Posted on 08/02/2019 7:49:16 PM PDT by robowombat
Famed Yale computer science professor quits believing Darwin’s theories JENNIFER KABBANY - FIX EDITOR •JULY 30, 2019
‘The origin of species is exactly what Darwin cannot explain’
David Gelernter, a famed Yale University professor, has publicly renounced his belief in Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, calling it a “beautiful idea” that has been effectively disproven.
Gelernter, who is known for predicting the World Wide Web and has developed many complex computing tools over the years, is today a professor of computer science at Yale, chief scientist at Mirror Worlds Technologies, member of the National Council of the Arts, and a prolific author.
In May, the Claremont Review of Books published a column by Gelernter headlined “Giving Up Darwin.” In it, he explained how his readings and discussions of Darwinian evolution and its competing theories, namely intelligent design, have convinced him Darwin had it wrong.
In particular, he cited Stephen Meyer’s 2013 book Darwin’s Doubt as well as The Deniable Darwin by David Berlinski. The professor expanded on his views in an interview with Stanford University’s Hoover Institution that was published last week.
Gelernter stops short of fully embracing intelligent design, both in his essay and during his interview. He said in his interview he sees intelligence in Earth’s design, and has no quarrel with ID proponents, but notes the world is a mess, its suffering far outweighs its goodness.
“My argument is with people who dismiss intelligent design without considering, it seems to me — it’s widely dismissed in my world of academia as some sort of theological put up job — it’s an absolutely serious scientific argument,” Gelernter said during his interview. “In fact it’s the first and most obvious and intuitive one that comes to mind. It’s got to be dealt with intellectually.”
Gelernter conducted his interview alongside Meyer and Berlinski, and the three weighed in on the problems facing Darwinian and neo-Darwinian evolution.
Gelernter said an ideological bent has taken over the field of science. There are good scientists doing good work, “but we have a cautionary tale in what happened to our English departments and our history departments could happen to us, God forbid,” he said.
Gelernter said he likes many of his colleagues at Yale, that they are his friends, but when he looks at “their intellectual behavior, what they have published — and much more importantly what they tell their students — Darwinism has indeed passed beyond a scientific argument as far as they are concerned. You take your life in your hands to challenge it intellectually. They will destroy you if you challenge it.”
“Now, I haven’t been destroyed, I am not a biologist, and I don’t claim to be an authority on this topic,” Gelernter added, “but what I have seen in their behavior intellectually and at colleges across the West is nothing approaching free speech on this topic. It’s a bitter, fundamental, angry, outraged rejection [of intelligent design], which comes nowhere near scientific or intellectual discussion. I’ve seen that happen again and again.”
Gelernter acknowledges “I am attacking their religion and I don’t blame them for being all head up, it is a big issue for them.”
How does the field of biology get over Darwin? Gelernter said the outlook is bleak.
“Religion is imparted, more than anything else, by the parents to the children,” he said. “And young people are brought up as little Darwinists. Kids I see running around New Haven are all Darwinists. … The students in my class, they’re all Darwinsts. I am not hopeful.”
But in his piece for Claremont Review, Gelernter pointed out that “this is one of the most important intellectual issues of modern times, and every thinking person has the right and duty to judge for himself.”
“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,” the professor wrote. “Yet there are many reasons to doubt whether he can answer the hard questions and explain the big picture — not the fine-tuning of existing species but the emergence of new ones. The origin of species is exactly what Darwin cannot explain.”
In his piece, Gelernter cited the Cambrian explosion as one insurmountable problem facing Darwinism. That’s because the fossil record shows “a striking variety of new organisms — including the first-ever animals — pop up suddenly in the fossil record over a mere 70-odd million years.” This directly contradicts the expectation by Darwin that “new life forms evolve gradually from old ones in a constantly branching, spreading tree of life.”
What’s more, Gelernter adds Darwin’s main problem is molecular biology, pointing out advances in technology have brought forth vast amounts of new information and understanding about the complexity of life, all of which has shown random mutation plus natural selection cannot generate new and complex creatures.
By the numbers, it’s impossible, the computer scientist points out.
He gives an anecdote on how hard it would be to create just one new protein by chance — the odds are so astronomical that there are fewer atoms in the entire universe in comparison: “The odds bury you. It can’t be done.”
Underscoring all that, the professor notes there are no examples in scientific literature showing that “mutations that affect early development and the body plan as a whole and are not fatal.”
In other words, the idea that random chance and mutations are the driving force behind the vast complexity of life — even with billions of years of time — is not just scientifically improbable, it’s an impossibility, the scholar argues in his piece.
“Darwin would easily have understood that minor mutations are common but can’t create significant evolutionary change; major mutations are rare and fatal,” Gelernter wrote. “It can hardly be surprising that the revolution in biological knowledge over the last half-century should call for a new understanding of the origin of species.”
Whether biology will rise to the challenge, and develop a better theory, remains to be seen, the professor concludes.
“How cleanly and quickly can the field get over Darwin, and move on?—with due allowance for every Darwinist’s having to study all the evidence for himself? There is one of most important questions facing science in the 21st century.”
I am not a cancer scientist - I simple ask. Is cancer an error or an invasion? Each cell must be replaced approx. every seven years - perhaps an error in copying? I’m just asking . . .
There are a number of gradual demonstrations of species evolution. A classic example shown in a number of museums is the evolution of horses. Starting with the very small 5 toed creature of 20 or more million years ago to the very large one hoofed creature of today. There are lobe finned fish today which can crawl through the mud from one drying pool to another. There is also the DNA evidence which shows more distance from Gorilla to man, less from Chimp to man, and even less from Bonobo to man. The wall of skulls of the hominid line at the Smithsonian Inst. is a fascinating view of the gradual changes over 5 or 6 million years to modern man.
We now have ways of studying evolution using DNA as well as visual characteristics. For example, the redhead is more likely to have Neanderthal DNA than the blond. Unfortunately, we cannot study the DNA of very old fossils to see how new genes have mutated and thus there could be a gradual shift in DNA percentages until a quite new creature has appeared.
My son has a mutation that has affected his development. He has 6 wisdom teeth. When examined the university dental school head wanted to know if he had any Esquimo ancestry. My son is 1/32nd Cree Indian, so I suspect that gene came from the Canadian Indian source. I also did some research and found that some people have 8 wisdom teeth. This certainly affects the facial plan if not the whole body plan.
Are we pro evolution FReepers going to leave this impression unchallenged. I remember plenty of evolution discussions here with lots of pro evolution commenters.
Thanks glee'. Since evolution merely means change, it obviously happens and exists, following random genetic inheritance as well as a bit of recombination and a tinier bit of mutation. Darwinian natural selection is about as valid as a comic book though, even as restated (both ways) in the 20th century and is outmoded and invalid. Regardless, I find that discussing it around here (or much of anywhere online) is utterly futile.
Given the evidence today, I would say ill-informed.
People are vain in their beliefs, because they don’t want to believe the truth. I don’t know why, but people love to run from God.
“My son has a mutation that has affected his development. He has 6 wisdom teeth.”
Yeah. Something along these lines. Good response.
Whether this is something that affects “whole body plan” or much of anything for that matter, could be argued between the two sides til the cows cone home. That’s the problem with this topic.
About this extra wisdom tooth, is it and actual characterized mutation? Or is it a trait that shows up within related groups so it’s clearly a mutation of some sort, but not identified molecularly?
So if you agree that creation can be reduced to coding and if the code is shown to be self modifying through mutations and natural selection there is no need for a supernatural coder.
I can understand God punishing Man with death for “sinning” by why bacteria or plants or animals. Are they sinners to? Universal death of all living things is only necessary for natural selection to achieve greater complexity but is unnecessary to divine creation where it is explained as punishment for the “sin” of self awareness.
If the code can be shown to self modify over time based on the principles of physical molecules why do you still need to propose a supernatural cause?
I agree that the laws of chemistry and thermodynamics would constrain replicating chemistry to certain reactions that only take place at certain energies based on the physics of molecules. But there are many exogenous events that could accelerate or retard the process of natural selection (like meteor strikes, planetary orbital changes, gravitational and electromagnetic fields, and other differences that could vastly change the trajectory of living systems over time.
I don’t dispute that the Bible says this is what happened but it kind of undermines the Western notion of the supremacy of inalienable rights of the individual. Maybe sacrificing individual rights for the survival of the greater society (like they do in Eastern cultures) is more in keeping with the Biblical notion.
“If the code can be shown to self modify over time based on the principles of physical molecules why do you still need to propose a supernatural cause?”
Very good rhetorical question.
I think the crux comes down to “supernatural”.
What’s supernatural?
Also what is meant by “self-modify”? As opposed to simply modify.
I am not sure, but I think ID proponents claim they are not necessarily advocating supernatural cause - only that there seems to be intelligence that is not explained by Darwinian evolution.
A term like self-modify would indicate a self and therefore an intelligence.
So, is there really a difference between IDism and Darwinism?
I’m not so sure.
Bookmark
Pretty lame.
Why do you bother to post at FR?
ML/NJ
“Pretty lame.
Why do you bother to post at FR?”
Lame is your belated post which no one but me will read!
“These myths pop up here every week or so.“
Like the myth that all those bikers in Waco were guilty. Remember that myth?
L
Apparently you have never seen programmers work. Copy-paste engineering is a real thing. No one is going to pay you to write a new thing from scratch when you can just slightly modify what is already there and working.
Besides, if there were truly random mutations, it should produce more variation, not less. You can’t claim random mutation produces macro scale changes but not micro scale changes when the mutations are fundamentally working at the micro scale. Unless the biochemistry just doesn’t work otherwise — in which case you can’t draw any conclusions either way. I would love to see if that topic has actually been researched as opposed to the usual handwaving.
And producing a functioning ecosystem and programming DNA is so laughably beyond anything we are capable of doing that passing a moral judgment on individual elements is done in absolute ignorance.
I don't agree with that …
if the code is shown to be self modifying through mutations and natural selection there is no need for a supernatural coder.
1) That's a big "if", which assumes facts not in evidence.
2) It's still a non-sequitur. The original code required a designer.
I can understand God punishing Man with death for “sinning” by why bacteria or plants or animals. Are they sinners to?
It is apparent to me, in my own personal interpretation of Scripture (Genesis in particular), that God created everything else for the benefit of Man, who was to have dominion over it. When Man sinned, not only did he damage his own nature, he damaged everything else as will.
you are on the wrong thread.
And you’re just wrong.
As usual.
L
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.