David Berlinski—Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions

[IWantGod]

I’ accept the theory of evolution. But when i first started finding answers for my faith David Berlinski was one of my favorite debaters. While i don’'t agree with everything he says, i think this video is a good discussion about Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions.

The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions | David Berlinski, PhD

 

[Glark]

If you accept the theory of evolution, you are a victim of the greatest hoax in the history of mankind. Worse, it is a demonic hoax.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Why do you say that? My understanding is that the Catholic church is open to the theory of evolution.

 

[Glark]

Any Catholic who accepts the theory of evolution as fact and then thinks it can be somehow squeezed into the Scriptures evidently has little aptitude for science and even less aptitude for theology.

Please note that papal infallibility doesn’t apply to matters of science - that fact is painfully obvious. The Vactican is foolish enough to accept the judgement of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (many of whom are rabid atheists) on matters of origins - God help us! How naive can you get?

 

[inocente]

I’ accept the theory of evolution. But when i first started finding answers for my faith David Berlinski was one of my favorite debaters. While i don’'t agree with everything he says, i think this video is a good discussion about Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions.

I see he’s in the Discovery Institute. They are funded by evangelicals to create disunity in established religions. They are very successful at turning Catholic against Catholic. They wouldn’t know science if the Large Hadron Collider fell on them from a great height.

 

[Russell_SA]

Ok a couple of things:
Atheism - This is a label of the theists, used by theists to label people who don’t play with the theist’s toys. Just as I don’t need a special word for not believing in goblins since I don’t play with goblins, only the people who play with goblins need a word to describe me as an A-Goblinist. Atheist is a descriptor for a single question about a single topic. That is all that it can encompass. “Do you believe in the supernatural?” - “No, no I do not.” That response is neither a positive claim or negative claim about the actual existence of a deity in reality. Just as not believing someone’s bad evidence and arguments for meeting Bob yesterday has no bearing on whether or not Bob and this person actually met or that Bob actually exists. Atheism is not a belief structure, political structure, world view, etc. It has no leaders, texts of rules and methodology, or anything else that structures around how and what it is to be an atheistic person. You do not have to be scientific and be an atheist. There is no necessary link between the two.
Science is, necessarily, practiced by methodological naturalism. That means that since, we cannot investigate the supernatural in anyway, we are not allowed to use it as a causal link to events observed and studied in reality. First you have to demonstrated that realm is there, then demonstrate how that realm can interact with this reality, then study an event in this reality to see if there are markers left behind from the supernatural interacting with that event. Until we can do this, the supernatural and any other imagined idea are not allowed to be part of the explanation of observed and studied reality. IE: We have to be able to tell the difference between an unknown natural cause and the supernatural being the cause. At this point, there is zero evidence of any event having a supernatural cause for it. Every event that we’ve studied for what caused it was always a natural cause. AKA: God of the Gaps.
I do disagree that mathematics has nothing to do with the natural reality. Reality is the reference point of logic and mathematics is the most fundamental language for explaining the predictability of that reality that we observed first. Math is just the adjectives to describe reality. two rocks, 10 lbs of force, etc.

 

[edwest21]

Mr. Berlinski also debunks evolution quite well. Evolution has no practical scientific use. Biologist Richard Dawkins makes a link between a God he rails against on TV and atheism. There is also his book, the God Delusion. Science has its uses but faith and God are real as well. Atheism is definitely a worldview. It is a denial of something. Humanism is also a worldview, complete with a Manifesto.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Any Catholic who accepts the theory of evolution as fact and then thinks it can be somehow squeezed into the Scriptures evidently has little aptitude for science and even less aptitude for theology.

Please note that papal infallibility doesn’t apply to matters of science - that fact is painfully obvious. The Vactican is foolish enough to accept the judgement of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (many of whom are rabid atheists) on matters of origins - God help us! How naive can you get?

There is significant evidence in support of evolution, much of which is supported by both theistic and atheistic scientists. Evolution does not contradict the faith, so your grandstanding here is really misplaced. Atheistic evolution is wrong because it assumes unguided development and pure chance, however, evolution as a concept is perfectly reasonable.

 

[edwest21]

Development of novel organs? Development of unique bone structures, as those in birds, to allow for flight and walking? There is guesswork going on here, not science. This topic has been brought up so many times, I’ve come to the following conclusion: This is not about science at all. It’s about promoting a non-God worldview. God did nothing. “Natural” causes/forces did everything. The Biology textbook can conclude nothing else. So, the Compliance Police come here on a regular basis seeking 100% compliance.

 

[frobert]

Evolution has no practical scientific use

A few practical uses of evolution:

Applications of evolution

Wider biology
The evolutionary approach is key to much current research in biology that does not set out to study evolution per se, especially in organismal biology and ecology. For example, evolutionary thinking is key to life history theory. Annotation of genes and their function relies heavily on comparative, that is evolutionary, approaches. The field of evolutionary developmental biology investigates how developmental processes work by using the comparative method to determine how they evolved.

Artificial selection
A major technological application of evolution is artificial selection, which is the intentional selection of certain traits in a population of organisms. Humans have used artificial selection for thousands of years in the domestication of plants and animals.[4] More recently, such selection has become a vital part of genetic engineering, with selectable markers such as antibiotic resistance genes being used to manipulate DNA in molecular biology. It is also possible to use repeated rounds of mutation and selection to evolve proteins with particular properties, such as modified enzymes or new antibodies, in a process called directed evolution.[5]

Medicine
Schematic representation of how antibiotic resistance evolves via natural selection. The top section represents a population of bacteria before exposure to an antibiotic. The middle section shows the population directly after exposure, the phase in which selection took place. The last section shows the distribution of resistance in a new generation of bacteria. The legend indicates the resistance levels of individuals.

Antibiotic resistance can be a result of point mutations in the pathogen genome at a rate of about 1 in 108 per chromosomal replication. The antibiotic action against the pathogen can be seen as an environmental pressure; those bacteria which have a mutation allowing them to survive will live on to reproduce. They will then pass this trait to their offspring, which will result in a fully resistant colony.

Understanding the changes that have occurred during organism’s evolution can reveal the genes needed to construct parts of the body, genes which may be involved in human genetic disorders.[6]

Computer science
As evolution can produce highly optimised processes and networks, it has many applications in computer science. Here, simulations of evolution using evolutionary algorithms and artificial life started with the work of Nils Aall Barricelli in the 1960s, and was extended by Alex Fraser, who published a series of papers on simulation of artificial selection.[10] Artificial evolution became a widely recognised optimisation method as a result of the work of Ingo Rechenberg in the 1960s and early 1970s, who used evolution strategies to solve complex engineering problems.[11]

 

[edwest21]

Science can only study things that are alive today. Living things cannot be compared to anything that died allegedly millions of years ago. Data can only be gained by observation and in many cases, trial and error experiments only on things alive today. Bacteria have a built-in mechanism called Horizontal Gene Transfer which is activated when bacteria come into contact with a harmful substance. They begin swapping bits of genetic material until the right combination allows some (hundreds or thousands) to survive. There is no “cookbook” regarding how this happens. Just like a virus has the built-in ability to change its outer coat to create different strains. Again, there is no formula as to how this will go.

Computer experiments, no matter how sophisticated, cannot begin to match the two digital codes in DNA. Or understand the interplay with mRNA’s. Much less the influence of non-coding portions of DNA or the switches involved in different processes which can be more complex than ‘on’ or ‘off.’ The same switch can regulate more than one function in some cases. Attempts at cutting out the wrong DNA section and replacing it with the correct one do not take into account other factors that are poorly understood. The interplay of all genetic components need to be taken into account.

Engineering of things and designing “imitation of already living things” structures/objects is not biology. Nor are computer models evidence of anything other than similar copying of what is observed. Aircraft design is moving in the direction of “flexible” wings which are like those that birds use. No surprise there. Watching a falcon in action, I observed maneuvers in such tight spaces that could not be duplicated as rapidly by any aircraft and with such precision.

Artificial Intelligence is moving into structural design. It’s primary value is speed and a vast library of what materials can and cannot do. It formulates solutions based on that.

Humans domesticating animals is guided, yes, but evolutionary? No. A mind tried something and it happened to work. Grafting different types of plants is mentioned in the Bible. Primitive man observed and tried - the same trial and error being used today. Modified enzymes? Humans do that. Antibodies? Again, humans taking what is there and modifying it.

The real problem is Evolutionary Psychology. It proposes that we are just biological machines that respond to outside stimuli, reproduce, or not, and die.

 

[Benadam]

The real problem is Evolutionary Psychology. It proposes that we are just biological machines that respond to outside stimuli, reproduce, or not, and die.

I’m confused about this. If we are just biological machines, how is our psyche evolving? I mean wouldn’t the outside stimuli be what’s evolving? Since we can only respond to outside stimuli.

 

[inocente]

This topic has been brought up so many times, I’ve come to the following conclusion: This is not about science at all. It’s about promoting a non-God worldview. God did nothing. “Natural” causes/forces did everything. The Biology textbook can conclude nothing else. So, the Compliance Police come here on a regular basis seeking 100% compliance.

So, are non-scientists the only true Catholics? Or is it only creationists who are the only true Catholics? Or is it just the young earth creationists? Or the intelligent design fans? Or the geocentrists? Or…

Hard for us non-Catholics to choose. Kind of like Protestantism on steroids, ain’t it?

 

[inocente]

I’m confused about this. If we are just biological machines, how is our psyche evolving? I mean wouldn’t the outside stimuli be what’s evolving? Since we can only respond to outside stimuli.

I’m no expert but I can see how it helps psychologists do their research. Just like quantum theory helps physicists.

Non-specialists may not understand, but there’s plenty of material freely available for those who are interested. Here’s the Catholic University of America, School of Theology and Religious Studies, page on evolution: Science for Seminaries - Theology and Religious Studies - Catholic University of America, Washington, DC | CUA

 

[Benadam]

I’m no expert but I can see how it helps psychologists do their research. Just like quantum theory helps physicists.

Not sure I know what you mean. If you mean you can see how science based on evolution theory could be useful for understanding the psyche, I agree.

 

[frobert]

The real problem is Evolutionary Psychology. It proposes that we are just biological machines that respond to outside stimuli, reproduce, or not, and die.

I disagree with much of your post as you are arguing against nature i.e the way things are, for the the way you think they can be. Evolution says nothing about religion because that is the province of theology, but neither has evolution ever stopped anyone from experiencing God through nature.

 

[edwest21]

Evolution is a non-concept. Why are living things here? Why is this animal alive and this one not? It was more fit? More lucky? Just an accident? Evolution through the Biology textbook says nothing about God and that’s the point. Taken on its own, the Biology textbook just tells us a part about living things. No, I’m not suggesting religion be added, just pointing out that it does not include critical information about human beings. Who we are. The Church provides the complete picture. Which is why my skepticism concerning evolution has increased.

 

[Benadam]

By Faith I believe:
Dust is of the earth. God made man from the dust of the earth. Our bodies are made of earth stuff.

The current state of science:
The theory of evolution describes man’s body as made of earth stuff.

When I look at my hand, and a monkeys hand, I know I’m of the earth.

 

[frobert]

Evolution is a non-concept. Why are living things here? Why is this animal alive and this one not? It was more fit? More lucky? Just an accident? Evolution through the Biology textbook says nothing about God and that’s the point

You are confusing science and religion. Evolution is a scientific theory. Why we are here is a theological question not a scientific one. Accepting nature for what is only conflicts with religious reasoning for those who let it.

Taken on its own, the Biology textbook just tells us a part about living things.

Not sure what your point is as it pertains to the sciences.

The Church provides the complete picture. Which is why my skepticism concerning evolution has increased.

It sounds as if evolution strengthened your religious beliefs. Why not take that as a plus?

This topic has me thinking about how very alike creationists and atheists are. Each disacknowledges the beliefs of the other. Although directed in different directions they likely have similar feelings.

 

[edwest21]

On the contrary. What I mean is Church teaching has increased my skepticism regarding claims related to evolution. Threads like this spanning years shows clear evidence that a non-God cause is being promoted here.