Yale University professor of computer science David Gelernter has renounced his previous belief in Darwinian evolution.
Writing that he was sad to give up on “a brilliant and beautiful scientific theory,” he said he had concluded that it couldn’t explain the big picture – not the fine-tuning of existing species, but the emergence of new ones.
Whether or not his argument is well-founded is a discussion for another time. The point here is that it’s unsayable by anyone who isn’t prepared to risk professional and social suicide.
Darwinism, said Gelernter, had passed beyond a scientific argument. Although his Yale colleagues had treated him in a courteous and collegiate manner, people took their life in their hands to question Darwinian evolution.
“They will destroy you if you challenge it,” he said. There was nothing approaching free speech on this topic. “It’s a sort of bitter, fundamental, angry, outraged, violent rejection, which comes nowhere near scientific or intellectual discussion.”
Gelernter’s conclusions about Darwinism have derived principally from his analysis of the statistical probability of the evolution of new species. Yet anyone who queries Darwinism is immediately labeled “anti-science” and accused of being a religious nut.
Indeed, the pushback against Gelernter’s apostasy has included the observation that he is a religious Jew. Apparently, the only reason he could possibly have come to this “denialist” conclusion, says one pro-evolution website, is that he views science through “Old Testament goggles.”
In fact, a belief that’s unchallengeable has the characteristic of religious faith. That’s why Gelernter calls Darwinism a religion.
Our era is supposedly devoted to promoting individual freedom, tolerance and an end to prejudice. So why are so many views being silenced?
There are plenty of other unsayables in our thought-policed society. Human-made global warming, for example, is considered beyond challenge because the science of that theory is said to be “settled.” This is, in fact, anti-science dogma because nothing is ever settled in science, which is always open to fresh challenges.
So how come our scientific age promotes anti-science ideas more akin to religious doctrine and calls them science?
Our era is supposedly devoted to promoting individual freedom, tolerance and an end to prejudice. So why are so many views being silenced? Why has debate been so widely replaced by hateful insults? And how come this has been accompanied by an upsurge in anti-Semitism, often among precisely the same subscribers to the liberal anti-racist “woke” agenda?
There may be a connection here that is generally overlooked. And it involves the Jews.
At the core of all this moral and intellectual confusion lies an onslaught against the core principles of Western civilization on the grounds that these are innately exclusive, prejudicial and oppressive.
That’s because they are rooted in biblical values that are held to be cruel, obscurantist and inimical to reason, enlightenment, and generosity of spirit.
By contrast, the secular agenda is believed to stand for all good things associated with modernity, such as kindness, rationality, and progress.
The West tells itself that modernity sprang from a repudiation of religion in the 17th-century Enlightenment.
In fact, as a new book points out, Christianity remains at the core of contemporary Western thinking even among those who disdain it. "Dominion," by the British historian Tom Holland, is a magisterial analysis of the way in which Christian values have shaped the West and still do so even in the most unlikely places.
His book is not merely a fascinating account of the extraordinary reach and persistence of Christianity, which has evolved and adapted down through the generations and across societies. He also argues that Christian values, which have sometimes led to slavery, empire, and war, nevertheless lie at the core of what makes the West civilized and good.
This has startled people for whom it is axiomatic that only secularism produces goodness while religion produces only bad stuff. But Holland points out that even attacks by secular liberals on Christian thinking are motivated by Christian values of tolerance and fairness.
Of course, there’s an elephant in this particular room. For although these core Western principles were introduced and spread by Christianity, their origin lay in the Hebrew Bible.
Holland pays due regard to the Jewish foundations of Christianity and also to the terrible way that Christianity has behaved in the past towards the Jews.
But what so many overlook is that moral principles assumed to have been invented by Christianity, such as compassion, fairness, looking after the poor or putting others first, were all introduced to the world by the Hebrew Bible.
It is Judaism’s Mosaic code that gave the West its conscience and the roots of its civilization by putting chains on people’s selfish appetites. And strikingly, every contemporary ideology that aims to undermine or transform the West is based on opposition to Jewish religious beliefs, Jewish moral codes or the Jewish homeland in Israel.
Deep green environmentalism, for example, wants to knock human beings off their pedestal in Genesis as the pinnacle of creation; sexual lifestyle choice negates Judaism’s moral codes; scientific materialism repudiates belief in the Divine creator of the world; anti-Zionism denies the Jews’ right to their own homeland; and liberal universalism is an innate challenge to Judaism which, as a stubbornly and uniquely distinct set of beliefs, always stands in the way of any universalizing ideology.
Much of this secular onslaught goes back to the central Enlightenment idea of a world based on reason, which French Enlightenment thinkers in particular perceived to be in opposition to religion.
But the West’s concept of reason actually comes from the Hebrew Bible. Ideas such as an orderly and rational universe structured on a linear concept of time were revolutionary concepts introduced in the book of Genesis.
These ideas were essential to the development of Western science. Early scientists believed that natural laws necessarily presupposed a law-giver. As Galileo Galilei said: “The laws of nature are written by the hand of God in the language of mathematics.”
The opposition between religion and science that is assumed to be fundamental by secular liberals is, in fact, foreign to Judaism. With so much of the Hebrew Bible interpreted over the centuries as allegory or metaphor, Judaism has never seen science as a threat.
The 12th-century Jewish sage Maimonides was the great exemplar of the belief that science and religion were complementary. He wrote that conflict between science and the Bible arose from either a lack of scientific knowledge or a defective understanding of the Bible.
Without the Hebrew Bible, there would have been no Western rationality or principles such as justice or compassion. But secularism holds that the rule of reason divorced from biblical religion would banish bad things like prejudice or war from the world and the human heart.
Impossible utopianism like this invariably results in oppression. So it proved with medieval apocalyptic Christianity, the French Revolution, communism and fascism; and so it is proving today with the cultural totalitarianism of the Left.
Like all utopians, the Left believes that their ideas are unchallengeable because they supposedly stand for virtue itself. All who oppose them are therefore not just wrong, but evil. So heretics like Gelernter must be stamped out because no quarter can ever be given to any challenge to secularism.
What secular liberals don’t understand is that in attacking the Jewish concepts at the core of the Christian West, they are not merely repudiating their own supposed ideals of tolerance and rationality, but are sawing off the branch on which they themselves are sitting.
Reprinted with permission from JNS.org.
(11) Joseph Harris, September 23, 2019 9:23 PM
Wow, the trolls came out.
It never ceases to amaze how dedicated to trolling science deniers are. Ignoring research, melting glaciers, droughts and giant storms is a new form of Avodah Zara.
I pray that everyone uses this Elul to remember we have duties to each other, our children and the only home we have.
(10) Andria Spindel, September 17, 2019 2:16 AM
Melanie Philips has it right:Religion and Science=Biblical and Modern Judaism
As usual Melanie Philips has expressed in a few tightly, coherently, well expressed words, an idea so profound that one has to grab it, hold it and breathe it in to fully grasp the impact. The Enlightenment has led to darkness and dogma as the Left denies debate, differences of opinion, and divergent thought. Let's not call it alternative facts, just simply: the right to question what has been assumed Truths.
(9) Anonymous, September 12, 2019 1:59 AM
Cycles
Weather records only go back to the late 1800s. I've heard recently that parts of Greenland are thawing out, exposing ancient primitive settlements. It had to have been warmer there at some time in the past. The frozen mammoths found near the Arttic circle 100 years ago, with green vegetation in their stomachs. It had to have been warmer there in the past. We have no accurate climate records. One major volcanic eruption puts out more poisones gases than all of man made pollution put together. It's cycles over thousands of years. The world wide flood of the bible explains these things better than any science man has come to know yet. In the begining, God created the Heavens & the Earth! Period.
(8) Deborah, September 11, 2019 12:58 PM
Another Tour De Force from Melanie Phillips
Clear, and sweet as fresh water. Melanie Phillips rationality and reason are a pleasure to read, as is her pride in her Jewish heritage.
The Hebrew Bible has caused the greatest change in my life, from secular nihilism to obedience and submission to G-d's will. The Jewish people should be proud of this contribution to human civilisation.
(7) Dvirah, September 10, 2019 6:07 PM
Evolution in its Place
The issue arises because evolution has been made the be-all & end-all of biologic development, whereas it is simply one mechanism of ongoing creation. Like Newton's theory of gravity, it is valid when certain conditions are met but cannot encompass all situations.
Anonymous, September 10, 2019 6:54 PM
And yet, biologists disagree with you
And yet, biologists, who actually study the field, earned their doctorates and have dedicated their adult lives to science, as a resounding whole, disagree with you vehemently.
Evolution is the prime driver of speciation.
Do you have a specific counter-example? What do you know better than they do?
Raymond, September 10, 2019 7:48 PM
Darwinism as a Religion
Not all biologists believe in Darwinism. Some even disagree with it vehemently. G-d is the prime driver of speciation. Many people know better than do the Dogmatic Darwinists.
Anonymous, September 10, 2019 8:45 PM
You seem very confused about both science and religion
Science is not a matter of belief. Science is a matter of evidence. The overwhelming evidence is that evolution happened and continues to happen.
In Judaism, the key element is emunah (trust) in Hashem. However, even so, we do not teach that you should believe it because we say so. We teach that you should trust in the Torah because there was a national revelation at Sinai - in other words, an evidence based argument.
You don't seem to understand the definitions of religion and science.
Also, biologists are convinced of the reality of evolution. Someone can't legitimately claim to be a biologist and say otherwise. To do so would be to ignore all the evidence.
In much the same way, medical doctors are convinced of the realities of blood types. Someone can't legitimately claim to be an MD and say otherwise. To do so would reject all the evidence and kill patients.
Rabbis are convinced that Shabbos is a big deal. Someone can't legitimately claim to be a rabbi and say otherwise. To do so would ignore Torah.
Why can't you just accept the facts and say something like Hashem chose to do it this way? Why do you have so much ego that you think you know better than actual scientists?
Dr Anonymous, September 11, 2019 5:46 AM
Very Confused
Joseph Harris is very confused about science and religion, not understanding their definition. All of the evidence goes against Darwinism. It is as if Joseph Harris is advocating killing patients, while ignoring the Torah. Joseph Harris has so much ego, thinking he knows better than actual scientists.
Dvirah, September 13, 2019 8:45 AM
We Do Agree
Exactly! What is speciation but ongoing creation?
(6) Ann, September 10, 2019 4:04 PM
Well said....as usual
(5) Hessel Meilech, September 10, 2019 3:51 PM
Creation
Creation , a lecture by Rabbi Sacks goes into tremendous detail of the above article.
(4) Dr. Joseph Harris, September 10, 2019 1:03 AM
Also, Of course there has been significant warming in the past 15 years.
Of all the science denier tropes, the one that there "has been no significant warming in the past x years" is one of the most persistent despite how easily it is disproven.
The facts are: The hottest years on record have all been recent years and the overall trend keeps going up and up. I urge anyone who doubts this to look for themselves.
Here is data from the UK's MET Hadley center:
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/monitoring/index.html
Here is temperature data from NASA, from multiple sources:
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
Saying there has been no warming in the past 15 years is just an astonishing astonishingly brazen lie.
Ra'anan Elozory, September 10, 2019 8:17 PM
you misread, she didn't say "global-warming," she said "MAN-MADE global warming..."
The onus is on YOU to prove cause & effect which also makes your diatribe below moot.
Anonymous, September 10, 2019 8:54 PM
Fabulous willful ignorance
Really?
Ahem... CO2 traps heat from the sun. We are putting gigatons of it into the atmosphere every year. We are causing it. All that oil and coal is not burning itself.
Just out of curiosity... how many "storms of the century" each year, every year are required to penetrate your willful ignorance? How many droughts, famines and wild fires are required? How many lost glaciers are required? How many disease migrations like Zika are required?
How many dead people will it take for someone like you to maybe, just maybe consider that all of those scientists know more than you?
Humility is a virtue in Judaism.
If you read a little further, you will find explanations and feedback mechanisms as well as links to NASA, NOAA and Met Hadley.
As to the onus of proof, the onus lies with the scientific community. Thousands of actual scientists, have thousands of man years worth of research and data proving the case.
The onus is on you to open your eyes and think.
Dr. Joseph Harris, September 10, 2019 9:26 PM
I wrote the above reply about willful ignorance
For some reason my name didn't auto-fill.
Anonymous, September 11, 2019 5:49 AM
Lacks Humility
Joseph Harris' willful ignorance lacks humility. The onus of proof lies with Joseph Harris, whose eyes remain closed.
Anon, September 12, 2019 2:53 AM
Question
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_theories_in_science
"The theories listed at the referenced link happen" full stop ; anyone who doesn't agree is to be ridiculed because they are no longer scientists. Case closed;
(3) Dr. Joseph Harris, September 10, 2019 12:12 AM
There is incredibly robust data of climate feedbacks
Keith,
I apologize for being blunt but you are simply incorrect. There are numerous well documented feedbacks in climate. I should also respectfully note that I studied at Aish some years ago and people there can verify that the Dr. in my name is for a Ph.D in physics.
That said, science is not an argument from authority. It is an argument from data, math and in this case, also mechanism. There are three main climate feedback loops. There are numerous other lesser loops, but the big three are:
1. Water vapor. When the oceans warm, partial pressure increases and more water vapor gets into the air, in addition warmer air can absorb more water vapor. Water vapor itself is a very effective greenhouse gas. It isn't the driver because water clumps together well and quickly comes down as precipitation from the atmosphere if allowed to cool, while excess CO2 stays in the air for about 100 years before it gets eaten by plants.
However, more CO2 -> more atmospheric and oceanic heat -> more water vapor -> more warming.
2. Methane. As bogs in Siberia and northern Canada melt, vast amounts of methane that had been trapped from ancient decayed plant material is released. Methane is approximately ten times more effective as a GHG than CO2.
more CO2 -> more heat -> more melted permafrost -> more methane -> more warming.
3. Loss of albedo. Shiny white ice is very good at reflecting the sun's energy back into space. As the ice melts it is replace by water, which is very good at absorbing energy from the sun.
More heating -> less polar ice -> more energy absorbed -> more heating.
A good layperson overview of this can be found from NASA here:
https://climate.nasa.gov/nasa_science/science/
Here is one from NOAA
https://www.climate.gov/teaching/resources/climate-feedback-loops
Anonymous, September 10, 2019 1:50 PM
The Hoax of Global Warming
Man-made global warming is a complete and total hoax, just as the notion of overpopulation was the hoax of a generation ago. The Left, lacking the fulfillment involved in traditional religion, uses such false alarms to give something for them to do with their empty lives.
Dr. Joseph Harris, September 10, 2019 6:44 PM
So on the one hand we have the world scientific community
On the other we have Anonymous from the internet.
The world scientific community says climate change is real and human activities are causing it.
Anonymous says climate change is a hoax.
The world scientific community has thousands of man years of research, mountains of data and peer-reviewed analysis of that data.
Anonymous does not.
The world scientific community does not feel that physical phenomena are political things or statements of any particular faith. No scientist believes that glaciers are melting out of protest or that hurricanes are stronger because of some theological difference.
Anonymous is confused on these points.
The world scientific community has Ph.D's and other advanced degrees.
Anonymous does not.
Yet, Anonymous feels somehow equal.
Anonymous, September 10, 2019 7:53 PM
Global Warming as a Religion
Not all scientists believe in the secular dogma of man-made global warming. Nor would any scientist worthy of his title treat as a fact etched in stone. Joseph Harris from the internet finds this to be confusing.
Dr. Joseph Harris, September 10, 2019 9:07 PM
And yet, man made climate change is a fact.
You seem to have difficulty accepting that science comes to conclusions after sufficient evidence has been observed. Let me give you some other examples of settled science, that were once hotly debated.
