Thursday, March 28, AD 2024 4:02pm

The God That Failed

I have long had my doubts as to Darwinian Evolution, which has increasingly struck me as a religion dressed up in scientific rags.  Thus I find this fascinating:

In a recent essay published in the Claremont Review of Books, Gelernter wrote, “Darwin has failed,” and insisted that scientists move past Darwin and his theories altogether.

Gelernter, who has been a proponent of Darwinism since childhood, argued that the longstanding theory of evolution simply doesn’t give a thorough enough explanation of, perhaps, the most important component of modern science: the actual origin of species.

According to the essay, titled “Giving up Darwin,” the Cambrian explosion, as well as modern discoveries in molecular biology, have dashed Darwin’s theories of evolution as he understood it to occur.

Go here to read the rest.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
12 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
T. Shaw
T. Shaw
Friday, August 23, AD 2019 12:36pm

A late-19th century humorist, Mr. Dooley wrote, “It is more comfortable to feel that we are a slight improvement on a monkey than such a fallin’ off from the angels.”

Penguins Fan
Penguins Fan
Friday, August 23, AD 2019 1:10pm

Celebrity scientist Neil Tyson blurted out on one show of that series on Fox a few years ago that “evolution really happened”. To be fair, he did not say that Darwin’s theory had become accepted fact. Darwin’s Theory truly can never be more than a theory. How can it be proven as fact?

Bob Kurland, Ph.D.
Admin
Friday, August 23, AD 2019 2:31pm

Before fully commenting, let me say that I don’t believe the Darwinian model satisfactorily accounts for common descent. And most people, including many scientists, commonly confuse common descent–evolution–with the Darwinian model–survival of the fittest.
I also find much of value in the Intelligent Design hypothesis. Unfortunately Intelligent Design isn’t science.
I’ll develop all this in a post, since it’s too long for a comment, and I want to read as much as I can of Gelernter’s article before that.

c matt
c matt
Friday, August 23, AD 2019 2:39pm

The problem was extrapolating macro-evolution from micro-evolution.

Michael Dowd
Michael Dowd
Saturday, August 24, AD 2019 2:50am

Good article and YouTube conversation. Evolution is the religion of atheists and all who disagree are considered heretics whose academic careers are “burned at the stake” so to speak.

Don L
Don L
Saturday, August 24, AD 2019 5:57am

Fulton Sheen once remarked that the 13th. century was the greatest ever. I would submit, if that be true, then mankind hasn’t “evolved” for the better since then.

Frank
Frank
Saturday, August 24, AD 2019 6:16am

The religious fervor of the Darwinians caused me to lose a friend, a now-retired math professor who, in his early career, had been a faculty colleague of my father at a small Illinois college. About three years ago, before I permanently deleted my Facebook account, I posted an interesting and well-written article questioning the “science” behind Darwinism. I forget who the author was now, but his main point was the absence of any compelling evidence for one species morphing into another. He also cited the “Cambrian explosion” as an example. The math professor posted a reply in which he ranted and raved and engaged in personal insults against the author and against me for posting his piece. He sounded a lot like the global warming alarmists, actually, insisting that “it’s settled science” and that only fools and (ironically) religious zealots deny it. He had not one fact to offer against the writer’s point about the lack of evidence. As he had, only shortly before this, also calumniated me for supporting Trump, I blocked and unfriended him and moved on.

John F. Kennedy
John F. Kennedy
Saturday, August 24, AD 2019 11:41am

He and several others discussed the review. You can find the link at this website. https://sarmaticusblog.wordpress.com/2019/08/02/mathematicians-propelling-the-restoration-of-all-things-in-christ/

BTW, he thinks intelligent design IS a scientific theory.

Bob Kurland, Ph.D.
Admin
Saturday, August 24, AD 2019 4:16pm

JFK, I’ll expound at length in a forthcoming post why I think Intelligent Design is an admirable proposition, but why it isn’t science. There are many intelligent, productive scientists who haven’t really done enough reading in the history and philosophy of science to understand what the limits of science might be.

Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus
Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus
Sunday, August 25, AD 2019 7:59am

I don’t believe in the fiction of Darwinian materialistic evolution. I do however believe in both science and the Catholic Faith. Here is a summary of a little talk I gave on Creation or Evolution some 10 or so years ago:

https://prognosticis.blogspot.com/2019/02/creatio-aut-evolutio.html

Here is my summary of Dr. Gerald Schroeder’s explanation that correlates the six days of creation with a 13.73 billion year old universe – he is an Orthodox Jew and (like Dr. Kurland here at TAC) a physicist :

https://prognosticis.blogspot.com/2019/02/days-of-creation-amici-americani.html

I will conclude with this: I have as much loathing for Protestant Fundamentalist clap trap on short Earth history creationism as I do for pseudo-scientific godless Darwinian materialistic evolution. The two viewpoints are so opposite that they are the same in their errors. They each come up with such freaking bull excrement to deny the facts in front of their faces so that they can justify themselves in the pride of their mistakes.

trackback
Sunday, August 25, AD 2019 1:16pm

[…] “The god is failed” (the god of Darwinism), but will Intelligent Design replace it?  I don’t think so. […]

Discover more from The American Catholic

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

Scroll to Top