What do you think?
Rate this book
The Deniable Darwin
In this collection of essays, Dr. David Berlinski, a Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute, writes about three profound mysteries: the existence of the human mind, the existence and diversity of living creatures, and the existence of matter. Berlinski's other books include The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions, Newton's Gift, and A Tour of the Calculus.
560 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 2009
120 people are currently reading
562 people want to read
About the author
David Berlinski
34 books267 followersDavid Berlinski is a senior fellow in the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture.
Recent articles by Berlinski have been prominently featured in Commentary, Forbes ASAP, and the Boston Review. Two of his articles, “On the Origins of the Mind” (November 2004) and “What Brings a World into Being” (March 2001), have been anthologized in The Best American Science Writing 2005, edited by Alan Lightman (Harper Perennial), and The Best American Science Writing 2002, edited by Jesse Cohen, respectively.
Berlinski received his Ph.D. in philosophy from Princeton University and was later a postdoctoral fellow in mathematics and molecular biology at Columbia University. He has authored works on systems analysis, differential topology, theoretical biology, analytic philosophy, and the philosophy of mathematics, as well as three novels. He has also taught philosophy, mathematics and English at Stanford, Rutgers, the City University of New York and the Université de Paris. In addition, he has held research fellowships at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Austria and the Institut des Hautes Études Scientifiques. He lives in Paris.
Recent articles by Berlinski have been prominently featured in Commentary, Forbes ASAP, and the Boston Review. Two of his articles, “On the Origins of the Mind” (November 2004) and “What Brings a World into Being” (March 2001), have been anthologized in The Best American Science Writing 2005, edited by Alan Lightman (Harper Perennial), and The Best American Science Writing 2002, edited by Jesse Cohen, respectively.
Berlinski received his Ph.D. in philosophy from Princeton University and was later a postdoctoral fellow in mathematics and molecular biology at Columbia University. He has authored works on systems analysis, differential topology, theoretical biology, analytic philosophy, and the philosophy of mathematics, as well as three novels. He has also taught philosophy, mathematics and English at Stanford, Rutgers, the City University of New York and the Université de Paris. In addition, he has held research fellowships at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Austria and the Institut des Hautes Études Scientifiques. He lives in Paris.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews
December 31, 2012
In a book I read a few years ago by David Berlinski (more on that below), I discovered that Einstein and I share a belief that I never imagined we shared. After his lifelong friend Besso died (and as Einstein himself felt his own approaching death), Einstein wrote to Besso's family, "...for us physicists believe the separation between past, present, and future is only an illusion, although a convincing one."
Berlinski goes on to clarify just how seriously Einstein embraced this belief, which flowed directly out of his General Relativity Theory. More precisely, within Einstein's theory *change* is the illusion. As Berlinski translates it, "Things do not become, they have not been, and they will not be: They simply are." Buddha might have put it the same way.
It was a belief that Einstein also shared with his Princeton colleague, the blindingly brilliant mathematician Kurt Godel. Some might know of Godel as the guy who proved conclusively that mathematics is and will always remain an incomplete system; there will always be axioms that are unprovable from *within* mathematics (ie. some axioms have to be taken on faith, not proof). Berlinski once quipped that this makes mathematics the only science that can prove it is a religion.
I also learned that Godel once presented Einstein with a solution to the torturously difficult equations of General Relativity. His solution - one of many possible - posited that the universe is suspended in a void, turning as if on a pinwheel, with each and every individual standing in the middle with the universe rotating around him or her. The solution satisfies Einstein's equations perfectly, and is just as possible as any other solution.
Berlinski's book points out over and over that the interpretations we take away from science are not in any way *given* by science, but by our sensibilities. He spends a full chapter on the multiple and multiplying assumptions that have been put into place to hold up the Big Bang theory. Many of those assumptions are quite ridiculous, but again, scientific sensibilities are no laughing matter. Godel's solution that finds us in a pinwheel universe may be scientifically sound (even offered as a mathematical proof), but it abuses our sense of how we expect things to be, or just how we think they are.
The Darwinian explanation of evolution, on the other hand, is magnificently *un*sound scientifically in its details (historical narratives are a dime a dozen, but that ain't science), but it abuses scientific sensibilities to face the alternative. [This topic occupies the vast majority of Berlinski's book.] The distinguished Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin - a Darwinian evolutionist to his core - summed up this issue with blinding clarity. Apologies for the lengthy quote, which is taken from an article of his published in the NYT Review of Books:
"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set ofconcepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
Materialist explanations are not what flows *out* of science, but what is demanded *of* science by those conducting it. It is a decision made prior to the investigation, a decision (both conscious and unconscious) to exclude certain explanations *in spite of* any explanatory power they might contain. Berlinski's book covers both the details and the broad sweep of evolutionary science to show the profoundly unscientific concepts widely embraced as a result of this materialist commitment.
When I finished Berlinski's book, I admit to some anxiety that I may never again read a book as well written and as brilliantly argued. Many books are one or the other; very few are both. It is titled "The Deniable Darwin," and consists of a series of essays Berlinski has written over the past 13 years.
Berlinski is a rare bird. He is a mathematician (among other titles) who has spent much of his time critiquing scientific dogma, but he does so from within the belly of the beast, so to speak. The essays in this particular book focus on the dogma underlying Darwinian stories of evolution, which Berlinski attacks from every side. He has absolutely no interest at all in Christianity or creationism or any of the labels that are endlessly thrown at him to discredit his arguments. In fact, it is quite telling to see how he puts forth criticisms based on science, and he is very commonly responded to with accusations of religion. He's a secular Jew who writes in this book, "I have no creationist agenda whatsoever and, beyond respecting the injunction to have a good time all the time, no religious principles, either."
Those unfamiliar with the serious weaknesses of Darwinian evolutionary ideas honestly believe, I think, that people critiquing it must have a religious agenda. Certainly the headlines would have us believe so. Those who are familiar with the weaknesses of Darwinian evolutionary theories but are committed to the theory nonetheless *use* the attack of religiousness to deflect attention from fundamental flaws. These flaws are answered - begrudgingly - with endless promissory notes that the Darwinian way around these flaws is just around the corner. Critics note that the Darwinian solution to these flaws isn't just improbable, but in many aspects scientifically impossible. But old habits die hard.
Large numbers of conventional, materialist, atheist scientists working in the fields of evolutionary science and theory now recognize that the random mutation/natural selection explanation for evolutionary change is fundamentally flawed (see books such as What Darwin Got Wrong, The Altenberg 16: An Expos� of the Evolution Industry and Origination of Organismal Form: Beyond the Gene in Developmental and Evolutionary Biology for starters). A "new synthesis" is sought as natural selection is recognized as causally inadequate and even incapable of supporting a scientific theory (as the first book in that list meticulously argues). Noam Chomsky, no advocate of supernatural explanations about anything, personally endorses two of those three books and agrees that evolutionary theory is in need of an overhaul.
So, which is more rational: side with Lewontin, preferring just-so mechanistic stories to explain all of life, even those that are "patently absurd?" If we do so, we're admitting that we're open to no other possibilities, an ironically anti-scientific stance to take. Are we open to the possibility of intelligent direction and purpose as fundamental properties of living systems? And perhaps most importantly, can we even grasp the idea of those properties without the baggage of theology they are so commonly intertwined with?
Well-established laws of information prohibit the built-up of non-trivial functional information through random processes. Logic doesn't exclude the possibility of transcendent intelligence as a source for the information found within living systems. Only our ideological commitment to materialism in science prevents this question from even being explored.
Berlinski goes on to clarify just how seriously Einstein embraced this belief, which flowed directly out of his General Relativity Theory. More precisely, within Einstein's theory *change* is the illusion. As Berlinski translates it, "Things do not become, they have not been, and they will not be: They simply are." Buddha might have put it the same way.
