.
MARK: HELLO, AMERICA, I'M MARK
LEVIN, AND THIS IS "LIFE,
LIBERTY & LEVIN," AND IT'S AN
HONOR TO HAVE DR. DAVID
BERLINSKI WITH US.
HOW ARE YOU, SIR?
>> I'M JUST FINE, THANK YOU FOR
HAVING ME.
MARK: THANK YOU FOR COMING ALL
THE WAY FROM PARIS TO OUR
LITTLE PLACE.
>> WAS ENDLESS.
MARK: OKAY, IMAGINE 100 YEARS
AGO.
THAT WAS ENDLESS.
>> IT WAS WORSE.
MY TRIP WAS WORSE.
MARK: DAVID BERLINSKI.
I WANT TO TALK TODAY WITH YOU
IN YOUR UNIQUELY QUALIFIED TO
DO THIS, ABOUT EVOLUTION,
SCIENCE AND PROGRESSIVISM
BECAUSE THERE'S A LINK.
YOU'VE WRITTEN ABOUT THIS AND
SPOKEN ABOUT THIS MANY, MANY
TIMES.
YOU RECEIVED YOUR Ph.D. IN
PHILOSOPHY FROM PRINCETON
UNIVERSITY.
LATER A POST DOCTORAL FELLOW IN
MATHEMATICS AND MOLECULAR
BIOLOGY AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY.
GLAD I DIDN'T TAKE ANY OF THOSE
COURSES.
YOU TAUGHT PHILOSOPHY,
MATHEMATICS, ENGLISH AT
STANFORD, RUTGERS, UNIVERSITY
OF NEW YORK AND IN PARIS AND
THE EDITOR OF INFERENCE
INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF
SCIENCE.
LET'S GET STARTED. YOU WROTE A
BOOK ABOUT A DECADE AGO THEY
READ ABOUT A DECADE AGO.
AND IN DOING THIS PROGRAM, I
STARTED TO THINK ABOUT IT, AND
I SAID, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT
THAT WE HAVE THIS DISCUSSION
ABOUT SCIENCE, EVOLUTION,
PROGRESSIVISM, AND I WANT TO
START WHERE YOU STARTED.
LET ME READ YOU ONE PARAGRAPH.
"I'M A SECULAR JEW, YOU WRITE.
MY RELIGIOUS EDUCATION DID NOT
TAKE.
I CAN BARELY REMEMBER A WORD OF
HEBREW, I CANNOT PRAY.
I'VE SPENT MORE YEARS THAN I
CARE TO REMEMBER IN STUDYING
MATHEMATICS AND WRITING ABOUT
THE SCIENCES.
YET, AS YOU WROTE IN THE
PREFACE OF THIS BOOK, THE BOOK
THAT FOLLOWS IS IN SOME SENSE A
DEFENSE OF RELIGIOUS THOUGHT
AND SENTIMENT.
BIBLICAL VERSES ARE THE LEAST
OF IT, A DEFENSE IS NEEDED
BECAUSE NONE HAS BEEN
FORTHCOMING.
THE DISCUSSION HAS BEEN CEDED
TO MEN WHO REGARD RELIGIOUS
BELIEF WITH FRIVOLOUS CONTEMPT.
THE BOOKS HAVE POURED FROM
EVERY PRESS AND DIFFERING
WIDELY IN STYLE, THEY ARE
IDENTICAL IN MESSAGE BECAUSE
SCIENTIFIC THEORIES ARE TRUE
RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, MUST BE
FALSE.
FROM YOUR BOOK "THE DEVIL'S
DELUSION," ATHEISM AND
SCIENTIFIC PRETENSIONS.
AND THAT IS THE THESIS, THAT IS
THE FOUNDATIONAL POINT OF YOUR
BOOK.
YOU CAN EXPAND ON THAT?
>> WELL, SOMETHING, SOMETHING
PARTICULAR AND PECULIAR SEEMS
TO HAVE COME OVER ANGLOAMERICAN
INTELLECTUAL LIFE IN.
THE 1950s AND THE 60s, THE
POSITION THAT WAS ACADEMICALLY
TOLERATED WAS A CHEERFUL
AGNOSTISSISM WITH RESPECT TO
GOD'S EXISTENCE, MAYBE, MAYBE
NOD, BUT THIS ISN'T AN ISSUE
THAT VEXES US AS PROFOUNDLY AS
MEMBERS OF THE SCIENTIFIC
COMMUNITY AT ALL CHANGES.
NOW VERY VOCIFEROUS AND
DOGMATIC ATH
DOGMATIC AT
DOGMATIC ATHEISM IS OBLIGATORY,
ESTABLISHED PHYSICALISTS MAY BE
PLANNING JIHAD, I HAVE NO IDEA.
BUT BY AND LARGE, ATHEISM HAS
REPLACED FOREBEARING
AGONISTISSISM IN THE
ANGLO-AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC LIFE.
AND AS A RESULT, THE RELIGIOUS
TRADITION IS A VERY, VERY LONG
5,000-YEAR-OLD TRADITION HAS
BEEN MADE INTO AN OBJECT OF
FAINT DERISION AMONG
SOPHISTICATED MEN AND WOMEN
MUCH TO THE CONSTERNATION OF
PEOPLE WHO DEEPLY, DEEPLY
ADMIRE THAT TRADITION, AND
THAT, I THINK, IS A CHANGE IN
THE DIOPACIN OF LIFE THAT WE
NEED TO PAY ATTENTION TO.
IT IS RELATIVELY NEW, STARTED
AROUND 1980, '85 BUT BECOME AN
ACCELERATING FORCE IN INTLECK
WAL LIFE.
IF YOU ARE MINDED TO BE A
SERIOUS CHRISTIAN OR EXTREMELY
DEVOUT AND ORTHODOX JEW OR EVEN
A SERIOUS MUSLIM, BETTER NOT GO
INTO THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY
AND TELL YOUR FRATERNITY
BROTHERS THAT THAT IS WHAT YOU
ARE.
BEST TO KEEP YOUR MOUTH CLOSED.
THAT'S GENERALLY TRUE, IT'S
AMONG THE VARIOUS TOPICS ABOUT
WHICH IT IS NOT A PARTICULARLY
GOOD IDEA TO MAKE BROADCAST
YOUR VIEWS.
MARK: AND THEN YOU ADD
FOLLOWING UP ON YOUR POINT --
AND YOU SAY BASICALLY SCIENCE
IS NOTHING TO SAY ABOUT LIFE
AND LOVE AND DEATH AND MEANING.
>> HARDLY A CONTROVERSIAL
POINT, IS IT?
I MEAN, IF I AM ASKING CERTAIN
KINDS OF QUESTIONS.
LOOK, LOOK AROUND YOU.
THERE'S SOMETHING THERE.
OPEN YOUR EYES, YOU'RE STRUCK
BY THE EXISTENCE OF THE
UNIVERSE.
WHY IS THAT THERE?
LOOK AT THE ANSWERS FORTHCOMING
FROM THE PHYSICS COMMUNITY.
THEY CAN BE DESCRIBED IN ONE OF
TWO WAYS.
WELL, WHAT DO YOU EXPECT?
WE'RE HERE.
THEREFORE THERE IS SOMETHING
THERE.
OR IT'S KIND OF AN ACCIDENT.
THESE ARE NOT THE KIND OF
ANSWERS INTELLIGENT MEN AND
WOMEN ARE SEARCHING FOR.
THEY CORRESPOND TO NO DEEP
INTELLECTUAL NEED, THEY'RE
FRIVOLOUS.
PHYSICS HAS NOTHING TO TELL US,
FOR EXAMPLE, ABOUT THE ORIGINS
AND APPEARANCE OF THE UNIVERSE.
IT HAS A LOT OF INTERESTING
THINGS TO SAY ABOUT COSMOLOGY
BUT NOT THE SAME QUESTION.
THE MOST RADICAL QUESTION YOU
CAN ASK IS: WHY IS THERE
SOMETHING, ANYTHING RATHER THAN
WHAT, NOTHING?
WHY IS THAT?
IT'S PERFECTLY POSSIBLE TO
PROPOSE THERE COULD HAVE BEEN
NOTHING WHATSOEVER.
I DON'T MEAN SOME PREEXISTING
STUFF.
I MEAN NOTHING.
WELL, THAT'S NOT THE WORLD WE
LIVE IN.
HOW COME?
IT'S A GOOD QUESTION.
WHAT'S YOUR ANSWER?
WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE PHYSICISTS
OR THE BIOLOGIST OR THE
CHEMIST, THEIR ANSWER IS, WE
KNOW HOW IT HAPPENED.
WE OPEN OUR EYES, TOO.
THERE'S SOMETHING.
AND WE CAN EXPLAIN THE ORIGIN
OF ALL THAT BY APPEALING TO
SOME PREEXISTING SOMETHING.
ARE YOU SATISFIED WITH THAT?
IF NOT, WELL, YOU'RE NOT
SCIENTIFIC LITERATE.
LAWRENCE KRAUS MAKES THAT
ARGUMENT, THE PREEXISTING
QUANTUM FIELD FROM WHICH IT
AROSE.
