Researcher: “Evidence is converging towards picturing the Cambrian explosion as even swifter than what we thought,” says Aria. “Finding a fossil site like the Burgess Shale at the very beginning of the Cambrian would be like looking into the eye of the cyclone.”
The idea that natural selection acting on random mutation could fill the world with exquisitely complex life forms makes sense to fashionable intellectuals today and it doesn’t happen to be true.
For many intellectuals, it must seem like an agonizing, nasty divorce but Phillips would be well placed to take it in stride.
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?
Their unreflective belligerence advertises all the other problems. Barbara Kay talks about the fallout from David Gelernter’s coming to doubt Darwin.
… that Yale computer whiz David Gelernter has blown clear of Darwinism. But who made Darwinism the universities’ state religion anyway? Why is it even news?
Shallit: “Gelernter is not a biologist and (to the best of my knowledge) has no advanced formal training in biology.” We weren;t aware, at UD, that math prof Shallit had serious biology credentials either but perhaps one can dispense with them if one supports Darwinism.
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 over the differences between what really happens and what Darwinians insist must happen.
“Has Darwinism really failed? Peter Robinson discusses it with David Berlinski, David Gelernter, and Stephen Meyer, who have raised doubts about Darwin’s theory in their two books and essay, respectively The Deniable Darwin, Darwin’s Doubt, and “Giving Up Darwin” (published in the Claremont Review of Books). ” When this stuff is happening, Darwinism is on the outs culturally.
Gelernter is HOW likely to read Coyne’s diatribe and conclude he must be all wrong? But then Darwinians tend not to notice what others do. Presumably, it’s an adaptation.
Whether ID offers correct explanations is separate from the fact that Darwinism does not. Anyway, just think. Gelernter actually read the books, instead of merely opposing them. He goes on to develop his thinking in detail.