Yale Computer Science professor and—as I found out today—Trump supporter David Gelernter has given up on Darwinism, finding it to be a “beautiful” but flawed theory.  Gelernter acknowledges that species make small adjustments based on their environment, etc.—adaptation—and that Darwin was correct in that regard, but that the process of new species developing from existing ones is mathematically impossible, even if the universe is trillions of years old.

For conservative Christians, skepticism of Darwin’s theory of evolution is something you keep quietly to yourself, lest you’re mocked roundly, or that you militantly espouse, which tends to turn people away—they tune out.  Regardless, the world at large has bought into Darwinism completely, even with holes in the theory (like the lack of a plethora of pre-Crambrian fossils that should, according to Darwin’s theory that all life descended from a common ancestor, be present given the Cambrian Explosion).

There is a wonderful Hoover Institute discussion with Dr. Gelernter, David Berlinski, and Stephen Meyer.  It’s well worth taking an hour to watch these three hyper-intelligent, thoughtful individuals discuss the shortcomings of Darwin.  It’s in this interview that the point is made that Darwinism is no longer a viable scientific theory, but is rather a pervasive form of worldly theology.

I’ve certainly run into the theological—indeed, the theocratic—mania for Darwinism.  A student once said he thought about “reporting me” to the administration for simply stating that I would have to side with the Bible’s account of Creation, even if there were apparent disagreements between scientific evidence and revealed Scripture (it should be noted that, thanks to years of patient discussion on my part, this young man went on to become relatively red-pilled, giving up the social justice poison of his youth).  My point then was not that we should ignore scientific evidence, but that my faith requires me to place my faith in God, not the limited understanding of man in his search to understand God’s Creation.

It’s interesting—and sad—to note how easily orthodoxies become entrenched, and how difficult they are to dislodge.  Climate science follows a similar tack:  rather than acknowledging that, well, the Earth’s climate has been changing for eons—sometimes warming, sometimes cooling—we’re expected to believe that human-caused climate change is gospel truth.  To question it is to invite excommunication from the Church of Science.

The video above is, I think, one of the most compelling cases against Darwinian evolution I’ve ever heard.  It will appeal to non-Christians because it doesn’t rely (at all) on revealed Truth from Scripture to make its case.  Theological arguments are fine, but they’re not particularly persuasive to non-believers, who don’t accept the underlying assumptions of the faith.

My rule of thumb is always that, whenever something doesn’t fit with Christianity—and even with a broadly conservative worldview generally—it’s likely that there’s not enough evidence yet, or that the evidence is skewed or interpreted badly.  Many times in my life I’ve had only to read or hear good analysis to confirm what my instincts suggest is true.

Christians are natural skeptics because we know the world is incompatible with us.  Progressive dogma can’t tolerate skeptics—they represent a threat to their theocratic dominance over hearts and minds.