Posted on 08/25/2019 2:15:58 PM PDT by Roman_War_Criminal
Renowned Yale computer scientist David Gelernter claims that he is abandoning Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution.
Gelernter, who formerly served as a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, published a column earlier this year detailing his move away from evolutionary theory. The column, which was titled “Giving Up Darwin,” provides Gelernter’s arguments against Darwinism.
Darwin’s theory predicts that new life forms evolve gradually from old ones in a constantly branching, spreading tree of life. Those brave new Cambrian creatures must therefore have had Precambrian predecessors, similar but not quite as fancy and sophisticated. They could not have all blown out suddenly, like a bunch of geysers. Each must have had a closely related predecessor, which must have had its own predecessors: Darwinian evolution is gradual, step-by-step. All those predecessors must have come together, further back, into a series of branches leading down to the (long ago) trunk.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
That’s good he saw the light.
It doesn’t take much intelligence to figure out that evolution is not even remotely scientific.
*offering no comment ping*
His picture is at the site. what a mangy looking dude.
It is hard to continue to support a theory which has no evidence and lots against it.
You should talk to your local hospital’s infection control officer....
Must be great news for people who don’t understand Darwinism, or who look to Yale computer geeks for life philosophy.
What do you propose as an alternative to evolution?
He’s a brilliant man. (He lost his right hand to one of the Unibomber’s mailings.)
He’s not a biologist, so who cares.
Adaption. Where a stock creature does branch out from a set firm, but it doesn’t branch out so far that it becomes an unrelated creature.
What is a “set firm”?
Here is an essay, where he references among others the work of Stephen Meyer (whom Gelernter credits with ‘demolishing’ Darwinism):
https://www.claremont.org/crb/article/giving-up-darwin/
God gave him a second chance.
He was one of the victims of the Unabomber who survived...
Set form. Auto-correct.
Where our Creator created one kind of canine, which branched out into wolves or foxes or dogs. Or one kind of feline that eventually branched out into tigers, desert cats, that became our house cat, Panthers, Jaguars.
Etc.
Why DID Ted Kaczynski single out Gerlernter? I knew he was the one who opened a box and got his eye and hand blown away by an eco-terrorist, so many years ago. I never knew, and still don’t know, why.
He is brilliant, and a very interesting writer.
That would be me.
Evolving ampicillin resistance in E. coli is trivial, anyone can demonstrate it is a week or less.
Turning E. coli into an Actinomycete or a Rickettsia?
That cannot be done.
Haven’t read the article yet but...
I have always believed that evolution and natural selection are correct theories, but incomplete and apply to only a limited scope of biology, the remainder not yet explained. Think of Newton’s theories of physics. Correct within a limited scope (non-relativistic time and space; non quantum), but totally inadequate and WRONG when attempting to explain the latter realms. No idea what or who the “Einstein” of quantum evolution/creation will be, completing the picture, but I suspect God will be invoked in the explanation.
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.