Darwinism is “full of holes” and obsolete as a scientific theory, declares Yale professor By Ethan Huff for News Target
A growing number of scientists are abandoning the evolutionary theory once proposed by Charles Darwin, as it simply does not hold up to scientific scrutiny.
One of these Darwin dissenters is David Gelernter, a well-known writer and professor at Yale University who has publicly announced that he is now done with Darwin’s theory because it has too many “holes,” and is painfully outdated.
On the other hand, “intelligent design,” as it is often called, should not be dismissed, according to Gelernter, because it is a “serious” theory backed by evidence that, in many cases, is far more compelling than anything Darwin and his acolytes have ever presented.
Now is your chance to support Gospel News Network.
We love helping others and believe that’s one of the reasons we are chosen as Ambassadors of the Kingdom, to serve God’s children. We look to the Greatest Commandment as our Powering force.
In Gelernter’s view, it is a real shame that “free speech” about opposing theories like this are often squelched through scientific consensus to Darwinism, which he says has become its own “religion” to many of the academics who adhere to it.
Writing in an essay that he entitled, “Giving Up Darwin,” Gelernter notes that one of the foundational tenets of Darwin’s theory of evolution, the idea that a given life form has the ability to evolve into a completely different life form, has basically never been adequately demonstrated using the scientific method.
“Darwin’s theory predicts that new life forms evolve gradually from old ones in a constantly branching, spreading tree of life,” Gelernter explains in his essay.
“Those brave new Cambrian creatures must therefore have had Precambrian predecessors, similar but not quite as fancy and sophisticated,” he adds. “They could not have all blown out suddenly, like a bunch of geysers. Each must have had a closely related predecessor, which must have had its own predecessors.”
For more about how the scientific establishment rejects opposing theories to Darwinism not as a matter of science, but as a perpetuation of the “religion” of evolution, be sure to check out ScienceTyranny.com.
The fact that it is virtually impossible to create a functional stable protein proves that Darwin’s theory of evolution is a lie
Gelernter also points out in his paper that it remains a “near impossibility” to create a functional stable protein, which means it is even more impossible for one to just pop up randomly in nature as Darwin’s theory of evolution would require. This alone, it would seem, disproves Darwinism largely on its own, further illustrating the religious nature of believing in evolution, which in many ways has already been thoroughly disproven.
“Immense is so big, and tiny is so small, that neo-Darwinian evolution is – so far – a dead loss,” Gelernter explains.
“Try to mutate your way from 150 links of gibberish to a working, useful protein and you are guaranteed to fail,” he goes on to explain. “Try it with ten mutations, a thousand, a million – you fail. The odds bury you. It can’t be done.”
Stopping short of actually subscribing to the intelligent design theory, or the idea that an intelligent God created all things, Gelernter does admit that it remains an “absolutely serious argument,” and one that serious, honest scientists would do well to consider as they aim to hone in on the origin of all things.
However, many establishment scientists patently reject it, and are more than willing to “destroy” anyone who dares to even propose it as a possibility – their closed minds and willful blindness on the subject impairing their ability to engage in any type of critical thinking on the subject.
“What I’ve seen, in their behavior intellectually and at colleges across the West, is nothing approaching free speech on this topic,” Gerlernter says.
“It’s a bitter rejection, not just – a sort of bitter, fundamental, angry, outraged, violent rejection, which comes nowhere near scientific or intellectual discussion. I’ve seen that happen again and again. ‘I’m a Darwinist, don’t you say a word against it, or, I don’t wanna hear it, period.”
