Some Professionally-Safe Darwin Doubters Are Now Speaking Out

Creation Evolution Headlines ^ | 8-5-19 | Jerry Bergman, PhD

[fishtank]

Some Professionally-Safe Darwin Doubters Are Now Speaking Out

August 5, 2019 | Jerry Bergman

When the coast is clear, and their careers are safe, some academics can afford to doubt Darwin publicly.

by Jerry Bergman, PhD

My experience after teaching at three universities, when discussing Darwinism with colleagues, I have learned there exist many more Darwin skeptics than commonly believed. Most are in the closet for very good reasons (career survival), or at least they decline to publicly speak out about their views opposing Darwinism. The evidence against Darwinism is so great that it seems inevitable a few would speak out about their well-founded doubts about evolution. And some have.

[fishtank]

From the article:

"Yale Professor David Gelernter then explains why Darwin was wrong:

Darwin successfully explained the small adjustments by which an organism adapts to local circumstances: changes to fur density or wing style or beak shape. Yet there are many reasons to doubt whether he can answer the hard questions and explain the big picture—not the fine-tuning of existing species but the emergence of new ones. The origin of species is exactly what Darwin cannot explain.[4]"

[fishtank]

Dr. Jerry Bergman has taught biology, genetics, chemistry, biochemistry, anthropology, geology, and microbiology at several colleges and universities including for over 40 years at Bowling Green State University, Medical College of Ohio where he was a research associate in experimental pathology, and The University of Toledo. He is a graduate of the Medical College of Ohio, Wayne State University in Detroit, the University of Toledo, and Bowling Green State University. He has over 1,300 publications in 12 languages and 40 books and monographs. His books and textbooks that include chapters that he authored, are in over 1,500 college libraries in 27 countries. So far over 80,000 copies of the 40 books and monographs that he has authored or co-authored are in print. For more articles by Dr Bergman, see his Author Profile.

https://crev.info/author/jbergman/

[Blood of Tyrants]

I heard of a geologist for an oil company who found oil deposits using his belief in the shaping of the world from the Great Flood. The oil company didn’t care how he did it because he did it so well.

[GOPJ]

If you don’t believe in Darwin, Global Warming or the Rule of White Liberal Elites, the FBI will stick a domestic terrorist label on you ...

[fishtank]

The Whopper Sand

BY TIM CLAREY, PH.D. * | FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2015

There’s a huge deposit of sand in the deep Gulf of Mexico, and no one seems to know how it got there—except maybe Flood geologists.

Early in my career as a geologist for an oil company, we were told not to prospect in water deeper than 2,000 feet. Most offshore oil is found in sand layers sandwiched between thick layers of mud and clay, and our management believed no sand could get that far offshore, and drilling costs were too high.............

https://www.icr.org/article/whopper-sand

[pepsionice]

I watched the Gelernter interview (up on Youtube) that has been done in the past month. What he generally digs at....for evolution to occur....there is a mathematical sequence and timeline that needs to occur. Evidence does not support the mathematical challenges required. You would require billions of years for the evolution factor to develop, and you simply don’t have that timeline existing.

In simple terms, you have a house standing and one guy says that it took two years to build the house, but actual evidence says that it’s only been built in the last six weeks.

[alloysteel]

Charles Darwin only advanced an HYPOTHESIS, and never provided proof one way or the other as to its validity.

While many chromosome similarities between different species have been found, there is no known mechanism by which these chromosomes, and the various traits they control, has ever SPONTANEOUSLY been transmitted from one species to another, and no way for one species to spontaneously arise from another.

Now, highly trained and meticulous scientists and technicians CAN splice genes together, and sometimes produce a viable organism, but again, not spontaneously.

The refinement of breeding techniques can enhance genetic differences within a given species, so very different looking specimens can interbreed and produce (mostly) viable offspring, but never has any effort by human endeavor been able to create a whole new species.

[Levy78]

the mathematical requirements for Darwinian views to explain the formation of life make it an obsolete view. As Gelernter says, you can explain small adaptations, but the formation of life cannot be explained with Darwin’s theory.. in fact. you can definitely throw out Darwin’s theory.

[semimojo]

That's odd.

Bergman calls his prime example, Gelenter, "leading" and "esteemed", but nowhere in the entire article does he mention that Gelenter is a professor of computer science, not any form of biology.

It's almost as if he knew it would really undercut his (implied) premise that evolutionary professionals were rejecting the theory.

[freedumb2003]

>>Darwin successfully explained the small adjustments by which an organism adapts to local circumstances: changes to fur density or wing style or beak shape. Yet there are many reasons to doubt whether he can answer the hard questions and explain the big picture—not the fine-tuning of existing species but the emergence of new ones. The origin of species is exactly what Darwin cannot explain<<

Flat out wrong.

[fishtank]

This is even.

I’d accept the thoughts of a CS professional, because they know how to write intelligently designed code, which is exactly what DNA has been discovered to be.

[freedumb2003]

>>Charles Darwin only advanced an HYPOTHESIS, and never provided proof one way or the other as to its validity.<<

Proof you do not know what a Scientific Hypothesis is. It is NOT a “Guess all growed up.”

Suggest you learn some science.

[freedumb2003]

>>the mathematical requirements for Darwinian views to explain the formation of life make it an obsolete view. As Gelernter says, you can explain small adaptations, but the formation of life cannot be explained with Darwin’s theory.. in fact. you can definitely throw out Darwin’s theory.<<

Proof he does not understand TToE.

[freedumb2003]

You meed to stop posting from the science version of Cracked magazine.

[trisham]

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2018/09/darwin-evolution-crispr-microbiome-bacteria-news/

Interesting article.

[momincombatboots]

Lol.. Darwin’s theories have a mth problem and are about as relevant as Aoc climate predictions.
Serious scientists stopped believing them a long time ago. Too afraid to admit it publicly.. which has kept that hoax alive in the “education system”.
I am ashamed to have believed it for a short time in my youth..

[bwest]

“... but the formation of life cannot be explained with Darwin’s theory...”

Of course not! It was never intended to!
Evolution has NEVER claimed to explain the origins of life. Claims to the contrary, i.e. ,fake news, are only advanced by luddites of weak religious faith.

[freedumb2003]

>>Evolution has NEVER claimed to explain the origins of life. Claims to the contrary, i.e. ,fake news, are only advanced by luddites of weak religious faith.<<

The old Abiogenesis fallacy. If it is required of TToE it is also required for geology, astrophysics, physics and all other branches of physical science.

[semimojo]

I’d accept the thoughts of a CS professional, because they know how to write intelligently designed code, which is exactly what DNA has been discovered to be.

Do you think it's germane or might be of interest to his readers that Gelenter has absolutely no professional connection to evolutionary science?

[griffin]

LOL!