Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

60 years into Darwinism, there's one mystery we still can't explain
National Post ^ | 08/30/2019 | Barbara Kay

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 ...


TOPICS: History; Science; Society
KEYWORDS: darwin; darwinism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-56 next last
To: SeekAndFind

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/


21 posted on 08/30/2019 9:48:52 AM PDT by Moonman62 (Charity comes from wealth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
The process Gelertner addresses is "Adaptation WITHIN a species", which is completely different from transition from one species to another, distinct species.

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.

22 posted on 08/30/2019 9:51:40 AM PDT by G Larry (There is no great virtue in bargaining with the Devil)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SkyDancer

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.


23 posted on 08/30/2019 9:55:06 AM PDT by Bulwyf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

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


24 posted on 08/30/2019 9:57:12 AM PDT by Rurudyne (Standup Philosopher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
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.

....

How can this be, the earth is only 6000 years old, right?

25 posted on 08/30/2019 9:57:58 AM PDT by barney10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: txrefugee

Will save that! Thanks.


26 posted on 08/30/2019 10:15:37 AM PDT by SkyDancer ( ~ Just Consider Me A Random Fact Generator ~ Eat Sleep Fly Repeat ~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: mlo
I think the Theory of Relativity was made popular because, like Darwin's theory of evolution, it could be misused to undermine western civilization and judeo-christian morals and religions.

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.

27 posted on 08/30/2019 10:24:18 AM PDT by captain_dave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SkyDancer

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.


28 posted on 08/30/2019 10:25:10 AM PDT by cotton (one way, one truth, the life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: cotton

Thanks - will do.


29 posted on 08/30/2019 10:25:56 AM PDT by SkyDancer ( ~ Just Consider Me A Random Fact Generator ~ Eat Sleep Fly Repeat ~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

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/


30 posted on 08/30/2019 10:25:58 AM PDT by mbarker12474
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman; All
"Really? What lab experiment demonstrates common descent?"

Isn’t the concept art good enough proof for you? /s

31 posted on 08/30/2019 10:28:50 AM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: mlo

Francis Bacon, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, etc...


32 posted on 08/30/2019 10:38:34 AM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: wheat_grinder

“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.


33 posted on 08/30/2019 10:41:47 AM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: captain_dave

“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.


34 posted on 08/30/2019 10:47:40 AM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: mlo
Article: "Of them, only Einstein’s could be subjected to scientific scrutiny."

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:

Tests of general relativity

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 relativity
See 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.

35 posted on 08/30/2019 10:54:35 AM PDT by drpix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman

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.


36 posted on 08/30/2019 11:08:17 AM PDT by Montana_Sam (Truth lives.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: SkyDancer

Especially since the earth was sterilized at 6000 degrees, reducing anything living to it’s basic chemical compound.

How could LIFE spring from that?


37 posted on 08/30/2019 11:32:03 AM PDT by Ruy Dias de Bivar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Ruy Dias de Bivar

As if there was any living thing before?


38 posted on 08/30/2019 11:33:02 AM PDT by SkyDancer ( ~ Just Consider Me A Random Fact Generator ~ Eat Sleep Fly Repeat ~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: drpix
"Not sure whether you meant that Einstein's was not subject to scientific scrutiny OR that the other could be subject to scientific scrutiny ."

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.

39 posted on 08/30/2019 11:51:14 AM PDT by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman
"Francis Bacon, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, etc..."

That's just a list of names. None of whom ever said what you claimed, or would have agreed with it.

40 posted on 08/30/2019 11:52:16 AM PDT by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-56 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson