Posted on 08/22/2019 6:19:06 AM PDT by Heartlander
Bishop Robert Barron and others working hard to evangelize the “Nones”—young adults without religious conviction—tell us that a major obstacle to a None embracing Christianity is the cultural assumption that Science Explains Everything. And if science explains it all, who needs God, revelation, Christ, or the Church? To be even more specific: If Darwin and the Darwinian theory of evolution explain the origins of us (and everything else), why bother with Genesis 1–3 and Colossians 1:15–20 (much less Augustine’s “Thou hast made us for Thee and our hearts are restless until they rest in Thee”)?
That’s why “Giving Up Darwin,” an essay by David Gelernter in the Spring 2019 issue of the Claremont Review of Books, is both a fascinating article and a potential tool in the New Evangelization.
No one can accuse Dr. Gelernter of being an anti-modern knucklehead. He’s a pioneering computer scientist, a full professor at Yale, and a remarkable human being: A package from the Unabomber blew off his right hand and permanently damaged his right eye but didn’t impede his remarkable intellectual, literary, and artistic productivity.
In his Claremont Review essay, Gelernter gives full credit to what he calls “Darwin’s brilliant and lovely theory” and readily concedes that “there’s no reason to doubt that Darwin successfully explained the small adjustments by which an organism adapts to local circumstances: changes to fur density or wing style or beak shape.” But Darwinian evolution can’t “explain the big picture — [which involves] not the fine-tuning of existing species but the emergence of new ones.” What Darwin cannot explain, in short, is “the origin of species”—the title of the British naturalist’s first, revolutionary book.
The argument is complex, so it’s important to read Gelernter’s entire article carefully, and more than once. But to be desperately brief:
First, Darwinian evolutionary theory can’t explain the so-called “Cambrian explosion,” in which, half a billion years ago, a “striking variety of new organisms—including the first-ever animals—pop up suddenly in the fossil record.” How did this “great outburst” of new life forms happen? The slow-motion processes of Darwinian evolution can’t answer that question. Gelernter concludes that “the ever-expanding fossil record” doesn’t “look good for Darwin, who made clear and concrete predictions that have (so far) been falsified.” (This gaping Cambrian hole in the Darwinian account goes unremarked in the otherwise magnificent new David H. Koch Hall of Fossils at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History.)
But there is more. For “Darwin’s main problem . . . is molecular biology”: a scientific field that didn’t exist in his era. Given that he knew nothing about the inner workings of cells through proteins, Darwin “did brilliantly” in explaining species adaptation. But Darwin and his Neo-Darwinian disciples can’t account for the incredible complexity of the basic building-blocks of life: For as we now know, “genes, in storing blueprints for the proteins that form the basis of cellular life, encode an awe-inspiring amount of information. . . . Where on earth did it all [i.e., all that “profound biochemical knowledge”] come from?” From random mutations? Maybe, but very unlikely, for as Gelernter puts it, “You don’t turn up a useful protein by doodling on the back of an envelope, any more than you write a Mozart aria by assembling three sheets of staff paper and scattering notes around.”
Put the Cambrian fossil record together with the high statistical improbability that the information-dense building-blocks of life happened through random mutations and you’re forced to consider what amounts to cultural heresy: that “the explosion of detailed, precise information that was necessary to build the brand-new Cambrian organisms, and the fact that the information was encoded, represented symbolically, in DNA” falsify the Darwinian explanation of the big picture.
Gelernter is intrigued by “intelligent design” approaches to these evolutionary conundra but also suggests that, “as a theory,” intelligent design “would seem to have a long way to go.” But to dismiss intelligent design out of hand—to brand it piety masquerading as science—is, well, unscientific. The fossil record and molecular biology now suggest that Darwinian answers to the Big Questions constitute the real fundamentalism: a materialistic fideism that, however shaky in dealing with the facts, is nonetheless deeply entrenched in 21st-century imaginations. Thus, Gelernter asks whether today’s scientists will display Darwin’s own courage in risking cultural disdain by upsetting intellectual apple carts.
