ESTEEMED YALE PROFESSOR REJECTS DARWINISM

Yale academic and professor, David Gelernter has openly rejected the theory of evolution, insisting that it contains many contradictions and flaws. He argues Intelligent Design is a serious theory.

Image source: YouTube/Hoover Institution

Professor Gelernter bravely stepped forward to take a shot at the popular theory and urged his fellow academics not to sweep over critical thought on the subject out of an anti-religious bias.

“Darwin’s theory predicts that new life forms evolve gradually from old ones in a constantly branching, spreading tree of life,” the professor explained in a paper titled, “Giving Up Darwin,” as cited by the Daily Wire.

“Those brave new Cambrian creatures must therefore have had Precambrian predecessors, similar but not quite as fancy and sophisticated. They could not have all blown out suddenly, like a bunch of geysers.”

One of the central issues Gelernter raises against the pre-eminent theory is that it is nearly impossible to create a stable and functioning protein. “Immense is so big, and tiny is so small, that neo-Darwinian evolution is — so far — a dead loss. Try to mutate your way from 150 links of gibberish to a working, useful protein and you are guaranteed to fail,” he noted. “Try it with ten mutations, a thousand, a million — you fail. The odds bury you. It can’t be done.”

In contrast to the strong scepticism he holds towards Darwinian theory, Professor Gelernter argued that intelligent design is now the “first, and obviously most intuitive [theory] that comes to mind.”

Intelligent Design deduces that God must be the primary force behind the creation of the universe because, well, something simply cannot come out of nothing. While the theory is widely accepted by many in the Christian scientific community, Gelernter insisted that, on the whole, academics who reject Darwinism and subscribe to a God-centred argument find themselves being viciously attacked.

In a discussion hosted by the Hoover Institute, the professor expanded on these concerns. “I have to distinguish between the way I’ve been treated personally, which has been a very courteous and collegial way by my colleagues at Yale, they’re nice guys and I like them, they’re my friends,” he explained at the round table, hosted in June of this year.“On the other hand, when I look at their intellectual behaviour, what they publish, and, much more important, what they tell their students, Darwinism has indeed passed beyond a scientific argument. As far as they are concerned, you take your life in your hands to challenge it intellectually. They will destroy you if you challenge it.”

Doubling down on his concerns, Gelernter warned that a majority of those in the wider academic community show “nothing approaching free speech on this topic.”“It’s a bitter rejection, not just — a sort of bitter, fundamental, angry, outraged, violent rejection, which comes nowhere near scientific of intellectual discussion,” he added. “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.’”Far from engaging in a civil academic discussion, the professor noted that if you criticise Darwinism, academics often react as if you have been “attacking their religion.” “It is a big issue for them,” he said. 

Christians understand that this is a spiritual issue. The fight is not against flesh and blood but against principalities , against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age , against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. Ephesians 6:12

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.