MARK: THEY HAVE NO REAL SOLID
IDEA DO, THEY?
>> NONE, WHATSOEVER.
MARK: AND YET, THEY CONTINUE TO
PUSH THEIR THEORIES OUT AS IF
IT'S SCIENCE.
>> WELL, LET'S BE FAIR,
WOULDN'T YOU DO THE SAME THING
IF YOU WERE A LEADING -- I SURE
WOULD.
IF I HAD A THEORY THAT DEEP
DOWN I KNEW NO GOOD, BUT THERE
ARE SORTS OF EMOLUMENTS,
RICHNESS, AWARD, PRESTIGIOUS, I
WOULD PUSH IT, DO I.
MARK: WE GET THE ARGUMENTS
ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE WHERE THE
SAME SCIENTISTS CAN'T TELL.
>> YOU TALKING ABOUT THE TOP
PHYSICISTS.
CLIMATE CHANGE, YOU HAVE TO GO
DOWN THE LADDER INTO THE
BOTTOM.
MARK: FOR A LOT OF US, IT'S
JUST A MUSH OUT THERE.
IN OTHER WORDS, YOU'RE SAYING
THE TOP PHYSICISTS AND WHAT I'M
SAYING IS, WHEN WE TAKE A LOOK
AT CLIMATE CHANGE, WE HAVE A
COMMUNITY THAT CAN'T TELL US
THE TEMPERATURE IN A WEEK
WITHIN 10 DEGREES, BUT THEY CAN
TELL US THE TEMPERATURE IN 100
YEARS WITHIN ONE DEGREE.
WHAT I'M SAYING IS YOU SAYING
THE TOP PHYSICISTS.
ISN'T IT PERVASIVE?
ISN'T THIS A PERVASIVE PROBLEM
THROUGHOUT SCIENCE?
>> TO A CERTAIN EXTENT.
LOOK, SCIENCE IS AN ENORMOUS
ENTERPRISE.
HOW MANY GUYS, HOW MANY WOMEN,
MEN AND WOMEN AFFIRM THEMSELVES
AS SCIENTISTS WORLDWIDE TODAY?
DO YOU HAPPEN TO HAVE THE
NUMBER?
IT'S SEVEN MILLION.
SEVEN MILLION PEOPLE ARE
ENGAGED IN THE SCIENTIFIC
ENTERPRISE.
AND, OF COURSE, YOU ARE GOING
TO FIND VERY REPETITIVE
SOCIOLOGICAL PATTERNS WHEN
THERE IS SOMETHING AS IMPORTANT
AS ENVIRONMENT OR CLIMATE,
YOU'RE GOING TO FIND GROUPS
FORMING FACTIONS SPLITTING FROM
THE GROUP, A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT
OF PROPAGANDA.
ELABORATE NUMBER OF RESOURCES,
A LOT OF MONEY TO BE HAD, NOT
COMING FROM THE PRIVATE SECTOR,
IT'S COMING FROM THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT.
WHEN I TALK ABOUT FUNDAMENTAL
QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF
THE UNIVERSE, WE'RE APPEALING
TO THE VERY TOP OF THE
INTELLECTUAL LADDER.
WHEN I TALK ABOUT CLIMATE
CHANGE, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
SOME COMPETENT PEOPLE, NOT
MANY, SOME COMPETENT PEOPLE
WITH MODERATELY CONFLICTING
VIEWS, BOTH ABOUT THE ORIGINS
OF CLIMATE CHANGE, YES, THE
WORLD IS GETTING WARMER.
THE NATURE OF CLIMATE CHANGE,
THE RELIABILITY OF THE
CLIMACTIC MODELS, THE THEORIES
THAT GO INTO THEM AND
PROGNOSTICATIONS FOR THE
FUTURE.
IT'S NOT ENTIRELY CLEAR EXACTLY
WHICH GROUP HAS THE MOST
OVERWHELMING AND PERSUASIVE
EVIDENCE.
MARK: WELL, LET'S TALK ABOUT
THE TOP.
IF YOU THINK THIS FELLOW, AT
LEAST ARGUABLY, DARWIN, A LOT
OF THEORIES, ARGUMENTS,
SCIENCE, SO TO SPEAK WHAT IS
DARWINISM.
WHAT IS THAT?
>> DARWIN COMES MID 19th
CENTURY FIGURE, 1859, HE
PUBLISHED WHAT IS ARGUABLY THE
MASTERPIECE, THE ORIGIN OF
SPECIES AND THE QUESTION THAT
DARWIN ASKED HIMSELF IS A
QUESTION THAT ALL THE 19th
CENTURY BIOLOGISTS WERE ASKING,
WHAT IS THE NATURE OF LIFE?
WHAT IS THE ORIGIN OF
INDIVIDUAL SPECIES?
HOW DID LIFE EMERGE FROM
INORGANIC MATTER?
AND WHAT ARE THE DYNAMIC LAWS
THAT CHANGE ONE SPECIES INTO
ANOTHER, IF THERE IS SUCH A
THING AS A CHANGE OF SPECIES.
DON'T FORGET ALCHEMY PROMOTED A
VERY SIMILAR THESIS WHEN IT
SAID BASE METALS COULD BE
TRANSMUTED INTO GOLD.
AN ARGUMENT FOR TRANSMUTATION
OF ELEMENTS.
DARWIN PROVIDED AN ALCHEMICAL
EXPLANATION FOR BIOLOGY.
SPECIES COULD BE TRANSFORMED
INTO OTHER SPECIES.
HOW COULD THIS COME ABOUT?
WE DON'T SEE IT EVERY DAY.
IT COMES ABOUT BECAUSE THERE
ARE SMALL VARIATIONS WITHIN
EACH SPECIES AND THESE
VARIATIONS ARE SEIZED UPON BY
THE MECHANISM OF NATURAL
SELECTION WHICH SIMPLY MEANS
SOME SURVIVE, SOME DON'T
SURVIVE.
OVER VAST PERIODS OF TIME,
THESE SMALL VARIATIONS
ACCUMULATE, THEY CONVERGE ON A
DIFFERENT STRUCTURE AND VARIOUS
DIFFERENT STRUCTURES IN TURN
CONVERGE ON A NEW BODY, PLANT,
ORG
OR
ORGANISM OF SPECIES, THAT'S
DARWINISM AND IT'S A POSITION
WHICH IS BEING INCREASINGLY
HELD AS A SECULAR DOCTRINE.
COMPARABLE, COMPARABLE TO THE
BOOK OF GENESIS.
MARK: IS HE RIGHT?
>> I HAVE A LOT OF DOUBTS, I
HAVE A LOT OF DOUBTS AND SO DO
OTHER PEOPLE.
THERE ARE MANY, MANY PLACES
WHEN ONE LOOKS AT DARWINISM,
SOME SAYS LOOK, THIS ISN'T THE
SCIENTIFIC THEORY, IT'S A
COLLECTION OF ANECDOTES.
WHY DID THE GIRAFFE DEVELOP
SUCH A LONG NECK?
WELL, HE WANTED TO REACH THE
TREES ON THE TOP.
WELL HOW COME OTHER ANIMALS
DIDN'T DEVELOP THE LONG NECK?
THEY DIDN'T WANT TO REACH THE
TREES ON THE TOP.
HOW COME CERTAIN TYPE OF
EUROPEAN EELS HAVE TO SWIM
ACROSS THE ATLANTIC IN ORDER TO
MATE?
OTHERS ARE HAPPY FORNICATING
CLOSE TO HOME.
IT WORKED FOR ONE SEAL, NOT THE
OTHER.
WHY AREN'T WOMEN BORN WITH
TAILS LIKE CATS?
WELL, WOMEN DON'T SEEM TO NEED
THE TAILS, THOUGH IT COULD MAKE
THEM MORE ALLURING THAN THEY
ARE.
WHY DON'T CATS RULE THE WORLD,
CONSIDERING THEY HAVE EVERY
REASON AND EVERY OPPORTUNITY TO
DO SO?
WELL, THEY'RE CONTENT BEING OUR
DOMESTIC MASTERS.
THE ANECDOTES PILE ON
INTERMINABLY AND NO FUNDAMENTAL
LEADING PRINCIPLE.
MARK: DO YOU FIND THAT MOST
ATHEISTS, MORE PROMINENT
ATHEISTS EMBRACE DARWINISM.
>> EVERY LAST ONE.
MARK: WHY DO THEY DO THAT?
>> BECAUSE IT'S A SECULAR MYTH.
EVEN ATHEISTS NEED COMPELLING
MYTH HOW WE GOT HERE, WHAT WE
DO HERE, WHAT OUR PURPOSE IS.
HOW WE GOT HERE IS AN ACCIDENT.
WHAT WE GOT HERE?
WE HAVE NO IDEA.
WHAT IS THE PURPOSE,
FORNICATION AND REPLICATION,
THAT'S ABOUT IT, IT'S A VERY,
VERY VIABLE MYTH.
PEOPLE ACT ACCORDING TO IT.
MARK: AND IT ALSO DOESN'T