Customer Reviews: The Deniable Darwin and Other Essays
Your Garage Buy 2 kids' books and save Amazon Fashion Learn more nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc $5 Albums Fire TV Stick Happy Belly Coffee Totes Summer-Event-Garden Amazon Cash Back Offer PilotWave7B PilotWave7B PilotWave7B  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Introducing new colors All-New Kindle Oasis DollyParton Shop Now STEM

Format: Paperback|Change
Price:$29.95+ Free shipping with Amazon Prime
Your rating(Clear)Rate this item

There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

Showing 1-4 of 4 reviews(4 star). Show all reviews
on March 25, 2010
It almost makes me feel guilty not to give Dr. Berlinski all the five stars. It is merely because I find some of his views somewhat misleading and in need of some criticism. He is of course, as other reviewers testified, an outstanding writer, of irresistible wit, and of unquestionable intelligence that often stifles the opposition.

In the essay of the title repeated for the book, he notes the improbability that random changes in DNA be usable for evolution. His argument is in the book outlined in a response by H. Allen Orr (pp.66-7): "His this: DNA is...a...language of A's, T's, G's, and C's that somehow encodes all the designs we find in organisms. But how can random perturbations in such a language yield usable material for evolution? In every other language we know of, Mr. Berlinski writes, ' the enemy of order.' Random changes in English yield gibberish... And so, he argues, look what Darwinism really asks of us: it demands we believe that selection uses random changes in DNA, when--by analogy with any other...language--such changes should yield mere gibberish, hopelessly 'jamming' organisms."

This argument, that random changes in organisms cannot be expected to yield the probabilistically virtually impossible usefulness required, appears quite convincing. And see how Dr. Orr responds: "Mr. Berlinski's objection is one of those beautiful theories that gets killed by an ugly fact. The fact is: whether or not random DNA changes should invariably jam organisms, they do not... The existence of subtle, functional, usable mutations in DNA is a simple fact that no amount of analogizing...can make go away". But Dr. Orr! This is a ridiculous question-begging argument! We all know the fact that the changes in organisms are functional, useful! The very question is, can these changes occur randomly? And Dr. Berlinski convincingly argues they cannot.

Another argument by Dr. Berlinski that Dr. Orr responds to is that evolution has not been observed: "Examples are a dime a dozen. When antibiotics were first introduced, most bacteria were susceptible., many bacteria are resistant. And...when we threw DDT at insects: they evolved insecticide resistance". This is to demonstrate Darwinian, undirected, evolution. And here is a point where I may depart even from Dr. Berlinski.

Developing resistance needn't at all be attributed to Darwinian processes. We know very well that through inoculation we develop resistance to various diseases. And we know equally well that this is owing to the body's directed, not undirected, action toward self-preservation. This is a fundamental distinction overlooked in the debates about whether or not organisms were designed.

Dr. Berlinski devotes considerable space to William Paley's 19th-century argument in which the functionality of organisms was compared to that of human artifacts, with the contention that organisms likewise imply design. Dr. Berlinski's assessment of the argument is slightly gloomy. He ends a pertinent essay with (p.309): "And Paley, poor Paley? Dead at last, or at least not very vigorously alive". But the design argument is not only alive, but it can be improved upon, going beyond mere analogy, to demonstration. Left out in the comparison of organisms to human artifacts was the decisive difference that organisms are alive. As live beings, compared to deceased ones, they are in constant pursuit of the goal of self-preservation. The existence of such a goal, of purpose, in organisms is denied by Darwinism, focused narrowly on the organism's structure, in the tradition of Paley. It is, however, an easy step from finding that live organisms aim at the purpose of self-preservation, to inferring that their adaptation to circumstances, ascribed by Darwinism to purposeless natural forces, is part of that purpose.

One other subject where I depart from Dr. Berlinski is on the significance he assigns to logicians Kurt Gödel and, to a lesser degree, Alfred Tarski. He mentions them in connection with "meta-theory", devised in hope of a solution to logical paradoxes, and illustrated by "Tarski's theorem on the indefinability of truth" (p.543).

This purported theorem was spurred by the ancient "Liar" paradox, which states: "This statement is false". As easily confirmed, if the statement is true then, by its content, it is false, and if false then, by that content, it is true. It was accordingly decided that truth must be defined in a "meta-language", not "within any language in which it is expressed" (p.157). Although this is held demonstrated, it isn't by any means. Any dictionary defines truth by its own language, and we are at liberty to include and define any word in any chosen language, there being no restriction to such choices.

It seems this review is not the place for more on these matters. I go into details in other reviews and elsewhere. I only wish to say that I see Gödel's theorem and related contentions as false, counting as "A Scientific Scandal", an expression Dr. Berlinski used concerning evolutionary claims.

Let me though emphasize that I would recommend this book for its overall brilliance.
1010 comments| 62 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on August 19, 2012
I love the wit and skepticism that David Berlinski brings to his essays. However, despite the premium price for this paperback, and the boast on the copyright page that it is printed on acid-free paper, the binding is worthless. My copy is literally falling apart, with numerous clumps of pages that have become detached from the outer cover to which they are supposed to be glued. It's almost impossible to read the book, because you have to spend most of your time juggling all the loose pages and keeping them from sliding on to the floor.

I have contacted the Discovery Institute about this but so far have received no response to voicemail messages or e-mails to the person supposedly responsible for the publishing activity.

If you decide to buy this book, treat it with kid gloves, and even then you may find that your copy will also self-destruct as mine did.


UPDATE: I finally heard from the responsible person at the publisher, and they quickly shipped me a replacement volume via FedEx while requesting that I return (at their expense) the defective one I received. The new (replacement) volume has a sturdy binding that looks like it will endure (as much as paperbound books ever can).

I'm not sure what happened with the original volume I received. On reflection it almost seems like one of the "bound galleys" that publishers send out to reviewers in advance of formal publication. In any case, I am changing my earlier rating to a higher one because the low rating was based primarily on the binding problems.

On the merits of the book, it covers a lot of interesting ground, with great wit and intelligence. I believe that many of the essays and comments included could be found on the internet with a sufficiently diligent search. Still, sometimes it's nice to have things pulled together in book form.

I found Berlinski's more recent work The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions easier to digest and follow on the whole. The latter is an integrated work, and therefore presents the points in a more cohesive manner than the various essays in Deniable Darwin. If I was going to pick only one Berlinski book, I would go with Devil's Delusion. However, Deniable Darwin does go into some areas that Devil's Delusion does not, so it's a logical choice for people who want more.

It is also worth searching online for video interviews with Berlinski, which are as entertaining and informative to watch in their way as interviews with the late William F. Buckley.
22 comments| 3 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on June 17, 2014
Berlinski the agnostic mathematician is the perfect scientist to examine the evidence for or against the Darwinian model of evolution after 150 years of massive evidence gathering designed to prove the theory. Berlinski simply, easily, and adroitly points out many of the falacies, holes, and down right misstatements in the arguments of those who what to threat the neo-darwinina theory as a fact. Berlinski shows up it is far from fact. In fact, it is far from theory and is still only a hypothesis that has never, ever been shown to work!!! Facts is facts, and if you do the math, the theory can not work. Darwinists must really dislike this guy, but I like his artful discussion on these topics.
11 comment| 2 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on January 25, 2015
very interesting and insightful book. not the easiest read, but well worth the effort!
11 comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse