The God That Failed

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on reddit
Share on delicious
Share on digg
Share on stumbleupon
Share on whatsapp
Share on email
Share on print

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.

More to explorer

Pierre Delecto

  Maybe the country dodged a bullet in 2012:   Mitt Romney strikes again and it’s really good this time. After reports

Clinton: She is Fighting Mad

Hattip to Instapundit. The slogan writes itself for Clinton in 2020:  A Crazy Candidate for Crazy Times.

Black Sox Scandal: A Century Later

            A young boy pleaded to Jackson as he left the Grand Jury room,” Say it ain’t


  1. 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.”

  2. 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?

  3. 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.

  4. I quite agree that Intelligent Design is not science, although it may be correct. Of course, I also do not believe that Darwinian Evolution is science, but is rather as faith based as Intelligent Design. Darwinian Evolution illustrates the hazards of making a grand hypothesis on slim evidence.

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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:

    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 :

    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.

Comments are closed.