He is a former national fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and senior fellow in Jewish thought at the Shalem Center.
Now there's some credentials that would cause one to believe this guy over Darwin.
He is a former national fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and senior fellow in Jewish thought at the Shalem Center.
Now there's some credentials that would cause one to believe this guy over Darwin.
Yale has a very weak computer science program, certainly weakest of the Ivies. In general, they lag far behind national leaders in math and sciences. They may have a strong rivalry with Harvard when it comes to a cappella or sport, but, apart from drama, history, and english, they are barely even second tier. Great institution overall, though.
I think a previous poster mentioned this: With all due respect for his computer science credentials, he has no advanced experienced in biology. That is not to say he is not smart enough, or anything of that sort, but he simply does not have the requisite experience/knowledge base (call it his 10,000 hours, if you will) to have any sufficiently relevant thought on this matter. I am not dismissing him outright solely by virtue of his credentials. In reading his line of argumentation, his lack of knowledge shows through very plainly. What does show more is his background in the arts. He seems to play with biologic principles the same way an author plays with metaphors or allegory. Unfortunately, this cannot be done in the sciences. It is disappointing that a computer scientist can be so rigid and certain of his own rightness. This article should not be news at all, as it exposes the (understandable) weaknesses of one particular individual.
Subway Surfers wrote:
The idea is that you allow things enough time, variations will unfold. Creatures adapt to new environments and climates. Interesting stuff. It is hard to imagine a sea floor slug evolving into a soaring eagle but we are talking about billions of years, not just millions.
Ah, the old “billions” of years argument. Does that really convince you?
Oy Vey Dude wrote:
He is a former national fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and senior fellow in Jewish thought at the Shalem Center.
Now there's some credentials that would cause one to believe this guy over Darwin.
I am Jewish. You and your ilk are obsessed with us. Instead of this coy cowardice, say directly what you mean to say. Go ahead. You won't, because you know it's absurd, focusing obsessively on one group all the time like this. Get over it, be a man (or woman), and live a great life.
Oy Vey Dude wrote:
He is a former national fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and senior fellow in Jewish thought at the Shalem Center.
Now there's some credentials that would cause one to believe this guy over Darwin.
Hahaha .... so funny to watch shallow minded zealots when confronted with ideas different from their dogma.
Attack the person, attack the person’s credentials... how about instead you attack his conclusions with facts?
So lame ... wrote:
Oy Vey Dude wrote:
He is a former national fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and senior fellow in Jewish thought at the Shalem Center.
Now there's some credentials that would cause one to believe this guy over Darwin.
Hahaha .... so funny to watch shallow minded zealots when confronted with ideas different from their dogma.
Attack the person, attack the person’s credentials... how about instead you attack his conclusions with facts?
Give me a break. None of us have the scientific background to comment on Darwin's conclusions.
And neither does this guy. American Enterprise Institute? Jewish Thought? The guy is a hack.
DoctorGrubHub wrote:
Oy Vey Dude wrote:
He is a former national fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and senior fellow in Jewish thought at the Shalem Center.
Now there's some credentials that would cause one to believe this guy over Darwin.
I am Jewish. You and your ilk are obsessed with us. Instead of this coy cowardice, say directly what you mean to say. Go ahead. You won't, because you know it's absurd, focusing obsessively on one group all the time like this. Get over it, be a man (or woman), and live a great life.
Stop the victim nonsense.
If the guy was a fellow in Evangelical studies you would be the first to attack his credentials.
A fellow in Jewish Thought is to be taken seriously in his criticism of Darwin?
How about Mormon thought? Christian thought? Scientology? The Unification Church?
Choas x time = progress wrote:
Subway Surfers wrote:
The idea is that you allow things enough time, variations will unfold. Creatures adapt to new environments and climates. Interesting stuff. It is hard to imagine a sea floor slug evolving into a soaring eagle but we are talking about billions of years, not just millions.
Ah, the old “billions” of years argument. Does that really convince you?
