Is David Berlinski awesome or what?

If you think Berlinski is smart, listen to Vonshtain. You surely gonna experience everlasting brain orgasm!

Well ... I did enjoy the first 1:50 (almost 2 minutes of my life lost forever) of opening credits describing just how AWESOME he is!

He doesn't actually say anything substantive on Clips 1 and 2. So let's look at Clip 3.

He starts by simply stating that the fossil record is just "mystifying". And then moves on.

So much for the fossil record.

The entire science of paleontology, thousands of fossils, analysis of structures, stratigraphy, biogeography, paleobiology, microfossils, transitional fossils, comparative anatomy, the geologic column, radiometric dating, progressive succession of body types and basic structures ... the life's work of thousands of dedicated scientists ... all just dismissed with a shrug. I was surprised he could muster the effort for a shrug.

Second point ... that Darwinian theory doesn't have the equivalent of Newton's demonstration of the conical sections as evidence of gravity ... what BIOLOGICAL theory has *ever* had the kind of canonical demonstrations that PHYSICAL theories have had? Physics is built on mathematics! Biology is built on the messiness of living things. And when something involves tremendous amounts of TIME, then we do what we can to show *principles* at work. Berlinksi is not just treating evolution, but ALL OF BIOLOGY like the stupid ugly stepsister of PHYSICS.

Berlinski clearly *despises* biology!

[Aside: Berlinksi actually catches himself in this misstep! If you listen closely at 1:32, he says "there is nothing like that in Biology ... in Darwinian theory." (Woops.)]

Third point, that we can't do simulations of Darwinian theory in computers like we can with physics (like relativity)? It is baffling that he brings this up, because computer simulations of Darwinian theory in action is one thing we CAN do.

Fourth point, that no matter how much we manipulate bacteria they (his words) "stay bugs." Considering that the timeline of bacteria-to-eukaryotes is presumably more than 1 *billion* years ... what sort of "not bugs" is he insisting the scientists produce from bacteria before he accepts the basic *principles* ... of mutation reinforced by natural selection ... at work.

His conclusion from this: "There seems to be some sort of inherent species limitation." But his is just wrong. There is NO inherent species limitation ... we have documented speciation in mice, in fruit flies, in plants, etc.!

He continues: "We should have far more plasticity for organisms in the laboratory than we do."

Why? On what basis should we have "more"? How much more plasticity of heritable traits do we need than the ability to manipulate the genetics of wolves in a few hundred years until we have chihuahuas, basset hounds, and great danes? How much is enough 'plasticity' for him?

So I give up. I'm sure I'm boring you with this point-by-point rebuttal of his rather facile points.

Can you tell me when the "awesome" starts so I can skip ahead?