Uncommon Knowledge with David Berlinski on “The Deniable Darwin”

A very Stimulating thought provoking discussion about Darwin, Theology and Science and how Science can not refute the existence of God, nor vice versa! The subject matter being discussed sort of also sheds light on how we look at problems in today’s discourse which in of itself is a very constructive discussion to consider in the way we frame our thoughts and questions when presented with problems to consider.


"Is Charles Darwin’s theory fundamentally deficient? David Berlinski makes his case, noting that most species enter the evolutionary order fully formed and then depart unchanged. Where there should be evolution, there is stasis. So, was Darwin wrong?

David Berlinski is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture, a contributing editor at Inference: International Review of Science, and author of many books. Berlinski discusses his book The Deniable Darwin and lays out how Charles Darwin has failed to explain the origin of species through his theory of evolution.

Berlinski explains that change in biology is not continuous—it’s radical, something which Darwinian theory fails to explain. He discusses how Darwinian evolution is blind to the future as there is no fidelity to the facts. He gives examples of amino acids and dogs and explains why there cannot be just one species. He further strengthens his statement by saying that everything cannot be accounted for as being random: there should be some scientific evidence to support it.

Berlinski responds to Peter Robinson’s question about Razib Khan’s statement to the effect that, “The seeds of both tyranny and democracy were sown by the evolutionary pressures that shaped humans over millions of years.” He argues that the deepest aspects of our nature are not formed by evolutionary pressures because evolution is relatively neutral. He also replies to Robinson’s question about a remark of Pope Benedict XVI to the effect that Western thought, by its very nature, “excludes the question of God, making it appear an unscientific or pre-scientific question.” He explains that it is not right to argue that physical theories imply that the conclusion is antitheist, as mere exclusion in these theories does not imply that.

Robinson further asks Berlinski’s views about the growing population of Islam and decreasing population of Europeans in Europe. Berlinski explains that Muslims take religion seriously, but theology/religion has more or less disappeared from the Western habit of thought. He states that faith and religion should come together.

Berlinski further talks about how Albert Einstein’s comments disprove God, not because he is an antitheist, but because Einstein wanted to push quantum theory and his belief in the rational universe.

Interested in exclusive Uncommon Knowledge content? Check out Uncommon Knowledge on social media!"

Pretty well right on target.

There is so little of Pope Benedict the XVI that I knew of, and yet he is quoted quite a bit with a speech he gave in 2006 raising questions among scholars that has proven to endure about Modernity, Science and the existence of God. Meaning, his words, this specific speech could not be outright refuted when pondering these questions framed as being co-existing thoughts of man. Compare the rhetoric of todays Pope Francis and there is little left to extrapolate or think about when he presents anything to think about. It seems to impress on me that Pope Benedict XVI was a deep intellect of immense proportions that we commoners have seen very little of.

“Science is merely man’s attempt at explaining God’s Handiwork”- Me.

There is no natural conflict between Christianity and Science, the conflict is the creation of men.

In the near future Darwinism will be universally looked at as a foolish hoax, much like we now view the ‘flat Earth’ belief, or abiogenesis.
What is sad is that so many faith leaders teach that their own holy scripture is wrong and hold stock in the writings of flawed men over God.

Yeah I don’t know about that or if I agree with Darwin being relegated to trash heap! More to the point of what Berlinski is trying to point out is that religion it will never be or return as The Central thought in civilisation in the modern age and more to his point is that Darwin isn’t wrong only that there are problems that present themselves as open ended questions that science hasn’t answered yet!

One would think that after almost 170 years at least one of his hypotheses would have been falsified.

It really just comes down to what your line of inquiry will be when contemplating Darwin and his work! The reason Darwin will never be regarded as irrelevant is because of his theories and discoveries were part of a seminal moment in history that influenced an entire paradigm shift where science replaced religion in the center of mainstream thought which ushered in modernity coincided with the industrial revolution! The irony was in what Rousseau hinted at where civilisation moved away from Darwin’s natural world to a more technological one now known as “post modernism” where science is no longer regarded as a central thought but highly secular and fragmentary along the lines of societies methods of inquiries, we now approach a Crossroads where those question Berlinski raises are ones forcing us to look at past thought!

Science has not replaced Judeo/Christian religion, it confirms it. Berlinski certainly poses some damning questions against the current hypothesis of molecules to man.
Long ages are not consistent with any current scientific discovery, i.e The Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Science replaced religion in societies central mainstream thought when modernism was ushered in! That is a fact! No where did I say that science replaced Christianity as a religion! That is a big distinction that you are missing in what I articulated previously!

The so called writings of god to which you refer are the writings of men…

Is that your belief?

My mistake, I meant to assert that science and the Bible are not mutually exclusive, but science confirms Scripture.

Not so much a belief as a fact, with all the authors credited.

Well that is an entirely different debate, an interesting one at that, and of course Berlinski intimated that line of inquiry could not be refuted, which is why I thought the quotes of Pope Benedict XVI were very interesting!

My belief is the Bible was infallibly inspired by God, written by men and women.

Yes, I’m aware of that, but that doesn’t make it so.

If the pope your are referring to is the current leader of the Catholic church, I have a few issues with his proclamations and the station of a pope in general.
Asserting that portions of the Bible are wrong leaves one to naturally question the rest of Scripture. Death before Sin negates the need for a blood sacrifice for Man’s sinful nature. FWIW

Which is the strict definition of belief or faith. Your belief system may not have faith in the God of the Bible. That does not mean the is no God anymore than not believing in gravity means the Earth sucks.

No, that is Pope Francis who is currently the pope! Pope Benedict was the previous pope who was forced to retire.