Podcast: Play in new window | Download ()
Subscribe: Android | RSS | More
A respected Yale University professor is raising waves in the academic community over his rejection of Darwinism and his suggestion that scholars should look more closely at intelligent design as a serious theory for the creation of the species.
David Gelernter, a Yale computer science professor whom the New York Times has described as an academic “rock star,” recently penned an article in the Claremont Review of Books in which he charges that Darwin’s theory is too old and rife with discrepancies to be taken seriously in today’s scientifically and technologically advanced world.
While calling Darwinian evolution “a brilliant and beautiful scientific theory,” as well as “settled truth” among most academics, Gelernter points out that the now-antique model contains some fundamental holes that ought to make it untenable to serious academic theorists.
Although there is “no reason to doubt that Darwin successfully explained the small adjustments by which an organism adapts to local circumstances: changes to fur density or wing style or beak shape,” writes Gelernter in his essay, “Giving up Darwin,” he adds that “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.”
A longtime proponent of Darwin’s theory, Gelernter notes that his thinking began its own evolution as he read serious works offering alternatives, among them “Stephen Meyer’s thoughtful and meticulous Darwin’s Doubt,” which Gelernter says convinced him that Darwin had failed: “He cannot answer the big question.”
{modulepos inner_text_ad}
In his extensive essay, Gelernter builds the case that both the “Cambrian Explosion” — the sudden appearance of fossil records at odds with Darwin’s model — along with discoveries via modern molecular biology, have rendered Darwin’s theories untenable.
As for the “elephant in the room” alternative that hardcore Darwinists militantly ignore, Gelernter writes that not only does Meyer “demolish Darwin,” but he makes a convincing argument for a serious look at intelligent design (I.D.). “Although I can’t accept intelligent design as Meyer presents it,” writes Gelernter, “he does show that it is a plain case of the emperor’s new clothes: it says aloud what anyone who ponders biology must think, at some point, while sifting possible answers to hard questions. Intelligent design as Meyer explains it never uses religious arguments, draws religious conclusions, or refers to religion in any way. It does underline an obvious but important truth: Darwin’s mission was exactly to explain the flagrant appearance of design in nature.”
Observing that Darwin’s theory of evolution has itself become a religion of sorts to many of its passionate proponents, requiring a fair amount of “faith” in what Darwin could never prove, Gelernter writes that “Meyer and other proponents of I.D. are the dispassionate intellectuals making orderly scientific arguments.” He goes on to charge that some “haters” of intelligent design “have shown themselves willing to use any argument — fair or not, true or not, ad hominem or not — to keep this dangerous idea locked in a box forever. They remind us of the extent to which Darwinism is no longer just a scientific theory, but the basis of a worldview, and an emergency replacement religion for the many troubled souls who need one.”
During an interview with the Hoover Institute in June, Gelernter was bluntly critical of the caustic manner with which many Darwinists in the academic community treat those who dare to challenge the tenets of their secular faith. “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,” Gelernter qualified his criticism. “On the other hand, when I look at their intellectual behavior, what they publish, and, much more important, what they tell their students, Darwinism has indeed passed beyond a scientific argument.” He added that “as far as they are concerned, take your life in your hands to challenge it intellectually. They will destroy you if you challenge it.”
Gelernter charged that the behavior of many professors and intellectuals with regard to the supposed scientific sacredness of Darwinism has dipped to disgraceful lows. “What I’ve seen, in their behavior intellectually and at colleges across the West, is nothing approaching free speech on this topic,” he said. “It’s a bitter rejection … 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 want to hear it, period.’”
He emphasized that it boils down to “attacking their religion. It is a big issue for them.”
Image: BlackJack3D via iStock / Getty Images Plus
