[semimojo]

Your premise appeared to be that Bergman was trying to hide something, and/or Gelernter is unqualified to evaluate Charlie’s theory.

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.

[aspasia]

If we need to rely on authority to evaluate evolutionary theory, the jig is up.

On a side note, the left prefers authoritarian governments whereby laymen are declared incompetent to critique the claims of the professionals. They go so far as to call this critique the "politicization of science." In fact, for them democracy stands in the way of their climate goals.

[Kalamata]

I absolutely believe that Bergman purposely omitted Gelernter’s field of study. Don’t you?
************************************************

No.

**********************
Let me ask another way. If Gelernter were a renowned evolutionary biologist do you think Bergman would have mentioned that?
************************************************

Maybe, maybe not.

**********************
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.
************************************************

How do you determine who is qualified to evaluate evolutionary theory? Certainly you do not believe an evolutionary biologist is qualified?

Mr. Kalamata

[duckln]

He said over and over he was not a Math or Biology expert.

However what you say is basically true but mute and "fake" (as Trump would say) to what the program was actually about.