Darwin's Black Box - Michael J. Behe and Intelligent Design

[Voyageur]

Well worth 16 minutes of time.

Indeed it was.

 

[Ennio]

Great job with your new article, MI! Your detailed deconstruction of Dawkins' ideas of wing evolution hit the nail on the head. And your accompanying snarky comments are not only quite funny - but repeatedly drive the point home of how ridiculous Dawkins' thinking really is when one stops to consider how illogical, arbitrary and subjective he's been with his arguments.

Richard Dawkins and Half a Wing

What good is half a wing? That is the question. If wings evolved step by step on some wingless species, there had to be half a wing at some point, so we might ask this question. In fact, we might ask lots of questions, because nothing about...

www.sott.net

 

[thorbiorn]

Great job with your new article, MI! Your detailed deconstruction of Dawkins' ideas of wing evolution hit the nail on the head. And your accompanying snarky comments are not only quite funny - but repeatedly drive the point home of how ridiculous Dawkins' thinking really is when one stops to consider how illogical, arbitrary and subjective he's been with his arguments.

Richard Dawkins and Half a Wing

What good is half a wing? That is the question. If wings evolved step by step on some wingless species, there had to be half a wing at some point, so we might ask this question. In fact, we might ask lots of questions, because nothing about...

www.sott.net

Thank you MI for your entertaining and accessible article. It is useful to have arguments that can resonate with different levels of understanding, and a couple of the arguments are close to being kindergarten ready. Just picture asking the children to play around with the concept of half a wing and how that came to be a bird with not only two wings, but also a bird that could fly.

 

[Laura]

Very happy to have another installment to read!!! Absolutely WICKED!

 

[Wandering Star]

Richard Dawkins and Half a Wing

What good is half a wing? That is the question. If wings evolved step by step on some wingless species, there had to be half a wing at some point, so we might ask this question. In fact, we might ask lots of questions, because nothing about...

www.sott.net

Thanks mate.

Even the most materialistic people I know have run out of words. For an instant, at least.

 

[Nienna]

Great job with your new article, MI! Your detailed deconstruction of Dawkins' ideas of wing evolution hit the nail on the head. And your accompanying snarky comments are not only quite funny - but repeatedly drive the point home of how ridiculous Dawkins' thinking really is when one stops to consider how illogical, arbitrary and subjective he's been with his arguments.

Richard Dawkins and Half a Wing

What good is half a wing? That is the question. If wings evolved step by step on some wingless species, there had to be half a wing at some point, so we might ask this question. In fact, we might ask lots of questions, because nothing about...

www.sott.net

Indeed! It is sublime!

 

[Chu]

I agree! It was another great article, and very funny.

 

[scotseeker]

What an insightful article, thoughtful, provoking and with great humor!

 

[flashgordonv]

Great work MI. You have a gift with writing clear, understandable and humorous prose. Well done.

 

[Zar]

Yes great article MI. You've shown how common sense and logic totally obliterates Darwinian fairy tales, no need for any biology/chemistry/etc.

 

[Carl]

@Mandatory Intellectomy your latest article is up there in the category of "best pieces I have ever read". And I mean on any topic, ever.

Thanks for doing this. We really have been deceived as a species in every sense of the word and in every area, but none more so than on the most fundamental and important question of our origins. And to think it doesn't take much to debunk and expose it for the entirely worthless BS that it is. Why did more people not challenge it? Well they just never even bothered to look. Never bothered to think. What an outrageous deception! The gall of it! Even leaving aside any mathematical calculations, anybody can debunk this theory themselves with about 1 hour of rigorous thought if they actually tried. It's like the anecdote about the elephants chained up when young, who grow older and strong enough to break the chain and be free but they just never bother to try.

It's even more ridiculous than the idea that a passenger jet hit the pentagon on 9/11. These STS forces must really get off on deceiving people in such a blatant way. Your own senses tell you otherwise, yet you still believe the lie anyway.

"Surely it can't be that simple! I'm not a biologist, so I'll just assume its really complex but they figured it out and they're right about evolution..." No it actually is quite simple. Just like the way they hide and cherry pick climate data is simple to unravel if you just look. Or how it's quite simple and obvious that there's no parts of a plane on the pristine front lawn of the pentagon.. if you just open your eyes and look.

 

[Jones]

I'm not sure if it's helpful to the discussion or for anyone who is writing about the subject, but I came across the Tennessee Butler Act 1925 (House Bill 185) that prohibited the teaching of the theory of evolution in public schools and universities. Teaching the subject was considered a misdemeanour and attracted fines of between $100-500. The purpose of the act was for 'public welfare' because theory of evolution 'denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals'.

The major challenge to the Act come from the American Civil Liberties Union who set out to find a teacher who was willing to challenge the Act in court. It was a big deal and attracted national news coverage with a radio station setting up to record and broadcast the trial live for the first time. It became known as the 'Scopes Monkey Trial' after the surname of the teacher who agreed to take part. Ultimately Scopes was fined, however the case was overturned on a technicality.

Remembering the Scopes Monkey Trial on Its 90th Anniversary

The case against teacher John Scopes was a turning point for the acceptance of teaching evolution in schools

time.com

Other states soon followed suit until the 60's when there was a big push and a lot of cases challenging the ban of teaching TOE. In 1968 a Supreme Court ruling overturned the ban nationwide, and 'creation science' emerged in the 70's.

A legal history of evolution | God and Darwin: The York Daily Record and the Intelligent Design Trial

ccnmtl.columbia.edu

The whole story has a kind of 'bread and circuses' feel to it because Scopes didn't teach science, nor could he remember if he'd learned about evolution in biology!

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Just a heads up for all the Berlinski fans that he has a new book out, published by the Discovery Institute:

Amazon.com

Conventional wisdom holds that the murder rate has plummeted since the Middle Ages; humankind is growing more peaceful and enlightened; man is shortly to be much improved—better genes, better neural circuits, better biochemistry; and we are approaching a technological singularity that well may usher in utopia. Human Nature eviscerates these and other doctrines of a contemporary nihilism masquerading as science. In this wide-ranging work polymath David Berlinski draws upon history, mathematics, logic, and literature to retrain our gaze on an old truth many are eager to forget: there is and will be about the human condition beauty, nobility, and moments of sublime insight, yes, but also ignorance and depravity. Men are not about to become like gods.

The blurbs:

“Polymath David Berlinski’s appraisal of a transcendent human nature is really a military history, a discourse on physics and mathematics, a review of philosophy and linguistics, and a brilliant indictment of scientific groupthink by an unapologetic intellectual dissident. Read it and learn something original and incisive on every page.”
—Victor Davis Hanson, Senior Fellow, the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, author of The Second World Wars

“Berlinski is a modern Hannah Arendt, but deeper, more illuminating and wittier (i.e., smarter). His ability to use science and mathematics to illuminate history is nearly unique. If I were assembling a list of essential modern books for undergraduates at my college or any college, this book would be number one. Not only would students learn a tremendous lot from this book; many would also love it. Likewise their teachers. Berlinski’s gift to mankind is gratefully received.”
—David Gelernter, Professor of Computer Science, Yale University

“As the lights of Western civilization go out, it is nevertheless a treat to read these deep reflections on what we can be proud of, and where we went badly astray. Wonderfully unconventional and stimulating, with David Berlinski’s characteristic wit and penetrating insight!”
—Greg Chaitin, pioneer of algorithmic information theory and metamathematics, and Emeritus Researcher, IBM’s Thomas J. Watson Research Center in New York.

“Berlinski combines mastery of classical culture and deep knowledge of mathematics and the natural sciences with sharp, elegant, and insightful writing. The man is fearless in pursuing lines of reasoning that are considered taboo by current standards. A wonderful display of common sense and reason at a time of great confusions.”
—Sergiu Klainerman, Eugene Higgins Professor of Mathematics, Princeton University

“These essays represent a reflection on man and modern times as erudite as the finest history, as profound as the most searching philosophy, as beautifully wrought as the loveliest prose, and as shocking and indignant as the best journalism. The work of a magnificent mind.”
—Peter Robinson, Murdoch Distinguished Policy Fellow at the Hoover Institution, host of Uncommon Knowledge

“Another tour de force by David Berlinski. Few writers indeed, about science or society, can boast such a thoroughgoing command of the significant ideas of the past century, the confident mastery of every centrally significant scientific theory. Yet if Berlinski derives obvious joy from the great theories that unify the world, he is never more memorable than when he vividly displays its irreducible particulars, holding the quiddities of place and person more clearly before our imagination than we might even see them ourselves.

Indeed, if Berlinski glories in science’s achievements, he is no less dismissive of those attempts to see pattern and abstraction born not of vision but of ignorance; and he repeatedly marshals his exceptionally deep historical and scientific knowledge (and his inimitable wit) to drive facile theories of man and the world into the shoals. He is a relentless and devastating enemy of all attempts to reduce the tragic, bizarre, glorious world that confronts us to simple answers or easy slogans at the expense of the facts. We will treasure this book.”
—Stephen McKeown, Assistant Professor of Mathematics, University of Texas at Dallas

 

[Ennio]

No new show this week, but we just made the show on Intelligent Design - that first aired last February - into a video for the new MindMatters channel on YT. Its mostly audio - but in case anyone's missed it then, here it is:

The Truth Perspective: Mind the Gaps: Locating the Intelligence in Evolution and Design

Neo-Darwinism is dead. But is intelligent design the answer? While most proponents of ID are neutral as to the source of the intelligence behind biological design, the vast majority seem to hold a traditional view of God as the creator of biological information. A few others, like Perry Marshall, locate the intelligence of design in the cells themselves. But are there other possibilities?

Today on the Truth Perspective we wade into the debate and propose a third option that incorporates the best aspects of both, without the problems each of these opposing options runs into. The answer may not be 'either/or' but rather 'both/and', with intelligence on both sides of the equation.

 

[luc]

Just a heads up for all the Berlinski fans that he has a new book out, published by the Discovery Institute:

Amazon.com

The blurbs:

I'm halfway through it - extraordinary! It's not primarily about Darwinism, although many chapters are somewhat touching it. Berlinski's intellect is truly otherwordly. It's really another level. There is some math in it that I don't understand at all, but I could, for the most part, follow the argument around it. Not always though, I admit - and some chapters are truly strange. But I found the book very inspiring so far, and Berlinski is so bang-on in so many ways.

He wrote papers against Darwinism since at least the early 70ies I believe, and you can tell he has thought everything through many times over. So much in fact that you need to know some background, because sometimes he doesn't bother explaining certain arguments he apparently takes for granted. Some true gems in the footnotes as well, and his elaborations on history are very deep and learned. Impressive! I kept thinking about Collingwood's Idea of History - Collingwood knew about the trappings when dealing with history, and so does Berlinski, but Berlinski has the advantage of knowing his math, which allows him to destroy Steven Pinker and cohorts thouroughly both philosophically and from statistical theory. I suppose even Taleb could learn from him in that regard (he also has a little side-jab at Taleb in a footnote...).

Quite the ride and very much worth it!