As far as the heart vs. brain, I do use my “heart” or emotions and feelings, but there is a difference between experiencing and accepting those feelings, and using them to try to understand the world.

I can use my “gut” to try to understand the most complex aspects of nature, or I can use my “brain” and my reason. My gut is often unreliable. Moreover, the collective “guts” of thousands of people have been proven innumerable times to be even less reliable than an individual (mob behavior, crowd mentality, people being manipulated by powerful charismatic leaders, etc).

Should I rely on my “feelings” or a hunch to determine what the sun is made of? To me, it feels like it’s a big ball of hot butter. Maybe someone else feels like it’s a giant yellow dinner plate. Who’s right?

And if my feelings are not reliable for a question like the sun, what makes you think they are reliable for even more profound, even more mysterious and even more complex and vexing questions, such as the origins of matter or the nature of the universe?

There is a place for feelings and emotions, and there is a place for logical analysis.

Regarding the Berlinski interview. I just want to touch on the major point in each segment (segment 3 was not working when I went through these).

Segment 1 is about Berlinski’s perception of the excessive “pride” of the atheists of the scientific community. This is his opinion, which is fine as far as it goes. Sure, there are many arrogant people in the sciences, and many arrogant atheists. There are also many arrogant theists and Christians, which seems almost inevitable when one believes one has the one, exclusive and absolute truth, which is what Christianity and most religions claim. By contrast, there is a fundamental humbleness and willingness to admit ignorance that is inherent in the scientific process–otherwise, why would we perform experiments and try to learn new things? Religion, claiming absolute knowledge of the most profound and mysterious elements of reality, contains arrogance that is unmatched.

Segment 2 is about evolution. As I’ve said, evolution is well supported with evidence. Evolution is a theory that explains what we observe in nature. It is that simple. Berlinski’s position (like many creationists) is that evolution could still be wrong. Of course it could. Everything we say could be wrong. But what does that mean? Does Berlinski have a better explanation for the observations? Does he have a better explanation for the evidence? No. Evolution is the best explanation available.

Berlinski is up to his old tricks on this point. A while back I wrote about a debate he participated in on evolution and intelligent design back in the early 1990s, see the videos and the article here:

http://100treatises.com/2010/01/evolution-vs-intelligent-design-flashback/

Segment 4 is about atheism and morality. Unsurprisingly (again), he brings up 20th century irreligious dictatorships such as the USSR or the Nazis. I have written all about these kinds of issues, religion, atheism and morality, on this site and elsewhere. Suffice it say here that:
(1) there are countless examples of nonreligious people and societies that are very peaceful, prosperous and just (Sweden, Norway, Germany, Netherlands, Japan, Canada, etc),
(2) there are countless examples of religious people and societies that have been violent, destructive and unjust (from the Crusaders to the European Christian imperialists to the modern Islamic terrorists), and
(3) true morality is based in human wellbeing in this life, and this is a secular basis, not a supernatural one, and moreover even supernatural moral thinking is largely, if not entirely, utilitarian as well (you should do X because if you don’t, you get punished, and if you do, you get rewarded–the same kind of immature moral thinking that resonates with children who have an underdeveloped sense of right and wrong).

They also deal with why there is a universe, why does it exist. As I have written elsewhere, this question assumes there is a reason. There is a hidden assumption that there is a reason. Essentially, the question is saying “There is a reason that the universe exists. Now, what is that reason? In other words, why does the universe exist?” Obviously the real question is: why do you assume there is such a reason?

Segment 5 is about science and faith and materialism. No one will disagree that faith is necessary to begin the process of knowledge discovery–I’ve said it myself many times. But there is a difference between a mindset that accepts only the most minimal amount of blind faith necessary, and one that layers blind faith presumption upon blind faith presumption endlessly. A secular reasonable approach belongs in the first category, and religion belongs in the second.

As far as materialism, the simple fact is that we humans are material beings. Therefore we are going to understand the world through material means. A material-based approach will therefore deliver knowledge where an immaterial-based approach cannot. There have been thousands of supernaturalistic methodologies used through the ages, and all of them together have not provided the tiniest fraction of the amount of knowledge and understanding that naturalistic methodologies have.

Berlinski is right to criticize the scientific process and the assumptions underlying it–criticism and skepticism should never die. But his criticism is in vain because, as Stephen Hawking has said, science works, and religion does not.

You are incorrect. You are not a part of your child; a copy of you is a part of the child. Your DNA makes a copy of itself during the process of reproduction, and this copy of DNA is transferred to the new life form.

If you were literally a “part of” your child, then you would not exist until the child exists!

Your child’s foot is a part of your child. That makes sense because the foot does not exist until the child exists.

Moreover, a person is not completely reducible to their DNA; they are also shaped by their environment and their upbringing and other experiences. But that is another whole issue.

There is no need to invoke a supernatural designer to explain the complexity of life or the universe. Your tornado and 747 analogy makes the same mistake that I already pointed out earlier when you gave a watch-in-a-box analogy. Rather than repeat myself, I will just copy and paste what I already wrote in response to that:

“What you and countless other Christians fail to consider with analogies such as your watch-in-a-box is that life is subject to a non-random influence. This influence is known as natural selection. Natural selection means that organisms that can survive better than others, will reproduce more. Thus there is a ratcheting effect inherent in nature wherein a single beneficial change is followed by others in sequence. It is not the case that all beneficial changes must happen independently, all at once, as in the case of a designer.

Small changes that happen continuously over many years result in big changes. It is not very difficult to understand.”

If life was subject only to random influences, then yes, the 747 analogy might make some sense. But it is not, there is a NON-random influence at play. That makes all the difference.

Here is a very accessible explanation of the fallacy with the concept of “irreducible complexity” that was introduced by creationists. This talk is given by Ken Miller, one of the best communicators out there for the theory of evolution:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ieKDLtrBXs0

Now, you said:

“However, we can now determine that the “simple cell” he was looking at contained a vast universe of DNA code that had to be mathematically lined up in order, to become the animal or plant that it was. That cell was not so “simple”.”

Modern animal cells are very complex. Bacterial cells are extremely simple by comparison. The very first living cells were even simpler. It is possible for a simple thing to give rise to a complex thing over time. See my previous comments.

“If he was just a man… then all of history would not have revolved around him.”

Why not, Phillip? History is nothing but the story of how men shaped the world. Julius Caesar, Napolean Bonaparte, George Washington, Thomas Edison, Leonardo Da Vinci, Pope Urban II, Muhammad–all of history revolves around these men. And Jesus is one of them.

“My God is the exception because he was raised from the dead.”

Just because you really, really, really believe this does not mean it is true. You are simply repeating what you already said. I already dealt with this notion in my previous comment.