Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Uncommon Knowledge: The Deniable Darwin
Is Charles Darwin’s theory fundamentally deficient? David Berlinski makes his case, noting that most species enter the evolutionary order fully formed and then depart unchanged. Where there should be evolution, there is stasis. So, was Darwin wrong?
David Berlinski is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture, a contributing editor at Inference: International Review of Science, and author of many books. Berlinski discusses his book The Deniable Darwin and lays out how Charles Darwin has failed to explain the origin of species through his theory of evolution.
Recorded on June 3rd, 2019 in Fiesole, Italy
Published in General
Based on some of the comments here and in Dr. Berlinski’s responses, it seems that many aren’t terribly familiar with Darwin’s discoveries, or have taken the time to read On The Origin of Species (or any other works that substantiate his findings) or how new scientific disciplines actually support the notion that species are related and have common ancestors, here’s an introduction to what Darwin postulated as well as the limitation he faced in not fully understanding what the genetic mechanisms were at play that gave rise to new species from those common ancestors.
To posit that Darwin was essentially a fraud or poseur and not worthy of being credited with changing the prevailing prejudices and ignorance of the natural world — is quite ridiculous.
Yes. I do see the trouble. So did Dr. Berlinski in the interview. He perceives, correctly, that the Atheist’s faith is that there is no God, while mine is that there is. When you find “proof” that there is not, and never has been, Creator God, you will be famous.
Brian,
I don’t think either Dr. Berlinski nor I nor anyone else on this post used words like fraud or poseur. He presented a scientific theory that was known to be false at the time he presented it. He assured everyone that they would find evidence in the future that would confirm his theory. The evidence was never found. As his theory presents an extremely warped view of the natural world, one wonders how much of the ignorance and prejudices about the natural world Darwin changed. Perhaps he merely replaced old ignorance with new ignorance.
Regards,
Jim
What is the Discovery Institute’s alternate theory on how the diversity of life on the planet developed? I’ll wait.
Brian,
When you present a false hypothesis it isn’t the responsibility of anybody else to present a true one or your false hypothesis must be accepted. Why must I worship at the altar of Darwin? Why must I have an alternate theory of how the diversity of life on the planet developed at my fingertips. Seems like a very tall order. Wouldn’t a healthy “as of yet we don’t know” answer be satisfactory.
Of course, you can present your theory in terms so vague as to be worthless. You know like how Man-Made Global Warming turned into Climate Change. At least one isn’t required to give the grant money back. Come to think of it they should give the grant money back.
Regards,
Jim
To compare Darwin’s contributions to a better understanding of the natural world to Obama’s contribution to the world peace in the first days of his presidency suggests that Darwin is not worthy of the acclaim he received is patently absurd. To suggest that Darwin knew his theory was “false at the time he presented it” pretty much declares that he was a fraud. So, my interpretation of your baseless comment is actually quite spot on.
To say that evidence of evolution was never found is patently absurd. The scientific evidence is overwhelming and is still growing thanks to genome sequencing of various life forms and our increasing understanding of how DNA seems to work and to occasionally break down.
Look, we understand you feel that Darwin was an awful fellow but you may want to refrain in hurling baseless allegations like his “theory presents a warped view of the natural world” and begin to lay out some actual facts on how the theory of evolution is incorrect. And while you’re at it, feel free to answer the question I pose in Comment #64 above. Cheers.
You have it upside down: Given that I am not the one making a fantastic claim, the burden of proof is not upon me.
He admitted as much. He said that they would find the fossils that confirmed his point of view. This doesn’t constitute fraud or even dishonesty. It just means you aren’t a very good scientist because they didn’t.
I would agree but I never said any such thing. You like Shawn are putting words into people’s mouth rapid fire. Again why must you defend Darwin with such vigor? What I was trying to tell you in my comments was that there was plenty of speculation about the natural world long before Darwin. Darwin’s particular theory was the core of Eugenics and this without question is a warped view of the natural world.
