corporatetechentertainmentresearchmiscwellnessathletics

The Math Case Against Darwin | Evolution News and Science Today

By Andrew McDiarmid

The Math Case Against Darwin | Evolution News and Science Today

Does the math behind Darwinian evolution add up? On a new episode of ID the Future, I invite you to rediscover a remarkable and candid discussion about the limits of Darwinian evolution and the arguments for intelligent design. The conversation, originally recorded in 2019, is hosted by Peter Robinson for Uncommon Knowledge, and features philosopher of science Dr. Stephen Meyer, mathematician and author Dr. David Berlinski, and Yale Professor of Computer Science Dr. David Gelernter.

The interview was inspired by Professor Gelernter's essay "Giving Up Darwin: A Fond Farewell to a Brilliant and Beautiful Theory." In the essay, Gelernter points to Meyer's book Darwin's Doubt for convincing him that Darwin has failed. Gelernter also notes Berlinski's volume The Deniable Darwin as essential to his change in thinking. And so Robinson brings them together for an honest conversation about Darwin, his "brilliant and beautiful" theory, why it's time to move past it, and why intelligent design might be a more adequate alternative.

Here in Part 1, the trio evaluate Darwinian evolutionary theory and explain why it fails. They begin by explaining what was beautiful about Darwin's comprehensive and well-argued synthesis. But its beauty, says Meyer, is rooted in 19th century science, not what we've learned in the 20th or 21st centuries. The discussion then moves into the mathematical challenges to Darwin's theory. The Cambrian explosion is discussed, as well as the probability of an unguided process producing the amount of new information necessary to facilitate that great infusion of new animal forms. Then they discuss the problem of combinatorial inflation, the idea that the number of combinations that would produce a functional protein is exceedingly rare in sequence space. It's why a blind process such as natural selection acting on random mutations is vastly more likely to fail than to succeed in connecting the dots required for the diversity of life we see on Earth.

We are grateful to the producers of Uncommon Knowledge with Peter Robinson, a production of the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, for permission to share this interview on ID the Future.

Download the podcast or listen to it here. This is Part 1 of a two-part conversation. Look for Part 2 next!

Previous articleNext article

POPULAR CATEGORY

corporate

12473

tech

11464

entertainment

15500

research

7176

misc

16350

wellness

12575

athletics

16435