It's a theory. Unlike creationism, it is based on actual data and allows for revisions. Also, the argument is not merely based on the 'billions of years.' The basis for Stanley Miller's 1953 Nobel Prize on the 'chemical soup' also included discussions of energetics, changes in environmental oxygen tension over geologic periods, and specific thermodynamic parameters for various chemical processes leading to creation of nucleic acids and proteins. The theory is much more complex than commonly described and involves important details understandably left out in the lay version of it.
Whether one follows some form of biologic evolution (attempts answer through objective data and reasoning) or faith-based creationism (uses no objective data or methods of reasoning), the complete answer to why we came to exist will not be achieved. The 'why' is unanswerable. The 'how' is what biologic research gradually fills in, and humbly, with no dictation of its absolute truth.
Grow up son wrote:
DoctorGrubHub wrote:
I am Jewish. You and your ilk are obsessed with us. Instead of this coy cowardice, say directly what you mean to say. Go ahead. You won't, because you know it's absurd, focusing obsessively on one group all the time like this. Get over it, be a man (or woman), and live a great life.
Stop the victim nonsense.
If the guy was a fellow in Evangelical studies you would be the first to attack his credentials.
A fellow in Jewish Thought is to be taken seriously in his criticism of Darwin?
How about Mormon thought? Christian thought? Scientology? The Unification Church?
Please be civil. I cited no victimhood. I would not 'attack' one's religious credentials, especially when these are not his highest form of education. In general, method of reasoning is far more important than credentials (though these are important, too, of course).
All I asked is that the poster with 'oy vey' in his/her name be direct in his actual message, as he seems to admix credentials and specifically Jewish issues together. If it were merely an issue of credentials, that person would have stated it outright. Additionally, the computer science professor's highest credentials are in computer science, with Jewish-related experience rather secondary.
Let's have civility and objectivity in discourse. You will note that I did not call anybody antisemitic. I merely want the poster to reveal his thoughts further, so that they can be addressed. I would not attack anybody for credentials (or for most things, in fact), as hostility shuts down discussion.
Everybody knows that the aliens infused their DNA with cavemen so a new intelligent homosapien was the result. The aliens have been experimenting on us for tens of thousands of years. Eventually they will come back and use us as slaves. Just watch "Ancient Aliens" on cable.
"Let's have civility and objectivity in discourse. You will note that I did not call anybody antisemitic."
You are full of it. Here is what you said. "You and your ilk are obsessed with us. Instead of this coy cowardice,.."
This guy is a fellow in Jewish Thought (what?). And in the American Enterprise Inst (a right wing propaganda outlet)
No background in biology.
He is a shameless hack who nobody should take seriously.
"I am Jewish." So" This means you have to give this guy a pass?
You need to grow up wrote:
"Let's have civility and objectivity in discourse. You will note that I did not call anybody antisemitic."
You are full of it. Here is what you said. "You and your ilk are obsessed with us. Instead of this coy cowardice,.."
This guy is a fellow in Jewish Thought (what?). And in the American Enterprise Inst (a right wing propaganda outlet)
No background in biology.
He is a shameless hack who nobody should take seriously.
"I am Jewish." So" This means you have to give this guy a pass?
Ah, c'mon. This is outright hostile. Let's bring it down a notch. "Grow up son" and "You need to grow up" are not helpful ways of having genuine conversation. Yes, I found it cowardly that the poster could not frame his thoughts directly, choosing instead a subtle (though still quite obvious) method of obsession over Judaism. The point of this whole topic/article has absolutely nothing to do with Judaism, and the poster was not simply referring to credentials, for reasons I have already expressed. I do agree with you that the professor in question should not be taken seriously, but that is mostly due to the reasoning he uses in explaining his conclusions. I would not call him names, but that is your choice. The only reason I stated "I am Jewish" was for the poster to perhaps engage with me on why he thinks the Judaism angle is relevant to this story. Nobody is giving anybody a 'pass.'
When ya die everything will answered. Good luck ya all!
DoctorGrubHub wrote:
You need to grow up wrote:
"Let's have civility and objectivity in discourse. You will note that I did not call anybody antisemitic."
You are full of it. Here is what you said. "You and your ilk are obsessed with us. Instead of this coy cowardice,.."
This guy is a fellow in Jewish Thought (what?). And in the American Enterprise Inst (a right wing propaganda outlet)
No background in biology.
He is a shameless hack who nobody should take seriously.
"I am Jewish." So" This means you have to give this guy a pass?
Ah, c'mon. This is outright hostile. Let's bring it down a notch. "Grow up son" and "You need to grow up" are not helpful ways of having genuine conversation. Yes, I found it cowardly that the poster could not frame his thoughts directly, choosing instead a subtle (though still quite obvious) method of obsession over Judaism. The point of this whole topic/article has absolutely nothing to do with Judaism, and the poster was not simply referring to credentials, for reasons I have already expressed. I do agree with you that the professor in question should not be taken seriously, but that is mostly due to the reasoning he uses in explaining his conclusions. I would not call him names, but that is your choice. The only reason I stated "I am Jewish" was for the poster to perhaps engage with me on why he thinks the Judaism angle is relevant to this story. Nobody is giving anybody a 'pass.'
This is hostile? Do you recall typing the following? "You and your ilk are obsessed with us. Instead of this coy cowardice,.."? By the way, who is "us"?
[quote]DoctorGrubHub wrote:
"I do agree with you that the professor in question should not be taken seriously, but that is mostly due to the reasoning he uses in explaining his conclusions."
This is pure delusion. You have no more insight into Darwins' work than I do or this guy with no background in biology.
Or. Maybe you can explain this guy's reasoning and why it is wrong?
Good luck wrote:
When ya die everything will answered.
False. When we die, our brains--the organs with which we *receive* such answers--cease to work. (In fact, a non-working brain is part of the definition of "death.") We won't "learn" or "find out" anything when we're dead; we'll just be dead.
.
God-believers have had *thousands* of years to demonstrate that their "deity" exists, and *still* the best they can come up with is: "Well--well--well, you just wait 'til yer dead, man!"
Sad.
He received his Bachelor of Arts and Master of Arts degrees in classical Hebrew literature from Yale University in 1976 and his Ph.D. from S.U.N.Y. Stony Brook in 1982.
He is a senior fellow in Jewish thought at the Shalem Center.
He is known for what he sees as the destructive influence of liberal academia on American society,
Gelernter has critiqued what he perceives as cultural illiteracy among students. In 2015, he commented, "They [students] know nothing about art. They know nothing about history. They know nothing about philosophy.
Time Magazine profiled Gelernter in 2016, describing him as a "stubbornly independent thinker. A conservative among mostly liberal Ivy League professors, a religious believer among the often disbelieving ranks of computer scientists."
In October 2016, he wrote an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal and saying that Barack Obama "has governed like a third-rate tyrant."
Russell Jacoby was sharply dismissive in his review of Gelernter's book America-Lite, describing it as "woeful" and containing insufficient arguments.
Two points.
1. This guy is a "religious believer' not an agnostic as identified in the original post.
2. He is a fanatic. Not a credible scientist by any stretch.
Ana Theist wrote:
Good luck wrote:
When ya die everything will answered.
False. When we die, our brains--the organs with which we *receive* such answers--cease to work. (In fact, a non-working brain is part of the definition of "death.") We won't "learn" or "find out" anything when we're dead; we'll just be dead.
.
God-believers have had *thousands* of years to demonstrate that their "deity" exists, and *still* the best they can come up with is: "Well--well--well, you just wait 'til yer dead, man!"
Sad.
Good luck!!!
Here’s the thing believe whatever you want as long as you don’t hurt anyone else because of it.
Atheists (communists) have murdered more people than anyone in history (now that’s evil).
Catholics have killed other Christian sects and beliefs because they don’t adhere to their traditions.
Muslims well....
Just live and let live . You can believe were from monkeys or we were created by god. Just don’t hurt others because they don’t believe what you believe.