature as Darwin\u2019s theory of evolution would require. This alone, it would seem, disproves Darwinism largely on its own, further illustrating the religious nature of believing in evolution, which in many ways has already been thoroughly disproven<\/strong><\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cImmense is so big, and tiny is so small, that neo-Darwinian evolution is \u2013 so far<\/em> \u2013 a dead loss,\u201d Gelernter explains.<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cTry to mutate your way from 150 links of gibberish to a working, useful protein and you are guaranteed to fail,\u201d he goes on to explain. \u201cTry it with ten mutations, a thousand, a million \u2013 you fail. The odds bury you. It can\u2019t be done.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Stopping short of actually subscribing to the intelligent design theory, or the idea that an intelligent God created all things, Gelernter does admit that it remains an \u201cabsolutely serious argument,\u201d and one that serious, honest scientists would do well to consider as they aim to hone in on the origin of all things.<\/span><\/p>\n However, many establishment scientists patently reject it, and are more than willing to \u201cdestroy\u201d anyone who dares to even propose it as a possibility \u2013 their closed minds and willful blindness on the subject impairing their ability to engage in any type of critical thinking on the subject.<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cWhat I\u2019ve seen, in their behavior intellectually and at colleges across the West, is nothing approaching free speech on this topic,\u201d Gerlernter says.<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s a bitter rejection, not just \u2013 a sort of bitter, fundamental, angry, outraged, violent rejection, which comes nowhere near scientific or intellectual discussion. I\u2019ve seen that happen again and again. \u2018I\u2019m a Darwinist, don\u2019t you say a word against it, or, I don\u2019t wanna hear it, period.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Sources for this article include:<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n DailyWire.com<\/a><\/p>\nThe fact that it is virtually impossible to create a functional stable protein proves that Darwin\u2019s theory of evolution is a lie<\/h2>\n