I recently listed to a 5 minute commentary from Dr. David Berlinski on the subject of evolution, and whether evolutionary theory is an adequate explanation for the origin of life.
No one need argue the reality of life forms adapting to their environment over time, and for small changes in biological makeup. That is biological adaption, and obviously needful in order for life forms to survive in a changing environment over the long term. But that is not Evolution as it is being promoted in schools, colleges, and in the media. .
This short clip is well worth listening to….
The key issues he raises with Evolution as an adequate theory for the origin and development of life are …
- The lack of support from the fossil record. when Darwin constructed his general theory in the 1800’s, he assumed that as a result of excavations, thousands of “transitional forms” would be unearthed in the fossil record. That has simply not been the case. If Evolution were true, one would have expected to find tens of thousands of examples of transitional forms in the fossil record – but they simply aren’t there. Instead what you find are the bones of distinct “kinds” of species.
- The inadequacy of Darwinian theory to be subject to the scientific method. He provides an example from Physics: how Neuton theorized about how planets were attracted to one other as a result of the law of gravity, observed the effects of that assumption – that the orbits of planets around the sun were not circular, but elliptical, and then proved the concept mathmatically. The theory of Evolution is not testable in such a manner.
- The difficult of seeing Evolution work in a computer simulation. He points out that the algorithms of other types of theories can be programmed into computers, and by running a computer simulation model you can literally advance time and “see” the results of those assumptions. This is not possible with Evolution, and the simple algorithms it involves – natural selection, working with random mutations over time. The computer cannot generate an “evolved” species, as you would expect. It can Only do so if you introduce specific insrtuctions.
- The inability to test the theory under laboratory conditions. When you attempt such a thing, bugs remain bugs. Dogs remain dogs. There seems to be some hard bound separation between species. If Evolution were true, this should not be the case. There should be far more “plasticity” within and between species.
Although aspects of evolution are true – adaption, minor variations within species – we do not see one species transitioning over time into another species. We don’t even see this in the fossil record, as one would reasonably expect. And the fundamental algorithms of evolution – random mutations in genetic material being acted by by natural selection – when modeled by a computer simply don’t work as one would expect.
My take? One must look at the evidence, and draw reasonable conclusions. I don’t see the compelling evidence for Evolution as being an adequate explanation for the origin of life, or the maintenance of life forms on this planet. I don’t have enough faith for that I am placing my faith in an all-powerful Creator as the origin and Sustainer of all life.
About Dr. David Berlinski
Berlinski received his Ph.D. in philosophy from Princeton University and was later a postdoctoral fellow in mathematics and molecular biology at Columbia University. He has authored works on systems analysis, differential topology, theoretical biology, analytic philosophy, and the philosophy of mathematics, as well as three novels. He has also taught philosophy, mathematics and English at Stanford, Rutgers, the City University of New York and the Université de Paris. In addition, he has held research fellowships at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Austria and the Institut des Hautes Études Scientifiques. He lives in Paris.
For more information, visit http://www.davidberlinski.org/biography.php