You May Also Like

About the Author: Oren Garnes


  1. To understand the universe, you use science. To understand yourself and the human condition, you use religion. Each should stick to what it's good at.

  2. What a pompous twat. That he's clever – there is no doubt. That he actually understands science, it's obvious that he does not. Science cares only for that for which there is evidence. For any specific religious beliefs there is none – by definition! Otherwise they would be called facts and canon to science.

    Love Fox trying to convince its crowd that it's capable of making judgments on the soundness of scientific reasoning. The prop glasses and fake fireplace – the stilted English. Give me a break. This ironically captures the battle the theists wage on science extremely well: we're going to do our best to erect a set (argument) that makes it look like we're playing by the rules but in the end it's a hollow sham with intent to deceive.

    TLDR: when the word 'belief' is a central tenet to your argument, your argument is orthogonal to science.

  3. If evolution were true people would be smarter now than they were 1000 years ago. We would embrace peace over war, conservation over waste, and respect with love over perversion. We are not progressing we are regressing and loosing our purpose. If science = Bill Gates experimenting with vaccines paralyzing, creating autistic children, and killing babies count me out. Socialism is out of control, it will only lead to civil war and revolutions not in the third world, in Western Countries. Godless fools destroyed the Earth once now they will do it again. If you have faith and hide it be embarrassed by it God will be embarrassed to say he knows you. This Sodom and Gomorrah/New Babylon, perverted wicked country deserves the destruction it is inviting on itself.

  4. Excellent discussion. Bang on with the analogy.
    It's incredible how so much of evolutionists so called evidence is nothing more
    biased speculations based on well , more speculation.

    I'm not saying they don't reference science in their claims , but it's the intentional
    misinterpretation of the data is where the problem comes in.

    It's the complete avoidance of any science that counters their believe .
    It breaks every scientific law that were aware of and defies all probabilities.

    It's made 1000's of claims which have been proven wrong time and again.
    Yes , science is self correcting other then evolution.
    It takes the science and then have to speculate it to fit into their theory.

    As David noted , a giraffe wanted to eat the leafs from the top of trees which involves
    complex information to make major physiological changes to existing organs and
    the foresight to develop valves and special organs so the giraffes brain doesn't explode
    or that he faints from low blood pressure when ifting his head.

    Evolution answers why some flowers are beautiful and others are not , or why fish
    evolved into animals and some did not and why animals de-evolved and re-evolved back into the sea , or why others didn't , but we have early birds , or why a variety of bats showed up all over the world with their incredible flying abilities and echolocation and
    at the whales and dolphins developed their own echolocation why some of the most complex eyes showing up on some of the oldest fossilized animals and latter
    de-evolving and re-evolving into much simpler eyes.

    Why by golly , it just shows you simple dem dae eyes are. See evolution answer
    just about anything.

    Please continue show the fallacy and foolishness of this speculation.
    These evolution zealots like Coyne and Dawkins that reference stuff from the 80's
    need to be shown up for this placebo science.

    It's no wonder why Noble Laureates and many others are questioning this nonsense.

  5. Read FLASHES OF GLORY, available at Amazon and many bookstores. Also see the book trailer on Youtube or Godtube; Why both Science and the Bible are correct, evolution impossible!

  6. What the actual fuck? Sure we can ignore psychology, neurology and social sciences because the hasn't been a quantum theory on love and human perception (????). This person is so obviously unqualified in this field that them merely pretending to know about it (even write a book about it) its beyond pathetic.

  7. Giraffe's have long necks because they wanted to reach the tops of the trees? Want has nothing to do with evolution and I would question the credentials of any scientist who would make such a claim. David Berlinski clearly thinks he's pretty smart with his droning cadence of speaking, but he is pretty ignorant on actual science.

  8. Drivel. He's looking for answers to 'spiritual questions' and derides scientific inquiry for not giving him a warm fuzzy with their answers. As for his synopsis of evolution.. a soliloquy of self gratification. Thumbs down.