BTW, Eugenics was created by Darwin’s cousin Francis Galton. He undoubtedly was doubling down on his cousin’s game as it used the Origin of the Species as its core hypothesis. All I’m asking for is normal healthy skepticism and considering how much damage may have been done because of the lack thereof, I feel quite justified.
Regards,
Jim
If you claim that someone has stolen money from you, isn’t the onus on you to provide evidence for your claim?
If someone claims you stole money from them, wouldn’t you demand that they present evidence for their claim?
Your claim is that Darwin was dishonest and posited a false hypothesis. What is your evidence for this?
No one is asking you to worship at any altar. I’m simply asking for evidence that Darwin’s central idea – that life forms were derived from other life forms – was wrong, since you seem quite disturbed about it.
The Discovery Institute for Science and the Culture, in particular, has had ample time to present an alternate theory explaining the diversity and similarity of life forms on the planet and as yet have not presented one that can be reviewed and examined by actual practicing scientists in the fields of biology, geology, paleontology, genetics, what have you. They do complain a lot about Charles Darwin, though.
Biologists don’t know everything, but since this is about Darwin, and Berlinski’s observations, is there room to talk about the possibility that there is a Divine beginning…..or not? I leave it to Shawn Bell to prove the non-existence of a Divine order – at least Berlinski was willing to say maybe.
Because you said:
You… said it. You accused him of being a fraud – a knowing fraud at that. I didn’t have to put anything in your mouth you didn’t first utter.
Here’s what Darwin actually said:
This is undoubtedly true as we have seen time and again when invasive species displace native species and it is also undoubtedly true that new species have emerged after mass extinctions.
Do you deny that this is the case – and more importantly that this is at the core of the concept of Darwinian evolution? FWIW – the man himself I am not interested in defending as much as I am the spirit of free inquiry and process of induction Darwin used to construct his thesis. Of course he couldn’t know some of the things we do now.
That puts him in the category of people who formulated otherwise brilliant theories even in possession of less than perfect data… not a fraud, certainly.
Really?
You did say this:
Try arguing more honestly, please.
So are people who believe in certain ideas and carry them out responsible for those ideas? You can’t have it both ways.
As I explained in my first comment here, Berlinski is a wonderful begger of questions.
Now, see my comment above about those who are making fantastic claims.
Why not? You are guilty until proven innocent – oh wait – that is how you see those who believe in God – only prove something to you. You are indeed making a fantastic claim – that God does not exist. In fact its been so fantastic that its graced the covers of many magazines for years. You cannot prove it.
Again, I don’t have to because that’s not my responsibility. When you are the one who is saying that there is a giant spaghetti monster in your garage it becomes incumbent upon you to show that the spaghetti monster is there not upon me to show you that it isn’t.
That ignores The logical impossibility of proving a negative, a thing which I am not trying to do.
I love this. First, it should be noted that an absence of evidence is evidence of absence. It isn’t proof but it does allow a person to draw some pretty strong inferences.
Second, it should be noted that I’m not actually making that claim. I do think that the supernatural is the very last arrow we should ever be reaching for in the quiver of possible explanations for things we see in the world. That’s because reaching for that arrow implies that we have exhausted every other possible explanation for what we see.
But on its merits the claim itself is actually pretty ordinary. You make the same claim about every other god every single day.
Shawn & Brian,
In 1865 it is well known that speciation does not occur in tiny increments. (200 years of British Museum fossil record say so). Darwin presents his theory which chiefly implies that speciation happens in tiny increments. He is confronted at the time with the evidence and agrees that the data, the fossil record, doesn’t support his theory. Usually, in science, this implies that your theory is false. However, Darwin says that they will find the incremental fossil evidence. Over 100 years later the evidence is yet to be found and not for lack of intense trying.
None of this implies that Darwin is a fraud those are your words, not mine. I am only suggesting that Darwin failed as a scientist meaning that his theory was proved false by the data. Of course, he stubbornly continued on with his failed theory. Thus having an obsessive need to defend or worse lionize Darwin’s failed theory is something that only a propagandist would do. The propagandists need their ideology at all cost. Supporting a failed theory is the lie that will be told just for openers.
Man-Made Global Warming is dead because the data (it took a long time to get the accurate data) said it was no threat. AOC wants to spend 100 trillion dollars to solve a problem that doesn’t exist. The lies get bigger and bigger.
Regards,
Jim
Feel free to ignore the caustic remarks about the Creator and focus on the evidence presented.
Coincidentally enough, this appeared a few moments ago on another social media account of mine: https://www.prageru.com/video/god-vs-atheism-which-is-more-rational/?fbclid=IwAR2mWBdzWr9KElk98q7g5j-1MS2Lv_XDO_o7W8XtjAVA_zgypfAux_meiyY
I listened to the first minute and a half. I am neither defending creationism nor expounding on the most current evolutionary theories. Neither was Dr. Berlinski. The principle is incredibly simple. If you present a specific scientific hypothesis and it is not supported by the data then your hypothesis has been falsified. If you are given an extra 150 years to prove your specific claim because you refuse to give it up and you still can’t prove it because you still don’t have the data, you should be amazed that anyone was willing to put up with you for that long.
Darwin, enough!
Regards,
Jim
Jim – This will be my final comment because I believe you are arguing in bad faith. You say that Shawn and I have put words in your mouth but I have shown you a direct quote of yours that you denied expressing…and in response you offer no concession but continue to say that Shawn and I are deliberately putting words in your mouth.
You made a claim that Charles Darwin was being deliberately dishonest in presenting his theory and his ideas. That falls under the category of fraudulent behavior. Ergo, you are positing that he is a fraud. Do we really need to quibble about your intentions and your inference here?
As with many discussions about ToE, many participants reject out-of-hand any evidence or sources for evidence presented to them…as you seem to have done on this thread. I have linked to a couple of very interesting videos, admittedly one more acerbic in tone than the other but still presents some very compelling evidence that refutes your claim that no evidence to support Darwin’s theory has surfaced. Shawn also provided links in his first comment that apparently no one at this point has bothered to dispute or address.
On another post of yours (about the Notre Dame cathedral fire in Paris) you eventually expunged your video evidence of a modern elevator that you claimed was in the cathedral when it was found by me to be an elevator in a high school in Santa Barbara, California (because I actually listened to the high school student narrating the video) and had nothing to do with your claim and the thesis of your OP, but you continued to tramp heavily into vast conspiracy theory waters without any evidence to back up your claims. Now, you make an unsubstantiated claim that there is no evidence in the last 150 years to support Darwin’s theory but won’t address any evidence when it’s presented to you. That’s another sign of bad faith.
In the interest of full-disclosure, I have no altar in my home to Charles Darwin. I do not worship him but I find it fascinating that such vitriol is continuously hurled his way by Creationists, the Discovery Institute and the evasive Dr. Berlinski who once claimed that he had personally tabulated a list of 30,000 reasons why whales could not have evolved from land animals. Perhaps that list is in the appendix of his new book. One can only hope. It seems clear to me, that attacking Charles Darwin and his character, because he is the poster boy for evolution, which refutes the Biblical narrative of creation that many fundamentalist Christians, take as literal scientific truth – is a fixation and an obsession that seems to attract even very decent and well-meaning people. I can only sigh…and move on.
Well, I’ve personally been discussing the evolution of life on Earth and how life forms evolved from other life forms. Pretty sure one could still posit that Thomas Aquinas was correct in his argument for a First Cause…and still believe that evolution is a process, based on genetic and environmental factors responsible for the similarities and variations of life forms over several hundred million years.
Perhaps the cosmological argument should be presented on another post.
For me, it is all of a piece. A pile of all the ingredients of a single amino acid isn’t just going to turn into that amino acid all by itself – not even if you add water.
Hoyle tries to pass the origin of life off as occurring in space somewhere. It doesn’t make any difference how long the road is if all you are going to do is kick the same can down it.
