Activity

Not surprised that you followed up this

There are a large number of very serious and seemingly insurmountable problems in areas like mathematics, information theory, biochemistry and so statistics. I’ve probably read far more pro-evolution science books than you have anti-evolution science books.

With a “lecture” from a guy from the Discovery Institute. I don’t dismiss him just for that, but here’s what I found in the 45 minute thing: He tells some stories of scientists being agnostic. I know they say that because that’s a legitimate scientific stance, not certainty, or inerrancy. But Berlinski claims these statements are only made when lights go down, off stage somewhere. Google will show differently. At the end of this bit, he says he told those stories because “their doctrine is poisonous”. He offers no evidence or even discussion of this, he just moves on.

About 35 minutes, he talks about Galileo and how he had no idea of quantum mechanics. Galileo called it “the book of Nature” and declared it readable. He was wrong about that. This says nothing about values. That science has not produced the answers Galileo hoped it would says nothing about how well science works, it shows that nature was more complex than Galileo expected.

Around 43 he says that science might indicate we have traits that are not expressed or needed, and “unused gifts have no place, no role to play in the struggle for survival”. Known as Wallace’s problem. That’s so wrong. Having a trait, a mutation, that is not yet needed, but then becomes needed because of a change in environment, is exactly the definition of natural selection. This is why Darwin’s trip to the Galapagos was so fortuitous. In that spot in the ocean, the winds keep shifting and the environment changes every few hundred years, but constant environmental pressures on those species.

In the Q&A, he says Darwin is 100% bogus. Thanks for the detailed analysis there.

I could say more, but what’s the point?