Talk:David Berlinski

I believe Berlinski's PhD was in mathematics, not philosophy.

Natural selection as a universal mechanism

• ....Natural selection as some sort of universal mechanism is just as implausable as having a single differential equation explain all of physics

Berlinski said this in replying to his critics following his groundbraking article "The Deniable Darwin" http://www.arn.org/docs/berlinski/db_deniabledarwin0696.htm I am busy tracking down the reference. To me this single statement was a turning point in trying to understand the mechanism of evolution:"Natural selection". The question is:What naturaled and who did the selecting? and Is NS a cause or an effect? The phrase 'Natural selection' is language confusion. As a technical term it is a misleading oxymoron. The proper term should be:"The Selection Force". At least one can visualise a God-like force 'selecting' for things. Berlinski notes:"... NS is a force because it does something..." Darwin used the phrase over 300 times in his Origin of Species as some sort of universal mechanism that explains everything Origin of Species, 6th Edition, by Darwin http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext99/otoos610.txt

The phrase Natural Selection is a form of linguistic terrorism. It is a synonym for bad luck, misfortune, and getting the pointy end of the stick. It is empirically, that is, scientifically, meaningless, but it makes a pretty metaphor. It originated in a categorical error parading as an analogy. For the past 150 years, it has deluded unthinking simpletons into mistaking it for a real phenomenon, when it is nothing but a collective anthropomorphization of non-specified natural causes of mortality presented as a mystical, animist 'presence' possessing the intelligence and powers of descrimination necessary to make actual choices, i.e., 'selections'. As such it may be accurately summed up as a childish religious mystique, that is, as a superstition for the Godless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.11.241.194 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

One individual's demise is bad luck. The demise of thousands and millions of individuals over thousands and millions of years, is scientific empirical evidence, not mystical or animist or religious. Have the courage of your convictions to register an (anonymous) ID and sign your Talk page comments with four tildes. Hu 23:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Language confusion is ALSO evident in Decent with Modification, Micro Evolution, Macro Evolution. Who did the modifying, what micro'd and what macro'd? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.11.241.194 (talk • contribs) 17:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

P.T. Saunders refered to the lack of a clear definition of Darwinism: "There is no canonical definition of neo-Darwinism, and surprisingly few writers on the subject seem to consider it necessary to spell out precisely what it is that they are discussing. This is especially curious in view of the controversy which dogs the theory, for one might have thought that a first step towards resolving the dispute over its status would be to decide upon a generally acceptable definition over it. ... Of course, the lack of firm definition does, as we shall see, make the theory much easier to defend." P.T. Saunders & M.W. Ho, "Is Neo-Darwinism Falsifiable? - And Does It Matter?", Nature and System (1982) 4:179-196, p. 179. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.11.241.194 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Pause for the Logician: Swimming in the soundless sea, the shark has survived for millions of years, sleek as a knife blade and twice as dull. The shark is an organism wonderfully adapted to its environment. Pause. And then the bright brittle voice of logical folly intrudes: after all, it has survived for millions of years.

En example of this logical folly is vividly demonstrated by Gould:
"The geological record features episodes of high dying, during which extinction-prone groups are more likely to disappear, leaving extinction-resistant groups as life's legacy". S.J. Gould & N. Eldredge, "Punctuated equilibrium comes of age", Nature (1993) 366:223-7, p. 225
Question:How was this "extinction-proneness" measured, except by noting that the groups went extinct?

We are told that the ape and the human 'diverged' from a common ancestor. But to an observer back then, would this common ancestor not have looked like an ape?

n Fred Hoyle's "Mathematics of Evolution" p.3-4 he states that Biologists have in a sense become mentally ill. Ken Ham from http://www.answersingenesis.org/ states: I believe in Natural Selection. Thus not just the Evolutionists are suffering from mental illness but the Young Earth Creationists as well. Creationists, Dembski, Scordova,Behe and Evolutionists continually debate each other, but their language is so confused that their debates are meaningless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.11.241.194 (talk • contribs) 08:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

p.277 of Berlinski's book Black Mischief: "...In general, trouble arises simply because the connection between biological traits and fitness is never derived from first principles. If the pig were to be bortn with wheels mounted on ball bearings instead of trotters, would it be better off on some scale of porcine fitness? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.11.241.194 (talk • contribs) 01:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The phrase 'Natural Selection' is thus entirely meaningless. And as Berlinski noted:"...once NS as a concept is destroyed nothing at all remains of evolution." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.239.183.213 (talk • contribs)

Steven Pinker addresses this question in his discussion of evolutionary theory in The Language Instinct (ca. 1992) -- i.e. is "fitness" in Darwinian selection a tautological concept? The answer he gives (adequately, I think) is that fitness can be described in an objective engineering sense relative to the environment -- e.g. an animal that lives in the desert and can survive many days or even weeks without water is objectively more "fit" in that environment than an animal that had less-efficient thermoregulation and required water much more frequently. In this context I am reminded of Richard Feynman's comment on the "polywater" controversy of the early 1970s (see Polywater by Felix Franks, MIT Press -- polywater was supposedly a more ordered, lower-energy state of water) that polywater did not exist, because if it did, there would exist some organism that didn't need to eat -- it would simply ingest ordinary water and excrete polywater and live on the energy difference.

137.82.188.68 04:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Please respect Talk page purpose

Please respect the purpose of this Talk page: It is to discuss edits made or proposed for the Berlinski article. It is NOT a forum for discussing evolution, natural selection, creationism, creation science, or the like. Thank you. Finell (Talk) 16:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Tried to clean it up a bit

Tried to clean it up a bit without touching anything contentious. I think the "tutored" in quotes should have a citation as to by whom the term is attributed to have been used. -- QTJ 07:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Creationist

The current version of the article labels Berlinksi a creationist, do we have any citations or sources for this claim?JoshuaZ 23:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The article already has supporting cites that he is an intelligent design proponent and intelligent design is already well supported showing that ID is a form of creationism, so I don't think we need any per the Making necessary assumptions clause of the WP:NPOV policy. FeloniousMonk 23:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Material

I just wanted to quickly address this portion that has be deleted separate times by User:209.137.175.59. I believe that the material is of significant substance, and provides background to the article. Additionally, the material is also referenced, so there should not be any conflict about its legitimacy as to the information. Do you believe this is a legitimate edit, and the material removed does not belong in the article? Please leave your comments below so that this may be resolved. To leave a comment, enter a new line, and begin your comment with an asterisk (*). --Thank You. Sukh17 ^{T • C • E} 04:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

My side is that it does not pertain to the article in fact the entire section should not even be listed. This an article about David Berlinski not ID.--209.137.175.59 04:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. Concur with Sukh17's analysis. This anonymous IP has deleted the section six times and been reverted by three editors (by my count). Deletions of content with citations pertinent to an article should never be undertaken unless discussed first on the article's talkpage or unless consensus indicates change. Ronbo76 04:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

My apologies I have not been editing long enough to know that deletion of content should be talked about on a talk page. In the future I will take note. But once again, why if this is an article about David Berlinski why do we even have a section about what ID is? There are perfectly good articles that discuss the ID as the pseudoscience that it is. Why is this section even on this page? --209.137.175.59 04:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Your IP's banner, attached to Valley Forge Christian College, along with your usage of the word, psuedoscience, are very telling. Your revisionist deletions of properly cited material affect the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view of this article. You may wish to examine your bias. Ronbo76 04:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

In a nutshell, its bias objects to intelligent design. Ronbo76 04:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

In an attempt to distance myself from the Christian college (I'm so liberal as compared to most Christians and I feel so out of place there sometimes) I'll reference my blog, [1] and [2]I am a Theistic Evolutionist and I believe that God has used evolution to create the current state of nature. However I do not believe that this section and specifically those citations have any business in this article. --209.137.175.59 04:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

You need to read the 3RR warning placed on your talkpage. In a nutshell, when an editor reverts your deletion, that is very telling. Once might not be telling. The second and third time should be a reason for you to stop and consider why it is being done. For three different editors to revert you six times should inform you that your viewpoint is not shared by various members of this Wikipedian community.

BTW, blogs (especially self-posted ones) are not considered authorative sources as its editor can change them at will. Please see WP:EL and Wikipedia:Attribution#Using questionable or self-published sources. Ronbo76 04:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I you read my Blog my point was to establish my viewpoint on evolution which you are contesting not to reference anything scholarly. --209.137.175.59 04:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not contest your blog; I contest your deletions of properly cited material along with your disruption of NPOV of this article. Ronbo76 04:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you help me understand how this is an NPOV thing? I dislike most ID guys, this guy is ID, the material that I deleted was anti ID, which I should love but I view it as not pertaining to the article as a whole. I'm trying to be a NPOV as I can. I just believe that the mention of ID is meant give a bash time for his credentials which should go under a "Criticism" section instead of under an "Intelligent Design" --209.137.175.59 04:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Your statement, I dislike most ID guys indicates a bias against intelligent design. You need to read the NPOV wikilink I already provided for you. Basically, neutral POV occurs in most Wikipedian articles and be seen as if viewpoints are on a scale equally balanced. If it did not, other editors will cite material to balance the article.