It was a belief that Einstein also shared with his Princeton colleague, the blindingly brilliant mathematician Kurt Godel. Some might know of Godel as the guy who proved conclusively that mathematics is and will always remain an incomplete system; there will always be axioms that are unprovable from *within* mathematics (ie. some axioms have to be taken on faith, not proof). Berlinski once quipped that this makes mathematics the only science that can prove it is a religion.
I also learned that Godel once presented Einstein with a solution to the torturously difficult equations of General Relativity. His solution - one of many possible - posited that the universe is suspended in a void, turning as if on a pinwheel, with each and every individual standing in the middle with the universe rotating around him or her. The solution satisfies Einstein's equations perfectly, and is just as possible as any other solution.
Berlinski's book points out over and over that the interpretations we take away from science are not in any way *given* by science, but by our sensibilities. He spends a full chapter on the multiple and multiplying assumptions that have been put into place to hold up the Big Bang theory. Many of those assumptions are quite ridiculous, but again, scientific sensibilities are no laughing matter. Godel's solution that finds us in a pinwheel universe may be scientifically sound (even offered as a mathematical proof), but it abuses our sense of how we expect things to be, or just how we think they are.
The Darwinian explanation of evolution, on the other hand, is magnificently *un*sound scientifically in its details (historical narratives are a dime a dozen, but that ain't science), but it abuses scientific sensibilities to face the alternative. [This topic occupies the vast majority of Berlinski's book.] The distinguished Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin - a Darwinian evolutionist to his core - summed up this issue with blinding clarity. Apologies for the lengthy quote, which is taken from an article of his published in the NYT Review of Books:
"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set ofconcepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
Materialist explanations are not what flows *out* of science, but what is demanded *of* science by those conducting it. It is a decision made prior to the investigation, a decision (both conscious and unconscious) to exclude certain explanations *in spite of* any explanatory power they might contain. Berlinski's book covers both the details and the broad sweep of evolutionary science to show the profoundly unscientific concepts widely embraced as a result of this materialist commitment.
When I finished Berlinski's book, I admit to some anxiety that I may never again read a book as well written and as brilliantly argued. Many books are one or the other; very few are both. It is titled "The Deniable Darwin," and consists of a series of essays Berlinski has written over the past 13 years.
Berlinski is a rare bird. He is a mathematician (among other titles) who has spent much of his time critiquing scientific dogma, but he does so from within the belly of the beast, so to speak. The essays in this particular book focus on the dogma underlying Darwinian stories of evolution, which Berlinski attacks from every side. He has absolutely no interest at all in Christianity or creationism or any of the labels that are endlessly thrown at him to discredit his arguments. In fact, it is quite telling to see how he puts forth criticisms based on science, and he is very commonly responded to with accusations of religion. He's a secular Jew who writes in this book, "I have no creationist agenda whatsoever and, beyond respecting the injunction to have a good time all the time, no religious principles, either."
Those unfamiliar with the serious weaknesses of Darwinian evolutionary ideas honestly believe, I think, that people critiquing it must have a religious agenda. Certainly the headlines would have us believe so. Those who are familiar with the weaknesses of Darwinian evolutionary theories but are committed to the theory nonetheless *use* the attack of religiousness to deflect attention from fundamental flaws. These flaws are answered - begrudgingly - with endless promissory notes that the Darwinian way around these flaws is just around the corner. Critics note that the Darwinian solution to these flaws isn't just improbable, but in many aspects scientifically impossible. But old habits die hard.
