Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Berlinski and Denton, agnostics who doubt Darwin, offer their reasoning

Denyse O'Leary
October 21, 2018
Design inference, Genetics, Intelligent Design, Mathematics
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email
David Berlinski

David Berlinski and Michael Denton  feature in a podcast:

For Berlinski, a mathematician and author of The Deniable Darwin, the problem is quantitative and methodological. For Denton, a geneticist and author of the new Discovery Institute Press book Children of Light: The Astonishing Properties of Light that Make Us Possible, the problem is empirical. Don’t miss this engaging discussion. “Denton, Berlinski: Primary Objections to Neo-Darwinism” at Evolution News and Science Today

Image result for michael denton
Here’s the podcast:

On this episode of ID The Future from the vault, Discovery Institute senior fellows David Berlinski and Michael Denton, both long-time critics of neo-Darwinism, discuss their primary objections to neo-Darwinian theory. For Berlinski, a mathematician and author of The Deniable Darwin, the problem is quantitative and methodological. For Denton, a geneticist and author of the new Discovery Institute Press book Children of Light: The Astonishing Properties of Light that Make Us Possible, the problem is empirical. Don’t miss this engaging discussion. 

Follow UD News at Twitter!

See also: David Berlinski with Mark Levin: The link between evolution, science and progressivism

and

Michael Denton: Every major science advance for 200 years shows unique fitness of Earth for life

Comments
Is the following quote from a creationist or someone who has a religionist agenda?
"It is important to emphasize at the outset that the argument presented here is entirely consistent with the basic naturalistic assumption of modern science - that the cosmos is a seamless unity which can be comprehended ultimately in its entirety by human reason and in which all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes. This is an assumption which is entirely opposed to that of the so-called "special creationist school". According to special creationism, living organisms are not natural forms, whose origin and design were built into the laws of nature from the beginning, but rather contingent forms analogous in essence to human artifacts, the result of a series of supernatural acts, involving the suspension of natural law. Contrary to the creationist position, the whole argument presented here is critically dependent on the presumption of the unbroken continuity of the organic world - that is, on the reality of organic evolution and on the presumption that all living organisms on earth are natural forms in the profoundest sense of the word, no less natural than salt crystals, atoms, waterfalls, or galaxies."
Can you guess who said it? Michael Denton. BTW Denton along with Michael Behe accepts common descent. However, they both argue very persuasively (if you bother to read their books) that the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection is insufficient to explain evolutionary change. My point very simply is there have been people involved with the modern ID movement from the very beginning who are not creationists and who are actually agnostic when it comes to religion.john_a_designer
October 22, 2018
October
10
Oct
22
22
2018
08:17 AM
8
08
17
AM
PDT
I wonder how they both remain agnostics.Silver Asiatic
October 21, 2018
October
10
Oct
21
21
2018
07:24 PM
7
07
24
PM
PDT

Leave a Reply