Re: Berlinski--A Scientific Scandal Part I From Commentary

In a message dated 4/12/2003 3:01:39 PM Eastern Daylight Time, KenRichard2002 writes:

> Drivel.


That is hardly an answer. What is the basis of this statement, left materialism, or suspicion of the evil works of Commentary Mag? Or both? 

The left had best get cracking with evolutionary theories and catch up with Marx's first impressions of Darwin, before his second thoughts caught up with his first impressions. His first impressions?  Bah, English ideology.... Ad nauseam in the Darwin debate. The point is that Engels' infatuation with Darwin, not only he, has ill served the left. The right knows perfectly well this is a bogus theory. 

The issue in Berlinski's essay is something that I have also been concerned about. The sawdust foundations of theory in the Darwin game. I admire much of Darwinism, but this theory is defended in defensible ways that confuse whole generations of students, and a good mathematician like Berlinski who was honest enough to not endorse the design arguments gets angry at the poppycock promoted in the name of sophisticated models by the brain dead science types who constantly preen their figures, aren't we smart? 

In any case the issue of genetic algorithms is something that shows great promise, but their use has already been hashed over with the usual Darwin defense routines. And the temptation is to confuse the mathematically confused with smoke and mirrors. 
Look at S. Kauffman, he was also honest enough to make his model research first suggest the limits of Darwinism. Cf. At Home in the Universe. 

So, on that basis, it should not be so remarkable to object to or be able to criticize speculative hypotheses. 
 In any case, the basic point is that evolution has so far not explained the emergence of the eye in selectionist terms. If one looks at some the work in developmental genetics one will find tacit yielding on this point, or at least embarrassed silence as the field moves to produce new forms of explanation. 

I think Berlinski's essay stands. And a generation of Dawkins' fanatics should have long since been served notice. But the control of the paradigm is so great noone can get through to the younger generation, which is all too obviously being chauffered with the exoteric version to aggressively defend Darwin from ignorance. 

If you think the essay by Berlinski to be drivel, at least keep in mind that noone is obliged on scientific terms to agree. 





John Landon
Website for
World History and the Eonic Effect
http://eonix.8m.com
Blogzone
http://www.xanga.com/nemonemini