Culture Darwinism Intelligent Design

The Manhattan Contrarian on David Gelernter abandoning Darwinism

Spread the love

What would an urban sophisticate make of doubts about Darwinism? Once the enforcement trolls have been banished below stairs, hasn’t Darwinism become something people patter at cocktail parties, so that others know that they are bicoastal and just deplore! their privilege? Instead of being genuine deplorables who might doubt?

No, but seriously, Darwinism today has no more to do with science than cocktail olives have to do with nutrition. Anyway, the Contrarian, as the name implies, says

But the problem is that the Darwinian hypothesis is not just that “evolution occurred,” but rather that there is a specific mechanism — known as “natural selection” — by which new species have emerged from old and have proliferated, by which single-celled bacteria have gradually evolved into fish and birds and humans. And unfortunately, the ongoing accumulation of evidence, both from the fossil record and from molecular biology, has not been kind to the hypothesized mechanism of natural selection. …

In other words, if you have come to believe that evolution according to the Darwinian hypothesis is firmly established in science, prepare to have your preconceptions shaken up. Live by the scientific method, die by the scientific method. Of course, just because Darwin’s hypothesized mechanism is falsified does not mean that Meyer’s alternative answer — “intelligent design” — must be accepted. As a non-scientific non-falsifiable hypothesis, “intelligent design” cannot be either proven or disproven. You can believe it or not, as you wish.

Is there another potential falsifiable hypothesis out there as to the mechanism by which all these species may have evolved from the bacteria? Not that I’m aware of. That does not mean that it won’t emerge, but a good century and a half after Darwin, there’s no sign of it.

Francis Menton, “David Gelernter Takes On Darwinism ” at Manhattan Contrarian

If Darwinism is not the answer, it is not the answer even if ID isn’t either. It can’t just stand in for an answer to keep ID off the table.

So far, it stays lively: One of the biggest problems with Darwin’s theory may now be his supporters Their unreflective belligerence advertises all the other problems. Barbara Kay talks about the fallout from David Gelernter’s coming to doubt Darwin.

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!

2 Replies to “The Manhattan Contrarian on David Gelernter abandoning Darwinism

  1. 1
    chris haynes says:

    Writing as a Creationist, I wish to point out that Francis Menton was wrong when he wrote “As a non-scientific non-falsifiable hypothesis, “intelligent design” cannot be either proven or disproven”.
    In fact ID, indeed Creationism, makes specific and important claims that are scientific and falsifiable, and I will give an example below.

    (First two notes: 1) My example is in the Origin of Life. As to whether ID makes falsifiable claims in other areas, such as cosmology and evolution, I don’t know). 2) Most Scientific hypotheses cannot be proven. An example is the conservation of energy. It has been demonstrated in countless cases, but it cant be proven to be true in all cases.)

    I will state my example in Creationist terminology, rather than that of ID advocates.
    It is the Creationists Law of Biogenesis:
    “Absent Divine Intervention, life comes only from life.”

    The Creationist Law is much more than any old scientific hypothesis. It is the Settled Science.

    It is settled Science because it meets the criteria for a settled scientific law:
    1) It is consistent with all credible empirical evidence.
    2) It can be falsified in principle (by making life out of chemicals in a lab) but has never been falsified in practice.

  2. 2
    Fasteddious says:

    Bad statement, “As a non-scientific non-falsifiable hypothesis, “intelligent design” cannot be either proven or disproven.” No scientific theory can be “proven”. If ID is non-science then so is Darwinism.
    ID is clearly falsifiable – Darwinists have been trying to falsify it for decades. ID would suffer a major blow if any of the following could be demonstrated:
    – physics/cosmology explains (credibly) how the fine tuning of the universe arose by natural means
    – biochemistry comes up with a credible, detailed mechanism for how life came from non-life on Earth (or elsewhere)
    – evolutionists present a credible, naturalistic explanation for the new body plans in the Cambrian explosion
    – evolutionists provide credible evidence of nature generating massive amounts of new bio-information
    – other ID staples to be explained: living fossils, evolutionary punctuations, ORFAN genes, add others…
    Clearly Francis Menton does not understand ID.

Leave a Reply