Large numbers of conventional, materialist, atheist scientists working in the fields of evolutionary science and theory now recognize that the random mutation/natural selection explanation for evolutionary change is fundamentally flawed (see books such as What Darwin Got Wrong, The Altenberg 16: An Expos� of the Evolution Industry and Origination of Organismal Form: Beyond the Gene in Developmental and Evolutionary Biology for starters). A "new synthesis" is sought as natural selection is recognized as causally inadequate and even incapable of supporting a scientific theory (as the first book in that list meticulously argues). Noam Chomsky, no advocate of supernatural explanations about anything, personally endorses two of those three books and agrees that evolutionary theory is in need of an overhaul.
So, which is more rational: side with Lewontin, preferring just-so mechanistic stories to explain all of life, even those that are "patently absurd?" If we do so, we're admitting that we're open to no other possibilities, an ironically anti-scientific stance to take. Are we open to the possibility of intelligent direction and purpose as fundamental properties of living systems? And perhaps most importantly, can we even grasp the idea of those properties without the baggage of theology they are so commonly intertwined with?
Well-established laws of information prohibit the built-up of non-trivial functional information through random processes. Logic doesn't exclude the possibility of transcendent intelligence as a source for the information found within living systems. Only our ideological commitment to materialism in science prevents this question from even being explored.
October 19, 2014
I love Berlinski, the ultimate curmudgeon. Here he quietly outlines his attacks on the religion of Darwinian theory, not by citing creationist ideas, but by logic and modern science. He traces the history of modern scientific theory and showing the differences between quantum mechanics etc. with that "early 19th century group of anecdotes" that constitute Darwin. His critics, who are given many pages in this work to refute his theories, mainly drop to name calling and constantly refer to him as a "fundamentalist Christian" and "creationist". But as he says himself I am not a fundamentalist, nor a Christian, nor a creationist. He merely questions the dogmatic faith in an out dated purely tautological concept that masquerades as scientific theory. Recommend to anyone who wants to question dogmatism.
April 9, 2013
To start off I think this book is a 3.5/5. I gave it a 3 simply because I could not round up and give it a 4. I'm unlikely to buy any more of David Berlinski's books. I say this as someone who does find problems with Darwinian evolution and is interested in reading more about the origin of the Big Bang and cosmology, the origin of life and holes in the evolutionary theory. Mr. Berlinski appears to be fair and critical throughout much of the book and it's a large book full of information. However, I have a problem with how it's written.
The book is written at a very high level - both in content and vocabulary. I graduated with an Honours degree in Math although my English has never been great. I'm not an idiot but I felt like one as I was always heading to an e-dictionary for some of these words he uses when a simpler and more common word is available. Even some of the words for latin species could have used a footnote on what they are referring to when a common person is reading. I know some of the works were published in scientific journals and aren't intended for an average audience but when you package it to sell to the world some further explanation is necessary imo.
Some of the chapters are overly long which include the published works and rebuttals. Interesting but a bit too long. I would have preferred the rebuttals be placed immediately after each letter but to each his own. The chapter on Gödel's Question is probably the worst one in the book. Just so technical as it's basically a high level mathematical paper far above the average person's head. Berlinski pays tribute to Stephen Jay Gould in part of the book and yet never references his unique views on evolution (static periods and then turbulent ones). He spends a lot of time covering only parts of some things like the Big Bang. He's infatuated on whether the universe is expanding and yet there are so many other interesting things in cosmology to discuss (what exactly happens in those first seconds and minutes, evolution of solar systems, etc). The essays are older so we don't even hear about dark matter or energy. Mr. Berlinski discusses the origin of life but doesn't go into enough detail with Miller's experiment or other theories that attempt to explain it. He does go over a lot of other things but it's clear he doesn't discuss everything involved in a subject - just the things he personally finds most interesting.
The stuff on Einstein and the evolution of science with stories on some of the scientists were some of my favourite parts and were good. The battles over Darwin's evolution are good but I had read quite a bit of some of this stuff in other sources - sources that were much easier to read and explained things better. I also enjoyed the discussion on the human language.