  9. It's actually not an enormous amount of scientists who launch diatribes against religious traditions. It is mostly posers who can't get beyond the vocabulary of science and couldn't read a research paper and offer any sort of peer review or even intelligent understanding of what is on the pages.

    Scientists are merely set up as priests for the atheist worldview, by a rabble of self-appointed, clueless "followers".

  10. They hide the giant skeletons and flat earth to disprove God and the bible. Science is their new religion. Man is a spiritual being with a need to connect with the creator, without this we are lost. Just look around at this godless world, people looking for meaning, disconnected and depressed.

  11. The most salient point about the pretensions of science in supplying opinions about the big questions is the prospect of MATERIAL GAIN. Go figure.

  12. Progressive = collective decision making. Communism = collective decision making. Freedom = individual decision making. Yeah, i'll take freedom.

  13. You disagree with Miguel Fernandez and you belittle him. Immature. If he's wrong then cite evidence. Prove your view.

  14. For the progressives, liberals, socialists, those honest enough to admit that they are Marxists, Darwinists. You claim that. Christians are sheep blindly following the unproven. So, tell me where I missed the published announcement that at last evolution has been empirically proven? That would be because it has never happened. It is based on proven lies that are still used in text books today. Sans any verifiable evidence your faith is blind. Tracing the theory of evolution back to its philosophical basis it dies not claim that we evolved from apes (that is only an intermediary claim). It's actual claim is that we evolved from rocks. Do you ever wax nostalgic when you see a stone: hug it and cry Mama? Darwinism is the worst of blind faith religions.

  15. I've never listened to a pompous asss before. This guy's nose is so far up in the air he can small the stratosphere.

  16. This topic is like the eternal battle of truth vs lies. It's not about the Bible vs Science because REAL science and the Bible both go together. It's about taking the side of Order or of Chaos. You side with Order knowing there is a God and that he created everything and that God shows no partiality to people of different races.

    You are on the side of Chaos if you don't believe in God. Believing that something came from nothing and that everything we feel is of our own innate biology that just randomly works together. Although some believe in God but accept the theory of evolution to be true. You are going against everything the Bible says about the creation of being made in the image of God. There is no grey area. It's either you believe in the Order of God and his standards or you believe and live by your own rules of what you feel is right and wrong which creates Chaos in a person's mind to do what they feel like despite possibly hurting other people by their actions.

  17. Science is a language and technique that we use to discern the nature of the phenomena by which we are surrounded. It has nothing to do with religion one way or the other. It does not investigate questions about God. It works in the area of the natural only, and has nothing to do with, or say about, the supernatural. Religion seems more to be an epiphenomenon of human consciousness, and has more to do with the emotions than with the brute facts of the world of reality being explored by science. The fact that a majority of people engaged in the sciences are of atheist or agnostical bent is a sociological phenomenon, one that is of interest to some philosophers, but not all. And so only to those can the existence or nonexistence of God be a philosophical question..

  18. David Berlinski keeps an open mind regarding a Creator and what a prodigious mind he has! Thank you, Mark Levin, for presenting this amazing man for a broad audience!

  19. This professor clearly did not read Koran, Hadith and Sira-life of Mohamed…as according to many EX-Muslims, Islam is an ideology of hate of all non-Muslims, and particularly Jews, such as this secual professor is…The discussion between science and religion is an old one…Science has nothing to do with WHY, What but adresses HOW…

  20. Progressivism is the ultimate misnomer—too bad those touting for it don’t realize they’ll be the first to go. Dumbasses

  21. wow I wasnt excepting that you sir are quite correct scientists dont have all the answers that is true… however when you take your religious books Jew Christian and moslim and translate correctly you get highly advanced sciences and talk of technology beyond our current public level… honestly I get it I really do the ice age wiped out our last great civilisation and we are just trying to get back to that level sadly those days are long gone, forcing the issue to rebuild what was lost will never work, because last time it happened naturally, this time the people will fight to stop it because we feel like were under attack.

