Home » Darwinism » Interview: Mathematician David Berlinski explains why famous mathematicians have doubted Darwin

Interview: Mathematician David Berlinski explains why famous mathematicians have doubted Darwin

Darwin and the Mathematicians”, here, is David Berlinsk’s final interview with Evolution News and Views. Berlinski, a Darwin skeptic of long standing, discusses the reasons famous mathematicians have doubted Darwin, along with entertaining anecdotes.

In the first part of the 20th century, Darwin v. Dissent had not yet acquired its riveting incarnation as a melodrama of intolerance. No heresy, no heretics is a useful proverb, and using, say, 1950 as a reference point, there were no heretics among the mathematicians because there was yet no heresy. Darwin’s theory was not then considered totemic; and his touch was not widely understood to cure erysipelas. Darwin v. Dissent is of our time and place.

For more, go here.

Berlinski has a new book out, called The Deniable Darwin & Other Essays

(Note: In my view, the accumulation of evidence against Darwinism is the primary cause of the suppression of dissent, tacit co-operation of legacy media (which, themselves, would like to suppress independent media), growth of frantic Darwin lobbies, and incivility of so many Darwin sites. You’ve heard about climategate? Wait till Darwingate.)

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

3 Responses to Interview: Mathematician David Berlinski explains why famous mathematicians have doubted Darwin

  1. Darwin is quoted as saying “A mathematician is a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat.”

    This from someone who found mathematics repugnant.

  2. In my view, the accumulation of evidence against Darwinism is the primary cause of the suppression of dissent, tacit co-operation of legacy media, growth of frantic Darwin lobbies, and incivility of so many Darwin sites.

    Bravo. For too long the increasing efforts by the newspapers and radio and TV stations to bolster darwinism’s hold on popular culture in the face of the mounting evidence and the logic of such thinkers as Dr Berlinksi has gone unstated. I had problems understanding why so many journalists and editors in different – and often outwardly competing – media outlets, in so many different countries, would conspire to support an untenable biological theory and be increasing their efforts as the evidence against the theory mounts. I can only conclude this points to a deeper and darker conspiracy among the mainstream journalists of the world. In due course the dyke of deception will rupture and some journalists of honor will break the story with a front page exposé on the whole creaking edifice.

  3. Dr Berlinski seems to be more concerned with justifying his friend of a friend hearsay about Von Neumann than saying anything substantive.

    His self selected coterie of mathematical friends didn’t like Darwin? Erwin Schrodinger was honest about our ignorance in 1944? Mathematicians look down on biology and thereby misperceive it? A biological theory is not a mathematical theory?

    If this is truly his final interview, it closes not with a bang but a whimper – “I never said Von Neumann was anti-evo.” After making exactly that insinuation all over again. The Darwin Magisterium seems to have finally brought the incorrigible iconoclast to heel. This is what Berlinski is reduced to? Saying one thing with a wink and a nudge, and then contradicting himself at the end.

Leave a Reply