Posted on 09/19/2019 7:34:49 AM PDT by Heartlander
Yale University professor of computer science David Gelernter has renounced his previous belief in Darwinian evolution.
Writing that he was sad to give up on “a brilliant and beautiful scientific theory,” he said he had concluded that it couldn’t explain the big picture—not the fine-tuning of existing species, but the emergence of new ones.
Whether or not his argument is well-founded is a discussion for another time. The point here is that it’s unsayable by anyone who isn’t prepared to risk professional and social suicide.
Darwinism, said Gelernter, had passed beyond a scientific argument. Although his Yale colleagues had treated him in a courteous and collegiate manner, people took their life in their hands to question Darwinian evolution.
“They will destroy you if you challenge it,” he said. There was nothing approaching free speech on this topic. “It’s a sort of bitter, fundamental, angry, outraged, violent rejection, which comes nowhere near scientific or intellectual discussion.”
Gelernter’s conclusions about Darwinism have derived principally from his analysis of the statistical probability of the evolution of new species. Yet anyone who queries Darwinism is immediately labeled “anti-science” and accused of being a religious nut.
Indeed, the pushback against Gelernter’s apostasy has included the observation that he is a religious Jew. Apparently, the only reason he could possibly have come to this “denialist” conclusion, says one pro-evolution website, is that he views science through “Old Testament goggles.”
In fact, a belief that’s unchallengeable has the characteristic of religious faith. That’s why Gelernter calls Darwinism a religion.
There are plenty of other unsayables in our thought-policed society. Human-made global warming, for example, is considered beyond challenge because the science of that theory is said to be “settled.” This is in fact anti-science dogma because nothing is ever settled in science, which is always open to fresh challenges.
So how come our scientific age promotes anti-science ideas more akin to religious doctrine and calls them science?
Our era is supposedly devoted to promoting individual freedom, tolerance and an end to prejudice. So why are so many views being silenced? Why has debate been so widely replaced by hateful insult? And how come this has been accompanied by an upsurge in antisemitism, often among precisely the same subscribers to the liberal anti-racist “woke” agenda?
There may be a connection here that is generally overlooked. And it involves the Jews.
At the core of all this moral and intellectual confusion lies an onslaught against the core principles of Western civilization on the grounds that these are innately exclusive, prejudicial and oppressive.
That’s because they are rooted in biblical values that are held to be cruel, obscurantist and inimical to reason, enlightenment and generosity of spirit.
By contrast, the secular agenda is believed to stand for all good things associated with modernity, such as kindness, rationality and progress.
The West tells itself that modernity sprang from a repudiation of religion in the 17th-century Enlightenment.
In fact, as a new book points out, Christianity remains at the core of contemporary Western thinking even among those who disdain it. Dominion, by the British historian Tom Holland, is a magisterial analysis of the way in which Christian values have shaped the West and still do so even in the most unlikely places.
His book is not merely a fascinating account of the extraordinary reach and persistence of Christianity, which has evolved and adapted down through the generations and across societies. He also argues that Christian values, which have sometimes led to slavery, empire and war, nevertheless lie at the core of what makes the West civilized and good.
This has startled people for whom it is axiomatic that only secularism produces goodness while religion produces only bad stuff. But Holland points out that even attacks by secular liberals on Christian thinking are motivated by Christian values of tolerance and fairness.
Of course, there’s an elephant in this particular room. For although these core Western principles were introduced and spread by Christianity, their origin lay in the Hebrew Bible.
Holland pays due regard to the Jewish foundations of Christianity and also to the terrible way Christianity has behaved in the past towards the Jews.
But what so many overlook is that moral principles assumed to have been invented by Christianity, such as compassion, fairness, looking after the poor or putting others first, were all introduced to the world by the Hebrew Bible.
It is Judaism’s Mosaic code that gave the West its conscience and the roots of its civilization by putting chains on people’s selfish appetites. And strikingly, every contemporary ideology that aims to undermine or transform the West is based on opposition to Jewish religious beliefs, Jewish moral codes or the Jewish homeland in Israel.
Deep green environmentalism, for example, wants to knock human beings off their pedestal in Genesis as the pinnacle of creation; sexual lifestyle choice negates Judaism’s moral codes; scientific materialism repudiates belief in the Divine creator of the world; anti-Zionism denies the Jews’ right to their own homeland; and liberal universalism is an innate challenge to Judaism which, as a stubbornly and uniquely distinct set of beliefs, always stands in the way of any universalizing ideology.
Much of this secular onslaught goes back to the central Enlightenment idea of a world based on reason, which French Enlightenment thinkers in particular perceived to be in opposition to religion.
But the West’s concept of reason actually comes from the Hebrew Bible. Ideas such as an orderly and rational universe structured on a linear concept of time were revolutionary concepts introduced in the book of Genesis.
These ideas were essential to the development of Western science. Early scientists believed that natural laws necessarily presupposed a law-giver. As Galileo Galilei said: “The laws of nature are written by the hand of God in the language of mathematics.”
The opposition between religion and science that is assumed to be fundamental by secular liberals is in fact foreign to Judaism. With so much of the Hebrew Bible interpreted over the centuries as allegory or metaphor, Judaism has never seen science as a threat.
The 12th-century Jewish sage Maimonides was the great exemplar of the belief that science and religion were complementary. He wrote that conflict between science and the Bible arose from either a lack of scientific knowledge or a defective understanding of the Bible.
Without the Hebrew Bible, there would have been no Western rationality or principles such as justice or compassion. But secularism holds that the rule of reason divorced from biblical religion would banish bad things like prejudice or war from the world and the human heart.
Impossible utopianism like this invariably results in oppression. So it proved with medieval apocalyptic Christianity, the French Revolution, communism and fascism; and so it is proving today with the cultural totalitarianism of the left.
Like all utopians, the left believe their ideas are unchallengeable because they supposedly stand for virtue itself. All who oppose them are therefore not just wrong but evil. So heretics like Gelernter must be stamped out because no quarter can ever be given to any challenge to secularism.
What secular liberals don’t understand is that in attacking the Jewish concepts at the core of the Christian West, they are not merely repudiating their own supposed ideals of tolerance and rationality, but are sawing off the branch on which they themselves are sitting.
The Rational Bible: Genesis
The Rational Bible: Exodus
(both by Dennis Prager)
SEE ALSO: Dangerous descent- How Darwinian thought seeped into every cultural crevice, and what we can do to counter it today
I think math and science clash here. Math would prove that Darwin does not explain evolution. The survival of the fittest is true. But the speed of DNA change cannot explain evolution. Change is too slow and random for it to explain the speedy change in species.
Genesis could have happened. Just not here on earth.
A treatment of the topic by Rabbi Akiva Tatz, a popular traditional Jewish teacher:
https://torahdownloads.com/player.html?ShiurID=1017709
It's true because it's nothing more than a tautology. "Only the fittest survive and we know that because those that survive must be the fittest because they survived."
“The survival of the fittest is true”
It’s true because it’s nothing more than a tautology. “Only the fittest survive and we know that because those that survive must be the fittest because they survived.”
Yes, but I am trying to say that The survival of the fittest, does not explain evolution. It explains some small changes and extinctions. But going from a single cell to a man or dog is totally out of the question. Survival of the fittest has nothing to do with that. Random changes in DNA cannot explain hand eye coordination. It can explain good hand eye coordination over bad hand eye coordination. But we still have lots of uncoordinated people out there.
I have so many questions about “evolution”.
No, I am not a “creationist”, per se. I think I’m more along the ID path.
God COULD create things in 6 seconds, but I think the Genesis is mostly an allegory. (God would know that a “day” is relative to the Earth, and there are just so many other planets with different “days”.)
Not sure why, but I think He had a big hand in setting things in motion but sometimes tinkering.
Please explain how species gain another or lose another chromosome to become a different species. Such is not what basic biology taught us. And I think that may lie in the discussion of probability also - defectives occuring, AND being “superior” that they could mate and ultimately dominate those with “correct” chromosomes, etc.
Many, many questions.
“Christianity remains at the core of contemporary Western thinking even among those who disdain it”
PRECISELY.
Ask Antifa fools and so many libs why they think “everyone is equal” and “should be treated with respect” - and ask them if those diverse people they love (and actually think are superior, not equal) in Indonesia or India or Congo or Iraq think so.
“But secularism holds that the rule of reason divorced from biblical religion would banish bad things like prejudice or war from the world and the human heart.”
LOL yes, anytime some atheist claims they are better because “religion” has resulted in so much murder and mayhem, just answer them “ah yes, because atheistic communists have never murdered anyone for their cause”.
I know what you are trying to say but survival of the fittest “explains nothing”. It just says we define “fittest” as those that survive.
Precisely. Look to Islam, Confucianism, Paganism, or Hinduism, if you wish to see religion that restricted science.
Agree on Islam! Particularly the later versions!
Hard pressed to come up with examples for these
Confucianism, Paganism, or Hinduism
Western Science as we define it started with the Greek philosophers. Now they preferred everything to be theoretical, gave Archimedes trouble over his “solids”.
Our number system is Hindu in origin. Defining and giving a symbol for zero is an important contribution. Arabs copied it and brought it into the Mediterranean. Fibonacci discovered it, copied it, used it, essentially founded modern bookkeeping. But that’s about it, I need to read more about them.
What most people do not realize is that Albert Einstein, arguably the greatest scientific mind in human history, actually makes the strongest case for the existence of God through his Theory of Relativity. The fact that space, time and matter must coexist because without any one of the three, the other two cannot exist, actually forms the basis for the premise that a force that is spaceless, timeless and immaterial must have pre-existed the creation (uh oh, there’s that word!) of space, time and matter. Given that all three must coexist, they must all have come into existence at the same instant. Hence, we now have the Big Bang. It just so happens that the spaceless, timeless and immaterial force that lit the fuse happens to be a spaceless, timeless and immaterial being, namely God. There is no other
rational explanation. So God haters, deal with it!
The Chinese had developed most of the break-out technologies that Western Civ used to create the modern society with modern science. Paper, rudimentary printing, gunpowder, the compass, large, oceangoing ships. The west took off with those and created the renaissance and the age of discover.
Paganism - numerous examples where the universe is not run by order, but by magic day to day. Without widely based literacy, science, while having some rudimentary starts in Babylon and Egypt, just could not get going. Closest was the Greeks, but not real science, mostly speculation not backed by experiment.
Hinduism, again, lots of gods, little cause and effect and objective reality.
In Christianity, God does not lie or cheat.
Not very rigorous, I admit. My quick take.
Agree!
Last night, I reviewed many articles about Gelernter. I couldn’t find one that included his arguments against evolution. They just mentioned his opposition.
I was once in a discussion with an atheist liberal. I asked him why, if there is no God to set moral standards and moral law, and if every culture was equal, and if people should be free to do as they wanted, all statements that he had made; then why did he think murder was wrong.
Naturally, he just turned it back on me, if I didn't know what murder was there was no use arguing with me. And that was that. Fine people.
I see evolution as God making tweaks to his project.
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.