David Berlinski Explains Problems With Evolution

Started by Maximilian, March 14, 2017, 07:38:10 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Maximilian

The prior thread having devolved into personal recriminations, I thought I'd start a new thread with this video of David Berlinski. This is the guy who was the intellectual star of Ben Stein's "Expelled," and this video presents his arguments briefly and directly. Anyone can watch it in a few minutes.

As he says, "If you can provide a quantitative answer why living systems don't experience catastrophic failure under random mutations, tell me, I'll take your call day or night."


Maximilian

Here is David Berlinski in a more informal setting discussing his book, "The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions."

This video demonstrates the way in which the scientific arguments and the theological/political arguments are inextricably tangled together, even for a secular Jew like David Berlinski. The reason is that there is no scientific basis for Darwinian evolution, it always was a metaphysical explanation for atheism.

He makes a very interesting point that atheism is now the default position for all sophisticated people. In fact, atheism has gone beyond simply being accepted to now being considered apodictic for everyone who wants to be taken seriously. That being the case, evolution is equally a prior necessary condition for being part of advanced society.


INPEFESS

#2
Thank you for posting. Though I have watched this video before and watched some of his other talks, it is always a relief to hear ome of your own concerns echoed by someone in his academic position.

Besides the metaphysical problems with Darwinian evolution, there is a problem I have long considered, though not enumerated here by Dr. Berlinski, of bio-teleological circularity. Just consider the state of the question. Complex Biological System A, which is necessary for life, only correctly operates dependently in conjunction with Complex Biological System B. Each system's finished product is specially adapted to co-operation with each other. But if either system lacks one of the constituents necessary for the sustenance of the other, both systems fail. This means that each system (and there are lot more than just two in the human body alone) had to become specially adapted with each other, yet independently of each other, without a common determinate telos and without either system failing. System A needs the finished System B in order for System A's evolutionary progress to be advantageous, yet System B needs the finished product of System A's evolutionary progress to be advantageous. Take the pulmonary and circulatory systems for example. In order for a man to live, his pulmonary system must be perfectly adapted to cooperation with an entirely separate system: the circulatory system. Which came first? Neither is useful of itself, and neither has any purpose without the finished product of both. Lungs have no purpose without the veins within the alveoli at which oxygen and carbon dioxide are exchanged, yet these veinous alveoli sites have no purpose without the lungs; and neither of them has any purpose antecedent to the other. Subtract any detail and all oxygen breathing species fail. This gets even more complex when we consider all these systems holistically, from the skeletal to the muscular, and from the immune to the nervous. They all need each other, so none could be antecedent to the other. Yet none has any teleological benefit independently of the  other, defying the very mechanism of evolutionary progress. This problem is exponentially increased when we consider it in the micro-level, within each organ of each system. The lenses of the eye have no beneficial survival purpose without the muscles to make use of them; the muscles have no beneficial survival purpose without the lenses they make useful. The rods/cones have no purpose without either of them. Without them, the rods might as well be tiny hairs. And none of these accomplish anything without the window of the Iris by which light makes them useful. Yet all these evolved independently without a common direction as random purposeless means subordinated miraculously to the same beautifully perfect end: vision. Chicken, meet the egg from which you came by means of your nurturing.

Indeed, if evolution is true, then it is a greater miracle than creation itself.
I  n
N omine
P atris,
E t
F ilii,
E t
S piritus
S ancti

>))))))º> "Wherefore, brethren, labour the more, that by good works you may make sure your calling and election. For doing these things, you shall not sin at any time" (II Peter 1:10). <º((((((<


ABlaine

It's rather late here, but here are a few thoughts that strike me offhand.

The first being the fact that comments are disabled. What a shock that those promulgating such views simultaneously try to limit exposure to conflicting opinions or, dare I say, conveniently ignored facts. The second is the da Vinchi quote in the very beginning 'No human investigation can be called true science without passing through mathematical tests.' If this is truly the definition by which you'd like to establish the boundaries of science then we can throw out the great majority of geology, cosmology, astronomy, etc. Not to mention such things as, say, theology or philosophy. As unfortunate as it is to be in disagreement with someone like da Vinchi of all people, the quote blatantly ignores the actual definition of science which in itself is really just a synonym of knowledge (especially in da Vinchi's time when Latin was better taught and the root ore familiar: scientia, scientiae. Literally 'knowledge'). Third, I find it absolutely deliciously ironic that the first this the video does after its little epigraph is try to establish his credibility by linking him to great colleges and institutions. He came from Princeton, he studied with X professor, he was a fellow at L'Institut des Hautes études scientifique à Paris etc and so forth.

This is literally the kind of look-at-my-credential-and-trust-me kind of thinking that the deniers of evolution jettison with such vitriol and disgust. 'Why should I listen to this hoity-toity career driven Harvard grad? Just because he has a degree doesn't make him right.' they so often say. However as soon as they find a graduate of such gilt institutions suddenly such credentials are paraded with pride and a total lack of self awareness. I mean just listen to him, he is the epitome of the WASP ivy-league career scientist. The worst thing is he didn't make his name with actual research and debate within his field, rather he could only get by by pandering to a shrinking lay public that was predisposed to agree with him no matter what he said.

Fourth, the  fact that certain Christians line up behind a self described agnostic whilst ignoring actual Catholic scientists like, say, Ken Miller is not lost on me. That is laying aside the fact that French Catholic Lamarck actually came up with the first system of evolution 50 yeas before Darwin and that the Catholic monk Mendel is the founder of genetics and did most of the earliest research in genetics/artificial selection.

And lastly, the fact that he is described as 'rebellious' and 'defying Darwin.' Darwin was rebellious. And while his theories weren't new, his rendition was the most substantiated of those on the 'evolutionary' side. Naturally many, many people disagreed with him at first and over time people came to his side as more and more geological and fossil evidence was uncovered pertaining to various species at various times, etc. The study of embryonic development and later the discovery of DNA lend enormous support to his theories. It was famously said that nothing in Biology can be understood expect through the lens of evolution (I'm paraphrasing) and actually go study embryology or genetics and try to understand the things we can observe outside of the framework of evolution. It's night impossible.

To be frank most of this man's arguments could also be used to declare a lack of God - this perhaps explains why he is an agnostic. By what mathematical tests are we to believe in God? The necessity of a god can be found in philosophy, but philsophy doesn't fit this strict definition of science and no 'hard' facts are provided to the seeker. Let alone experiments that one may perform. The necessity of a god can be found in philosophy, the sole exterior component by which we can declare there must be a God is the beginning of the universe itself. And that our god is the true God is an expression of faith (buttressed by reason, of course, by the likes of Aquinas, Chateaubriand, etc). But that faith is in God, not in a specific and exacting theory about how we came into being.

It is absolutely beyond my comprehension that people other than Baptist Appalachian YEC folks continue to run with this. The only reason Catholics could possibly feel so compelled to throw out the wonderful gift of knowledge would be if their faith was inextricably tied up with a very narrow interpretation of creationism. I, for one, think that the idea that all life sprang and came to be from just one to source to be an incredibly beautiful parallel to the way that all life sprang from the one true God. Just as even atheists admit that the universe came to be from one inexplicable (to them) explosion out of nothingness, the Big Bang theory is also an incredible parallel to everything having but one source.

Or, from my perspective anyway, they are more than mere parallels.

God created an ordered universe. There is nothing wrong with trying to understand that order and the rules he laid by which we are to live.

Anyway, I'd go on but I am tired and have to study  :-[

Seeing as so much stock was put in a 30 minute video by an agnostic scientist with little to show beyond contrarianism here is a 1 hour video by a respected doctor that has produced real research and happens to be a Catholic. He has also written several books.

Maximilian

Quote from: INPEFESS on March 25, 2017, 02:44:21 PM

Besides the metaphysical problems with Darwinian evolution, there is a problem I have long considered, though not enumerated here by Dr. Berlinski, of bio-teleological circularity.

Berlinski doesn't address the topic in this particular video, but the issue of "irreducible complexity" has received a lot attention in the Intelligent Design field, perhaps more than any other individual topic.

"Darwin's Black Box" by Michael Behe is considered a bestseller.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin's_Black_Box

james03

QuoteBut if either system lacks one of the constituents necessary for the sustenance of the other, both systems fail.

Stated another way, the deadlock problem.  Obvious example is the protein/DNA (and mRNA, RNA, etc...) problem.

Another problem is that the bio-chemistry paradigm has been proven false, and we move to bio-nanomachinery.  This moves the irreducible complexity problem back to the most primitive forms of life.  Splitting a nucleus involves extremely sophisticated nanorobots coupled to a control system. 

Another problem is the information problem and how it relates to Shannon Entropy. 
"But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God (Jn 3:18)."

"All sorrow leads to the foot of the Cross.  Weep for your sins."

"Although He should kill me, I will trust in Him"

james03

QuoteBy what mathematical tests are we to believe in God?

Godel

"But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God (Jn 3:18)."

"All sorrow leads to the foot of the Cross.  Weep for your sins."

"Although He should kill me, I will trust in Him"

Kreuzritter

#7
Quote from: ABlaine on March 25, 2017, 04:04:49 PMater the discovery of DNA lend enormous support to his theories

The existence of a complex, unchanging, universal code underlying all life that shows incredible redundancy and specificity to situations that could not have possible occurred during the time it was allegedly "evolving" (you know, before its evolution just froze) supports Darwin's theories? My, you're a funny one.

The encoded information processing system of the living cell is the large rusty nail in the coffin of Darwin's rotting corpse.

Kreuzritter

Quote from: james03 on April 15, 2017, 09:39:55 PM
QuoteBut if either system lacks one of the constituents necessary for the sustenance of the other, both systems fail.

Stated another way, the deadlock problem.  Obvious example is the protein/DNA (and mRNA, RNA, etc...) problem.

Another problem is that the bio-chemistry paradigm has been proven false, and we move to bio-nanomachinery.  This moves the irreducible complexity problem back to the most primitive forms of life.  Splitting a nucleus involves extremely sophisticated nanorobots coupled to a control system. 

Another problem is the information problem and how it relates to Shannon Entropy.

It took all the intellectual power of man thousands of years to create this:

[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSdYR-FHcA8[/yt]

but these things

[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVuChsXQ_dw[/yt]

- that's just dumb luck and a bit of weeding out.

Yup. A chemical soup created the first cell by chance, but the intelligence of man hasn't managed to create even the simplest replica of such a thing.

It takes a special kind of willful stupidity to believe Darwin.



Greg

Contentment is knowing that you're right. Happiness is knowing that someone else is wrong.

Elizabeth

Quote from: Maximilian on March 14, 2017, 08:08:56 AM


He makes a very interesting point that atheism is now the default position for all sophisticated people. In fact, atheism has gone beyond simply being accepted to now being considered apodictic for everyone who wants to be taken seriously. That being the case, evolution is equally a prior necessary condition for being part of advanced society.


This is absolutely true in the art world, has been so for decades.

Greg

Contentment is knowing that you're right. Happiness is knowing that someone else is wrong.