Posted on 08/05/2019 7:47:32 AM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at crev.info ...
>>Do you think it’s germane or might be of interest to his readers that Gelenter has absolutely no professional connection to evolutionary science? <<
Shhhh... you will wreck the illusion!
The chance of one small protein chain assembling by accident is around 10 to 164th power. To have a cell you needs many many proteins all at once in a combined area behind a cell wall. Good luck with that.
MIT Liguistics Professor Noam Chomsky has no professional connection to "political science", yet the Left accords him respect on that topic.
So?
Are you defending that?
Well, DNA is a programming language. Computer scientists are certainly qualified to comment on biologists’ inane theory that a programming language can write itself.
Best to be honest (unless you're running for office).
What`s your point/question?
I’ve said for at least a decade that Darwin notice MICRO-evolution in the Galapagos finches. There has been no evidence, anywhere, of MACRO-evolutionary changes. Say, a dinosaur turning into a tern, swallow, eagle, vulture, or anything else.
Just for our lungs to work, how many “evolutionary changes” would be necessary? More than one, and that means, you can’t get there from here.
The issue isn’t as much biology as it’s mathematics.
You don’t need an English professor to you tell you how long it would take a monkey to randomly type out the works of Shakespeare, you need a mathematician.
Darwinism posits that the changes are the result of random mutations. And scientists who understand mathematics are saying it will take much more than 4.6 Billion years for the amount of random mutations to occur that can explain complexity of life on earth.
No mathematician can effectively model evolution without understanding the underlying mechanics of DNA mutation and all of the forces impacting "random" mutation.
We're still discovering factors that appear to influence the type and location of these mutations so the idea of someone not versed in the field being able to create a predictive model is a non-starter.
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.
******************************************************
Why the ad hominem? Are you claiming biologists have all the answers?
Proof he does not understand TToE.
Do you? If so, explain how one kind of animal “evolves” into another kind. Be specific.
I said nothing positive or negative about the man. I pointed out his field of study and questioned why the author didn’t mention it.
Darwinism only became popular because it was anti Judeo Christian and that is still the hang-up today. The left can never admit to anything that will support the Biblical teachings.
maybe you should explain what TToE is so that the rest of us can evaluated your argument.
Google doesn’t give a good answer.
I said nothing positive or negative about the man. I pointed out his field of study and questioned why the author didn’t mention it.
****************************************************
Your premise appeared to be that Bergman was trying to hide something, and/or Gelernter is unqualified to evaluate Charlie’s theory.
The Theory of Evolution.
New to this, I see.
I absolutely believe that Bergman purposely omitted Gelernter's field of study.
Don't you?
Let me ask another way. If Gelernter were a renowned evolutionary biologist do you think Bergman would have mentioned that?
As to Gelernter's qualifications to evaluate evolutionary theory, the reader has no way to evaluate if Bergman won't even say what his field of study is.
>>Do you? If so, explain how one kind of animal “evolves” into another kind. Be specific.<<
Since “kind” is not a scientific term there is no need to answer. Perhaps you care to rephrase?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.