Why NBC News continues to employ a known liar

_{Denyse O'Leary

June 21, 2015

Culture, Media, News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Further to Barry Arrington, asking: Why Does NBC News Continue to Employ a Known Liar?,

Here’s an analysis of the Brian Williams story that makes sense to me (O’Leary for News):

Williams will lose his lofty NBC position and face a reduction of salary from $15 million to $10 million per year. On MSNBC, Williams will handle special reports and anchor breaking news coverage. While it is astonishing that he still has any journalistic position and will be earning such a salary after his downfall, the reality is that Williams will be working for MSNBC, a network watched mainly by liberal zealots. Williams survived because he is also a liberal. Unquestionably, a conservative in a similar position would have been quickly fired with no hesitation.

That’s probably because conservatives are expected to have at least some relationship to traditional notions like fact and evidence, disputed today by those who think that our brains are shaped for fitness, not for truth.

Obviously, this creative storyteller will have zero credibility with informed viewers, which is why the move to MSNBC makes sense. No viewer who watches hosts such as Ed Schultz, Rachel Maddow or Chris Matthews expects honest reporting. All viewers see on MSNBC is hard core liberal activism disguised as journalism.

Through his years of lies, Williams showed a callous disregard for the viewers who entrusted him to truthfully report the news. As an anchor with a propensity to lie and exaggerate, Williams has now been assigned to a network worthy of his talents.

Yes, exactly. His talent is to create a persona that his new crop of viewers need and want to believe in and to spin news and current events in a manner acceptable to them. Fact and evidence are optional.

Note: This is relevant to ID because in the atmosphere created and possibly soon dominated by people like Brian Williams, one must nonetheless keep on the lookout for people who want an evidence-based discussion about science issues. Free from the current war on falsifiability.

Remember, if falsifiability were illegal in media today, Williams would still have his $15m per year job, unchallenged. No wonder some are listening with interest to arguments against falsifiability. It has a way wider application than just the sciences.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

I've long considered the media-entertainment-news complex one of the greatest schemes in history; produce popular media products that manipulate the views of the masses, have them pay for it, take their money and funnel it entirely into the hands of political operatives, media producers and useful idiots. It takes the money out of the hands of average people and funnels it towards propaganda that manipulates average people and towards politics that makes everyone a ward of the state. I was reading an article several years ago about the deeply anti-capitalist, anti-corporation bent of movies, and about how Presidents are portrayed depending on what party is in power. My favorite movie up to that time had always been "It's a Wonderful Life"; the next time I saw it, I nearly gagged at the socialist, anti-capitalist narrative. Ever since then I've noticed the overwhelming bias in TV shows, movies, and even in mainstream media reporting. I've noticed "the narrative" is everything in the media. The truth doesn't matter; it doesn't matter that "hands up, don't shoot" factually never happened, it's the narrative that counts. The religious and conservatives are always the bad guys on TV shows. It's keeping the money flowing into the hands of good apparatchik party supporters and loyal propagandizers for the progressive state.William J Murray_{June 22, 2015
June
06
Jun
22
22
2015
08:25 AM
8
08
25
AM
PDT}

daveS, whatever. I let you chase your atheistic tail (or is that tale?) round and round in a circle. I have much better things to do. I am more than satisfied that the unbiased reader can judge for themselves who is being forthright to the evidence and who is playing games.bornagain77_{June 21, 2015
June
06
Jun
21
21
2015
07:47 PM
7
07
47
PM
PDT}

BA77,
“It doesn’t seem to be an official “theist” position.” Perhaps you can point me to the exact bible verse that proposes variance in the universal laws?

Variance in the laws is not my position and, as far as scripture itself is concerned, the laws are 'fixed', and is thus the 'official' theistic position!
I'll leave you and Paul Giem to hash this out. Until then, your opinion is noted.
You seem to state that atheism does not hold chaos, i.e. random chance, as the primary foundational attribute for why everything exists? Really???
No. The question of why everything exists is beyond my pay grade.
argue against what? chaos, i.e. random chance, being foundational to your atheistic worldview? be specific in your arguments for once for crying out loud.
You said that atheism predicted chaos, which is not a very specific statement in itself, so I didn't have much to work with. But what does that mean? I'm picturing a very disordered universe with no consistent physical laws, "constants" varying wildly. Now this is admittedly not rigorous, but what type or universe has a shorter description: Such a chaotic universe, or one in which all laws and constants are fixed and everything is very orderly? "Clearly" the second, correct?
For you to pretend that the atheistic worldview presupposes invariance in the universal constants is just sheer intellectual dishonesty on your part! (which I find to be stock and trade for atheists)
I don't "presuppose invariance in the universal constants" as a consequence of atheism. Not a physicist, but I'm assuming that this is determined at least partially through experiments.
In fact, to counter the fine-tuning of this universe, Susskind and other atheists, have proposed, besides multiverses in which the laws are infinitely variable, that the laws of this universe may vary in other regions of the universe where we cannot observe: You can see him say that the universal constants of this universe may vary, in order to ‘explain away’ the fine tuning, at the 7:30 minute mark of the following video.
Great. So some atheists theorize about varying constants, just like some theists.daveS_{June 21, 2015
June
06
Jun
21
21
2015
07:41 PM
7
07
41
PM
PDT}

