Giving Up Darwin's Brilliant and Beautiful Theory
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 лип 2024
- Five years ago, Yale University professor of computer science David Gelernter wrote that he was bidding farewell to neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory. Why would he take such a bold step? What convinced him that the neo-Darwinian paradigm no longer satisfied the scientific evidence? On this ID The Future, host Andrew McDiarmid marks the fifth anniversary of Gelernter's important essay by reading it aloud in full. If you’ve read the essay, this will likely be a good refresher on Gelernter’s arguments. If you haven’t read it yet, by all means enjoy!
Darwin's Doubt is an amazing book
If it is brilliant, then why don't they enlighten the scientific community about it, publish a paper explaining their findings in a relevant, PEER-REVIEWED scientific journal and change the world?
There is nothing brilliant and beautiful about Darwin's theory.
It sort of is, if you believe that cell is a homogeneous globule of protoplasm. So, brilliant and genious for dimwits
Exactly!
The Origin of Species definitely is brilliant, and beautiful in the sense of being elegant. It also is demonstrably true, in the case of micro-evolution. Right where I live we watched the population of fat, lazy, black and white pet store bunny rabbits people turned loose evolve into lean alert mottled brown "wild" rabbits. Lots of examples of that kind of micro-evolution, and Darwin was brilliant in explaining how that works.
Only problem, doesn't work to explain new species. Darwin didn't know about proteins, or any molecular biology. Didn't know they all have to be created at the same time, therefore impossible to evolve by small gradual changes.
In the end, Creationists and Christians should all embrace Darwin. Because Darwin, properly understood, shows the divine engineering prowess of God, creating life with micro-evolution designed in, to adapt to changing conditions.
Agreed! It's all a huge deception that thrives on literal ignorance of biological complexity.
Nobody needs an anti God apparatchik.
I'm really shocked that nowhere in Gelernter's essay is any mention made of the highly important work of Phillip E. Johnson! For example, his book Darwin on Trial is a classic and Johnson himself is a brilliant reasoner.
Excellent article. It's even better listening to it being read.
Just as biology has had its recent revolution, so modern geology needs the same. Heterogeneous sediment strata are created in flume studies via spontaneous particle sorting in flowing water. The strata match exactly what we see on the ground in the sedimentary layers. There is no known mechanism for the laying down of these layers over millions and millions of years. It makes no sense. The idea that source sediments were homogeneous for millions of years, then switched, then switched and so on is just an idea, and a bad one.
I'd think that if one started with a concept of the world as a recent creation, observations would be interpreted within that framework, as opposed to the fictional framework for Hutton and Lyle which was tendentiously designed to 'get rid of Moses'. This was a somewhat Gnostic misconstrual of the biblical data which failed to recognize the concrete historical realism that is inherent in scripture.
Great piece of writing but it clearly is not up to date on "junk DNA"
This paper assumes that protein coding regions are swimming in a sea of nonsense. This was the view for a long time in biology, known as 'junk dna'. However, this view has been shattered time and again with the discovery of many different functions of dna, not just protein coding. For a long time, biological insight was limited and many scientists assumed, based on evolutionary thinking, that the dna was junk of it didn't code for proteins. Once again, faulty paradigms lead to faulty conclusions.
As a result of these discoveries, mutation and natural selection is further reduced in its capacity to invent
That's right, and a great example showing why the theories we accept as true influence and limit scientific inquiry. Darwinists dismiss unexplained DNA as predicted junk, and are equally quick to dismiss contrary evidence of design. Creationists expect design and are skeptical of claims of junk. But look how much compelling evidence of design we have now, even in spite of this bias. The logical conclusion being we would have a whole lot more if more scientists were open to the idea of creation. They should be. After all, most of them do believe in God.
It would be interesting to hear a discussion of Coyne's article responding to Gelernter's article.
Great piece; thanks for sharing!
Thank you for your commitment to producing outstanding scientific work.
"Given enough time, everything will happen". Is that true? Our universe tends to repeat things over and over for eternity. Why would they suddenly mutate without an outside cause? (From elements to living cells). Also, if The Creator is perfect then His creations will be perfect unless He put what we think are flaws into His creation for some reason we do not understand. If the creator made any mistakes in creation would he be any less our creator? But I think He never makes mistakes.
If something is natural, it will happen again...
All the "flaws" we see are either from lack of insight or as a consequence of the original sin
Goodbye and good riddance darwin. Hello intelligence!
Im sorry this has happened to you, I hope in time you can see that science is real and return to reality
@@Scara-is-the-only-way Science is a process by which we discover new information. The new information that has been uncovered in recent years has only shown Darwin's theory to be horribly lacking, full of unanswerable questions from a naturalist perspective.
We need to remember that Darwin was a student of Lyell and that Lyell had said that one of his objects was to discredit Moses. This sounds like they were attacking the first premise of Jewish and Christian theology.
It should be notes that the two creation reports in the first chapters of Genesis were published by 2 different authors. The first was "The Heavens and the Earth." The second was Adam. Adam wasn't around until the 6th day, so his account didn't report on the events of the first 5 and a half days.
Published? Both were "published" by Moses circa 1500 B.C. Maybe you mean that one was inspired and other was an oral tradition since Adam?
Thank you very much
👍
Amazin
The word theory is just a "posh" way, for the word idea.
Hypothesis is a posh word for an idea. Theory is an idea tested and proven to an extent.
So, you have no idea what a scientific theory is, and you don't realize that mountains of evidence support Darwin's theory as being fact.
Here's a question for intelligent design enthusiasts. All primate males, including human males, have mammary glands ond nipples. What is their function? Why do humans have bones in their ears that are the same as the bones in an alligators jaw? Why do all eukaryotes use the same method of reproductive recipe (DNA)? By the way, the similarity between human ear bones and reptilian jawbones was noted long before Darwin. It was just one of the many questions that were not answered, and which led people to think about what might have caused these things to happen.
Why are these questions for ID? They have to do the heavy lifting again?
Primate males, including human males, develop mammary glands and nipples because during embryonic development, only the XX chromosome is present in the first few weeks.
About the ear bones: First, the components of the middle ear (the bones, their muscles, and nerves as well as their genetic regulation) is an example of irreducible complexity. This means if a single bone is missing, then hearing is impossible. Irreducibly Complex systems are an example in favor of ID.
Secondly, although at first glance there may seem to be similarities between the ear bones of mammals and jaw bones of reptiles, upon closer inspection, the differences are vast, and any proposed evolutionary pathway between the two results only in a loss of hearing for both. This is an old, outdated argument and not a good one for evolutionists.
Matthew Cserhati, PhD in Biology, said the following: "The bones of the middle ear somehow had to appear on the other side of the eardrum if indeed reptiles evolved into mammals. These bones are regulated individually, so they do not necessarily move as a single unit. No theory exists as to how the regulation of the bones is rewired to transition from chewing to the transmission of sound to the inner ear. There is also no explanation as to how the musculature, innervation and the types of joints in these muscles also change between the reptile and the mammal stage. This is because the middle ear is an irreducibly complex designed system for transmitting sounds in mammals, whereas its function is entirely different in reptiles."
As for why eukaryotic cells use the same reproductive method? You say it's evidence of a common ancestor, I say it's evidence of a common designer.
Only, it makes more sense that it's a designer, since DNA is a functional, specifically organized informational code, and specified information such as DNA can only come from a mind. No natural process can create specified information such as that found in DNA. Therefore, it is more plausibly true that DNA comes from an intelligent designer.
There's nothing "beautiful" about Darwin’s theory, in fact the false notion that animals and human beings had a common ancestor is in fact, blasphemy against the Image of God, because human beings were created according to His Image and He did not design animals in that way.
**
Sorry your ego can't handle the fact that you are just another animal and that the Bible is a pack of lies meant to massage your ego.
To everyone that might think a flawed creation is a good argument against intelligent design I ask you to tell me one device that humans have created that has an efficiency of 100% (being flawless ) , flaws in a device can't disprove that something was indeed created by intelligence
Humans are flawed and make mistakes. Everyone agrees on that. But how can a supposedly perfect supreme being make mistakes? Any "God" that would create evil and allow it to flourish is not only NOT perfect, He's a jerk and deserves nothing resembling worship.
This discussion appears still to endorse evolution. If it cannot work, what is the point? If there is no creator, you are back to randomness; if there is a creator, why would he (the creator) bother with slow and cumbersome evolution?
I always found Darwin’s theory a very ugly idea especially telling humans they come from apes. Nice way to dehumanise humanity made in the image of God.
This is the heart of the matter. Your ego can't handle the fact that you are just another animal. There is nothing dehumanizing about facing the reality that we evolved from ape-like or chimp-like creatures. We have about 99% of the same DNA as chimpanzees. The idea can only be called "ugly" if you can't humble yourself and realize that you aren't special.
if intelligent design is true, then why are there so many examples of unintelligent design in nature?
@secretweapon8367 You were very vague in your assertion. Intelligent Design just states that things were developed by a directed process. Unintelligent Design would just state it’s a random process. It has nothing to do with it being a good or bad design (which you don’t get to decide anyway). So your logic is false!
So you claim. Funny how everything once thought to be an example of that turns out to be useful and quite clever. The classic example is the appendix. Clearly the designer of the universe is astronomical orders of magnitude greater intelligence than we are. So it seems only natural there will be elements of design we may not be intelligent enough to appreciate. At least, not yet. We keep learning and the more we learn the more we appreciate the awesomeness of the design.
Damned if we know. But is the option REALLY any more believable?
Such as?
I'd like to know more about those examples of unintelligent design.
Oh man, the logic here is so pathetic it’s laughable. Yet another lame attempt to discredit the theory of evolution. You guys sure are shameless!
You definitely nailed him there, criticising "the logic" of a 40 minute presentation. About as iron clad and thoughtful as all the arguments for evolution. Taking after your own professional dunces, they would be so proud of you my ape like friend.
So laugh is your only counter argument? That's reassuring
Bad argument! Explain.
Calling someone shameless is not an argument.
The math of protein folding… it would be truly shameful to hide it and say useful mutations are commonplace.
An ancient greek philosopher first proposed it. Darwin proposed nothing new and macroevolution still lacks any evidence.
Darwin gets too much credit from ID proponents. His musings were downright nefarious. He has done untold damage to the mankind.