Yale Computer Scientist David Gelernter Abandons Darwinism

breitbart ^ | 8/22/19 | Tom Ciccotta

[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.

[ebb tide]

Evolution theory does not claim to address the origin of life.

On the contrary, it does:

[bray]

Something with some evidence. Why do we need to believe in evolution?

[gnickgnack2]

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.

First I heard of that explanation/theory was earlier this month at Ark Encounter. It was a very interesting presentation with many exhibits comparing creation vs. evolution. Many of the Kinds shown were closer to dinosaurs than the animals we see today...veeerrry interesting.

[boatbums]

I dunno, maybe wherever the evidence leads? Scientists have hung onto Darwinism for years because, as Richard Lewontin said, “Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.”

And maybe because they know the only alternative is a Designer/Creator?

[boatbums]

[boatbums]

Galileo pretty much proved that the geocentric system was wrong.

Copernicus beat him to it.

The Bible beat them both:

In the heavens He has pitched a tent for the sun like a bridegroom emerging from his chamber, like a champion rejoicing to run his course. It rises at one end of the heavens and runs its circuit to the other; nothing is deprived of its warmth. (Psalm 19:4-6)

The sun goes in a circuit (Psalm 19:6). Some scientists scoffed at this verse thinking that it taught geocentricity – the theory that the sun revolves around the earth. They insisted the sun was stationary. However, we now know that the sun is traveling through space at approximately 600,000 miles per hour. It is literally moving through space in a huge circuit – just as the Bible stated 3,000 years ago! http://www.eternal-productions.org/101science.html

[RoosterRedux]

[Jan_Sobieski]

Ah, yes it is

[TexasGator]

“Who’s got no biology training?”

David

[TexasGator]

“There’s no way any FR folk believe in evolution. “

There are a lot.

[TexasGator]

“Thought and practice are not the same, but you know that.”

Perhaps David should not practice his thoughts.

[Bulwyf]

Evolution takes more faith to believe than believing the Bible. Good to know there’s lots of faithful people here, it would be great though if they directed that faith at Jesus, the Son of God.

When I get home today, I’ll link a decent article I found.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Autos and trucks did not evolve by myriads of random mutations. If they did, you could get yourself a nicer pickup by shooting the one you've got repeatedly with the constitutional firearms of your choice. Through automotive history, autos and truck have been modified intentionally by agents who have thought about it. They are products of intelligent design.

"Intelligent." Uhh---

[Manly Warrior]

So, are you saying the biologist and the thoracic surgeon are on the same level? Of course, one would not dictate procedure to a surgeon, but then again, one CAN study procedure or practice and comment on it. Just don’t try it on your father-in-law who needs a stint or bypass. Indeed, as an engineer I too worked on a facility while it was in full operation ( bridges etc)... Does that make my profession equal to that of a surgeon operating on a living human?

Biology, archeology, geology, etc, all are indoctrinated to Darwinism and the eons of time it would have to require in order to be remotely plausible. On the other hand, a chest surgeon is literally operating in the here and now. Big difference, as it does not matter what philosophy the doctor adheres to personally, as long as he performs the procedure properly, fixing the patients problem (or attempting to anyhow). He has no narrative to follow, just practical medical science. Sure, biology at the organism level is applied ( in the background), but it matters not whether the surgeon believes we morphed from a monkey or were created by the hand and breath of God.

A biologist that assumes God created per the Biblical account likely will find a new career rather than live in the paradigm of the institutionalized religion of ‘”the theory” of evolution”’, else become an apologist.

[adorno]

Autos and trucks did not evolve by myriads of random mutations.

You're seconding the point I was making, The auto and truck industries did not evolve. They were intelligently 'evolved' by human. Just like humans and all life forms were intelligently 'evolved'. One cannot argue that there is 'shared' DNA in all life forms, but that it all happened as described in Darwin's "science" of evolution, is not proven nor can it be proven. There is no progression in life forms; only observed similarities which seem to suggest progression. But, it's a smartly designed progression, where there are no DNA progressions from one species to the next 'higher' species in that 'apparent progression'.

[Mrs. Don-o]

That’s right. Good point, and very much borne out in the fossil record.

[DungeonMaster]

Evolution still can’t be modeled. The so called theory is a bunch of anecdotes.

[TexasGator]

“So, are you saying the biologist and the thoracic surgeon are on the same level? Of course, one would not dictate procedure to a surgeon, but then again, one CAN study procedure or practice and comment on it. “

No. ...and the dear author has not studied microbiology. He is just parroting the words he was paid to write.

[TexasGator]

LOL! Every day we see doctors promote quackery.

[TexasGator]

“Evolution takes more faith to believe than believing the Bible”

Which Bible?