Dr. David Berlinski: Institutional Constraints (Clip 11)

[ttcmp0]

The problem here lies with politics and funding, not the theories of scientists.

[LovingKimiKatkar]

Today's atheistic Darwinists/evolutionists are the high priests of corporate science. They sermonize & pontificate, from lecterns & in clumsily-written tomes, on the "over-population" dilemma and the necessity of, foisting upon a stupefied populace, eugenic measures (sterilants & abortifacients) to curtail growth.

[baldurus1]

A lot of blinking and avoiding eye contact from Mr. Berlinski, it's like he knows he's being dishonest.

But that can't be, right?

[AwesomeSuperbaws]

Atheist's:: "Lets all hide behind Darwin"

^ Lol.

[gregrutz]

This crap brought to you by the Discovery Institue.

[gregrutz]

''God dun it that way'' doesn't work in science either.

[gregrutz]

You IDiots act like evolution is not an accepted fact. Taught at every university biology class

[sherwoodstars]

The insitutional constraints are so strong that, according to Philip Skell, a now-retired science professor and a member of the National Academy of Sciences, any young biologist who questions old Darwinist doctrines is likely to be "railroaded" out of the academic community. There's a link on my blog to an audio interview in which Skell says exactly that. Follow the link on my channel profile to my blog. Skell warns young biologists not to publicly criticize Darwinism until they have tenure.

[gregrutz]

@sherwoodstars That is because anyone who does not 'believe' in the evidence for evolution, only does so because of religion getting in the way of logical thinking.

[JohnEdwardIAF]

@sherwoodstars

Darwinian Doctrine? I guess we'll call gravity the "Newtonian Doctrine," LOL. Evolutionary biology is a well established science that's been tested again and again. Crackpot followers of this anti-evolution cult aren't taken seriously, since they don't provide any evidence against evolution; and they can't explain the success of the testable predictions of evolutionary theory, primarily in genetics. They either ignore it, or they fail to understand it.

[toobsucker]

@JohnEdwardIAF "Newtonian Doctrine" was replaced by "Einsteins Doctrine"

I suggest you read the article "A third way" by James A. Shapiro. the evolution (adaptation) that is witnessed is being performed by a calculating "thinking code". that random copying errors and deletions can not account for

And keep your attention on ENCODE. they will single handily dismantle Darwinian evolution

Our DNA has multiple overlapping codes in JUNK DNA that are coherent from every sequence they are read from

[JohnEdwardIAF]

@toobsucker Let me guess, it can only be explained in terms of "intelligent design" right? LOL, yeah right. In your god-fearing dreams. I'll read the article when I have time. Why don't you post your claims over at rationalskepticism(dot)org so they can dismantle it for you. See if it stands to scrutiny. Every time I hear of another presumptuous claim from the anti-evolution cult, it only takes a little research to debunk. But you guys just keep on coming back with more nonsense.

[enoch1844]

@JohnEdwardIAF Well, you haven't refuted anything here or made any comment relevant to the defense of evolution. Intelligent design IS a reasonable hypothesis. If the crawler on Mars had found an object that looked 50 or 60% like, say a butter knife, scientists would have shouted to the world that there is intelligent life outside earth. Yet they find that a simple, single cell organism is more complicated than NY City, with all it's systems, they say, "Blind chance and lots of time."

[gregrutz]

@enoch1844 "Blind chance and lots of time."

Nice strawman argument. You, like Mr. Butinski, don't even understand evolution.

[JohnEdwardIAF]

@enoch1844

No, CRACKPOT scientist already claim that there was intelligent life on mars. It's not a mainstream view. In fact, those crackpots make the same sort of claims all psuedoscientists like cryptozoologists, ufologists, conspiracy theorists, and intelligent design-creationists make. They claim that NASA is withholding information, persecuting them, and that there are institutional constraints that prevent the "truth" from being revealed.

[gregrutz]

@toobsucker Funny how Darwin did not even know about DNA and yet he still showed how evolution happens.

[sherwoodstars]

"Evolutionary biologists" receive grants from the National Science Foundation, paid by taxpayers, for such "research" as speculating about how chance and natural selection "might" have turned one little fossilized beastie into another one! But unproven daydreaming of that sort isn't really science; and large scale evolution of germs to worms to fish etc. and eventually to humans, assumed to be due to struggle and slaughter, would be of no practical use: whether or not it happened that way.

