A prominent Yale scientist has just publicly denounced Darwinism as not only improbable, but statistically “a dead loss”!
Writing for The Claremont Review of Books, Yale professor of computer science, David Gelernter, explains how he was predisposed to believe in Darwinism, yet when he investigated it, he found it wanting:
There’s 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. Yet 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.
Gelernter largely credits the Discovery Institute’s Stephen Meyer, and his “thoughtful and meticulous” book, Darwin’s Doubt, for opening his eyes to the flaws in evolution. Gelernter explains that what’s known as the “Cambrian Explosion” showed the exact opposite of what Darwin predicted the fossil record would show. Instead of change developing in a gradual, step-by-step fashion, the animal-groups that appeared during the Cambrian Explosion arrived fully formed—and their forms resisted all major changes to their body plans.
Next, Gelernter shows how modern molecular biology has essentially destroyed Darwin’s theory by showing the complexity of protein and the impossibility that protein could have formed randomly.
(Molecular biologist Douglas Axe) estimated that, of all 150-link amino acid sequences, 1 in 1074 will be capable of folding into a stable protein. To say that your chances are 1 in 1074 is no different, in practice, from saying that they are zero. It’s not surprising that your chances of hitting a stable protein that performs some useful function, and might therefore play a part in evolution, are even smaller. Axe puts them at 1 in 1077.
In other words: immense is so big, and tiny is so small, that neo-Darwinian evolution is—so far—a dead loss. Try to mutate your way from 150 links of gibberish to a working, useful protein and you are guaranteed to fail. Try it with ten mutations, a thousand, a million—you fail. The odds bury you. It can’t be done.
My husband, Neal, who’s an AP Statistics instructor, has long said the problem with evolutionary biologists is that most don’t know statistics. If they did, they’d see that Darwin’s theory of evolution amounts to a “null hypothesis” that reasonable scientists must reject due to embarrassingly low probabilities. After reading the article, Neal wrote:
Like it or not, conclusions in science are based on probabilities calculated by mathematicians. And the probability of observing new proteins, when calculated on the assumption that Darwin was right, is too low for the assumption to stand. An intellectually honest scientist is obligated to reject the assumption that Darwin was right. The time has come to admit there is sufficient evidence to conclude that Intelligent Design is the only reasonable alternative, unless you’re willing to resort to blind faith in the religion of naturalism.
Gelernter, who’s Jewish, doesn’t embrace Intelligent Design but he comes close. And he says what very few secular scientists are willing to admit—that the evolutionists are the ideologues while the proponents of I.D. are “dispassionate intellectuals.”:
Meyer doesn’t only demolish Darwin; he defends a replacement theory, intelligent design (I.D.). Although I can’t accept intelligent design as Meyer presents it, 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.
The religion is all on the other side. Meyer and other proponents of I.D. are the dispassionate intellectuals making orderly scientific arguments. Some I.D.-haters 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.
Click here read Gelernter’s full article.