In the end the book had some interesting things but it was long (547 pages) and a fairly difficult read. I imagine those that are hard core evolutionists would not like this book although Mr. Berlinski gives his opponents plenty of space to criticize his papers (two large sections where this happens). For those that are inclined to believe God has a hand to make some of the improbabilities of our universe come true which include answering the questions about the origin of the universe (what caused the Big Bang) and the origin of life, this book may be for you. But just be warned that it's not an easy read, the book obsesses a long time over certain things while not fully exploring others in the same genre. I would suggest there are other books out there that would probably provide the same information you are looking for. I don't have any recommendations on new books. The one book I had read in the past (may be dated now) that was excellent was "Creation: Facts of Life" by Gary Parker. Mr. Parker is a young earth creationist (not what I personally believe) but his discussions on the origin of life, DNA, embryonic development, mutations and fossils actually covers a lot of what Mr. Berlinski goes over in these areas but in a much more interesting and easier to read style. Mr. Berlinski comes across as the brilliant teacher that is unable to connect to his students and it shows with how he chooses to write and get his point across. I wish I enjoyed the book more but I do feel disappointed considering how many good reviews this book received when I previewed it.
The book is written at a very high level - both in content and vocabulary. I graduated with an Honours degree in Math although my English has never been great. I'm not an idiot but I felt like one as I was always heading to an e-dictionary for some of these words he uses when a simpler and more common word is available. Even some of the words for latin species could have used a footnote on what they are referring to when a common person is reading. I know some of the works were published in scientific journals and aren't intended for an average audience but when you package it to sell to the world some further explanation is necessary imo.
Some of the chapters are overly long which include the published works and rebuttals. Interesting but a bit too long. I would have preferred the rebuttals be placed immediately after each letter but to each his own. The chapter on Gödel's Question is probably the worst one in the book. Just so technical as it's basically a high level mathematical paper far above the average person's head. Berlinski pays tribute to Stephen Jay Gould in part of the book and yet never references his unique views on evolution (static periods and then turbulent ones). He spends a lot of time covering only parts of some things like the Big Bang. He's infatuated on whether the universe is expanding and yet there are so many other interesting things in cosmology to discuss (what exactly happens in those first seconds and minutes, evolution of solar systems, etc). The essays are older so we don't even hear about dark matter or energy. Mr. Berlinski discusses the origin of life but doesn't go into enough detail with Miller's experiment or other theories that attempt to explain it. He does go over a lot of other things but it's clear he doesn't discuss everything involved in a subject - just the things he personally finds most interesting.
The stuff on Einstein and the evolution of science with stories on some of the scientists were some of my favourite parts and were good. The battles over Darwin's evolution are good but I had read quite a bit of some of this stuff in other sources - sources that were much easier to read and explained things better. I also enjoyed the discussion on the human language.
In the end the book had some interesting things but it was long (547 pages) and a fairly difficult read. I imagine those that are hard core evolutionists would not like this book although Mr. Berlinski gives his opponents plenty of space to criticize his papers (two large sections where this happens). For those that are inclined to believe God has a hand to make some of the improbabilities of our universe come true which include answering the questions about the origin of the universe (what caused the Big Bang) and the origin of life, this book may be for you. But just be warned that it's not an easy read, the book obsesses a long time over certain things while not fully exploring others in the same genre. I would suggest there are other books out there that would probably provide the same information you are looking for. I don't have any recommendations on new books. The one book I had read in the past (may be dated now) that was excellent was "Creation: Facts of Life" by Gary Parker. Mr. Parker is a young earth creationist (not what I personally believe) but his discussions on the origin of life, DNA, embryonic development, mutations and fossils actually covers a lot of what Mr. Berlinski goes over in these areas but in a much more interesting and easier to read style. Mr. Berlinski comes across as the brilliant teacher that is unable to connect to his students and it shows with how he chooses to write and get his point across. I wish I enjoyed the book more but I do feel disappointed considering how many good reviews this book received when I previewed it.
February 5, 2021
I like the guy
A collection of writings that are mostly, but not all, retorts against the infallibility of evolutionary science. Berlinski is an excellent gadfly, asking questions that are worthy of attention. I read Darwin's The Origin Of Species and have no issue with it. Darwin impressed me as a man of humility and never came across arrogant and insistent that he possessed the truth. I also agree the evolution is an observable thing. I don't deny its existence.
If something comes along that is in conflict with a theory, whether through observation or reason, it merits a response rather than simply being told the success of the theory has been overwhelming and it is "settled science". In fact, if you really understand science, you know it is never settled.
Good for Berlinski for sticking it to the man!
A collection of writings that are mostly, but not all, retorts against the infallibility of evolutionary science. Berlinski is an excellent gadfly, asking questions that are worthy of attention. I read Darwin's The Origin Of Species and have no issue with it. Darwin impressed me as a man of humility and never came across arrogant and insistent that he possessed the truth. I also agree the evolution is an observable thing. I don't deny its existence.
If something comes along that is in conflict with a theory, whether through observation or reason, it merits a response rather than simply being told the success of the theory has been overwhelming and it is "settled science". In fact, if you really understand science, you know it is never settled.
Good for Berlinski for sticking it to the man!
June 2, 2022
The author is bright, but this book comes across as mental masturbation for someone who is high on himself. The chapter on "Godel's Question" is not something that most people who don't have extensive training in mathematics can understand. It would have been nice if we were told that that was much of what this is from the very beginning.
I'd recommend instead "God's Undertaker" by John Lennox. He approaches a good number of the same topics in the way that Berlinski does, but they are more understandable and approachable.
The chapters can be read out of order, since this book is actually a series of stand-alone essays that were written over many years. As for each essay, Your Mileage May Vary.
Verdict: Recommended at the price of about $10
I'd recommend instead "God's Undertaker" by John Lennox. He approaches a good number of the same topics in the way that Berlinski does, but they are more understandable and approachable.
The chapters can be read out of order, since this book is actually a series of stand-alone essays that were written over many years. As for each essay, Your Mileage May Vary.
Verdict: Recommended at the price of about $10
August 8, 2020
Every student of the sciences, arts and philosophy should appreciate and benefit from Berlinsky's work - not just for its conclusions, but also for its unanswered questions. Humans tend to strive for knowledge or enlightenment up to a point, then set aside their thirst in favour of more secure checkpoints. Berlinsky storms ahead, producing insights and revelations that not only entertain, but should inspire us to awaken from our intellectual slumber and give us the courage to sally forth once more and conquer the intertwining failings of ignorance and disinformation.
August 16, 2019
A beautiful critique
My goodness what a book. I don't pretend I understood it all . I probably understood 70% of this book. The mathematical aspects especially the equations were absolutely unknowable to me . The rest of the book was excellent and brilliant. Such a mind . Mr Berlinski makes me question everything.
My goodness what a book. I don't pretend I understood it all . I probably understood 70% of this book. The mathematical aspects especially the equations were absolutely unknowable to me . The rest of the book was excellent and brilliant. Such a mind . Mr Berlinski makes me question everything.
May 10, 2021
Berlinski is such an intelligent thinker and great writer, so it is always a pleasure to read what he writes--this book is no exception. The ideas are very worthwhile, and I really appreciate that he even brings in his critics into the book, so he really show both sides.
Highly recommended!
Highly recommended!
October 21, 2020
Anything written by David Berlinski is a joy to read!
January 10, 2021
Funny and witty prose throughout. Some chapters include reply’s from critics about his essays which were very entertaining to read.
July 28, 2024
Everyone knows that evolution is true - everyone that is, except rednecks and geniuses. Berlinski belongs to the latter group.
