Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution


Based on new evidence and knowledge that functioning proteins are extremely rare, should Darwin’s theory of evolution be dismissed, dissected, developed or replaced with a theory of intelligent design? Has Darwinism really failed?

Peter Robinson discusses it with David Berlinski, David Gelernter, and Stephen Meyer, who have raised doubts about Darwin’s theory in their two books and essay, respectively The Deniable Darwin, Darwin’s Doubt, and “Giving Up Darwin” (published in the Claremont Review of Books).

Robinson asks them to convince him that the term “species” has not been defined by the authors to Darwin’s disadvantage. Gelernter replies to this and explains, as he expressed in his essay, that he sees Darwin’s theory as beautiful (which made it difficult for him to give it up): “Beauty is often a telltale sign of truth. Beauty is our guide to the intellectual universe—walking beside us through the uncharted wilderness, pointing us in the right direction, keeping us on track—most of the time.” Gelernter notes that there’s no reason to doubt that Darwin successfully explained the small adjustments by which an organism adapts to local circumstances: changes to fur density or wing style or beak shape. Yet there are many reasons to doubt whether Darwin can answer the hard questions and explain the big picture—not the fine-tuning of existing species but the emergence of new ones. Meyer explains Darwinism as a comprehensive synthesis, which gained popularity for its appeal. Meyer also mentions that one cannot disregard that Darwin’s book was based on the facts present in the 19th century.



Categories: Design in nature, Evolution

10 replies

  1. There is no mathematical challenge to Darwinism.

    Like

  2. Stephen Meyer, on the far left in the discussion, has an excellent book “Signature in the cell.” I am sure you are aware, but he makes strong arguments against the theory of Darwinism in the microscopic world. He has an interesting critique on the RNA world hypothesis. Thanks for sharing!

    Like

    • Is Stephen Meyer a recognized scientist in cell biology and medicine?

      Like

      • Your question is fair. He is not an expert in the research of cell biology and medicine. However, he does have a PhD in the philosophy of science from Cambridge University. He is more than competent to address the philosophical issues at hand, especially origin of life questions. However, this is a fallacy of appealing to authority. Just because one is a recognized scientist doesn’t validate or invalidate the premise that God is real. Thanks for the response.

        Like

  3. Excellent points by Gerlenter.

    He has atrocious political views but he is quite brilliant in his analysis….not all these points are his but it is possible that one point about the embryogenesis might be original.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: