The Deniable Darwin


Recommended Posts

Folks:

I just heard this fellow interviewed by Dennis Miller whose radio show is phenomenal. Berlinski was his guest today. ** I included the Wiki site on him. Extremely engaging sharp mind. Miller is a great interviewer. David tells the story of how the whale of today evolved from the cow. It is a scream, but when you do the mental math with him you say hmmm.

Berlinski is a 75 year old, self described, secular Jew.

David Berlinski and The Deniable Darwin Anika Smith play_button.gif Click here to listen.

On today's episode of ID the Future, mathematician and consummate skeptic David Berlinski shares with Discovery President Bruce Chapman about his award-winning essays from Commentary Magazine and the answers that are unacceptable to the scientific community.

The essays first published in Commentary Magazine are now available in The Deniable Darwin & Other Essays, a new book published by Discovery Institute Press, where nothing is exempt from Berlinski's famous skepticism, excluding neither Darwinism nor intelligent design from his critical eye. The 32 essays included in this volume span fifteen years of wit and insight. Visit the website at www.davidberlinski.org for more information.

**http://en.wikipedia....David_Berlinski

Adam

Link to post
Share on other sites

Folks:

I just heard this fellow interviewed by Dennis Miller whose radio show is phenomenal. Berlinski was his guest today. ** I included the Wiki site on him. Extremely engaging sharp mind. Miller is a great interviewer. David tells the story of how the whale of today evolved from the cow. It is a scream, but when you do the mental math with him you say hmmm.

Berlinski is a 75 year old, self described, secular Jew.

David Berlinski and The Deniable Darwin Anika Smith play_button.gif Click here to listen.

On today's episode of ID the Future, mathematician and consummate skeptic David Berlinski shares with Discovery President Bruce Chapman about his award-winning essays from Commentary Magazine and the answers that are unacceptable to the scientific community.

The essays first published in Commentary Magazine are now available in The Deniable Darwin & Other Essays, a new book published by Discovery Institute Press, where nothing is exempt from Berlinski's famous skepticism, excluding neither Darwinism nor intelligent design from his critical eye. The 32 essays included in this volume span fifteen years of wit and insight. Visit the website at www.davidberlinski.org for more information.

**http://en.wikipedia....David_Berlinski

Adam

The process of evolution based on natural selection is falsifiable. However no evidence gotten so far falsifies the theory and tons of evidence corroberate the the theory. The theory of evolution by natural selection which is interaction between the organism and the environment by physical processes governed by physical law is totally consistent with physics and chemistry and can be observed (in some cases) in real time. In other cases the processes is very slow and takes a long time (relative to human life-span) and must be inferred by indirect means.

No better falsifiable theory has been proposed and the theory of evolution addresses a large range of biological phenomena.

Intelligent Design is a looser. It is not falsifiable by any empirical means. It is NOT a scientific theory. Unless there is clear evidence for the existence of a Designer operating according to a design scheme consistent with observable phenomena the hypothesis is unsupported.

Berlinski is a very clever chap, but his is more glib than profound.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Folks:

I just heard this fellow interviewed by Dennis Miller whose radio show is phenomenal. Berlinski was his guest today. ** I included the Wiki site on him. Extremely engaging sharp mind. Miller is a great interviewer. David tells the story of how the whale of today evolved from the cow. It is a scream, but when you do the mental math with him you say hmmm.

Berlinski is a 75 year old, self described, secular Jew.

David Berlinski and The Deniable Darwin Anika Smith play_button.gif Click here to listen.

On today's episode of ID the Future, mathematician and consummate skeptic David Berlinski shares with Discovery President Bruce Chapman about his award-winning essays from Commentary Magazine and the answers that are unacceptable to the scientific community.

The essays first published in Commentary Magazine are now available in The Deniable Darwin & Other Essays, a new book published by Discovery Institute Press, where nothing is exempt from Berlinski's famous skepticism, excluding neither Darwinism nor intelligent design from his critical eye. The 32 essays included in this volume span fifteen years of wit and insight. Visit the website at www.davidberlinski.org for more information.

**http://en.wikipedia....David_Berlinski

Adam

The process of evolution based on natural selection is falsifiable. However no evidence gotten so far falsifies the theory and tons of evidence corroberate the the theory. The theory of evolution by natural selection which is interaction between the organism and the environment by physical processes governed by physical law is totally consistent with physics and chemistry and can be observed (in some cases) in real time. In other cases the processes is very slow and takes a long time (relative to human life-span) and must be inferred by indirect means.

No better falsifiable theory has been proposed and the theory of evolution addresses a large range of biological phenomena.

Intelligent Design is a looser. It is not falsifiable by any empirical means. It is NOT a scientific theory. Unless there is clear evidence for the existence of a Designer operating according to a design scheme consistent with observable phenomena the hypothesis is unsupported.

Berlinski is a very clever chap, but his is more glib than profound.

Ba'al Chatzaf

As I understand it the Discovery Institute is renown for being an advocate of Intelligent Design and Creationism. There are many religious scientists which has always struck me as oxymoronic who support the Discovery Institute.

To my way of thinking there is just the natural Universe and whatever has happened in reality has had a Natural explanation. The supernatural is simply fantasy and mythology no matter how many people live by some traditional theology or another. No matter how complex any observable feature is, whether it is the human clotting mechanism, the human eye, the movement of hundreds of billions of stars in a galaxy, the mechanism which gave rise to it are invariably natural and not supernatural.

Creationism or intelligent design are nonsense. The burden of proof is upon those who claim their view is correct. So far the score is Science 100 and Religions 0 unless you count the comfort of adults who prefer reinforcement of their belief that if only one believes one will survive death for eternity. How grandiose, but one can understand the appeal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Adam: I rate ID propagandists about a notch above Holocaust deniers, I’d say they belong on the same rung of hell, but IDers can stay lakeside, while the HDers belong in the flames. Here’s a couple lines from Berlinski’s Wikipedia page:

Berlinski appeared in the 2008 file Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, in which he told interviewer Ben Stein that "Darwinism is not a sufficient condition for a phenomenon like Nazism but I think it's certainly a necessary one." He also says

It'd be nice to see the scientific establishment lose some of its prestige and power...Above all, it'd be nice to have a real spirit of self-criticism penetrating the sciences.

Now if he was critiquing the supposed “consensus” on global warming I’d applaud, but not in this context. He works for an outfit that wants ID forced on public schools. Next, I thought the Expelled movie was obnoxious and juvenile, so there’s two strikes. The link you gave didn’t have the Dennis Miller interview you said you liked, and I can’t find anything positive on this guy.

106.gif

Help?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Adam: I rate ID propagandists about a notch above Holocaust deniers, I'd say they belong on the same rung of hell, but IDers can stay lakeside, while the HDers belong in the flames. Here's a couple lines from Berlinski's Wikipedia page:

Berlinski appeared in the 2008 file Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, in which he told interviewer Ben Stein that "Darwinism is not a sufficient condition for a phenomenon like Nazism but I think it's certainly a necessary one." He also says

It'd be nice to see the scientific establishment lose some of its prestige and power...Above all, it'd be nice to have a real spirit of self-criticism penetrating the sciences.

Now if he was critiquing the supposed "consensus" on global warming I'd applaud, but not in this context. He works for an outfit that wants ID forced on public schools. Next, I thought the Expelled movie was obnoxious and juvenile, so there's two strikes. The link you gave didn't have the Dennis Miller interview you said you liked, and I can't find anything positive on this guy.

106.gif

Help?

I do not have a problem with questioning any sacred cows. I just found it an excellent interview.

One massive problem I have is with the oppressive philosophical agenda that is being forced on the "public" schools. I completely disagree that Intelligent Design whether you like it or I like it should not be a free choice in the "public schools".

As Ba'al said above, "Berlinski is a very clever chap, but his is more glib than profound." I could "hear" the glibness in the short interview. However, his cow into a whale was just flat out hilarious.

http://www.dennismillerradio.com/site As far as the show, maybe the master Ted Keer can find it in there. I keep hitting a paid page. So after three tries, I pass in on.

Adam

Link to post
Share on other sites

ND,

As a theoretical psychologist, I consider it part of my business to try to explain how intelligence has emerged.

The "intelligent design" crew thinks they've solved one of the deep problems of psychology by positing a superintelligence that didn't have to come into being, so it could turn around and design intelligent organisms.

Not helpful.

And blaming Darwin for Nazism is downright slimy. Would Berlinski claim that Darwinism was also a necessary condition for the depredations of Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot?

Robert Campbell

Link to post
Share on other sites

ND,

As a theoretical psychologist, I consider it part of my business to try to explain how intelligence has emerged.

The "intelligent design" crew thinks they've solved one of the deep problems of psychology by positing a superintelligence that didn't have to come into being, so it could turn around and design intelligent organisms.

Not helpful.

And blaming Darwin for Nazism is downright slimy. Would Berlinski claim that Darwinism was also a necessary condition for the depredations of Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot?

Robert Campbell

Excellent point Robert. I was intrigued by the "secular Jew" self label that he insisted on using. Secondarily, his claim to being a mathematician. OK that works for me.

However, the connector of just Nazism and Darwinism sounded very "off" to me, and I do not believe he used the word Holocaust word once. So your point clarified why it felt so "wrong".

Thanks.

Adam

Link to post
Share on other sites

Adam,

I agree that no curriculum should be forced on children, as is currently the case with government K-12.

With separation of school and state, some kids may attend religious schools that downplay science in general, not just evolutionary biology. You can't live in South Carolina and not recognize that this will be one of the outcomes... Around these parts, you can see bumper ornaments in the form of a Jesus fish eating a Darwin fish.

Intelligent Design is on the borderline, though. It is not really a scientific theory, even a bad theory. It is a crypto-religious doctrine. In the 1700s, a belief in design didn't presuppose religious faith (even though nearly all believers in design were also highly religious). There weren't any very good evolutionary explanations yet. In the 2000s, a belief in design pretty much requires religious faith, because its deficiencies are so obvious and the alternative explanations are so well developed.

And as long as we're stuck with government schools, I do think it's a good idea to keep prayer and religious indoctrination out of them.

Robert Campbell

Link to post
Share on other sites

Adam,

I agree that no curriculum should be forced on children, as is currently the case with government K-12.

With separation of school and state, some kids may attend religious schools that downplay science in general, not just evolutionary biology. You can't live in South Carolina and not recognize that this will be one of the outcomes...

Intelligent Design is on the borderline, though. It is not really a scientific theory, even a bad theory. It is a crypto-religious doctrine.

Robert Campbell

I.D. is Stealth Creationism, and for that reason, it is a sneaky, dishonest hypothesis.

On the other hand if a believer wishes to hold that evolution is G-D's way of making living things happen on Earth, and that is o.k.. It is not a scientific view, but it is not particularly harmful either. The holder of such a view forthrightly identifies the Designer. He is most likely wrong, but he is not sneaky about it.

This view is akin to compatibalism which seeks to reconcile physical determinism and free will. It is a way of applying glue to two incompatible ideas.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Adam,

I agree that no curriculum should be forced on children, as is currently the case with government K-12.

With separation of school and state, some kids may attend religious schools that downplay science in general, not just evolutionary biology. You can't live in South Carolina and not recognize that this will be one of the outcomes...

Intelligent Design is on the borderline, though. It is not really a scientific theory, even a bad theory. It is a crypto-religious doctrine.

Robert Campbell

I have to take a serious look at the entire doctrine. I have not done my due diligence on the issue. I have a number of questions about the Darwinian theories, but it does represent the status quo which means the burden of proof is on me. I guess the secular Jew caught my ear.

Adam

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to take a serious look at the entire doctrine. I have not done my due diligence on the issue. I have a number of questions about the Darwinian theories, but it does represent the status quo which means the burden of proof is on me. I guess the secular Jew caught my ear.

Adam

Which doctrine? Evolution or Intelligent Design?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to take a serious look at the entire doctrine. I have not done my due diligence on the issue. I have a number of questions about the Darwinian theories, but it does represent the status quo which means the burden of proof is on me. I guess the secular Jew caught my ear.

Adam

Which doctrine? Evolution or Intelligent Design?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Intelligent design, my error being unclear.

Adam

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to take a serious look at the entire doctrine. I have not done my due diligence on the issue. I have a number of questions about the Darwinian theories, but it does represent the status quo which means the burden of proof is on me. I guess the secular Jew caught my ear.

Adam

Check out some material by Richard Dawkins. There’s plenty on youtube you can watch for free, and he has a great website. http://richarddawkins.net/

Eugenie Scott is another person to check out, she works more in the trenches (legal activism), and has exposed how ID is just creationism repackaged.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's something from Berlinski, including him talking about whales and cows

I'm sure on Dennis Miller's show he was funny, here he's just nauseating. There are other clips from him out there, and someone took this clip and inserted answers to his points, but with a annoyingly shrill voice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ninth Doctor:

And folks think that his numbers are and questions are to be dismissed because he is in the tank for Intelligent Design?

I am confused. Help me out here. I find it intriguing.

Adam

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ninth Doctor:

And folks think that his numbers are and questions are to be dismissed because he is in the tank for Intelligent Design?

I am confused. Help me out here. I find it intriguing.

Adam

Here's the reply, I don't like the guy's voice but he makes sense

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not making myself clear...

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/08/von-neumann-on.html

OK, the guy's got his own gig and act going. Fine.

I am just asking for a discussion of the simple cow/whale illustration. For example, does the ordinal or exponential mathematical complications of the Darwinianism's theoretical base have merit? If it does, does it matter?

I find the man an inept communicator and he came across much better without the visuals. He does not appear trustworthy to me.

Adam

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am just asking for a discussion of the simple cow/whale illustration. For example, does the ordinal or exponential mathematical complications of the Darwinianism's theoretical base have merit? If it does, does it matter?

Beyond what was covered in the reply? Maybe it's too late at night, but I'm not sure what you're asking to discuss further.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not making myself clear...

http://pandasthumb.o...neumann-on.html

OK, the guy's got his own gig and act going. Fine.

I am just asking for a discussion of the simple cow/whale illustration. For example, does the ordinal or exponential mathematical complications of the Darwinianism's theoretical base have merit? If it does, does it matter?

I find the man an inept communicator and he came across much better without the visuals. He does not appear trustworthy to me.

Adam

Von Neuman never wrote any criticism or disparagement of the theory of evolution as it existed in his time, in any of his publications. He was interested in other things. In fact he might have found the theory praiseworthy since it fits perfectly with his goal of describing replication of structures. One of his important research projects was to describe how erroneous machines could combine to produce a resulting machine that was less erroneous than any of its components.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not making myself clear...

http://pandasthumb.o...neumann-on.html

OK, the guy's got his own gig and act going. Fine.

I am just asking for a discussion of the simple cow/whale illustration. For example, does the ordinal or exponential mathematical complications of the Darwinianism's theoretical base have merit? If it does, does it matter?

I find the man an inept communicator and he came across much better without the visuals. He does not appear trustworthy to me.

Adam

Von Neuman never wrote any criticism or disparagement of the theory of evolution as it existed in his time, in any of his publications. He was interested in other things. In fact he might have found the theory praiseworthy since it fits perfectly with his goal of describing replication of structures. One of his important research projects was to describe how erroneous machines could combine to produce a resulting machine that was less erroneous than any of its components.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Ba'al that is what the link confirmed to me

Link to post
Share on other sites

David Berlinski and The Deniable Darwin Anika Smith play_button.gif Click here to listen.

The ironic thing is that the theory of evolution by variation and natural selection is not inherently atheistic, although many atheists like it because it denies the literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis. The T.O.E. deals with the development of living beings over the eons by means of natural processes. The T.O.E. does not address the question of how life began in the first place (abiogenesis). Nobody knows how life began on this planet nor has anyone succeeded in producing living beings from non-living material.

There is no doubt that the living beings of today are not what existed on this planet three and a half billion years ago. The T.O.E. addresses how life got from where it used to be to where it is.

Nothing in the theory demands the non-existence of G-D nor does anything in the theory imply the existence of G-D. The T.O.E. is orthogonal to the question of the existence of G-D.

For example, the biologist Ken Miller who deconstructed Michael Behe in the well known Dover PA trial is a devout Catholic, a biologist and follower of the T.O.E. as it developed from Darwin's work.

The Creationists are annoyed that the T.O.E. denies the literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have an hour of your life you don't mind wasting, here he digs into his bag of tricks for C-SPAN. This one's more about religion, I think you'll conclude his "Secular Jew" line is just a marketing gimmick.

http://www.c-spanvid...rogram/204696-1

Can't resist sharing the classic:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="
type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

This is NOT a parody. hysterical.gif

What the hell, here's another great one:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="
type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Link to post
Share on other sites

"9th Dr."

What caught my ear was the secular Jew. It does not surprise me that it would a gimmick.

Also, those clips were hilarious,

Adam

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...

David Berlinski's daughter, Claire Berlinski, is now an up-and-coming conservative author and journalist.

FYI, she's interviewed by Peter Robinson on "Uncommon Knowledge", webcast from the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. Here's a link to part 1 of a 5-part interview:

http://tv.nationalreview.com/uncommonknowledge/post/?q=ODYwNDVkYTcxMzVhNGI1OTk1ZGU3NGYxMmYzMGQ4MzI=

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now