Intelligent Design

Meanwhile, David Berlinski is Still Holding His Breath Waiting for an Answer

Spread the love

My discussion with Larry Moran over the last few days ranged over several topics, including the current debate among neutral theory advocates like Dr. Moran, and those who believe natural selection remains the primary driving force.  The discussion put me in mind of a post I put up several months ago in which I said:

Is there any “core” proposition on which all proponents of modern evolutionary theory agree. By “core” proposition, I do not mean basic facts of biology that pretty much everyone from YECs to Richard Dawkins agrees are true. I mean a proposition upon which the theory stands or falls, and, as I said above, sets it apart from other theories and accounts for its unique purported explanatory power

I have in mind a proposition that would answer David Berlinski’s famous question:

“I disagree [with Paul R. Gross’ assertion] that Darwin’s theory is as “solid as any explanation in science.” Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?”

Indeed. What does modern evolutionary theory offer in comparison? How can the theory ever hope to be as “solid as any explanation in science” when its proponents cannot seem to agree on a single tenet, the falsification of which would, in Berlinski’s words, shatter the theory?

My discussion with Dr. Moran reminded me that advocates of modern evolutionary theory have yet to come close to answering Berlinski’s question.  Yet, I bet Dr. Moran would insist that materialist evolutionary theory is as “solid as any explanation in science.”

But I won’t presume to put words in his mouth.  What say you Dr. Moran?  Is Paul Gross correct or is David Berlinski correct?

8 Replies to “Meanwhile, David Berlinski is Still Holding His Breath Waiting for an Answer

  1. 1
    Jack Jones says:

    “When discussing organic evolution the only point of agreement seems to be: “It happened.” Thereafter, there is little consensus, which at first sight must seem rather odd. – Simon Conway Morris, palaeontologist, Department of Earth Sciences, Cambridge University, UK, “Evolution: Bringing Molecules into the Fold,”

  2. 2
    Peter says:

    I used to follow Dr Moran’s blog. I thought I would hear from him the strong scientific support for evolution he has claimed existed. I followed his blog for a couple of years and finally got bored of his claims without any proof. There was, however, one exceptional blog in that time that showed the fundamental evidence for evolution according to Dr Moran. He displayed a picture that was on a door in his chemistry department. It promoted gay and woman’s rights. The blog was very critical of religion and according to Dr Moran displayed a fundamental truth – religion is cruel and obsolete. This was the proof text for evolution that Dr Cornelius Hunter has explained in detail. Evolution, as Dr Hunter has said many times, is not based on science but religion. So true.

  3. 3
    Jack Jones says:

    “. He displayed a picture that was on a door in his chemistry department. It promoted gay and woman’s rights. ”

    A person who denies the scientific fact that the anus is not meant for penetration, shows that it is not about science for him but emotion. You see, as he would be an apologist for homosexuality then he has to deny that men and women were designed sexually to be partners and not men with other men and women with other women.

    Some might say, that men and women engage in that activity too, but it is going to be more rampant amongs homosexuals who do not have the different sexual organs with which the male can penetrate a woman in a conventional manner.

    Wanting to save people from harmful behavior, shows that people care about other humans. Yet in a leftist world, in their topsy turvy world, that is a bad thing and is apparently hateful.

    Because of left wing academics and their political correctness, now you have social justice warriors running rampant.

    However the argument against design has to start with the origin of life, even if it were possible for sexual reproduction to come into existence through an evolutionary process, then Moran would have to show how that was the result of chance, because if life was created and then this kind of evolution could occur as a result, then the potential would have already been a result of the mind boggling complexity of the machinery and DNA of a first living organism.

    Design vs Chance starts with the origin of life, Moran cannot cheat with just so stories about what happens when we have existing life even if an anti science lefty academic like him wants to.

  4. 4
    jimmontg says:

    This is why I was turned away from neo-Darwinism. Lots of claims, but at it’s center and the facts that prove it, there just isn’t any type of scientific law, it’s all somebody’s opinion of this fossil or that. I had asked my professors back in the early 70’s when I was in college what were the indisputable proofs and laws for Darwinism I received nothing but opinions that could be interpreted in, easily I might add, many more ways. The scientific method does not corroborate the interpretations. It’s just he said she said, this is about as scientific as parapsychology if even that much.

    I wasn’t raised in a religious home, but I was curious and I asked my parents about where we came from they said from the Earth over forever and ever until people were born. Somehow that didn’t sound right to me as a kid and I was just about average in intelligence and it frankly sounded dumb. You know something, it still sounds dumb.

  5. 5
    Mapou says:

    Yes, that is the question. What experiment would falsify the “theory” of evolution?

    And please, don’t mention rabbits in the Cambrian. That is not an experiment.

  6. 6
    Zachriel says:

    jimmontg: Lots of claims, but at it’s center and the facts that prove it, there just isn’t any type of scientific law, it’s all somebody’s opinion of this fossil or that.

    The succession of fossils is not mere opinion, but an objective pattern.

  7. 7
    Larry Moran says:

    It’s been more than 24 hours.

    Is David Berlinski still holding his breath?

  8. 8
    Mung says:

    I called him and someone answered the phone, but no speech or breathing was detected. So it would appear so.

Leave a Reply