  22. Not "entirely clear which group has the most evidence"? Is this a joke? Immediately discredited. Scientific research is fact. We can prove most religious claims are false. 'Faith' is called faith, because it's an admittance to believe in something you believe to be true, despite contradicting evidence.

  23. Better Left Unsaid
    The Jew Levin talks with the Jew Berlinsky who locates the triumph of a religiously intolerant scientism in the last 30 years without talking about the Jew Freud who began the process of pathologizing religious belief at the beginning of the last century with his own pseudo-science in such works as "The Future Of An Illusion."


  25. i don't think science is trying to give meaning or make any presuppositions. They develop theories based on empirical evidence. science just one of many tools. Just being open ti being wrong based on new evidence is the biggest strength of science.

  26. Science doesn't deal with religion because science is concerned with nature and the natural, Religion by definition is supernatural.

    Cats don't rule the world because they don't have opposable thumbs, Berlinski must know that

  27. Very intelligent man….
    For fun, he does have a , slow…..snooty…..pretentious….gait his speech.
    5:32 <—— click and see

  28. I've heard Berlinski a number of times, and I am somewhat of a new fan, and it's probably me, but he is just not connecting w/ me here.

  29. "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."
    Robert Jastrow

    Point being in the 19th century you Could make a reasonable argument that the material universe is all there is, Today…Not so much.

  30. Most scientists are little more than salesman flogging there own believe in the power of science leaving out understanding

  31. The funny thing is that today's atheists are actually some of the most ignorant and irrational people that I have ever heard.

  32. this guy needs to use more simplerer words…. I have never heard some of the words he used and i read lots…..or much, if you want to be grammatical about it.

  33. Evolution theory has been proven almost beyond doubt. It is accepted among the absolute majority scientists. It has solid evidence in so many different fields. It's good to be sceptical but you need to be careful not to perpetuate false claims like this "professor" is doing

  34. Evolution is a fact. Republicans must embrace this and move on from there. Evolution does not mean we need to throw away values. These values are not based on fear, as in you will go to hell or be punished by God's curse on your life (aka bad luck) if you do not embrace values. It is Common Law that keeps us lawful, not a God. If you disagree then you haven't done your homework, Our laws came from Cicero's ideas, who, by the way, worshiped Lucifer, a Roman God.
    At some point you have to move away from ideas that you thought were correct but are not…..I;ve listened to Levin for a decade. He's a good patriot and inspires liberty, life, and pursuit of happiness, but he's wrong about Evolution.

  35. Scientific theories IS science, the issue could be these two gentleman don't know what is the meaning of the word scientific theory. Probably confuse it with the layman use of the word theory. I also suspect David Berlinski may not know the difference between hypothesis & scientific theory. There's no appeal [time stamp 7:06], only a conjecture called a hypothesis, & that per-existing condition is one of several hypothesis of where matter & energy of the universe came from before it expanded. So no, no science will claim they are satisfied with that, that's a red-herring from Mr. Berlinski, because science doesn't have a solid idea, that's why it's called a hypothesis. They will have a solid idea when they have empirical evidence that may support one of the hypothesis.

    The reason scientific theory doesn't touch on the mysteries that the religious traditions addresses is simply because there is no evidence of said mystery, its up to the religious traditions to posit any evidence they claim. Evolution uses the scientific method to the arrive to the conclusion it claim, hence why it is excepted by science. There's no anecdotal in evolution, but there is evidence from the fossil record to the discovery of DNA & genes.

    Like wise, the quantum theory & the theory of relativity have been empirical verified, he just rejects them just because. And his criticism of on math despite it has given demonstrable result such as unlocking the mystery of the atom, I find it foolish. He pretentious arguments seem like embracing willful ignorance & stupidity because his cherished religious faith based beliefs are threaten by them. And why bring up the devil in the title of the book, is he attempting to demonize a group of people (atheist), what is his goal in doing so?