1. The Earth is not flat.
2. The Earth orbits the sun.
3. The universe is expanding.
4. Quantum Mechanics is real. So are special and general relativity...
5. Vaccines save lives.
6. Evolution happened.
7. Human activities, the combined effects of CO2 emissions, deforestation and ocean pollution are causing the global climate to warm.
The only people who deny these things are ignorant and so prideful that they simply can not accept evidence. In the cases of climate change and vaccines, such narcissism is lethal.
Dvirah, September 10, 2019 5:55 PM
Compensation Mechanisms
A full analysis should include the effects of compensation mechanisms which partially counter the effect of warming - for example the increased cloud cover that reflects sunlight; the local effect can be of increased coolness rather than heat. Unfortunately, the overall result may be greater worldwide temperature fluctuation, leading to more - and more severe - storming. I think this is already being observed.
Dr. Joseph Harris, September 10, 2019 6:20 PM
A clarification on clouds and storm intensity
Dvirah,
Cloud cover really isn't a "compensation mechanism." Cloud formation and cloud cover depend on many different factors that can not be adequately covered in a 2000 character comment. In the literature, there are both positive and negative feedbacks.
With clouds, you can have feedbacks going either way, however, as feedbacks go, they are all very small compared to overall water vapor, loss of albedo and methane release. That said, as we deforest and as there are more and more forest fires due to drought coupled with the effect of warmer air and oceans, cloud formation is drastically effected in many regions.
There is extensive literature on desertification for example.
Increased storm intensity is a direct result of having more thermal energy in the seas and atmosphere. For example, warm water provides the energy to feed hurricanes. Dorian, and all the other hurricanes of late, would not have been as bad if there weren't so much more thermal energy to feed them. We are certainly warming the planet and we are certainly seeing stronger and stronger storms. Energy is always conserved.
Dvirah, September 13, 2019 9:14 AM
No Argument
You are correct. But it is my observation that nature generally has built-in countering mechanisms - not just for weather - that are triggered when any system becomes unbalanced. How successful they are in restoring the original equilibrium depends on many factors - certainly our continued interference is one such. With care, a new workable equilibrium can be established.
(2) Joseph Harris, September 9, 2019 3:03 PM
So I'm rubber, you are glue, is also not a scientific argument
Raymond,
First off where is your data? You seem keen to present yourself as reasonable. Very well. What evidence do you have to suggest that the science is wrong?
Take climate for example. The sun really does warm the planet. This has been understood since humans noticed the sun. The planet emits IR as thermal radiation. The spectra of CO2 ensures that it must trap IR. This has been understood since the 1890's. 1890 is not a typo.
Since energy is conserved, by what mechanism do you suggest that the billions of tons of CO2 we put in the atmosphere are doing nothing? Do you believe it naps?
In reality, the global average temperature is increasing at alarming rates. This data comes from thermometers. How do you dispute the thermometers?
That heating causes all sorts of observable effects and feedbacks.
Ice melts when it gets hot. If you see the polar regions melting billions of tons of ice, you can conclude it is getting warmer. What is your alternative to that conclusion? Did the ice spontaneously suicide?
More energy in the atmosphere and oceans means stronger storms. Do you deny worsening storms? How do you explain multiple "storms of the century" per year without the warming?
How do you explain shifting migratory patterns, changing crops, changing rainfall patterns globally and sea level rise (to name a few) without warming?
Science denial is dangerous. It is sometimes lethal. Very recently, certain observant communities learned the danger of denying the science of vaccines. We paid for it in the cost of dead blotchy babies.
Denying evolution is merely annoying to a scientist. Denying climate is ultimately lethal on a global scale.
One can not reason with a science denier since they deny reason itself. One can attempt inoculate those who might read this exchange. Feel free to rant on after this. There is no need to respond further.
Raymond, September 10, 2019 1:47 PM
Dogma Masquerading Itself as Science
Joseph, ranting on behind buzz words like "science" to disguise one's Left-Wing hatred of traditional, Jewish values along with Western Civilization is what is truly dangerous, lethal, and annoying. The more you throw out such insults, the more you expose the fraudulent nature of your words.
(1) Dr. Joseph Harris, September 8, 2019 5:54 PM
I am appalled by your ignorance and your arrogance
Let's get some things straight.
Climate change or global warming, and the fact that human activity is causing it, is settled science. The sun is hot. It warms the Earth. Carbon Dioxide traps more heat from the sun. Therefore we get hotter. There is no way around this and no other way it can be. The stupidity of pretending otherwise endangers billions of lives. Or put another way, how many storms of the century do you need in a given year, year after year, to convince you something is terribly wrong.
Second, evolution happened. Full stop. We Jews believe in an ordered world, ordered by Hashem. This is how he chose to do it. If you don't like it, take it up with the Boss.
The reason a "scientist" who denies the facts of climate or of evolution faces professional suicide is that they have ceased to be a scientist, in much the same way that a rabbi who tells you pork is kosher and best served on Yom Kippur has ceased to be a rabbi.
Your complaint about what is anti-science is specious and utterly arrogant. Please ask yourself the following question before commenting on science. What is the Taylor series for an exponential function? If you don't instantly know the answer, then where do you get the chutzpah to argue with thousands of PhD's who actually study the field and consider basic calculus easy? Where do you get the chutzpah to just dismiss thousands of man-years of research and hard data? Especially since you can't understand said data. You are not equal and your arrogance spreads dangerous and potentially lethal misconceptions.
Raymond, September 9, 2019 12:47 AM
How Ironic
The response made here by Joseph Harris is precisely the kind of thing that Melanie Philips wrote about in her above article. I don't think he realizes the irony involved in his dogmatic, absolutist worship of science, while completely ignoring the undogmatic, non-absolutist nature of true science. Plus the fact that he has to resort to angry, childish insults does not exactly serve to bolster his case. If I were a martian descending to Earth, and read her intelligent, thoughtful comments and then read his quite irrational response, I would have no choice but to conclude that her truth telling hit a raw nerve in him, and that she is in the right, while his views cannot be taken seriously.
Joseph Harris, September 9, 2019 4:31 AM
Again smug arrogance born of ignorance
Science is not dogmatic. Science is based on data and correct mathematics. Science is all about evidence and analysis. This is not my view, but rather how science works. Simply denying science is not presenting an equal opposing view. It is narcissistic blathering that denies evidence at best, and in the case of climate denial, willful spreading of ultimately lethal lies.
Ms. Phillips and you by extension are ignoring the data and the math.
One of the larger ironies of science deniers is that they wish to claim unearned equal status with science while refusing to understand even the most basic rules of how science works. Then, lacking any evidence for their claims and they whine about being persecuted when it turns out they have nothing.
Raymond, September 9, 2019 1:32 PM
Dishonest, childish insults
Joseph Harris wishes us to believe that he is the objective, scientific one while at the same time being so very dogmatic about his worldview, which in itself contradicts the nature of science. Nor does he bolster his case by resorting to his childish insults. Ironically, it is he who is engaged in narcissistic blathering, evidence denial, and willful spreading of ultimately lethal lies, as he ignores the data and the math.
Keith, September 9, 2019 3:48 PM
Parts of what you say are true but much is not
Hi. Everyone agrees the sun warms. And everyone - global warming realists as well as alarmists - agree that CO2 acts as a greenhouse. And everyone - realists as well as alarmists - agree that the degree that CO2 acts as a greenhouse is minimal and trivial. Even alarmists. Where they disagree is if CO2 acts with a feedback mechanisms that results in relentless feedback and warming. If this feedback occurs, there could be catastrophic warming. If not, probably not. So far there is little actual data that this exists in the real world and is not compensated by other feedback mechanisms.
The fact is there has been little or no warming the last 15 years, and the leaders of the movement are constantly "revising" old temperatures down and recent temperatures up to create an appearance of warming where the raw data fail to show it. This is not science. This is religion.