In essence, let's say I objected to a properly cited article on witchcraft and editted (read deleted) properly cited material just because I object to the premise of witchcraft. I would be guilty of tipping the NPOV scale in favor of my bias and effectively disrupt the neutral viewpoint by imposing my POV. Ronbo76 05:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Can we just change the section titled "Intelligent Design" to "Criticism" and call it a night? --209.137.175.59 05:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

No, because you do not have consensus for that either. Ronbo76 05:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

How do I get that? Can we take a vote or do we have to get every editor on Wikipedia to concur or what? --209.137.175.59 05:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not a vote. This talkpage is for article improvement. With Sukh17's first post to this talkpage, he provided his rationale for reverting your deletions. The fact that two other editors (to include myself) objected to your deletions indicate consensus with his actions. I would suggest you cease your edits to this page; take this as a learning experience and resolve never to delete properly cited material. Ronbo76 05:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

In addition, you need to re-read the 3RR warning. You have exceeded more than three edits in a 24 hour period, the maximum amount of edits allowed. Now, before you object, a Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol editor is still subject to that policy but given a bit more latitude when reverting questionable edits. If I was pushing POV edits via RC Patrol, I would expect to get whacked. Ronbo76 05:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what in the world the RC Patrol is and I'm pretty sure that after this experience I'm not going to contribute to Wikipedia.--209.137.175.59 05:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't revert the article? Why did you mark it as such? I added a citation needed thingy and I changed the name of a section, thats not a RV. Do you have any clue what is going on? --209.137.175.59 05:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I do have a clue. I know policy and follow it. Ronbo76 05:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

You have exceeded your 3RR allowed edits. You obviously are not reading provided policy. In addition, I did tell you specifically you did not have consensus to change the section title. One more edit within 24 hours will get you blocked. Understand? Ronbo76 05:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW, where does it say that editing is the same as reverting? --209.137.175.59 05:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The creation of a criticism section is generally discouraged. The material is ID-neutral - it just provides context. Rather than deleting it, if you find the section to abrupt, maybe you can track down some material (preferably from secondary or tertiary sources) and flesh it out a little. But taking material out that adds context does nothing to help the reader. Guettarda 05:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm done, you win, I hate Wikipedia. Goodbye--209.137.175.59 05:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, talk about the reactionary gangrape of a newbie. Did anyone here actually read WP:AGF? Or is dismissing arguments by presuming malice the norm here? There is a difference between giving context to a statement and including a dismissive non-sequitur. Arguments and criticisms of ID (and we all know there are plenty) don't belong in a biography. Several editors have brought up NPOV without actually addressing the issue of value-neutral coverage. Including negative, if sourced, statements does not automatically make an article any more "NPOV", especially when the topic derided is of peripheral importance to the article's subject. What I'm saying is, there's room for debate here, but it is being stifled by dismissals and circumvented by a selective interpretation of policy. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 19:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there is a serious lack of objectivity in this article that really does violate anything that could be considered a neutral point of view. It is rather strange that no one actually adressed the issue of the criticisms of Intelligent design that are rather unrelated to the topic, that is David Berlinski. Let me give some examples.

"Berlinski is a Fellow...that is hub of the intelligent design movement." --relevant "The scientific community, however, regards intelligent design as pseudoscience.[3] The ruling in the 2005 Dover case held that intelligent design is a form of creationism[4] and that the intelligent design movement is a political rather than scientific movement." --Not directly relevant to David Berlinki's position on evolution or intelligent design. "Mark Perakh, a critic of the intelligent design movement, contends that Berlinski's writings are not scientific, but popular, and that Berlinski "has no known record of his own contribution to the development of mathematics or of any other science."" --This statement does not address his record on intelligent design, and is exactly the kind of attack that you could call "polemic," considering the man has taught mathematics and is a postdoctoral fellow, as is admitted in the article.

You all chased off a person who had a good faith reason to question the reasonableness of the article, as it really wasnt neutral. It didnt state facts alone, but added editorial comments that are exactly what an encyclopedia shouldnt be. Calling his positions polemic is unecessary, and if you are not going to call the article section "criticism" or at least move some of the content to that area, you are simply being dishonest. - X XF22B (talk) 17:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Ummm, this thread took place 9 months ago, and the editors primarily involved appear to long since have left -- so I don't know why you're digging up this ancient history again. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Bad Writing

I find that some minor corrections of syntax and style I made have been reverted without explanation by an anonymous user. Let's focus on one case for the moment: the second sentence of the Intelligent Design section containing the word "however". Sorry folks, that ain't English. In relation to the preceding sentence it makes no grammatical sense. It can only indicate that the contributor either was not a native speaker, or just stumbled over his own eagerness to discredit the subject of the article.

Herbivores & carnivores

Wandering off subject into an "idle argument".
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Whether whales specifically evolved from cows or pakicetids is not the main issue. The point is that virtually every feature of the animal has to change, has to be adapted. Regarding this statement, the author is correct. I'm sure that Berlinski used "cows" merely as a general designation for "animals that are extremely different from whales."Lestrade 12:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Lestrade Incorrect. Pakicetids have considerably more in common with whales than cows do: long, slender body shape, elongated snout (complete with carnivore's teeth) and and a thick tail. It is actually quite easy to see the similarity between the pakicetid and the next stage of whale evolution, a mammalian crocodile called the Ambulocetus. And if you cannot see the similarity between a crocodile's body structure and a whale's then there's little hope for you. Berlinski's talking though his hat. Hrafn42 13:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC) Dear Hrafn42, whether whales evolved from cows, canaries, pakicetids, or pachyderms is not the important issue. The principal consideration is that for the whale's evolution to occur, virtually every feature of the animal has to change, has to be adapted. That's a lot of features.14:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Lestrade You seem to be under the impression that just because you say "virtually every feature of the animal has to change", or Berlinski says it, that it magically becomes true. I think you've been watching too much Harry Potter or something. Hrafn42 14:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC) I take that facetious response to mean that an observer could look at a whale and a pakicetid, diplayed next to each other, and have difficulty seeing the difference between the two animals.Lestrade 14:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Lestrade No. But that is not what you were arguing. You were arguing "virtually every feature of the animal has to change", which is something completely different from not having "difficulty seeing the difference between the two". You do not have "difficulty seeing the difference between the two" between a Great Dane and a Chihuahua, yet nobody in their right mind would believe that ""virtually every feature of the animal has to change" to get from one to the other. Likewise, you do not have "difficulty seeing the difference between the two" between a Royal Albatross and a Fairy Tern, yet, again, nobody in their right mind would believe that ""virtually every feature of the animal has to change" to get from one to the other. Hrafn42 15:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC) When do quantitative differences result in a qualitative difference? When does a familial difference become a difference of species? These are question of taxonomic classification. There are vague boundaries between species. How different is a whale from a cow or a pakicetid? This is a question of quantity which involves an eventual difference of quality. What features of a cow or pakicetid are identical to a whale's features? Have many of the features changed? If not many, then pakicetids are very like a whale (Hamlet, III, 2). Would Captain Ahab have pursued a white pakicetid?Lestrade 16:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Lestrade "When do quantitative differences result in a qualitative difference?" Very frequently, as you would know if you'd ever made even a superficial study of evolutionary developmental biology. "When does a familial difference become a difference of species?" You don't appear to be using "family" in a taxonomic sense -- species are subsetes of families, not supersets. "How different is a whale from a cow or a pakicetid?" Physically or genetically? I suspect the difference in the former are far larger than the differences in the latter, as most of the gross physical differences will most probably be in differences in the expression of genes than in the genes themselves. "This is a question of quantity which involves an eventual difference of quality." Evo-devo is continually discovering just how blurred the difference between these two are. "Have many of the features changed?" Superficially, yes. Inherently, no. "Would Captain Ahab have pursued a white pakicetid?" No. But nor would Richard III have declaimed "my kingdom for a Shetland pony". ;) Hrafn42 16:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC) The point at which a quantitative difference becomes a qualitative difference is arbitrary and is chosen for expediency. But, you are correct in that I should have said "individual difference" instead of "familial difference." The question, however, is, "How many, or what kind of, changes must occur in order for an animal that is called a pakicetid to become an animal that is called a whale?" A few? A great many? Virtually every one? Every one? Berlinski said "virtually every one." This means "approximately every one." His opponents want to know exactly how many. They also want to know how and where he obtained his knowledge. Through Potterian magic? Is he estimating? Is he talking through his hat by not giving an exact, precise number? Is it humanly possible to know exactly how many features must mutate in an animal in order for it to become another animal? Do Berlinski's opponents have the answer? Do they know exactly how many of a pakicetid's characteristics changed in order for it to change into a whale? Are they able to compare their knowledge with Berlinski's statement and thereby judge his words to be incorrect? Is this all a matter of viewpoint and perspective or can it be objectively determined?Lestrade 17:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Lestrade No, the point is that the quantitative and the qualitative are often the one and the same thing. Gross qualitative differences due to quite subtle quantitative differences in how genes are expressed. Berlinski has no understanding of evolution, evolutionary biology, evolutionary developmental biology or genetics. This being so , he has no idea at all of "how many, or what kind of, changes must occur" to transform one species into another related species. Berlsinski is talking through his hat because he has no idea what the number is -- NONE! He quite simply does not have the knowledge to even fully understand the question, let alone come up with even a half-baked answer to it. His critics would probably have a good idea as to how to make hind legs disappear (they can make chickens' long-dormant teeth-genes re-express themselves), and a few of the other, more significant changes. As to the exact state of play, you'd have to ask an evolutionary developmental biologist. I rather suspect that if they compared their knowledge to Berlinski's statement, they would have about as much in common as the retail industry's seasonal planning has with a child's belief in Santa Claus. Hrafn42 18:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC) To say that "…quantitative and the qualitative are often the one and the same thing…" is to disregard a distinction that has proven useful for many centuries. "How much" (quantity) and "what kind" (quality) are the same thing in that they are both constructions of human minds. But they ask different questions and require different answers. An important question is "Can they convert into each other, and, if so, how?" In saying that Berlinski "has no idea at all of 'how many, or what kind of, changes must occur' to transform one species into another related species" is probably true. He seems to think, however, that the quantity (how many) is immense and the quality (what kind) is a series of very different and distinct states.Lestrade 20:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Lestrade Science quite frequently finds that, based on evidence and research, it should "disregard [an idea] that has proven useful for many centuries". No. "What kind" can quite often be a direct result of "how much" a given gene is expressed during development. The trouble is that Berlinski doesn't have the basic biological knowledge to have any idea at all of "how much". Rather than find out, and risk finding out that the real best guestimate is far smaller than would support his argument, he plucks claims of "immensity" out of thin air, without a shred of understanding of what might actually be involved. Hrafn42 05:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia is not a chat room: And this talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not idle arguments between persons of opposing viewpoints who will not and cannot accept the view that is opposite to their own. Each side has heard all the arguments of the other and cannot be convinced. Do not fool yourself into think that YOU will come up with the arguemnt that finally will make THEM realize YOU are right and THEY are wrong; THEY are here only to convince YOU that YOU are wrong and THEY are right. It is futile. Save your breath, or your fingertips. Please stop. Thank you. Finell (Talk) 07:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't the quantity (how much) of the discussion. It was the quality (what kind) of the discussion that bothered User_talk:Finell. He sure cut that one off with one stroke. Reminds me of Berlin, 1934.Lestrade 22:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

Bibliographic reference

The article omits a useful bibliographic reference, an hour-long DVD released in 2006 by ColdWater Media LLC entitled The Incorrigible Dr. Berlinski. The format of the DVD is an informal fireside chat in which Berlinksi is the only person seen and heard on camera. The video was originally recorded for use in an earlier ColdWater video, Icons of Evolution, released in 2002. The video is divided into 23 segments introduced by text captions without narration.

In the video, Berlinski briefly reviews the core parts of macro-evolution that he accepts as non-controversial (e.g. common origins and descent with modification) and then goes into depth on his technical criticisms of Darwin's mechanism and the quality of the evidence cited for it. For example, he criticizes Darwin's model because it lacks a suitable stochastic model that matches the complex time-varying statistics found in the fossil record (i.e. punctuated equilibrium). In other segments he asserts that some of the evidence cited for Darwin's mechanism doesn't rise to requisite evidentiary standards when carefully examined. This is a bit like examining a student's proof of a mathematical theorem and finding technical flaws in the proof. It doesn't automatically invalidate the theorem; it only invalidates the proof, as submitted by the student.

Elsewhere in the biography a citation is requested for Berlinski's dismissal of "intelligent design" as a believable theory. This video provides that reference, as it makes it clear that Berlinski accepts no theory as scientific unless it rises to the scrupulous standards expected of a scientific model. He especially emphasizes the importance of a mathematical model that makes precise predictions that can be compared to observations.

Moulton 01:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The article cites a source that supplies an excerpt from the DVD. I have at hand the actual DVD. The segment in question is Segment #8. Here is my transcript, straight off the DVD, of the entirety of that segment:

The interesting argument about the whale, which is a mammal after all -- it belongs to the same group of organisms as a dog, a human being, a chimpanzee, or a tiger -- the interesting argument about a whale is that if its origins were land-based originally, then we have some crude way of assessing quantitatively -- not qualitatively -- but quantitatively the scope of the project of transformation. The project is very simple. Let's put it in vividly accessible terms. You've got a cow. You want to teach it how to live all of its life in the open ocean, still retaining its air-breathing characteristics. What do you have to do from an engineering point of view to change the cow into a whale? This is crude, but it gives you the essential idea. Now if the same question were raised with respect to a car, and you ask what would it take to change a car into a submarine, we would understand immediately, it would take a great many changes. The project is a massive, massive engineering project of redesign and adaptation. Well, the same question occurs with respect to that proverbial cow. Virtually every feature of the cow has to be changed, it has to be adapted. But since we know that life on earth and life in the water are fundamentally different enterprises, we have some sense of the number of changes then. You know, any time a science avoids coming to grips with numbers, it's somehow immersing itself in perhaps an unavoidable but certainly an unattractive miasma. Here's a chance actually to put some numbers on calculations. We're not talking about genetics; we're talking about simple numbers. The skin has to change completely; it has to become impermeable to water. That's one change. Breathing apparatus has to change. A diving apparatus has to be put in place. Lactation systems have to be designed. The eyes have to be protected. The hearing has to be altered. Salivary organs have to be changed. Feeding mechanisms have to be changed. After all, a cow eats grass, a whale doesn't. As I say, I've tried to do some of these calculations. The calculations are certainly, certainly not hard. But they're interesting, because I stopped at 50,000, that is morphological changes. And don’t forget these changes are not independent; they're all linked. If you change an organism's visual system, you have to change a great many parts of its cerebellum, its cerebrum, its nervous system. All of these changes are coordinated. So when we're talking about an evolutionary sequence such as this, what’s interesting about the cow-to-whale transition -- and I'm just using this as an easily accessible idea -- what’s interesting about the cow-to-whale transition is that we can see that a different environment is going to impose severe design constraints on a possible evolutionary sequence. How are these constraints met, if there are roughly 50,000? If there are two million constraints, how are those met? And what does this suggest about what we should see in the fossil record? To my way of thinking, if Darwinian hypotheses are correct, it should suggest an enormous plethora of animals intermediary between, say Ambulocetus and the next step. That won't solve all problems. One wants to know what's directing this change, if anything. But at least it will put it in the ballpark of a quantitative estimate, which is hardly ever done.

Moulton 05:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: You can find a YouTube video of that same segment posted here and here. Moulton 01:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Mr. Moulton.Lestrade 13:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

I suspect any evolutionary developmental biologist would have a complete field-day with the heroic inanity of Berlinski's "engineering" metaphor, and point out the vast number of major changes that can be created with very subtle changes in gene expression during development. As is usual with Creationists and their allies, Berlinski displays an understanding of science that can best be described as an extreme caricature of an extremely archaic version of the state of play. Hrafn42 13:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

In particular, Evolutionary developmental biology#Development and the origin of novelty seems to directly contradict Berlinski's claims. Hrafn42 13:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, if any two organisms on the evolutionary tree differ by x units, according to the metric devised by Stanislaw Ulam, then a simple theorem is not hard to show. First, go back in time to their last common ancestor (before they branched) and take Ulam's metric from that common ancestor to each of the two organisms. Call those two metrics of lineal descent y and z, respectively. Then at least one of y or z is greater than x/2. So if a cow and a whale differ by 50,000 units by Ulam's metric and (the grandfather of) Ambulocetus is their common ancestor, then at least one of the two descending branches has to be longer than 25,000 units of that same metric. Moulton 14:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

None of this is that informative or notable and strikes me as trying to use this article as a vehicle to promote a particular viewpoint and video, especially Moulton's inclusion of link spam to the video publisher's website. I've moved these to the external links section since they are not notable publications of Berlinski's where he's got top billing but rather run of the mill compilations of various ID proponents natterings. Odd nature 18:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Intelligent design section

• In this section, as I write this, it says, "The scientific community, however, regards intelligent design as pseudoscience.[3]" The cite provided just links to a list of articles Berlinksi himself wrote - hardly the kind of articles likely to disprove his own theories. I proposes deleting this line, or changing it to cite needed. Anyone dis/agree? LAEsquire (talk) 01:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC) LAEsquire
  • Incorrect: this statement is referenced to a National Science Teachers Association Press Release. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Query

I recall having read somewhere that Berlinski's an atheist and is the ID movements counterwheight to Ken Miller. Does anyone know if this is true?Benignuman (talk) 03:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

There are numerous devoutly Christian scientists who accept evolution, and even a number who do work connected to evolutionary biology, so even if this is true, a single (and oft-noted contrarian) atheist ID supporter is hardly an effective counterweight to them. Regardless, it needs a WP:RS to be of any use. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I was asking specifically because I couldn't recall my source and was wondering if anyone else knew of one. Also I saw some discussion about whether he is a creationist which it seems to me is quite the opposite of an Atheist. Benignuman (talk) 04:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any reliable source which calls him an atheist. Guettarda (talk) 04:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm actually surprised to hear anyone deny that Berlinski is an agnostic. The blurb to his book on God identifies him as a "secular Jew." Daniel engber just posted this [[3]] in Slate, identifying him as agnostic. He has repeatedly denied advancing a creationist or ID agenda, calling for "intelligent uncertainty." Isn't the man's claim to be irreligious presumptively reliable? I'll have more to say when I've read his book. Innocent76 (talk) 20:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Ummm, nobody had actually mentioned "agnostic" until you came along. There was merely discussion as to whether there was a WP:RS for him being an "atheist", let alone the construction that Benignuman suggested that the ID movement placed on his purported atheism. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, great -- I'm glad I can settle this. There is no RS for Berlinski being an atheist, because he isn't. I don't think "the ID movement" (to generalize about divers organizations) draws the fine distinction between atheism and agnosticism that you do; perhaps this is what Benignuman wants to talk about?

While we're at it, perhaps we should qualify the claim that Berlinski is a creationist? His adversaries make that claim about him, but it's well attested that he denies it. Also, he doesn't argue in support of ID, or of any thesis -- just AGAINST evolution. It seems to me that the point of this article is to represent what Berlinski thinks, rather than simply his contribution to one controversy. Consequently, it may need attention from contributors with a broader perspective on his writings. Innocent76 (talk) 01:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The article does not call Berlinski a creationist. However, creationism is to a considerable extent a bunch of pseudoscientific arguments against evolution -- arguments which he promotes, and the DI to which he belongs is the foremost Neo-Creationist organisation, so mention of creationism is hardly out of line. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Hrafn, I appreciate your recent edits. I still have concerns about the tone of the article, which documents a number of criticisms his opponents have made, but makes no effort to explain what Berlinski's views are -- and they are quite distinctive. I think the community has been overmuch concerned with locating his star in the ID firmament, and not enough concerned with Berlinski's writings. I may take a stab at fixing this myself in a couple of months . . . but am I thinking about this article correctly? Please discuss.

Also, I don't agree that mention of creationism is warranted. If ID is pseudoscience, the correct forum to lay out that case is the ID article, no? The subject of this article is Berlinski. It's appropriate to state his association with that movement. I just don't think this is the place to recapitulate the criticisms of ID, or the Discovery Institute. If someone wants to read through all of that again, let him click through. Or am I missing something here? Innocent76 (talk) 18:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

<unindent>The article only spends two sentences on this subject. That is hardly excessive. Berlinski is most well known for his views on evolution. These views are considered pseudoscientific and are most commonly (almost exclusively in fact) held by creationists -- with whom he is closely associated. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Hrafn, the section on ID in this article is larger than the section on the entirety of his life and work. Three sentences address his thoughts on ID; the rest is just comments from his critics. No mention is made of the foundation of his beliefs. If I'm going to read an article on Berlinski, I would expect AT THE LEAST to understand WHY he thinks the theory of evolution is untenable. I see the fact that this article fails to answer the question as a failure. To dismiss him as "just another ID guy" is DISHONEST. He isn't just another ID guy -- that's why Engber's writing a profile about him, and not Behe. That's why he is the only opponent of evolutionary theory that Richard Dawkins has bothered to call wicked. Shouldn't the article about Berlinski explain what's so special about Berlinski? Innocent76 (talk) 20:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Berlinski is widely known as a evolution-critic/ID movement member. If you can cite WP:RS on other prominent activities of his (reviews of his novels for instance), then you are welcome to expand the article citing them. As far as why he denies evolution, the quoted Engber passages give some enlightenment: he's a contrarian who is more interested in what we don't know than in the substance of the research or what the best explanation is for what we do know. If you can find better sources explaining what/why he thinks, then please add them. He may not be "just another ID guy" in his basic beliefs, but I have seen nothing to indicate that he is anything other than "just another ID guy" (or even just another fairly generic creationist) in the anti-evolution arguments he makes. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Cows to Whales

Dr. Berlinski is using the cow as an illustration, obviously he doesn't think a cow changed into a whale, he even said that he was going to put it in "vividly accessible terms." Dr. Berlinski usage of a cow as an example isn't that far off either. If you read Muizon, Nature, Vol. 413, 20 September 2001, “Walking with whales”, page 259 you will find "...that cetaceans are more closely related to the oldest known even-toed ungulates — a group of hoofed mammals that includes cows... " Besides, the bases of the criticism is not that Dr. Berlinsk thinks cows evolved into whales (he doesn't), but that Dr. Berlinsk is making up numbers. This is a total baseless argument as well, because Dr. Berlinsk whole point is that evolutionists should make their own calculation, but if you want use this flawed argument simply to represent the response, I might be able to agree. The problem is that this is giving people incorrect information. I don't know if that's within the guide lines of wikipedia or not, but I would sure hope not. I'm going to remove this part. If there are any objections, bring them up here please. EMSPhydeaux (talk) 06:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

If Berlinski "doesn't think a cow changed into a whale", then he shouldn't have said it. "Cow" isn't a "vividly accessible term", it is a patently dishonest one. It is the functional equivalent of worn-out old creationist lie that evolution says that humans are descended from monkeys.Pakicetids look nothing like cows. They are both members of Cetartiodactyla, but so are pigs, hippopotamus, camels, giraffe, deer, antelope, sheep, & goats. Hippopotamus are currently believed to be whales' closest living relatives (and resemble whales quite a bit more than cows do). Yes, he is making up numbers, but he is using a purposefully tendentious example to help exaggerate the amount of change needed. I am therefore replacing the material (and including the reference to hippos as closest living relative). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Dr. David Berlinski didn't say that cows evolved into whales. Regardless of your opinion on how vividly accessible a cow is, he definitely did mean it to be only an illustration. Need more evidence? He also says near the end of the video "I'm just using this as an easily accessible idea." Tell me, if he was trying to trick people into believing cows evolve into whales, then why would he say this? What else could he mean? It's obvious that he truly believes cows are the easiest for people to envision evolving into whales. In another video he doesn't even mention the cow, so he decided some people don't need to be lied to?

You're forgetting that Dr. David Berlinski never said that he made the calculations based upon a cow, and he said that he used the absolute minimal changes that would be necessary. The idea that Dr. David Berlinsk is purposefully trying to distort the evidence is a baseless claim, and that's it. We don't know what his calculations are of, and the critics admit that. My suggestion is that we write that critics assume that Dr. David Berlinsk is liar, or that we simply remove this.EMSPhydeaux (talk) 08:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

"Berlinski likens the cow to whale evolution to the engineering task of converting a car to a submarine. Why are the 50,000+ required morphological changes not found in the fossil record?"[4] So he's just using it "as an easily accessible idea"? Easy compared to what? Monkeys into men? Cats into dogs? This "easily accessible idea" is nothing but a misrepresentation, a strawman -- part of a long line of creationist distortions of evolution. It is "easy" at the expense of jettisoning any truth. The Life of Brian is a "vividly accessible" representation of the Jesus story, but I doubt if even a fervent Monty Python fan would consider it appropriate in a serious conversation about the origins of Christianity. Berlinski's version bears as much resemblance to the whale evolution as The Life of Brian does to the gospels. What is Berlinski's background in palaeontology and evolutionary biology? It would appear that he is a charlatan lampooning things he has no substantial comprehension of. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Berlinski didn't write the quoted selection, so we can't use this as evidence against him. Saying 'monkey to man,' or 'chimp to man' is more easily visualized by the general public than saying australopithecine to man. Are we doing this "at the expense of jettisoning any truth?" Of course not; it's just to keep technical words out, so we can focus on the idea. The problem is that creationists did not say that it was just an example, but gave the impression that monkeys actually did evolve into man under the theory of evolution. Don't you think the idea that he should have used a Hippopotamus as an example is a bit trivial? Both are almost nothing like whales, and people are around cows more than they are around a Hippopotamus. Even if a Hippopotamus is a better example, don't you think that it might have been the best example that he could have thought of at the time? I could understand you problem, if he used a Giraffe, but a cow?

The Life of Brian obviously has nothing in relation to what we are talking about. It's not hard for us to envision a man on a cross, and this isn't the best example we could use. The basic problem with your argument is that you are assuming that this guy is purposely trying to be a deceitful without a shred of evidence, and evidence to the contrary. You are assuming that he is purposely using the cow as an example because it looks the least like a whale ancestor, but there is no reason to believe this unless you already have a bias against people who are critical of the theory of evolution. Shouldn't we strive to think the better of people? Shouldn't we strive to believe that this man is not trying to be deceitful?EMSPhydeaux (talk) 20:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Here are just a few of his amazing statements in this interview:

?The claim that all skeptics of Darwinian orthodoxy are Christian Fundamentalists stands refuted by me. I?m neither a Christian nor a Fundamentalist. But lots and lots of people are skeptical in the scientific community.?

?The interesting argument about the whale, which is a mammal after all, is that if its origins where land-based originally?what do you have to do from an engineering point of view to change a cow into a whale?...Virtually every feature of the cow has to change, has to be adapted. Since we know that life on earth and life in the water are fundamentally different enterprises, we have some sense of the number of changes?I stopped at 50,000, that is morphological changes, and don?t think that these changes are independent. What?s interesting about the cow to whale transition is that you can see that a different environment is going to impose severe design constraints on a possible evolutionary sequence?and what does this suggest about what we should see in the fossil record?

[5]

• "The problem is that" Berlinski "gave the impression" (in fact explicitly states) that we are dealing with a "cow to whale transition" (see transitional fossils for context).
• "Are we doing this 'at the expense of jettisoning any truth?'" Yes he bloody well is -- Pakicetids are very different creatures from cattle. It is a strawman, a caricature (hence my Life of Brian mention) of legitimate science (something that a contrarian dilettante would be hard pressed to find with a map). Any 'ease of visualisation' comes at direct expense of the visualisation retaining any accuracy whatsoever. I am not suggesting that he use Hippopotamus -- merely stating that if he had to use a present-day example, the least inaccurate would be the closest relative (which also just happens to resemble them quite a bit more).
• If you wish to defend the honesty of the substitution (and thus Berlsinski's honesty in making it) then perhaps you could tell me what, other than a very remote ancestoral relationship, cattle have in common with Pakicetids? Very little, I would suggest. If it is legitimate to substitute cattle for pakicetids in the 'example', lacking any great morphological resemblance, then how is it legitimate to use this 'example' to attack the apparent lack of morphological resemblance between a cow and a whale?

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 08:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

That is a misquote by the website. The important thing is that Dr. Berlinski said that it's just a illustration, which was left out of that quote. Christians use sheep, snakes, lions to represent one man btw. There is nothing wrong with using present day examples to show a point. The only reason scientists think hippos are closest is because of DNA evidence. I'm pretty sure it's not morphological evidence that they are looking at. Look at a Cow, look at a Hippo, look at Pakicetus, and then look at a Whale. All of them have an "apparent lack of morphological resemblance" to a Whale. Can you honestly claim that using Pakicetus as an example would have weakened his argument at all? This is apparently false. I already gave you a video, in which he uses the same argument, but with a closer relative to the Whale than Pakicetus. I just can't understand what's your issue with this. EMSPhydeaux (talk) 14:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)