    Evolution has nothing to do with progressivism. Is Mr. Berlinski projecting his religions beliefs to things where none exist? Fornication seals? Does Mr. Berlinski expected for the seals to be celibate? Why would [human?] woman be born with tails like cats? That is a weird question, unless that is some sexual fetish of his, Mr. Berlinski just accidentally let it slip out if his mind. That is… just creepy. Why would cat's rule the world? What opportunities is he talking about regarding of cats?

    One thing, I have the impression Mr. Berlinksi may not know what is an atheist, which is an issue with fundamentalist Christians. By the way, they can tell the temperatures in a week. They've gotten it better,

    There are quite a number of devout Christian, Jews, Muslims, or Hindus in the scientific community. It doesn't affect their credentials as science what so ever when you perform science in an honest manner & demonstrable results.

  36. Recent graduates from Universities around the world within the last 10-20 years are some of the most indoctrinated, group-think minds, orchestrated for years by the progressive, so-called “academic” left. College is no longer a place for learning or intellectual discussion, nor for challenging ingrained, pervasive, institutional orthodoxy. Neither are they laboratories for the advancement of science, for the advancement of science itself NECESSARILY requires free & bold challenge to currently held belief systems. And that is no longer permitted on today’s liberal progressive campuses. Foolishly unaware of the contradictory nature of the following statement, you will frequently hear professors confidently pronounce the most ANTI-SCIENCE sentence ever uttered, “The Science Is Settled”.

  37. The Suez Canal which connects the Mediterranean Sea with the Gulf of Suez on the Red Sea is a clear proof of the Earth's and water's non-convexity. The canal is 100 miles long and without any locks so the water within is an uninterrupted continuation of the Mediterranean Sea to the Red Sea. When it was constructed, the Earth's supposed curvature was not taken into account, it was dug along a horizontal datum line 26 feet below sea-level, passing through several lakes from one sea to the other, with the datum line and the water's surface running perfectly parallel over the 100 miles. The average level of the Mediterranean is 6 inches above the Red Sea, while the flood tides in the Red Sea rise 4 feet above the highest and drop 3 feet below the lowest in the Mediterranean, making the half-tide level of the Red Sea, the surface of the Mediterranean Sea, and the 100 miles of water in the canal, all a clear continuation of the same horizontal line! Were they instead the supposed curved line of globe-Earthers, the water in the center of the canal would be 1666 feet (502 x 8 inches = 1666 feet 8 inches) above the respective Seas on either side!

  38. Good interview . It is indeed a rejection of historic Christian, especially protestant , conclusions on origins.
    I don't agree lumping scientists into some camp. What do they know unless its what they studied, especially as specialists that justifys them calling themselves scientists.
    In short its very few people whose science cred matters on origin issues. the rest are irelevant. therefore it hints that caring about them is based on a idea they are generally smarter and so any attention/conclusion on these matters matters more.
    It doesn't.
    these are/must be complicated things. so proving whats true must be clearly shown in process.
    Evolutionism never did this, does this, can do this (eve if it was true I say).
    its just lines of reasoning based on very raw data.
    its easily debunked.

  39. " isn't this a pervasive problem throughout science?"……"to a certain extent" say David, then quickly moves on! Please elaborate to what "extent", please David. Perfect example of wishy washy responses.

  40. David isn't ignorant but he knows Levin and the audience are. Does he believe his own dribble, is it simply a con to make cash or is it some combination of the two?

  41. If you think evolution isn't true, there is a relatively high probability you haven't studied science at a tertiary level. FACT

  42. As a creationist, geology major, and a strong conservative i have to say a few things

    1. Creationists ARE NOT antiscience. We are anti error. If you honestly think that we are anti science just because we have a different opinion than you. 1. You are 100% wrong 2. You have no idea what you are talking about

    2. Evolution has 6 different definitions with only one of them confirmable by observable scientific experimentation, that being variations of the species. Ex. Wolves and dogs, lions and tigers, horses and zebras, etc.