[0019808]

@gregrutz

You seem very keen to equate qualifications with an ability to speak the truth. With this in mind, please list your qualifications along with the year you attained them and the establishment they were gained at. We can then compare them with Berlinksis to see which of you is more likely to be speaking sense. We are waiting.

[gregrutz]

He is a math teacher, now paid by the Discovery Inst. to put down science. He adds nothing, has no answers. Paid to bull shit.

Doesn't matter who went to school.

We have the fossils, the evidence.

We win.

[0019808]

There should be 1000's of fossils, not just 8 (& thats ur strongest case of the whale!) Wheres all the transitional fossils in the Cambrian rock layer, a place rich in number & variety of fossils? Theres no fossils of organisms that evolved into clams. No fossils of organisms that evolved into crabs. No fossils that evolved into trilobites, no transitional fossils of anything into which trilobites could have evolved. No fossil precursors of jellyfish, squid, earthworms, spiders or insects!

[gregrutz]

There was several billion years of evolution before the Cambrian Period.

There are fossils before the Cambrian, it was 500 million years ago, do you think they need to find every fossils of everything that ever lived. There is very little Cambrian rock left on the earth.

The cambrian fossils ARE the intermediate, transitional fossils.

They were all small marine animals, no land animals at all.

[gregrutz]

That is not a valid argument. Proof by Authority.

[gregrutz]

Who are these desperate people who are in fear of losing their jobs?

name one.

[gregrutz]

Berlinski is a Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, a Seattle-based think-tank that is hub of the intelligent design movement wikipedia

[gregrutz]

Mr. Butinski is a math teacher and knows little about evolution. He is a paid creationist spokesman

[SounzNice]

>He is a paid creationist spokesman

Got proof? Cite please. If so, is Richard Dawkins not paid? If not, do you have proof? Cite please.

[gregrutz]

He works for the Discovery Institute, they pay him to make up crap and say, "WE just don't understand" Like he was a scientist or something.

He is a math teacher.

[SounzNice]

_______ = Good sources "or something."

>He is a math teacher.

Darwin was a dentist.

> Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture

.. and where's the figures of his annual salary dished out by this "think tank"?

Who sponsors them (who funds them)?

You even said he's a math teacher.

So at the very most, he's a part time "employee" of the tt.

Richard Dawkins is not paid also?

Silence sour facts and flaunt sweet facts = evolutionist MO.

[gregrutz]

Center for Science?!?! what a joke.

You IDiots act like evolution is not an accepted fact.  Taught at every university biology class.

[sherwoodstars]

Berlinski is right that a lot of scientists continue to publicly espouse conventional evolutionary doctrines that they no longer believe in, since their grants depend upon their perceived adherence to those doctrines. Admitting that "Well, we biologists don't have any idea what caused any of these critters to get here," isn't a way to get a grant of taxpayers money from the National Science Foundation. One has to claim to have some true theory, and to be simply refining a few details of it.

[gregrutz]

@sherwoodstars

What a bunch of bull shit.

Evolution was accepted 150 years ago, before the gov. gave grants.

[SounzNice]

Research how evolutionISM started and you'll be enlightened to discover that it began by a rich lawyer and elitists who funded the whim. The same guys rushed out like mad to buy up their own book to sucker others into buying it. Money pushed the idea, not the idea.

[gregrutz]

Don't you christians ever stop lying?

Evolution was around before Darwin came up with how it happened.

All scientist accept that evolution happened, it's been proven.

[SounzNice]

Who's the christian? Evolutionists don't lie? LOL.

Evolution was around where? The big push occured with darwin. The earth was considered flat before it became popular too. Weak argument.

Not all scientists accepted evolution. Who can't stop lying? Me or you?

[sherwoodstars]

Berlinski has had postgraduate study in biology at Columbia University. His understanding of biology and of evolutionary doctrines is pretty deep.

[gregrutz]

Columbia University was founded by the Church of England. Butinski is a math teacher and knows little about evolution. He is a paid creationist spokesman.

[gregrutz]

@sherwoodstars

Can't tell by the stupid stuff he says, but of course he is getting paid to act like a stupid scientist.

[sherwoodstars]

Berlinski is a well-known secular Jew and agnostic. Yet the ignorant sometimes imagine that he is a creationist, merely because he critiques the old doctrines of conventional evolutionary biology: doctrines that have very properly been called "Darwinism" for many decades, since they resemble Darwin's theory by relying on natural selection. Berlinski, with his broad education in philosophy, mathematics and biology, brings insights that should be studied even by those who are still Darwinists.

[gregrutz]

"broad education in philosophy,"

But he doesn't know shit about evolution.

[gregrutz]

"Darwinism" is Darwin's reason for evolution, relying only on natural selection. It is 150 years old and the term in no longer used because so much has been added to the theory, like 'genetic drift'

[gregrutz]

In modern usage, particularly in the United States, Darwinism is often used by creationists as a pejorative term.

'wikipedia'

[procommenter]

(Part 2) not only have been produced but organisms of widely differing groups may have arisen from common ancestors; broadly : biological evolution -- compare EVOLUTION 5b NEO=DARWINISM; LAMARCKISM, MUTATION [Fr. pps. 575-6 of "Webster's Unabridged Dictionary" -- 1967]

[procommenter]

All churches have denominations. Darwin's Church is evolving so naturally there will be strife amongst Darwinians. One day we'll have Orthodox Darwinians; Reformed Darwinians; Evolutionary Separatist Darwinians; Church of the Holy Child: Master Charles Darwin, etc.

[tetralophodon]

lol, thats soooo true

[gregrutz]

Science is not a church.

There is no such thing as Darwinism.

It's called Evolution and it's accepted

by 99% of all scentists.

Stay in school, take a science class.

[procommenter]

(Part 1) darwinism n -s usu cap [C. R. Darwin, its promulgator + -ism] : the theory of the origin and perpetuation of new species of animals and plants holding that organisms tend to produce offspring varying slightly from their parents, that the process of natural selection tends to favor the survival of individuals whose peculiarities render them best adapted to their environment, and that chiefly by the continued operation of these factors new species

[GeeWeezzz]

"A rebel without a clue"

It would be aptly titled if it weren't for the word 'rebel.' Please.

"Berlinski, along with fellow Discovery Institute associates Michael Behe and William A. Dembski, tutored Ann Coulter on science and evolution for her book Godless: The Church of Liberalism."

So much for being anti-establishment.

[ThrakhathOfKilrah]

Correction for illitrate IconicFiber with some additions:

People like Berlinski who don't know (very much) are of course welcome to admit they do not know.

However, most people know something, and knowing something is a lot better than knowing nothing. This is why most people don't pretend they know nothing.

Berlinskis error is to project his personal lack of knowledge on to others by saying that no one knows if he himself does not know. This makes him ignorant and despicable.

[IconicFiber]

Your last post was so horrible that i dont see how anyone would ever take you seriously. If you are going to claim another person to be ignorant then use proper spelling. English is the language of business and success so get it straightened out.

[ThrakhathOfKilrah]

You just completely failed to address the argument in the original post as well as my comments on spelling. That makes you pathetic.

Of all the lingusitic skills spelling is the least important - because messages still get across. The reason you do not understand this is because you do not speak any other languages than English. This is very unfortunate for you and puts severe limits on what you can understand about foreign cultures and people. This makes you ignorant.

[ThrakhathOfKilrah]

"English is the language of business and success"

It so happens that we are not talking about neither business, nor your personal and unimportant definition of success.

English is a dominant language with a particularily retarded spelling rules, that may be important in your isolated environment.

I speak 3 langugages fluently, and I swap between them instantly, every day in my work - and guess what, my spelling has NEVER affected my "success" or "business" negatively.

:)

[ThrakhathOfKilrah]

People who don't know, like Berlinski, should of course say he does not know.

Noing something is better than noing nothing which is why most people don't pretend to no nothing as they really do know something.

Berlinskis error is to apply his personal lack of knowledge onto others by saying something he does not know which is that others do not know.

Berlinski = ignorant

[IconicFiber]

You should try to grasp the english language before you try to tackle Berlinski.

[ThrakhathOfKilrah]

It might be hard for you to understand, since you speak one language, but grasping (listenin/reading) is a different skill from spelling (writing).

Most people are able to make out the meaning of the my comment even though it is lacking a couple of 'k's, but since you are not all that bright I will repost the comment correctly spelled.