Posted on 08/30/2019 9:08:48 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Back when the world was young, I was taught that four visionaries’ theories shaped modernity: Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud and Albert Einstein. Of them, only Einstein’s could be subjected to scientific scrutiny. The rest remained hypotheses, resistant to such standard scientific tests as falsifiability, replicability and predictability, but so beautiful in their comprehensiveness that the intelligentsia accepted them for what they were not: settled science.
Time has proven unkind to Freud’s and Marx’s theories, but very kind to Darwinism. Why? Shhh. If you dare to ask, you invite ridicule. Because the minute one expresses doubt about Darwin’s basic premise that all life-forms, including humans, descend from a common ancestor through the simple processes of random, heritable variation and natural selection, one admits the possibility of a counter-theory — Intelligent Design — that is considered anathema to the intelligentsia, since it implies, you know, the G-word.
David Gelernter, a conservative Yale professor of computer science, is suffering extreme ridicule and worse from colleagues for having just published an article in the Claremont Review, “Giving up Darwin.” The title is misleading, because Gelernter does not reject Darwin completely. He says there is no doubt that Darwin “successfully explained the small adjustments by which an organism adapts to local circumstances” through fur density or beak shape or wing style changes. It’s the big thing Gelernter now believes Darwin got wrong: humans.
There are intractable problems with Darwin’s “beautiful” theory. The most obvious is the “Cambrian explosion” of about a billion years ago wherein, during 70-odd million years, a startling variety of new organisms, and for the first time actual animals, appear in the fossil record. Where were their pre-Cambrian closely related ancestors? Nobody knows, and it isn’t the fault of fossil science, which is sophisticated and objective.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalpost.com ...
David Gelernter, a conservative Yale professor of computer science, is suffering extreme ridicule and worse from colleagues for having just published an article in the Claremont Review, “Giving up Darwin.”
...
Looks more like a well done blog post than a scientific article:
https://www.claremont.org/crb/article/giving-up-darwin/
This presumes the definition of "species" prior to its bastardization 40 years ago.
Ability to mate and produce "like" offspring.
Dogs don't produce cats and no creature ever slithered to or from the ocean in sufficient numbers to reproduce a mutation.
When you get your answer, please let me know. I won’t hold my breath though. People will continue to deny the existence of their creator.
When people present lists of names like that I think about High Anxiety.
Sadly I could only find a link to the Q&A part of the conference. and not the part where Dr Thorndyke says that the Giants on the wall behind him had given them, the psychotherapists, a nice living.
But it will do. Enjoy:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=GYlepBd8cf4
....
How can this be, the earth is only 6000 years old, right?
Will save that! Thanks.
One problem with the "Twin" thought experiment, where one twin travels close to the speed of light, twin on Earth ages, etc., is that - according to the theory - there is no absolute reference, so which twin is traveling? One could say that the twin in the rocket remained motionless and the Earth traveled near light speed.
The problem is this is Theoretical Physics. It's all mathematical conjecture.
Check out books:Heretic,one scientist’s journey from Darwin to Design. Matti Leisila and Johnathan Witt,. Replacing Darwin, the new origion of species, Nathaniel T. Jeanson. Video Irreducible complexity by Degenerated 1. And see BEL list of creation predictions on line.
Thanks - will do.
By the way, the Claremont Review of Books is an EXCELLENT periodical and the article by ______ is good one.
https://www.claremont.org/crb/latest-issue/
Isn’t the concept art good enough proof for you? /s
Francis Bacon, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, etc...
“If there is not a God that means we are hurtling through space at 66,000 MPH and no one is in charge.”
Even worse, as observed by Dostoyevsky, Nietzche, and Aleister Crowley, if there is no God, then all is permissible.
“The problem is this is Theoretical Physics. It’s all mathematical conjecture.”
No, relativity was only “theoretical” in that Einstein conceived it mainly as a thought experiment; it can actually be tested by a variety of experiments.
Obviously we can’t approach anywhere close to the speed of light, but we can demonstrate the time dilation effects he predicted on a smaller scale.
mlo: Well, you were wrong right off the bat.
Not sure whether you meant that Einstein's was not subject to scientific scrutiny OR that the other could be subject to scientific scrutiny . But I can only answer the first:
1 Classical tests 1.1 Perihelion precession of Mercury 1.2 Deflection of light by the Sun 1.3 Gravitational redshift of light 1.4 Tests of special relativitySee the link for details and additional "Modern tests," "Strong field tests" & "Cosmological tests"
Now if only today's "scientists" would subject their great scientific theories - man made climate change to name one - to even a fraction of the testing standard of Einstein's.
Well, the vast majority of scientists and virtually all laymen fail to comprehend the consequences of what is glibly asserted to be random, or acts of randomness. That’s a big problem, Houston. Randomness is a mere observational consequence of contemplating systems too large and complex to be computationally analyzed. Physical systems that are disordered to a ‘random’ state (blowing a large rock to bits, for instance) persist in their entropical state unless/until acted upon from without. All physical systems have antecedents. No exceptions. Basic Newton. There is no such thing as a pure-inorganic system that self-organizes beyond the crystalline or solution or flux-induced pattern stage(s). Randomness is merely a figment of imagination that humans use to deal with non-computational systems. Einstein said it well, and truly. People just have to accept the real science. This Yale prof gets it right.
Especially since the earth was sterilized at 6000 degrees, reducing anything living to it’s basic chemical compound.
How could LIFE spring from that?
As if there was any living thing before?
OK, I can see how you'd read it that way. But because I'm not an idiot, I did not mean relativity wasn't subject to scientific scrutiny. I meant the author was wrong because they thought evolution wasn't.
That's just a list of names. None of whom ever said what you claimed, or would have agreed with it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.