    3. The dating methods are based on too many assumptions and too many variables. Why do you think that a piece of Basalt from the 1950 eruption of Mt Etna was Potassium Argon dated to be 5 million years old, or why shells from living snails were carbon dated to be 12,000 years old? The truth is that things are really dated by the Geologic Time Scale, which is based on too many assumptions and predetermined conclusions.

    4. There are several statements in the bible that have been confirmed by science. Ex.
    The earth is round (Isaiah 40:22)
    The number of stars is incalculable (Jeremiah 33:22)
    Light moves (Job 38:19-20)
    And many many more

    5. Atheism is a religion. You have to believe that there is no God, there is no way to know that.

    Anyone who comments saying I am wrong will only confirm my statements above.

  43. It's very easy to ascribe motivations to evolution, "The animal evolved this way because it served some purpose for it." I've done it myself sometimes, when I'm being rather lazy. However, those who think about evolution in a disciplined way see it as the result of processes, not motivations. The giraffe doesn't grow a long neck because "It wanted to reach the tops of trees." Its changing traits, from generation to generation, developed it to have a long neck, and *as a result*, in its foraging behavior, it found it could reach the tops of trees, and exploited that ability, which gave it some advantage, such that the collection of traits that enabled that physical development were passed along to enough offspring that the collection of traits survived.

    Current evolutionary theory ascribes no control over either an organism's own physical development, nor of its progeny, upon which the process is acting.

  44. That which cannot be observed measured and tested is beyond the scope of actual science. Science is a limited field. Our remote origins are and will always be beyond the scope of actual science. Darwinism is psuedo-science.

  45. This is conservative ignorance at its best.  If it were up to conservatives we would still be living in caves banging rocks together.

  46. Science means evidence which makes you smarter. Therefore if science leads to progressivism then Progressives are smarter.

  47. I’ve sometimes think of the atheist/religious or evolution and those who don’t believe it as pro wrestling or cnn vs Fox News

    They need each other. I mean why would someone like Richard Dawkins spend his life’s work talking about religion? And if it’s obviously not true why bother with it.

    And I’m on berlinskis side. i.e. question evolution. Distrustful of the scientific community etc

    I read his book. The devils delusion and liked it.

    But maybe he and me are just as bad.

    I guess what I’m trying to say, it’s all entertainment

  48. I just love it when those dependent on science attack science. What would you have instead of progress? Regression? There is a reason most intelligent people are turning to atheism: there is no god. Look all around you. Do you see science and nature? Or do you see some idiot nailed to a cross?

  49. If there's money to be made in pushing a counterfeit scientific theory he's interested. I heard it with my own two ears. This is precisely the point Mark Levin is driving at and the guy just tossed it into his lap. Incredible really.

  50. lol, Darwinism… and giraffes didn't just develop a long neck, they also have an entirety different DNA structure that enables the breathing, drinking and oxygen to allow for having their neck lower their brain so far below their hearts while drinking. Different 'kinds' of animals is not different species. One wolf pair is all it takes to develop many different species of dog. Or a Feline, a species is a group subordinate to a genus and containing individuals agreeing in some common attributes and called by a common name. A dolphin will never get hit by enough 'lightening bolts' (without being nuked) to change it's DNA to the perfect structure of a …anything. Mutation of cells doesn't evolve to perfection, it mutates to corrupt what was already functional. You mess up one part of somethings DNA, it is corrupted, and that thing will most likely not survive, or 'evolve', and certainly not 'pass on' it's 'lightening bolt' mutated cell deformation genetically. You get shocked by electricity, and your hair turns white, does not mean your kids are going to have white hair.

  51. The controversy was settled 50 years ago with Synergetics by Richard Buckminster Fuller. Published in 1975 Fuller examined quantum mechanics and Creationism which worked together throughout the Universe. "Sunergei" is the Greek word for working together. President Reagan recognized Fuller's pioneering genius and awarded Bucky the Medal Of Freedom in 1983.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *