Hello. This is one of my favorite series of videos concerning the creo-evo debate. Also one of my favorite people, Dr. David Berlinski.
I thought it would make for an interesting discussion. I was wondering if there was anyone(s) that would want to discuss it rationally. I'd rather not get into a discussion with anyone about how stupid this guy is or how stupid I am for posting it here.
Instead of the me arguing with 9 people about how right I think he is i'd rather go thru some points he brings up and possibly discuss it. I would much rather keep it to myself and watch it every so often because I find it fascinating personally but also feel I should challenge it. There is a lot packed into the 40 some minutes.
For anyone not fimiliar with him:
Academic careerBerlinski was a postdoctoral fellow in mathematics and molecular biology at Columbia University[3], and was a research fellow at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) in Austria and the Institut des Hautes tudes Scientifiques (IHES) in France. He has taught philosophy, mathematics, and English at Stanford, Rutgers, the City University of New York, the University of Washington, the University of Puget Sound, San Jose State University, the University of Santa Clara, the University of San Francisco, San Francisco State University, and taught mathematics at the Universit de Paris.[clarification needed] [4][non-primary source needed] [5]
Does he have some valid points in the mathematical sense? I personally think he does. At 11:10 in the first video is where he talks about the whale for instance, which is fascinating to me about how he describes changes needed for land to water mammals, the fossil record and what's directing these changes and quantatative estimates for example.
Can we discuss his points and see where we end up? Here are the video's:
Thanks for anyone interested. Please don't just stop after the whale example, it was only a place to start for discussion maybe but there is much more and if all three videos could be watched that would be great.
{ABE} Im wondering now, if this is in the wrong spot. Maybe it should go into PNT? Im not sure. Can anyone interested in commenting hold off until it is in the right place. Thanks.
What might be a better idea would be to choose one of this fellows assertions, out line the salient points in the body of the post, state your position and then PNT it.
That seems a better way to go to avoid the wrath of the Mods.
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
I'd like to second Larni by suggesting that you open a PNT for a specific point that Berlinski makes of your choosing, and maybe attempt to summarize it in your own words so that participants don't have to get caught up on a 40 minute video.
Thirded - And whilst Chuck can choose whichever example he feels best makes his point the example he has already cited of the whale and land-to-water mammals seems a good one.
There is a very decent body of genetic and fossil evidence pertaining to that for a start.
Chuck77 writes:/ Does he have some valid points in the mathematical sense?
What sort of answer are you looking for?
Yes, his points are very cogent; or
He is spouting nonsense.
Depending on how you look at it, either of those answers could be correct.
I don't like neo-Darwinism, and I have made no secret of that. See the earlier thread Criticizing neo-Darwinism. Berliniski is correct that many mathematicians and physicists have doubts about it. I think a report from that Wistar symposium is online, or was at one time. I seem to recall reading it.
I personally do not have any doubts about evolution itself. However, I see the neoDarwinian account as too easily leading to the kind of strawman version of evolution that creationists keep refuting. So I would prefer an account that is not so easily misunderstood.
I agree with the others, that you should start a separate thread to discuss this.
Incidentally, I only watched the first of the three videos.
Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity
I watched the first, and I must say that it was a rather shallow presentation, skipping from point to point without much detail or depth. While the issues may be worth discussing, there's not enough there to do more than suggest a topic. I'd suggest that this was largely a problem with the format, and rather justifies my reluctance to spend time watching internet videos. A decently written text presentation of even one of the arguments underlying the opinions offered would be far better.
Opposition to Darwinian theory is...I wouldn't say widespread, but there's a consistent group of people - among mathematicians; among physicists; amongst some very good speculative biologists - that simply don't accept it. Don't even regard it as a scientific theory in any reasonable sense.
Nuff said.
He's full of sophistry.
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
If I were you And I wish that I were you All the things I'd do To make myself turn blue
Irrelevant to the content of his actual arguments, though. I'd like to see what the specific arguments are (or at least one of them) and debate that argument on its own merits.
Well, here's a critique of one of the points Dr. Berlinsky makes in his videos. Yes, he's a bit condescending towards creationists, but please look at his points, not his rhetoric.
Take these points into account when writing your PNT, because I'm sure they will be raised.
Off topic: Oh, and if you want to know how to embed the videos, it's simple, click "share" on the youtube page, click embed, and copy that code directly into your post. That's all.
I'd like to see what the specific arguments are (or at least one of them) and debate that argument on its own merits.
Unfortunately, I am not sure that anyone here would really be willing to argue his points.
e.g. One point he raised was (paraphrasing):
Hand and feet on mammals have 5 digits. They follow the rule of five. Evolutionists say this is because they were originally fish. But the pelvic girdle also follows the rule of five. Why is that?
His point seem to rely on thinking of questions which aren't answered and then implying that they need to be answered - and in turn, this lack of an answer means that we don't know anything.
But, if someone can extract a decent point to discuss from his philosophical hand-waving and non-sequiturs, then that would obviously be a very suitable discussion to propose.
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
If I were you And I wish that I were you All the things I'd do To make myself turn blue
His point seem to rely on thinking of questions which aren't answered and then implying that they need to be answered - and in turn, this lack of an answer means that we don't know anything.
Certainly we've had debates here regarding assertions that rested on even worse logic. Some of them were even enjoyable.
Personally, I'd just like to see Chuck (since he's the OP, and since I've generally enjoyed discussion with him previously) pick the argument he finds either most convincing or most interesting, and just discuss that argument at length.
I agree I'd like to see a decent discussion, the trouble is that there isn't enough substance in the first video at least. Unless the second or third focus on just one argument - and give references - Chuck is going to have to do a fair bit of research before he'll have an argument worth putting forward.
I agree I'd like to see a decent discussion, the trouble is that there isn't enough substance in the first video at least. Unless the second or third focus on just one argument - and give references - Chuck is going to have to do a fair bit of research before he'll have an argument worth putting forward.
I can see a potential argument from Chuck without references, simply picking the one argument that sounds strongest to him and asking how the Theory of Evolution deals with the problem.
It would turn into more of a discussion than a debate, but there are potential educational merits for all of us.
Think of arguments like (and I'm just pulling these from memory as some of the silliest arguments I've seen that still had potential for interesting discussion) "the Moon is moving closer to the Earth; if it had been moving closer for millions of years, it would have crashed into the Earth by now!" or "the Sun loses mass every second, if it had been losing mass for millions of years, it would have burnt out!" or "increasing complexity is impossible according to Thermodynamics," etc. Each of those is a silly-sounding argument, but can still generate interesting discussion.
PRATTs are refuted a thousand times because they're arguments that tend to sound very persuasive to those with insufficient knowledge of the relevant topics - meaning most laypeople. I think it's valuable to continue to explain the answers to those challenges whenever they're brought up, partially because the ensuing discussion has the potential to be extremely educational for those who haven't seen them before.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
