The above video, Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, is 57 minutes, and I therefore do not ask you to watch it, since most of you otherwise have better things to do. I have featured this video before, but as I recall, only in comments. I wanted to give it broader exposure. I found it worth my time, yesterday and the day before, for a second look.
In it, Peter Robinson of the Hoover Institute does an excellent and inquisitive interview of three scholars, David Berlinski, author of The Deniable Darwin, David Galernter, Yale professor and author of The Tides of Mind: Uncovering the Spectrum of Consciousness and many other works, and Stephen Meyer, author of Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design. I have read none of these works, did not even know of them, but am chomping at the bit.
If you have read Origin of the Species, by Charles Darwin, you might note that he formed very large conclusions based on very little evidence. None of the men in the above video express any disrespect for him, as he was a man of his time and the science then, and was unable to embrace the immense improbability of gene mutation having any part in the making of species on our planet. Darwin noted that the beaks of birds would be reshaped due to isolation of various species in locations where an improvement in survival chances could be had by that change. But a bird was still a bird, and farm animals remained unchanged, sheep remaining sheep and cows cows. The idea of species becoming other species could only be embraced in terms of vast periods of time and slow changes due to mutations.
Darwin offered us nothing in terms of the origins of the vast array of species that have come and left his planet. The men in this video at the beginning speak of the “Cambrian explosion” wherein thousands of species appear in the fossil record with nothing before. The just arrive. They also speak in almost awe at the mathematics of mutation, and how it is for all practical purposes impossible for Darwin’s evolution to have taken place. Something else is in the works. (Immanuel Velikovsky speculated that radiation plays a large role, specifically when the planet is under assault by comets.)
There is talk in this video of intelligent design, but not from a religious perspective. It is just a grasping at trying to understand things that we do not understand, the most central of which is consciousness. No genius am I, and I walked away from it not understanding for a second how we came to be. I am not far behind the three real geniuses who participate in the interview.
(Neo-Darwinism has become a de facto religion now, and Gelernter speaks of it. He says his colleagues are respectful of him personally, but that scientifically they excoriate him and his views, and anyone like him.)
You will benefit far more by watching the video that from reading my thoughts about it. Of course, that is your choice. In watching it, I am reminded of my mother Mary Eileen, a simple woman and not well read, who would sit through William F. Buckley’s Firing Line every Sunday, saying only that she enjoyed watching good minds at work. She would have objected to this video, most likely, in that it does not pay enough homage to religion. But she would have watched it.