Culture Darwinism Intelligent Design

One of the biggest problems with Darwin’s theory may now be his supporters

Spread the love

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!

7 Replies to “One of the biggest problems with Darwin’s theory may now be his supporters

  1. 1
    MatSpirit says:

    News: 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.” 

    Could you give us some examples of this “extreme ridicule and worse” Professor Gelernter is receiving? I just Googled his name and it’s 99% fawning praise from the usual ID suspects.

  2. 2
    BobRyan says:

    The biggest problem with Darwin’s Theory was Darwin. This was a man that could not comprehend even basic algebra. Without a tutor, Darwin flunks out of school. That’s how bad he was at actually processing information.

    The following sums up Darwin:

    He was at the Galapagos Islands and on one he witnesses a finch with its beak pressed against the belly of a booby. For those that don’t know, booby is the name of a bird. Darwin believed that the finch was drinking milk from the booby and must have been hatched from a booby egg. Had Darwin not been busy patting himself on the back for his evidence of macro-evolution, he may have decided to take a closer look. The finch did not come from the egg of a booby, but was a Vampire Finch and was drinking the blood of the booby.

    Why did he believe the finch was born of the booby? For only one reason. He believed that’s how macro-evolution worked.

    It’s no wonder Darwinists avoid researching Darwin. He could spin tales and write fiction, but a genius he was not. He was the L. Ron Hubbard of his day.

  3. 3
    Mimus says:

    He was at the Galapagos Islands and on one he witnesses a finch with its beak pressed against the belly of a booby. For those that don’t know, booby is the name of a bird. Darwin believed that the finch was drinking milk from the booby and must have been hatched from a booby egg.

    Did you make this up yourself? Or has someone else come up with this idea?

  4. 4
    Seversky says:

    ID proponents seem to be unable to grasp that attacking Darwin in biology is like attacking Newton in physics. It may be a useful propaganda ploy but it’s old news. Darwin got some things wrong, he knew nothing about genetics, for example, but his seminal contribution to the science is unassailable.

  5. 5
    ET says:

    seversky is still confused. Darwinian evolution is evolution by means of blind and mindless processes. It is what the current evolutionary entails. Darwin’s seminal contribution has been found wanting. It remains untestable nonsense

  6. 6
    Mimus says:

    Seversky,

    I agree that what Darwin may or may not have said isn’t very relevant to whether modern evolutionary biology is correct or a powerful framework for doing science. But this is an even stranger case. The story BobRyan provided is simply untrue. I’m really curious to know if he made ti up on the spot or if this fantasy is circulating among other anti-evolutionists.

  7. 7
    MatSpirit says:

    I’m still looking for some examples of this “extreme ridicule and worse”. Anybody got any? Use Google if you want to.

    I’m not calling anybody a liar here, I just want to see some examples. I hear about this sort of thing all the time, so it shouldn’t be that hard.

Leave a Reply