The empirical evidence suggests that the notions of a purposeful Creator and a purposeful creation cannot be dismissed as mere pre-modern mythology. That may help a few Nones out of the materialist bogs in which they’re stuck.
A great many religious groups, from the Catholic Church to innumerable Protestant sects to virtually all branches of Judaism have no problem with acknowledging evolution. If the author is concerned that denying science may be a barrier to converting the growing group of non religious people in the US, maybe - and this is just a suggestion - don’t deny science. The largest organized group that seems to have a problem with evolution is, weirdly, Islam.
Yet Darwinian evolution provides no such explanation nor does it claim to. It cannot explain the origin of life nor is there any evidence that mutation is the engine that fuels natural selection.
bump
Science and bio genesis show us that the odds of life self starting exceed the number of atoms in the galaxy.
Noble gases could not form chemical compounds was “settled science”.
Crystals must create repetitious patterns was “settled science”.
We hear this same ‘science denier’ or ‘settled science’ crap regarding Climate Change… It’s questioning science – not denying science – and that’s how it works.
Sorry but evolution makes much sense. However atheists still can’t prove that 0 x 0 does not equal zero. Until someone can conclusively explain how something came out of nothing, the concept of God cannot be disproved.
I agree.
I note that in the area of physics, scientists have no trouble postulating dozens of additional dimensions beyond the 3 or 4 we usually think of. They have string theory, dark matter, and other features which are a difficult to “prove” but which are useful to explain the complexity of the physical world that we see all around us.
Biology has similar complexity, and Evolution by itself does not adequately explain what we see around us. But if one postulates an Intelligent Designer, a lot of secular humanists go ballistic and declare that such an idea is not acceptable at all.
For me, without an Intelligent Designer, no part of Evolution makes any sense at all.
Bookmark
Darwin has one linchpin..
reproductive
Variations that give atvantage will reproduce themselves
The problem is things that don’t reproduce arising
the 1st life had to rise on its own without reproductions .so Darwany cant explain it
And Darwin cant explain simple variation like gay Occurring as it doesn’t reproduce
how does a modern millennial explain gay in context of Darwin
Read Darwin’s own book. “CHAPTER 6: DIFFICULTIES ON THEORY.” He KNEW in the 19th c. that his theory could not explain complex organs such as the eye, and now we know a lot more.
Straw Man Fallacy!
Science does not claim to "explain it all."
Nota Bene: There is no observable, measurable phenomenon that religion explains better than science.
Regards,
No scientist worth his salt would attempt to "disprove" the concept of God.
Rather, most scientists would simply dismiss any such attempt (just as it would be nearly impossible to disprove the existence of a tea kettle orbiting the Sun between Jupiter and Saturn).
Like Laplace, they would probably reply with "I have no need of that hypothesis."
Regards,
“Only science deniers don’t believe that science explains everything.” Democrats, atheists, socialists.
The quote in context:
Bishop Robert Barron and others working hard to evangelize the “Nones”—young adults without religious conviction—tell us that a major obstacle to a None embracing Christianity is the cultural assumption that Science Explains Everything. And if science explains it all, who needs God, revelation, Christ, or the Church?
Regards,
If "Science Explains Everything," then what the heck do we need the pre-Copernican "indigenous pipples" for???
There are two excellent books both by Stephen Meyer on the subject of origin of life (Signature in the Cell) and the Cambrian explosion (Darwin’s Doubt). I highly recommend both of them.
They are totally science based and completely dismantle Darwin’s thesis.
Agreed: Dawkins, Rosenberg, Provine, Pinker, Ruse, Coyne, Dennett…
Bookmark
“Like Laplace, they would probably reply with “I have no need of that hypothesis.””
But science today definitely has a need for a new hypothesis for the origin of life, information, and the Cambrian explosion because Darwin ain’t cutting 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.