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.
Must be great news for people who don’t understand Darwinism, or who look to Yale computer geeks for life philosophy.
He’s not a biologist, so who cares.
God gave him a second chance.
He was one of the victims of the Unabomber who survived...
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.
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.
Darwinism was thoroughly discredited decades ago...
Ping For Later
Actually Darwin's explanation is random heritable variation and natural selection. He does not assume all life-forms descend from a common ancestor. We don't even know what that means. Given how early in the earth's geological record single cell life forms exist, it appears that life arose as soon as conditions on earth were not totally inhospitable to life (e.g. too hot to sustain the necessary chemical reactions inherent in carbon based life-forms). If life is so robust, then there is no need to assume a common ancestor. In fact, eukaryotic cells are evidently the combination of two different earlier life forms.
But this is typical. The first thing to do when denouncing a scientist is to slander him with words he never uttered.
There’s no such thing as Darwin. All I see is someone who looks like Santa’s POed cousin.
IIRC even Darwin himself first said that evolution cannot explain one species changing into another.
Evolution does occur on a local level - aka adaptation. Breeding is a form of forced evolution as well. Can’t explain how a reptile turned into a bird or a mammal, or how a monkey became a man, though. That God created the basic animals and us and turned us all loose to breed and adapt makes a whole lot more sense.
He saw the light...nice...
Occam’s razor: God did it.
Evolution still can’t be modeled. The so called theory is a bunch of anecdotes.