WATCH: Renowned Yale Prof Leaves Darwinism, Says Intelligent Design ‘Absolutely Serious’ Theory

[Revmitchell]

Renowned writer and Yale University professor David Gelernter has turned away from Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, arguing that it has too many holes and has aged out as a probable scientific theory.
The professor also argued that intelligent design is a serious theory that cannot be shooed away by anti-religious sentiment. Furthermore, he lamented the lack of "free speech" concerning theories outside of Darwinism, which has become a "religion" to many academics spanning the various scientific fields.

WATCH: Renowned Yale Prof Leaves Darwinism, Says Intelligent Design ‘Absolutely Serious’ Theory

 

[Reynolds]

Renowned writer and Yale University professor David Gelernter has turned away from Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, arguing that it has too many holes and has aged out as a probable scientific theory.
The professor also argued that intelligent design is a serious theory that cannot be shooed away by anti-religious sentiment. Furthermore, he lamented the lack of "free speech" concerning theories outside of Darwinism, which has become a "religion" to many academics spanning the various scientific fields.

WATCH: Renowned Yale Prof Leaves Darwinism, Says Intelligent Design ‘Absolutely Serious’ Theory

There are many professors in secular universities saying the same.

 

[church mouse guy]

Stanford Hoover Institution did a series of videos on this issue with a couple of other mathematicians. The long and short of it is that Darwinian evolution is mathematically impossible and scientifically impossible.

Darwin jumped the gun in his speculations about a bottom up evolution without direction from above based upon simple cell building blocks.

Watson and Crick when they discovered DNA in the 1950s was the beginning of the end for Darwin's idea. Darwin had no idea that the cell is not simple but electron microscopes ended that idea forever.

Gelernter is a Jew who does not think about the possibility of God. He is a computer science mathematician. He says that evolution is a religion.

A second mathematician, also a Jew but one who says that he is an agnostic and who lives in Paris is David Berlinski. Here is a comment from him:

"'Methinks it is a weasel; is 'a six-word sentence containing 28 English letters including the spaces. It occupies an isolated point in a space of 10,000 million, million, million, million, million, million possibilities. Any definition of natural selection must plainly meet what I have called a rule against deferred success."

So the math is within the realm of a high school student. These men are not Christians and are not religious but are scientists. They are not Young Earth Creationists and still believe in deep time. They merely point out that Darwin is impossible mathematically.

Here is a link to David Gelernter's recent article on the subject "Giving Up Darwin" published by the Claremont Review of Books.


Giving Up Darwin

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Listened to the interview. Read the article and the essay. Darwinian evolution has always been built on "hopeful monsters."

The only reason Darwinism became wildly popular as a "theory," rather than another scientific hypothesis to pursue and perhaps discard, is precisely what Gelernter alludes to: it seems to satisfy those wishing for a way to support their worldview, one that desperately seeks to exclude God from both the public arena and their own private life—what many mean by "enlightenment."

Darwinism is only an important tenet of their religion, which is as old and foolish as the fall, and as ambitious and disastrous.

 

[church mouse guy]

Thanks, Rev. Mitchell, for posting this thread. I found out about this about almost month ago from the Hoover Institution but have not had the time to post on it intelligently. It was also discussed on Answers in Genesis about two and a half weeks ago. Yale Professor “The Origin of Species Is Exactly What Darwin Cannot Explain.”

Here is a paragraph of what Yale Professor of Computer Science David Gelernter said in his article in the Cambridge Book Review:

"Stephen Meyer’s thoughtful and meticulous Darwin’s Doubt (2013) convinced me that Darwin has failed. He cannot answer the big question. Two other books are also essential: The Deniable Darwin and Other Essays (2009), by David Berlinski, and Debating Darwin’s Doubt (2015), an anthology edited by David Klinghoffer, which collects some of the arguments Meyer’s book stirred up. These three form a fateful battle group that most people would rather ignore. Bringing to bear the work of many dozen scientists over many decades, Meyer, who after a stint as a geophysicist in Dallas earned a Ph.D. in History and Philosophy of Science from Cambridge and now directs the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture, disassembles the theory of evolution piece by piece. Darwin’s Doubt is one of the most important books in a generation. Few open-minded people will finish it with their faith in Darwin intact."

Giving Up Darwin

So the Hoover Institution brought together Stephen Meyer from the Discovery Institute and author of the book Darwin's Doubt (2013) and Professor David Berlinski also a mathematician among other things whom I quoted above and author of Debating Darwin's Doubt (2015) as well as Professor Gelernter who published the article in May 2019. Professor Gelernter is one of the leaders in the field of computer science mathematics and so his endorsement of Meyer and Berlinski carries a lot of weight. It is Professor Berlinski who gives the example that a string of 28 letters and spaces amounts to 10,000 million million million million million million. Professor Gelernter says, "A protein molecule is based on a chain of amino acids; 150 elements is a “modest-sized” chain; the average is 250. Each link is chosen, ordinarily, from one of 20 amino acids." Since everything has to be perfect, the mathematical possibilities are thought to exceed the number of atoms in the universe as I myself understand it.

The Hoover Institution located on the Stanford campus published the discussion with Meyer, Berlinski, and Gelernter on July 22, 2019, and has 3/4s of a million views so far. The discussion was actually filmed in Italy on June 6. It is part of the series called Uncommon Knowledge and is moderated by Peter Robinson.

 

[Aaron]

Now hold on a minute. Our more open minded BB members like Baptist Believer and Deacon assure us that Genesis accommodates Darwinism most elegantly.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Now hold on a minute. Our more open minded BB members like Baptist Believer and Deacon assure us that Genesis accommodates Darwinism most elegantly.

Darwinism holds that everything after “abiogenesis” happened without any intelligent or intentional intervention, in other words, via atheistic evolution.

 

[Reynolds]

Stanford Hoover Institution did a series of videos on this issue with a couple of other mathematicians. The long and short of it is that Darwinian evolution is mathematically impossible and scientifically impossible.

Darwin jumped the gun in his speculations about a bottom up evolution without direction from above based upon simple cell building blocks.

Watson and Crick when they discovered DNA in the 1950s was the beginning of the end for Darwin's idea. Darwin had no idea that the cell is not simple but electron microscopes ended that idea forever.

Gelernter is a Jew who does not think about the possibility of God. He is a computer science mathematician. He says that evolution is a religion.

A second mathematician, also a Jew but one who says that he is an agnostic and who lives in Paris is David Berlinski. Here is a comment from him:

"'Methinks it is a weasel; is 'a six-word sentence containing 28 English letters including the spaces. It occupies an isolated point in a space of 10,000 million, million, million, million, million, million possibilities. Any definition of natural selection must plainly meet what I have called a rule against deferred success."

So the math is within the realm of a high school student. These men are not Christians and are not religious but are scientists. They are not Young Earth Creationists and still believe in deep time. They merely point out that Darwin is impossible mathematically.

Here is a link to David Gelernter's recent article on the subject "Giving Up Darwin" published by the Claremont Review of Books.


Giving Up Darwin

Darwin didn't really jump the gun. He proposed a theory. He himself readily admitted his theory was based on a simple cell and that his theory would be false if the cell were proven to be complex.
His theory was in fact based more in socialism, his extreme racist version of it, than science.

 

[church mouse guy]

Darwin didn't really jump the gun. He proposed a theory. He himself readily admitted his theory was based on a simple cell and that his theory would be false if the cell were proven to be complex.
His theory was in fact based more in socialism, his extreme racist version of it, than science.

Well, I think it is Berlinski who says in one of the several Hoover Institution videos that he did with Peter Robinson that it is still too early to make a supposition such as Darwin made with even less information. Of course, it you have had time to look at the article that Gelernter published in the Claremont Review of Books in May 2019, he calls Darwin's theory "beautiful." Berlinski said that the idea of calling evolution a beautiful theory never occurred to him. It never occurred to little ole me either.

 

[church mouse guy]

Now hold on a minute. Our more open minded BB members like Baptist Believer and Deacon assure us that Genesis accommodates Darwinism most elegantly.

Evolution is just not scientifically possible. Gelernter does not even look at religion--he is a secular Jew who is one of the leading computer science experts in the world. He thinks that the world is a hopeless mess and the mind of man is even worse. He is just saying that DNA is mathematically too large to have ever have happened the way that evolutionists think that it did. Evolution is a scientific impossibility but Berlinski and Gelernter still refer to deep time.

The significance of the article published by Gelernter in the Claremont Review of Books in May 2019 is that no one in the world can challenge his mathematics, and he is backed up by Berlinski and Meyer, who is at the Discovery Institute. Berlinski said that the mathematics is within the ability of a high school student. If a 28 letter/space sentence from Shakespeare has a probability of 10,000 million million million million million million, then one could look at the probability of a strand of 250 molecules of DNA composed of 20 proteins and calculate the chances. As a YEC, I myself don't have any hopes about the Intelligent Design movement because it can be an atheist point of view.

I admire Gelernter for going out of his way to publish Giving Up Darwin since it will make him unpopular with almost all of the faculties of American universities. However, I think that he believes that it is time to look for something more scientific than evolution. Since he says that evolution is a religion, don't look for any progress until the evolutionists retire. Also, don't think that the Baptist professors and clergy will change either. The human mind closes and even Christians can become closed books.

 

[Reynolds]

Well, I think it is Berlinski who says in one of the several Hoover Institution videos that he did with Peter Robinson that it is still too early to make a supposition such as Darwin made with even less information. Of course, it you have had time to look at the article that Gelernter published in the Claremont Review of Books in May 2019, he calls Darwin's theory "beautiful." Berlinski said that the idea of calling evolution a beautiful theory never occurred to him. It never occurred to little ole me either.

Darwin proposed it as an early theory. It's the nut cases after him that have tried to make it an absolute law.

 

[church mouse guy]

Darwin proposed it as an early theory. It's the nut cases after him that have tried to make it an absolute law.

Ken Ham commented on August 5 about the problems with Darwin as discussed by Gelernter.

1. Darwin cannot explain the origin of the species. I myself would add that Berlinski says that there still is no explanation.

2. The Cambrian Explosion, in that in the geological record, all of the species appear at once. Darwin thought that time would dig up fossils that would counteract this fact but it has not.

3. Mutations. Evolutionists thought that mutations led to new species but actually mutations are harmful and eventually lead to the extinction of life forms with a consistent mutation. Mutations are caused by the failure of exact information to be transmitted through the DNA and in humans they are genetic defects, etc.

Yale Professor “The Origin of Species Is Exactly What Darwin Cannot Explain.”

Answers in Genesis broadcast from the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky, the following discussion:

 

[Reynolds]

Ken Ham commented on August 5 about the problems with Darwin as discussed by Gelernter.

1. Darwin cannot explain the origin of the species. I myself would add that Berlinski says that there still is no explanation.

2. The Cambrian Explosion, in that in the geological record, all of the species appear at once. Darwin thought that time would dig up fossils that would counteract this fact but it has not.

3. Mutations. Evolutionists thought that mutations led to new species but actually mutations are harmful and eventually lead to the extinction of life forms with a consistent mutation. Mutations are caused by the failure of exact information to be transmitted through the DNA and in humans they are genetic defects, etc.

Yale Professor “The Origin of Species Is Exactly What Darwin Cannot Explain.”

Answers in Genesis broadcast from the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky, the following discussion:

I am not defending Evolution. I am pointing out that Darwin proposed a theory. He proposed it as just that. He predicted the areas in which it would either be confirmed or destroyed. It's scientists after him who have found the fatal evidences but refuse to accept them. Darwin would have laughed at his own theory if he had the evidence of today available to him.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

As a YEC, I myself don't have any hopes about the Intelligent Design movement because it can be an atheist point of view.

ID is a strictly scientific challenge to Darwinian evolution, thus not open to charges of theism masquerading as science, at least none legitimate.

The advantage of ID—and why it would be so fiercely opposed, especially by atheists—is that it sets the stage for seeking the source of the intelligent design.

 

[church mouse guy]

ID is a strictly scientific challenge to Darwinian evolution, thus not open to charges of theism masquerading as science, at least none legitimate.

The advantage of ID—and why it would be so fiercely opposed, especially by atheists—is that it sets the stage for seeking the source of the intelligent design.

Well said. I have yet to find out if Stephen Meyer has a religious viewpoint in private. Atheism probably will abandon Darwin along with the younger generation of scientists. Deep time also has scientific problems but evolution could not cope with DNA and molecular biology and so fell.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Well said.

Thanks.

I have yet to find out if Stephen Meyer has a religious viewpoint in private.

Besides being a Christian? His faith is rather public and came out in the three-way interview.
If wondering about something more specific, his book at Ligonier may be an indicator.

Atheism probably will abandon Darwin along with the younger generation of scientists.

I'd like to see that, but think it unlikely, until they find what they consider a suitable replacement.

Deep time also has scientific problems but evolution could not cope with DNA and molecular biology and so fell.

Nothing of creation stands to reason without intelligent design behind it. Deep time is only deep from a YEC perspective, or wishful imagination.

In reality, it would be a mere blink, with miracle upon miracle happening ASAP. Thus the desperate appeal to an unknowable metaphysical multiverse, which solves precisely nothing.

 

[church mouse guy]

Thanks.
Besides being a Christian? His faith is rather public and came out in the three-way interview.
If wondering about something more specific, his book at Ligonier may be an indicator.
I'd like to see that, but think it unlikely, until they find what they consider a suitable replacement.
Nothing of creation stands to reason without intelligent design behind it. Deep time is only deep from a YEC perspective, or wishful imagination.

In reality, it would be a mere blink, with miracle upon miracle happening ASAP. Thus the desperate appeal to an unknowable metaphysical multiverse, which solves precisely nothing.

Thanks. I guess that I watched Meyer in Ben Stein's movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, available on YouTube. I don't follow the ID movement, but I am glad for their scientific work. I probably missed what was said in the group interview. I liked Berlinski a great deal and he has several other interviews with Hoover's Uncommon Knowledge.

Deep time theory in the modern era dates back to the Enlightenment. It originally dealt with geology before geology was a university subject. Apparently, it infiltrated the church by the middle of the nineteenth century when the Scriptural Geologists died out in the church and did not re-emerge until the publication of Flood Geology in 1961. Deep time is a product of atheists although the church went along without much questioning. Since there is nothing new under the sun, I think that a book could be written about what the Greeks were teaching in their pagan thinking and how it related to Hinduism.

The lesson of the Tower of Babel, in my own opinion, is that mankind never seems to learn their lesson. Most deep time people are uniformitarians and deny Noah's Flood. But not only does mathematics testify against evolution but also geology testifies against deep time and uniformitarianism. If the federal government would stop subsidizing university research, then maybe the grip of uniformitarianism could be broken and American science might regain some lost prestige.