Obviously you are more familiar with lawyer tricks than science. Scientists will often make a hypothesis that turns out not to be so. Sometimes they do so in the face of data that contradicts their hypothesis in the belief that new data will prove them out. This too is not uncommon. Darwin had the right to make such an intuitive hypothesis and he admitted that this was the situation. However, the new data did not prove him out and never has. This isn’t calling him a fraud, a term that I never used but you did (speaking of lawyer tricks). What it means is that he is a failed scientist and should not be held in such super high esteem. He didn’t break new ground as such theories had been around for a very long time including the one he was obviously emulating of his grandfather Erasmus.
In every first level Chemistry textbook there is a short paragraph or two about Aristotle and Earth, Air, Fire, and Water. If every Biology textbook wanted to do the same for Darwin then that might be appropriate. To endlessly lionize him is to participate in a cult of personality the hallmark of an ideology, not of science.
Regards,
Jim
The “does God exist or not” argument between believers, non-believers and those with a much smaller empty hole for believing seems to be what most got out of the Berlinski interview – a scientist who gives a maybe…or maybe not example. So, can we examine the ramifications of a world without Judaeo-Christianity, totally secular – devoid of religious boundaries where these two specific faiths cease to exist as we know them (excluding other faiths for now). Dr. Berlinski is rather nonchalant about this – in fact he says it is where we are going if not already there – but let’s go there for sake of a discussion (maybe for another post) what a world would be like morally, economically, socially, politically, physically, mentally, emotionally, and… spiritually, if you think human beings contain a spirit, or not?
I ask because either evolution contains the seeds for the necessity of God (or inclusion) within it, or without (exclusion)- it can’t be both.
You mean devoid of any monotheistic religion but none others? Because you did not mention Mohammedanism. And – may I respectfully suggest it sounds to me like you could make a good beginning to an entirely new conversation.
Interesting discussion.
I think that the overall criticism regarding the lack of evidence of evolution by natural selection is correct. There is some evidence, but a great many gaps, and it is not clear that the mechanism of natural selection is sufficient to have produced the variations in form that we observe.
The “transitional forms” argument and evidence (presented in Brian’s #80 above) is misleading, in my view. There are forms that appear to be “transitional” because they are intermediate, in the sense that creature B has some features of creature A and some of creature C. The evolutionist conclusion that this makes creature B an evolutionary transitional form, however, is unwarranted, at least in my view.
If I were to show you the skeletons of a modern human, modern chimp, and modern baboon, the chimp would appear to be a transitional form. But no one believes that baboons evolved into chimps which evolved into humans.
Similarly, if I were to show you the various “generations” of Ford Mustangs, the middle models would appear to be transitional forms. But we know that the early Mustangs did not evolve into the current model (in a Darwinian sense). Nor were the changes random. In the case of the Mustangs, they were the result of conscious design.
I haven’t studied evolution in detail since college, in the late 1980s. At the time, the prevailing theory appeared to be “punctuated equilibrium,” popularized by Stephen Jay Gould. The entire purpose of this hypothesis is to explain the gaps in the fossil record, as the observation is that new and significantly different forms emerged very quickly.
The claim that there are gaps does not appear to be disputed. Wikipedia (here) summarizes Richard Dawkins’s objection to Gould’s theory by stating that: “Richard Dawkins regards the apparent gaps represented in the fossil record to document migratory events rather than evolutionary events. According to Dawkins, evolution certainly occurred but ‘probably gradually’ elsewhere.”
I haven’t read Dawkins in the original, so this may be an oversimplification. The point is that both Gould and Dawkins appear to agree on the existence of gaps, but disagree about the cause.
I think that there are two fundamental problems: (1) factually, the fossil record is very sparse, and (2) logically, the fact of change does not demonstrate the mechanism of change.
Brian’s #13 above illustrates the second point, discussing dog breeds, though he posits that current dog breeds emerged over 18,000 to 30,000 years. According to Wikipedia (here), most modern breeds were developed in the 19th Century. Of course, the mechanism of the creation of dog breeds was conscious choice by humans.
I find there to be good points made by both sides of the argument.