Readers, WHY are so many people suddenly waking up – seemingly all of a sudden – to what nonsense Darwinism is? We just want to know, that’s all.
Barbara Kay is a very intelligent senior journalist, a rarity in these times, and she understands this:
Darwinism’s puzzling Achilles’ heel is its utter failure to account for, alone amongst the species, humans’ large brains and capacity for both abstract thought and speech. Back when the world was young, I was taught that four visionaries’ theories shaped modernity: Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud and Albert Einstein. Of them, only Einstein’s could be subjected to scientific scrutiny. The rest remained hypotheses, resistant to such standard scientific tests as falsifiability, replicability and predictability, but so beautiful in their comprehensiveness that the intelligentsia accepted them for what they were not: settled science.
Time has proven unkind to Freud’s and Marx’s theories, but very kind to Darwinism. Why? Shhh. If you dare to ask, you invite ridicule. Because the minute one expresses doubt about Darwin’s basic premise that all life-forms, including humans, descend from a common ancestor through the simple processes of random, heritable variation and natural selection, one admits the possibility of a counter-theory — Intelligent Design — that is considered anathema to the intelligentsia, since it implies, you know, the G-word.
David Gelernter, a conservative Yale professor of computer science, is suffering extreme ridicule and worse from colleagues for having just published an article in the Claremont Review, “Giving up Darwin.” The title is misleading, because Gelernter does not reject Darwin completely. He says there is no doubt that Darwin “successfully explained the small adjustments by which an organism adapts to local circumstances” through fur density or beak shape or wing style changes. It’s the big thing Gelernter now believes Darwin got wrong: humans.Barbara Kay, “Barbara Kay: 160 years into Darwinism, there’s one mystery we still can’t explain” at National Post
But the Darwinians never set their sights so low as beak shape for long. They sought to explain morality, religion, heroism, art, and literature, etc. by the behavior of ants, wolves, and horses. Darwin himself knew that, if he couldn’t do that, his work was trivial. Well, could he?
Kay goes on to talk about the Cambrian explosion, anomalocaris, and Thomas Wolf’s The Kingdom of Speech and its fallout – without the least tendency to reassure us that Darwin’s flacks are on their way with patches and paste.
Maybe they are. But so what?
It’s as if she thinks we can be free to think again, to examine the evidence.
We must hope the Darwin mob loses its way when setting out to attack her. Maybe help them to lose it?
O’Leary for News: She is a fellow Canadian but I don’t really know her personally. I hope she will consider reading some of Suzan Mazur’s books because they are a good place to begin, especially The Altenberg 16: An exposé of the evolution industry (2010) and Royal Society: Public Evolution Summit and, of course, Darwin Overthrown: Hello Mechanobiology — a completely non-religious approach to the problems is a good place to begin.
Meanwhile, other engaged brains have been getting restless too. Why all of a sudden?:
At First Things, They Are Also Getting Over Darwinism
Another Think Tank Now Openly Questions Darwinism So Power Line is interviewing J. Scott Turner, author of Purpose and Desire: What Makes Something “Alive” and Why Modern Darwinism Has Failed to Explain It. He’s not an “ID guy” but that doesn’t matter. His book’s title tells you what you need to know. He understands that something is wrong. And his insights into insects’ hive mind are a piece in the puzzle.
Hoover Institution interview with David Berlinski
Mathematicians challenge Darwinian Evolution
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!