academic freedom Culture Darwinism Intellectual freedom Intelligent Design

David Gelernter warns against Darwin mob

Spread the love

And he’s a Unabomber survivor. Here:

At The College Fix, editor Jennifer Kabbany takes note of Yale polymath David Gelernter’s interview with Peter Robinson, in which Stephen Meyer and David Berlinski also participated. The conversation followed Gelernter’s public admission of having rejected Darwinian theory. Kabbany highlights what Gelernter had to say about academic freedom. Good. College students need to understand this.

From “Famed Yale computer science professor quits believing Darwin’s theories”:

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.”

David Klinghoffer, “Yale’s Gelernter: To Challenge Darwinism Is to “Take Your Life in Your Hands”” at Evolution News and Science Today

” You take your life in your hands”? Okay, then they leave us with few options but getting tougher with nonsense.  We’ll take the Darwinbird of pop science hostage!

See also: The College Fix LISTENS TO David Gelernter on Darwin! It’s almost as though people are “getting it” that Darwinism now functions as an intolerant secular religion. Evolution rolls on oblivious but here and there heads are getting cracked, so to speak, over the differences between what really happens and what Darwinians insist must happen.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

15 Replies to “David Gelernter warns against Darwin mob

  1. 1
    Brother Brian says:

    Scientists frequently question our current view of evolution. They are listened to and published. If the ID researchers would submit their papers for review and publication, they would be accepted as long as the design of the research is sound, the data is robust and the conclusions support the data. But all I hear from them is that they don’t submit their research because it would be rejected. It’s easier to play the victim that to risk criticism of their work.

  2. 2
    PaV says:

    BB:

    What part of, “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” don’t you understand?

  3. 3
    Brother Brian says:

    PaV, I understand it. I just don’t believe it. Researchers are constantly questioning our understanding of evolution. And they still have careers.

  4. 4
    ET says:

    No one is doing any research under the blind watchmaker thesis. No one is doing any research that supports the blind watchmaker thesis. The only reason it survives is because of left-wing academia. They get to say that nature invented eyes, without any evidence, because their colleagues already believe the nonsense.

    Then clowns like Richard Dawkins misrepresent reality by saying 51% of an eye is better than 50%. He is dishonest because he is referring to the efficiency of a complete vision system when the question pertains vison systems that are only 50-51% complete. It takes 100% before you an gauge and tweak efficiency. Yet no one on the left seems to bring that up.

    An ideological bent academia is a blight on us all and it is what we have

  5. 5
    EDTA says:

    BB @ 1,

    That is the standard talking point when someone from the dominant paradigm wants to explain why those from a non-dominant paradigm don’t get things published. But it has been documented here and elsewhere for too long now, that science doesn’t actually work in the ideal manner. Those with the money decide what research can get done and therefore what gets published.

    It’s fallacious to argue that just because something is not publishable, that it is therefore false. Those who argue that way seem to think science still operates in an idealistic mode, rather than in the highly politicized mode it actually works in.

  6. 6

    .
    The empirical facts that support the design inference are not even in question. They are already well-documented in the literature (written by secular scientists of significant reputation) and have been there for over half a century. The presence and quality of those facts have absolutely no impact whatsoever on the ideologues that dominate and police the science culture. People who huff and puff about ID publications are little more than rhetorical opportunists; they do what they do because they have absolutely nothing but their beliefs to counter against the actual science. This is a complete embarrassment to the genuine practice of science and reason, of course, and thus it is no wonder that the situation must be protected at all times.

  7. 7
    es58 says:

    ET @4:
    They get to say that nature invented eyes, 45 TIMES, without any evidence…

    fixed that for you

  8. 8
    ET says:

    Well 45 makes moar sense. If there was only one way to make eyes nature could never do it. 🙄

    But give nature 100 ways and it will find 45 of them, by golly, yessiree.

  9. 9
    Bob O'H says:

    EDTA @ 5 –

    Those with the money decide what research can get done and therefore what gets published.

    Correct. And the Discovery Institute is funding ID research, through the Biologic Institute. It seems to have at least 5 staff members, but their output is minimal, especially as so many are senior: from the start of 2018 they have a total of 5 articles listed on Google Scholar (found by searching for “Biologic Institute”, and then manually checking the results). I’ve published more than that myself in the same time (and I bet the Biologic Institute fellows don’t have to do a semester of teaching as well!).

  10. 10
    BobRyan says:

    I’ve been reading Uncommon Descent and finally decided to join up. This is as good a place as any for my first post. To the Darwinists, you haven’t been in the realm of science. No theory is fact. Science is based on what is seen, not what you want to see. There is no evidence to support your emotional attachment to evolution. Darwin had the mind for fiction writing, not science. If he had a scientific mind, he would not have almost flunked out of school due to struggling with something as basic as algebra. There is not one complete fossil record and none that even come close. There are no mutations in the fossil records, not one. Not a single positive mutation has ever been witnesses, yet Darwinists jump up and down and say they must. Macro-evolution has never been witnessed, not once. There is the belief that a mechanism must exist somewhere, because you want it to exist and nothing else matters except your own desire to be right. Where, precisely, is that mechanism and how does it work? You can’t answer it, because there is no evidence to support your dogmatic belief in Darwin.

  11. 11
    BobRyan says:

    If there’s no Darwinian mob and researchers have nothing to fear, I propose an experiment for the Darwinists. For 1 month tell your colleagues you have doubts about Darwin and see how they react. You’ll find out exactly what that Darwinian mob is all about.

  12. 12
    ET says:

    Bob O’H:

    And the Discovery Institute is funding ID research, through the Biologic Institute.

    I bet they are funding SCIENTIFIC research.

    I’ve published more than that myself in the same time (and I bet the Biologic Institute fellows don’t have to do a semester of teaching as well!).

    What have you published Bob? You definitely didn’t publish anything that supports materialism. So why the cowardly equivocation?

  13. 13
    EricMH says:

    @BB
    > And they still have careers.

    Well, the more they question the more they come to an edge. Eugene Koonin’s research supports ID so to fend off the mob he promotes the multiverse. However, even he gets cautioned that he is opening the door to ID. When atheist and materialist Nagel questioned evolution he received plenty of condemnation. So, there is certainly a bullying culture of fear surrounding evolution.

    As it is, ID proponents are still getting expelled, one more has been expelled in the past month or so.

  14. 14
    EricMH says:

    > Those with the money decide what research can get done and therefore what gets published.

    Very much this. I’ve experienced this phenomenon myself, where if the work is outside of the journals’ very small niches and questions the mainstream, there is no place for it.

    That’s partly why Johnnyb and I started CBI:

    https://journals.blythinstitute.org/ojs/index.php/cbi

  15. 15
    BobRyan says:

    EricMH @ 13

    The reason is blind fanaticism. Darwin is a cult and no one can challenge the group think of the cult. They are not in the field of education to educate, but to indoctrinate.

Leave a Reply