October 20, 2024
5 stars just for reading this in Berlinki’s voice
If you’ve ever heard David Berlinski speak , it’s difficult not to read this in your head with his voice
If you’ve ever heard David Berlinski speak , it’s difficult not to read this in your head with his voice
March 4, 2020
I love reading this book! David Berlinski is very funny, even if a little biting. I can understand why some in his community do not get a long with him. However, what is important about his writing is that he is able to bring logical critique that exposes the weak points of contemporary scientific arguments. His questions are "meta," but his criticisms are of the details.
This book is long (for me... medium length, I guess) but it reads very fast. Some of the best parts are chapters that contain original essays from the journal "Commentary" that are printed in juxtaposition to received letters from angry scientists... and then Berlinski's responses.
Something that is unsatisfying when reading David Berlinski is that he always seems to reach the conclusion that nothing has been concluded. He remains unconvinced of anything, other than that nothing has convincingly been argued or proven. To me, this reminds me of Kierkegaard arriving at the point of despair and at the place where one must choose to accept the despair or have faith. Although Berlinski is neither despondent nor faithful, just amusingly amused... and critical.
I have so far enjoyed all the books I have read by him and I also enjoy watching him speak in youtube videos. But I would encourage anyone to take his critiques of evolutionary science seriously.
This book is long (for me... medium length, I guess) but it reads very fast. Some of the best parts are chapters that contain original essays from the journal "Commentary" that are printed in juxtaposition to received letters from angry scientists... and then Berlinski's responses.
Something that is unsatisfying when reading David Berlinski is that he always seems to reach the conclusion that nothing has been concluded. He remains unconvinced of anything, other than that nothing has convincingly been argued or proven. To me, this reminds me of Kierkegaard arriving at the point of despair and at the place where one must choose to accept the despair or have faith. Although Berlinski is neither despondent nor faithful, just amusingly amused... and critical.
I have so far enjoyed all the books I have read by him and I also enjoy watching him speak in youtube videos. But I would encourage anyone to take his critiques of evolutionary science seriously.
June 2, 2022
The author is bright, but this book comes across as mental masturbation for someone who is high on himself. The chapter on "Godel's Question" is not something that most people who don't have extensive training in mathematics can understand. It would have been nice if we were told that that was much of what this is from the very beginning.
I'd recommend instead "God's Undertaker" by John Lennox. He approaches a good number of the same topics in the way that Berlinski does, but they are more understandable and approachable.
The chapters can be read out of order, since this book is actually a series of stand-alone essays that were written over many years. As for each essay, Your Mileage May Vary.
Verdict: Recommended at the price of about $10
I'd recommend instead "God's Undertaker" by John Lennox. He approaches a good number of the same topics in the way that Berlinski does, but they are more understandable and approachable.
The chapters can be read out of order, since this book is actually a series of stand-alone essays that were written over many years. As for each essay, Your Mileage May Vary.
Verdict: Recommended at the price of about $10
November 6, 2019
Berlinski is brilliant and brutal
David Berlinski possesses a subtle and penetrating mind, which is so rare today that his opponents usually do not know how to counter him. In this collection of essays long and short, Berlinski demonstrates that Darwin’s theory is not settled science and not much since 1930 is. After reading this work one should be able to ask and answer, “What would Berlinski say to that?” Such a hypothetical comment might not be as perceptive as the man’s, but it would show that Berlinski’s critical thinking is almost always a welcome addition.
David Berlinski possesses a subtle and penetrating mind, which is so rare today that his opponents usually do not know how to counter him. In this collection of essays long and short, Berlinski demonstrates that Darwin’s theory is not settled science and not much since 1930 is. After reading this work one should be able to ask and answer, “What would Berlinski say to that?” Such a hypothetical comment might not be as perceptive as the man’s, but it would show that Berlinski’s critical thinking is almost always a welcome addition.
June 1, 2024
The incomparably erudite Berlinski. His essays do have a high fog score so: caveat emptor.
August 31, 2022
So much fun, especially his responses to "fan mail."
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews