Their unreflective belligerence advertises all the other problems.
MercatorNet has reprinted leading Canadian columnist Barbara Kay’s column on David Gelernter’s rejection of Darwinism (as understood by hordes of trolls):
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.
There are intractable problems with Darwin’s “beautiful” theory.
Barbara Kay, “Daring to question Darwin ” at MercatorNet
As our title implies, the biggest problem now is the difficulty of discussing the problems honestly. Everyone expects that the Darwinator will bang the gavel down hard and make some pronouncement that “solves” them. Trolls love that kind of thing. They can emote and call it thinking.
The fact that nothing can refute Darwinism—because it is implicit in so many people’s basic assumptions about life—should tell us what we need to know.
Note: It sounds as though Kay has discovered Trollus darwiniensis, the Darwin troll. This type are mainly dangerous to those in academic life. But they are deadly serious, with good reason, for the same reasons as other cult members are.
See also: Maybe the best defence of Darwinism is now ignorance of the problems. They said things like, “I don’t need to read this to know it’s ignorant.” Which is a fine way to expose their own ignorance: They had no idea what they were talking about, and acted proud of it!
But WHY are they abandoning Darwinism? And note, these are NOT the raging Woke who would pull down Darwin’s statue because he is dead, white, and male. These are thoughtful people. They can see that he might be reasonable but wrong.
Meanwhile, other engaged brains have been getting restless too:
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!