The Deniable Darwin

It almost makes me feel guilty not to give Dr. Berlinski all the five stars. It is merely because I find some of his views somewhat misleading and in need of some criticism. He is of course, as other reviewers testified, an outstanding writer, of irresistible wit, and of unquestionable intelligence that often stifles the opposition.In the essay of the title repeated for the book, he notes the improbability that random changes in DNA be usable for evolution. His argument is in the book outlined in a response by H. Allen Orr (pp.66-7): "His worry...is this: DNA is...a...language of A's, T's, G's, and C's that somehow encodes all the designs we find in organisms. But how can random perturbations in such a language yield usable material for evolution? In every other language we know of, Mr. Berlinski writes, 'randomness...is the enemy of order.' Random changes in English yield gibberish... And so, he argues, look what Darwinism really asks of us: it demands we believe that selection uses random changes in DNA, when--by analogy with any other...language--such changes should yield mere gibberish, hopelessly 'jamming' organisms."This argument, that random changes in organisms cannot be expected to yield the probabilistically virtually impossible usefulness required, appears quite convincing. And see how Dr. Orr responds: "Mr. Berlinski's objection is one of those beautiful theories that gets killed by an ugly fact. The fact is: whether or not random DNA changes should invariably jam organisms, they do not... The existence of subtle, functional, usable mutations in DNA is a simple fact that no amount of analogizing...can make go away". But Dr. Orr! This is a ridiculous question-begging argument! We all know the fact that the changes in organisms are functional, useful! The very question is, can these changes occur randomly? And Dr. Berlinski convincingly argues they cannot.Another argument by Dr. Berlinski that Dr. Orr responds to is that evolution has not been observed: "Examples are a dime a dozen. When antibiotics were first introduced, most bacteria were susceptible. ...now, many bacteria are resistant. And...when we threw DDT at insects: they evolved insecticide resistance". This is to demonstrate Darwinian, undirected, evolution. And here is a point where I may depart even from Dr. Berlinski.Developing resistance needn't at all be attributed to Darwinian processes. We know very well that through inoculation we develop resistance to various diseases. And we know equally well that this is owing to the body's directed, not undirected, action toward self-preservation. This is a fundamental distinction overlooked in the debates about whether or not organisms were designed.Dr. Berlinski devotes considerable space to William Paley's 19th-century argument in which the functionality of organisms was compared to that of human artifacts, with the contention that organisms likewise imply design. Dr. Berlinski's assessment of the argument is slightly gloomy. He ends a pertinent essay with (p.309): "And Paley, poor Paley? Dead at last, or at least not very vigorously alive". But the design argument is not only alive, but it can be improved upon, going beyond mere analogy, to demonstration. Left out in the comparison of organisms to human artifacts was the decisive difference that organisms are alive. As live beings, compared to deceased ones, they are in constant pursuit of the goal of self-preservation. The existence of such a goal, of purpose, in organisms is denied by Darwinism, focused narrowly on the organism's structure, in the tradition of Paley. It is, however, an easy step from finding that live organisms aim at the purpose of self-preservation, to inferring that their adaptation to circumstances, ascribed by Darwinism to purposeless natural forces, is part of that purpose.One other subject where I depart from Dr. Berlinski is on the significance he assigns to logicians Kurt Gödel and, to a lesser degree, Alfred Tarski. He mentions them in connection with "meta-theory", devised in hope of a solution to logical paradoxes, and illustrated by "Tarski's theorem on the indefinability of truth" (p.543).This purported theorem was spurred by the ancient "Liar" paradox, which states: "This statement is false". As easily confirmed, if the statement is true then, by its content, it is false, and if false then, by that content, it is true. It was accordingly decided that truth must be defined in a "meta-language", not "within any language in which it is expressed" (p.157). Although this is held demonstrated, it isn't by any means. Any dictionary defines truth by its own language, and we are at liberty to include and define any word in any chosen language, there being no restriction to such choices.It seems this review is not the place for more on these matters. I go into details in other reviews and elsewhere. I only wish to say that I see Gödel's theorem and related contentions as false, counting as "A Scientific Scandal", an expression Dr. Berlinski used concerning evolutionary claims.Let me though emphasize that I would recommend this book for its overall brilliance.

A personal collection of Dr. David Berlinski's thesis and reports which dominates in exposing many of the innumerable weaknesses of Darwinism. Three of his largest commentaries include dozens of replying articles or letters from well-known scientists and their arguments "faulting" Berlinski. In turn, Dr. Berlinski replies and exposes their arguments, and in some cases writes of typical replies he receives from those rebuttals, offering a "5th generation" comment (and even further as far as Richard Dawkins' ill researched assumptions, more bellow). In viewing this format, it does reveal how certain people almost seem to willfully misinterpret what they read for the sake of arguing. (More often their tactic is to merely discredit such people while fooling primarily only themselves.) It's easy to see how many of these article/letter writers (from even the erudite) were apparently "not getting it" as far as Dr. Berlinski's points, and then faulting him based on their inept (or lack of) understanding. Thus one of the many explanations of the quite perpetual "ping-pong" debates that continue on, (even here at Amazon.com when people respond negatively to those posting book reviews or simply voting `unhelpful' when a truly helpful and informative post doesn't endorse their personal thinking). A silver lining in reading the many rebuttals of Dr Berlinski's chastisers, you find out clearly enough of how Dr. Berlinski is really extremely knowledgeable in science, mastering the English language and math of all sorts.Dr. Berlinski frequently exposes the so-called validity of "peer-review" reporting. One of many cases; Richard Dawkins wrote in his 1995 book "River Out of Eden" frequent comments on how Nilsson and Pelger "set up computer models" and mentioning things such as "the model eye deformed itself on the computer screen" (to endorse Darwinism with a demonstration on how the eye can allegedly evolve within as little as 300,000 years). Unfortunately Nilsson and Pelger never even used a computer in their researching this. It ends up, therefore this was just another of Richard Dawkins' many conjured up speculations, assumptions and "just so" stories. Meanwhile, how many tens of thousands of Dawkins' "peers" read this book and never even realized or, at least, exposed this myth? Paradoxly, once Dr. Berlinski did catch it, he was chastised and berated for doing so! Well, how beneficial is "peer review" if those that expose such errors are excommunicated from the "fold"? Could it even be any anticipation of this treatment and/or shunning, applied so religiously, would cause others that truly recognize issues to, perhaps, acquiesce and thus allow these errors to continue?I enjoy the wisdom Dr. Berlinski instills when clarifying the precise definitions and differences of words like chaos, randomness and complexity, or "executive design" and "unspecified design" and many more. Or his most correct and descriptive term, "intraspecies events," bravo! His thinking is extremely pointed, clear and thus excels higher in accuracy in using the plethora of information he seems to so effortlessly manage.Many other details are already posted here prior to my writing, so rather than being redundant, I'll conclude with the following; Richard Dawkins' "The Blind Watchmaker" is predominately assumptions and "just so" stories. It's in extreme contrast with "The Deniable Darwin" which is deluged with facts, tests and mathematical equations. Darwinism certainly has manifold weaknesses that evolutionists willfully choose to close their eyes to. But be brave and honest with yourself! If you wish to get those "mental gears-a grinding" here's a book to turn to!"Darwin's theory of evolution makes use of fantastic extrapolation...." p.307

My goodness what a book. I don't pretend I understood it all . The mathematical aspects especially the equations were absolutely unknowable to me . The rest of the book was excellent and brilliant. Such a mind . Mr Berlinski makes me question everything.

Berlinski's essays are erudite, brilliant, and (at points) facetious. Some of the most desirable traits in a critique of scientific orthodoxy are here in fine form: a rigorous application of logic and the epistemic process, an ability to clearly articulate where (and how often) substance has given way to spin, and a commitment to intellectual coherence rather than to the status quo. Worth reading purely from an intellectual standpoint, but may well make you 'laugh out loud' too - a rare treat for a book of this kind.

there is not much to say but...EXCELLENT

Anything from the pen of Berlinski is worthy of study. He never lets you down, This is the sort of boo that has to be read and re-read in order to digest it all. A worthy five stars.

I happen to think that David Berlinski is the smartest man now alive, so I approach his books with the anticipation of watching various gasbags being skewered without malice on his part but with somemeasure of authorial pleasure. The Deniable Darwin fully satisfied all my expectations. Berlinski writes lucidly and fearlessly. His dissatisfaction with the explanatory power of natural selection is never overdone; he says that Darwin is radically incomplete, to put it charitably. As a self professed atheist, Berlinski cannot be accused of disliking Darwin because of the atheistic implications of purposeless natural selection. Rather, he dislikes the theory of natural selection as a sufficient reason for evolution, for reasons Berlinski explains carefully. He joins the Australian philosopher David Stove, who wrote "Darwinian Fairytales", in having the nerve and conviction to propose that natural selection is unpersuasive on its face as a sufficient cause for the complexity we see in natural forms. Devotees of Dawkins and Dennett are strongly advised to ignore this book, both because they will be offended by the clarity with which Berlinski dismisses their heroes, and because their faith in the adequacy of rigidly materialist explanations may be undermined. But for those of us who enjoy watching a man drop logic bombs precisely from a very high height , this book will remain a pleasure in style, in substance, and in fond recollection.