Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution

"If you see a turtle on a fence post, you know it didn't get there by itself."

The past couple months I've been listening to episodes of Uncommon Knowledge, an long-running interview and discussion program hosted by Peter Robinson of the Hoover Institute at Stanford. It features in-depth conversations with political leaders, scholars, journalists, historians, scientists, and other prominent thinkers on topics like politics, economics, history, culture, foreign policy, education, and current events. The discussions are meaty, with lots of protein for your brain muscle.

This week I listened to Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution in which Robinson moderated a critique Darwinian theory with David Berlinski, David Gelernter, and Stephen Meyer.

Listening to this and similar lectures has generated a number of insights such as one of the key differences between math and science. In math, 2 + 2 = 4. Period. In science, theories are proposed with a measured humility, in this manner: "This is what we know... for now."

When Darwin proposed his On the Origin of Species, he knew it didn't answer all the questions. He assumed that science in the future would fill in the gaps. So it was strange to me even in high school that every single nature show would include a nod to Darwin. If I was watching a program about sharks they always mentioned, as if it were fact, that this killer instinct evolved over a period of sixty million years. All this was assumed and extrapolated from the uncritical acceptance of Darwin's ideas.

So it was refreshing to learn of other points of view. Gelernter argued that Darwin's theory does not adequately explain the emergence of new species, particularly due to the Cambrian explosion and advances in molecular biology. Meyer promotes intelligent design, emphasizing the complexity of DNA as evidence of intelligent causation, while Berlinski remains skeptical yet open-minded.

All three underscored the lack of free speech in academia regarding Darwinism critiques and the challenge of understanding consciousness, with Meyer suggesting intelligent design could offer broader scientific insights beyond Darwinism. 

Problem one with Darwin's theory is the very narrow period of time that all these species came into existence, a period science has called the Cambrian explosion. 

The second problem became evident after the discovery of the structure of DNA by Watson and Crick. Here's what that means as regards evolution.

If you want a computer to do something new, you have to write fresh software code for it. That's exactly what scientists discovered about life in the second half of the 20th century, starting with Watson and Crick's work on DNA. To create a new kind of living thing, a nnew species, you also need new "code." That code is the information stored in DNA—the long molecule that looks like a twisted ladder.

[EdNote: Before cracking the code for DNA in 1953, Francis Crick was a code breaker during World War II.]

The sequence of letters along the DNA molecule tells the cell how to make all the different protein molecules it needs to function. Then there's extra information that tells those cells how to organize themselves into the right shapes and structures—like how to build eyes, legs, or the overall body plan of an animal or plant.

In short: just like software code runs a computer, DNA is the instruction manual that builds and runs living organisms. If you want a truly new life form, you need to write new instructions in that DNA code.

"Things are more complicated than Darwin knew. We understand that producing new forms of life now means not just new shapes, new activities in which life engages, but a prior code." And what are the odds of a new species happening? These guys break it down for us mathematically. You are more likely to wake up as a cockroach tomorrow than to see a new species come into existence. (My nod to Gregor Samsa.)

If you want to listen to the program, you can find it here on YouTube. Whereas all three agree that Darwin's conclusions were flawed, they are not all in agreement with the notion of "intelligent design," which is an interesting discussion in and of itself.

MY REASONS for sharing this blog post is to encourage you to (A) reconsider the implications of how Darwin and his ideas have been applied since his death, and (B) to watch or listen to Dennis Robinson's Uncommon Knowledge programs on YouTube. Lots of great guests and very smart people.

TWO FINAL QUOTES FROM THE PROGRAM

A.  "Darwin now poses a final challenge. Whether biology will rise to this last one as well as it did to the first, when his theory upset every apple cart, remains to be seen. How cleanly and quickly can the field get over Darwin and move on? Striking sentence. This is one of the most important questions facing science in the 21st century." 

B. "Scientists are paid for making guesses, not for making right guesses, but for making interesting plausible ones. And if scientists, after the guess has been made, don't do their job, don't investigate the guess, don't do their best to figure out is it true or false, then we are false to science and we're betraying science."

RELATED LINKS

The Deniable Darwin and Other Essays

Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design

What Does Math Teach Us About Deep Reality

"2 plus 2 equals 4. In all places and for all time, 2 plus 2 equals 4. But why? What does math tell us about the nature of reality? "

So begins a pretty juicy hour-long discussion about mathematics by three very smart men. Is math something humans invented—or something we discovered? And why does it describe the universe so uncannily well? 

In this episode of Uncommon Knowledge, Peter Robinson has assembled a panel comprised of mathematicians David Berlinski, Sergiu Klainerman, and Stephen Meyer to explore one of the deepest mysteries in science and philosophy: the reality of mathematics.

* * * 

You can find Uncommon Knowledge on the Hoover Institution channel on YouTube. If you enjoy grappling with life's biggest mysteries, or having your foundational belief structures challenged (or affirmed), you'll likely find a home here. The ideas discussed are often decidedly contrarian if you've blindly wallowed in mainstream narratives.

The program features a profound discussion on the nature of mathematics and its role in understanding reality, hosted by Peter Robinson and featuring guests David Berlinski, Sergio Klainerman, and Stephen Meyer in Salzburg, Austria. The central theme revolves around the objective nature of mathematics and its implications for comprehending the universe, exploring whether mathematical truths are inventions or discoveries.

Something I gleaned from my physicist uncle, which is re-asserted in these discussions, is that science is not a settled matter. True science is an ongoing exploration that finds answers that always end with "this is what we know for now." True science must be coupled with humility, willing to be proven wrong. 

The great tragedy of science this past century is how much it has been infected by politics. As a result, massive rivers of financial support go to science projects that support political narratives. I've written before about how free speech has been squashed or discouraged. I'd not considered the degree to which free inquiry suffered in the sciences.  

The purpose of this blog post is to recommend and encourage you to listen to this episode of Uncommon Knowledge titled Why Does 2 + 2 = 4. Here's what you'd be digging into.

Mathematician David Berlinski emphasizes the inherent stability and objective nature of mathematical truths such as numbers, suggesting they cannot be reduced to more fundamental entities. He asserts that mathematics has a consistent reality independent of human thought, challenging purely materialistic interpretations of the universe.

Sergio Klainerman, a mathematician known for his contributions to the study of hyperbolic differential equations, argues for the objectivity of mathematics, comparing it to physical reality. He illustrates this with the example of black holes, whose existence, while not directly observable, is predicted by consistent mathematical theories, thereby underscoring the non-empirical nature of mathematical knowledge.

Author Stephen Meyer, a philosopher of science and a leading proponent of the intelligent design movement, explores the philosophical implications of mathematical certainty, contrasting it with the empirical uncertainty of scientific hypotheses. He suggests that the high degree of certainty in mathematical proofs points towards a conceptual reality that transcends material existence, potentially indicating a divine or intelligent design.

The key concepts in this video include:

Mathematical Objectivity and Reality: The speakers explore how mathematical truths reflect an objective reality, questioning whether they are discovered or invented. This discussion intersects with philosophical notions concerning the existence of a conceptual realm.

Mathematics and Transcendence: Stephen Meyer and others discuss whether the objectivity of mathematics infers a transcendent reality, possibly residing in the mind of a divine being, challenging materialistic views of the universe.

Historical and Practical Impact: The panel examines the historical trajectory of mathematical ideas, such as the imaginary unit 'i' (square root of -1) and its significance in quantum mechanics, illustrating how abstract mathematical developments can profoundly influence scientific understanding.

Philosophical and Aesthetic Considerations: The conversation delves into philosophical mysteries around the existence of mathematical concepts, with reflections on whether beauty in mathematical theories serves as a guiding rule of thumb in scientific discovery.

Materialism and Interpretations of Reality: The limitations of materialism are discussed, with the panel considering non-material explanations for mathematical realities, echoing Newton's views on divine order.

One thing I like is how host Peter Robinson acknowledges that hs is standing in the shallow end of the pool when discussing these subjects with these others. Whether it's your field of interest or not I think you'll find the rewards of following along to be worth the work.

* * * 

Quite recently my interest in mathematics has been re-ignited by reading James Nickel's "Math Circles" on his Biblical Christian World View website. But what really captured my attention in this video was the title and its connection to Orwell's 1984. When Winston has been broken down inside the Ministry of Love, the phrase “2 + 2 = 5” is one of the most powerful symbols of totalitarian control. The Party isn’t satisfied with controlling actions—it wants to control reality. If it can make you accept that 2 + 2 = 5, then truth is no longer objective and reality becomes whatever authority says it is.

The goal isn’t just obedience—it’s belief. Winston isn’t “reformed” until he doesn’t just say 2 + 2 = 5 but when he actually accepts it and believes it as true.

We're not there yet, but there are certainly signs of that freedom of thought has been under attack these past 100 years. C.S. Lewis pointed out the erosion taking place in his Abolition of Man. If those in power can redefine the most basic truth, they can control everything else. 

Because 2 + 2 = 4 seems so obvious, we can fail to grasp the implications that accompany this reality. It's only a starting point, but this episode of Uncommon Knowledge can open your mind to think more deeply about the amazing universe we find ourselves in.

 

Why Does 2 + 2 = 4? What Math Teaches Us About Deep Reality