Yesterday Wayne Eyre wrote a column for the National Post entitled 'Darwin? That's just the party line'. Here's how it starts .. For example, Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion, says that anyone who doesn't believe in evolution "is ignorant, stupid or insane." Oxford professor Peter Atkins, another ardent atheist, recently denounced theology, poetry and philosophy and concluded that "scientists are at the summit of knowledge, beacons of rationality and intellectually honest." Geneticist Emile Zuckerkandl -- writing on whether biological facts suggest an intelligent designer -- terms the notion of intelligent design an "intellectual virus" and its advocates "an offensive little swarm of insects ... [who] feed like leeches on irrational beliefs."Anyone who would describe Behe's argument as "devestating" has obviously not been paying attention.
That these gentlemen go on like this in the wake of, for example, biochemist Michael Behe's masterful Darwin's Black Box, in which he sets out a devastating case for the "irreducible complexity" of human systems, truly makes one wonder about the confidence they have in their own convictions.
But this isn't a column about Behe. Instead, it's a homage to another IDiot named David Berlinski,1 especially his recent book The Devil's Delusion: Atheism And Its Scientific Pretensions.
Now you'd expect to see a nice summary of the most powerful arguments for Intelligent Design Creationism, wouldn't you? That's not what this column is about. What impresses Wayne Eyre is all the hype about evolution being wrong and that's what he picks out from Berlinksi's book. (In fairness, that's all there is in the book.)
He's the best example that impresses Eyre.
"Suspicions about Darwin's theory arise for two reasons," he writes. "The first: The theory makes little sense. The second: It is supported by little evidence ... The theories that we do have do what they can do, and then they stop. They do not stop because a detail is missing; they stop because we cannot go on. Difficulties are accommodated by the magician's age-old tactic of misdirection."That's it folks. David Berlinski, who is not a biologist, says that evolutionary biologists are wrong about evolution and that's all it takes to impress Wayne Eyre.
Berlinski -- who argues that computer simulations of Darwinian evolution fail when they are honest and succeed only when they are not -- says the unpersuasiveness of the literature on the subject is well known. He tells how a Nobel laureate once said to him in a faculty lounge: "Darwin? That's just the party line."
In his dissection of Darwinists and Darwinism, Berlinski notes that "if biologists are wrong about Darwin, they are wrong about life, and if they are wrong about life, they are wrong about everything."
Little wonder, then, that so many of them do indeed protest so much.
And you wonder why we call them IDiots?
1. Described by Eyre as "a highly respected member of the scientific elite." You can't just make this stuff up ... or can you?
[Hat Tip: Canadian Cynic]
13 comments :
I really get a kick out of whackjobs like Dr. Berlinski, a man, by the way, who has, in the past, fraudulently claimed a PhD in mathematics (his PhD is in philosophy).
He claims that evolution makes little sense. If that's the only criterion for a good scientific theory, then quantum mechanics must be terrible. Here is a theory that makes absolutely no sense. A few quotes:
Richard Feynman - If you think you understand quantum mechanics, then you don't understand quantum mechanics.
Steven Weinberg - Quantum mechanics is a totally preposterous theory which, unfortunately, appears to be correct.
Lawrence Krauss - Nobody understands quantum mechanics.
Modern cosmology isn't much better. Black holes, dark matter, dark energy!
The fact is that the issue of "making sense" has nothing to do with the quality of scientific theories. Evolution, quantum mechanics, and modern cosmology are very high quality scientific theories because of their explanatory and predictive power, not because they "make sense."
Except that, unlike quantum mechanics (which I emphatically do not claim to understand), contemporary evolutionary theory makes beautiful, perfect sense. Berlinski is a perfect clown.
Berlinski whines unconvincingly:
Just for the record: I have never endorsed any creationist views whatsoever; and I am a published critic of intelligent design...
David Berlinski - not a biologist - says evolution is wrong. 99% of biologists say Berlinski is wrong. Who is more likely to be right?
He tells how a Nobel laureate once said to him in a faculty lounge: "Darwin? That's just the party line."
Fascinating. What is the name of this person? In what field is he or she a Nobel laureate? Is it a scientific field? Is it a field relevant to evolutionary theory?
Clowns.
David Berlinski - not a biologist - says evolution is wrong. 99% of biologists say Berlinski is wrong. Who is more likely to be right?
Now, let's be careful. The evidence for evolution is, indeed, overwhelming.
That said, what you're doing here is using the argument from authority. It makes no difference if 99% of all biologists say Berlinski is wrong. He is wrong, but not because biologists (including me) say so; he's wrong because the evidence says he's wrong.
A fine example of the quality I've come to expect from the National Post.
Now, let's be careful. The evidence for evolution is, indeed, overwhelming.
Agreed.
That said, what you're doing here is using the argument from authority. It makes no difference if 99% of all biologists say Berlinski is wrong. He is wrong, but not because biologists (including me) say so; he's wrong because the evidence says he's wrong.
Agreed again, but with two reservations.
First, the fallacy, strictly speaking, lies in arguing from inappropriate or incompetent authority. Berlinski is not a biologist so his views cannot be cited as authoritative in the field. 99% of professional biologists, on the other hand, are and can.
Second, most non-biologists have neither the time nor the expertise needed to review all the evidence for evolution so they have to rely on the judgements of those who are expert in the field. Again, however forcefully Berlinski may write and speak he is not one of those experts.
To be fair, the National Post is a joke of a newspaper.
I may have learned little in college, but I did learn that when I discuss a topic I should consult (and learn from) experts. Berlinski is one of several anti-evolution "intellectuals" who prefers to belittle experts rather than learn from them.
It makes no difference if 99% of all biologists say Berlinski is wrong. He is wrong, but not because biologists (including me) say so; he's wrong because the evidence says he's wrong.
Well, yes and no.
There was a time when 99% of geologists thought that the continents (later, the plates) didn't move around the surface of the earth, yet they did.
OTOH, Judge Jones definitely relied upon the preponderance of biological opinion as a strong point in favor of evolution and against ID--because that's about all that an inexpert layperson can do.
Spedding, for that matter, was apparently bringing up experts because both Eyre and Berlinski rely upon quite questionable experts, the former upon Berlinski, the latter upon DI "experts" and an unnamed Nobel laureate whose expertise we have reason to doubt (whose existence should be questioned, indeed). If you're going by experts, the unnamed and Berlinski are damned pathetic "experts".
Oh yes, the biologists could be wrong, and it appears to me that such a possibility was considered at Dover, along with the expert guidance of biologists. The evidence is out there, however, and the fact that biologists often do need evolution to make sense of biology, combine to make a strong case for evolution.
There's one more caveat, however. The evidence itself is almost entirely beyond the layperson, other than via the literature. Meaning that generally we do rely upon experts even when we can and do "evaluate the evidence". Nevertheless, we can at least play off experts, to evaluate the evidence provided by experts.
So we must trust the experts to some extent when doing our own evaluations, but ideally we'd learn how to evaluate both experts and evidence. But if a person cannot do that, he'd do best to accept (provisionally) what the biologists say.
Glen Davidson
Corrected version:
...biochemist Michael Behe's masturbatory Darwin's Black Box, in which he sets out a devastated case for the "irreducible complexity" of human systems
I'm always happy to provide editorial services ;-).
These were my thoughts on the review. What a waste.
Post a Comment