daveS "It doesn’t seem to be an official “theist” position." Perhaps you can point me to the exact bible verse that proposes variance in the universal laws?
Jeremiah 33:25 But I, the Lord,,,, I have established the fixed laws governing heaven and earth. Psalm 119:89-90 Your word, Lord, is eternal; it stands firm in the heavens. Your faithfulness continues through all generations; you established the earth, and it endures.
Much like atheists, YECs try to force fit the evidence into their pre-desired worldview. Variance in the laws is not my position and, as far as scripture itself is concerned, the laws are 'fixed', and is thus the 'official' theistic position! Again:
C. S. Lewis put it this way: “Men became scientific because they expected law in nature and they expected law in nature because they believed in a lawgiver.”
You seem to state that atheism does not hold chaos, i.e. random chance, as the primary foundational attribute for why everything exists? Really???
The picture of the world, as drawn in existing physical theories shows arrangements of the individual elements for which the odds are multillions to 1 against an origin by chance. Some people would like to call this non-random feature of the world purpose or design; but I will call it non-committally anti-chance. We are unwilling in physics that anti-chance plays any part in the reactions between the systems of billions of atoms and quanta that we study; and indeed all our experimental evidence goes to show that these are governed by the laws of chance. Accordingly, we sweep anti-chance out of the laws of physics–out of the differential equations. Naturally, therefore, it reappears in the boundary conditions, for it must be got into the scheme somewhere. By sweeping it far enough away from the sphere of our current physical problems, we fancy we have got rid of it. It is only when some of us are so misguided as to try to get back billions of years into the past that we find the sweepings all piled up like a high wall and forming a boundary–a beginning of time–which we cannot climb over. - A. Eddington and repugnant notions https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/arthur-stanley-eddington-darwinists-and-repugnant-notions/
Perhaps rigorous honesty is just not your strong suit dave???? Are you in politics or used car sales by the way??? as to: "I would have thought you would argue against that using information theory,," argue against what? chaos, i.e. random chance, being foundational to your atheistic worldview? be specific in your arguments for once for crying out loud. For you to pretend that the atheistic worldview presupposes invariance in the universal constants is just sheer intellectual dishonesty on your part! (which I find to be stock and trade for atheists) In fact, to counter the fine-tuning of this universe, Susskind and other atheists, have proposed, besides multiverses in which the laws are infinitely variable, that the laws of this universe may vary in other regions of the universe where we cannot observe: You can see him say that the universal constants of this universe may vary, in order to 'explain away' the fine tuning, at the 7:30 minute mark of the following video.
Leonard Susskind - Is the Universe Fine-Tuned for Life and Mind? https://youtu.be/2cT4zZIHR3s?t=452
bornagain77_{June 21, 2015
June
06
Jun
21
21
2015
06:48 PM
6
06
48
PM
PDT}

BA77,
So, you concede that Theism is correct on universal constants being invariant, and that Atheism made no such prediction
Given that not a few theists propose varying constants, no, I don't concede that. It doesn't seem to be an official "theist" position.
(in fact atheism predicted chaos)
It did? When did that happen? I would have thought you would argue against that using information theory. Who/what would be generating all that Kolmogorov-Chaitin complexity?
but then you knocked down a straw man of YECers trying to force fit their worldview into the evidence?
No not strawmanning you, just pointing out the only group I'm aware of who speak of "varying constants" are theists, not atheists.daveS_{June 21, 2015
June
06
Jun
21
21
2015
05:42 PM
5
05
42
PM
PDT}

So, you concede that Theism is correct on universal constants being invariant, and that Atheism made no such prediction (in fact atheism predicted chaos) but then you knocked down a straw man of YECers trying to force fit their worldview into the evidence? UHHH, You do realize that I'm not a YEC don't you? Perhaps you want me to attribute straw-man positions to you that you do not hold? (as if you ever really clearly define your position anyway and critically analyze it for truthfulness instead of nitpick at theism!) I can do that if you want! Might make it a bit more entertaining since your arguments are pathetically weak. But anyways, I am more than satisfied that unbiased readers can see for themselves that your atheistic worldview is just so much unsubstantiated rubbish that does not stand up to scrutiny! ++++++++++ Here is a neat video: Danny Macaskill - Industrial Revolutions https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShbC5yVqOdIbornagain77_{June 21, 2015
June
06
Jun
21
21
2015
05:14 PM
5
05
14
PM
PDT}

BA77,
Actually that prediction was a ‘gimme’ to atheists. To be technical, naturalism/materialism does not even predict that time, nor any other universal law, will be invariant throughout the entire universe and throughout all time.
Ok, so atheism/naturalism makes no such prediction. Regarding the alleged theistic prediction that time is not absolute: The psalm refers to God's perception of time, and He exists outside of time. [Come to think of it, I'm not even sure what it all means or how that makes sense.] It doesn't say anything about how we humans measure time within the physical universe. Whatever connection you are drawing with special relativity was missed by Newton, anyway.
In fact, atheists are "surprised" that the constants don't vary.
We are? That's news to me. Usually it's YECs I see appealing to varying constants in an effort to avoid the implications of radiometric dating, redshifts, SN1987, etc.daveS_{June 21, 2015
June
06
Jun
21
21
2015
05:03 PM
5
05
03
PM
PDT}

Actually that prediction was a 'gimme' to atheists. To be technical, naturalism/materialism does not even predict that time, nor any other universal law, will be invariant throughout the entire universe and throughout all time. That presupposition is a Theistic prediction.
The God Particle: Not the God of the Gaps, But the Whole Show - Monday, Aug. 2012 Excerpt: C. S. Lewis put it this way: "Men became scientific because they expected law in nature and they expected law in nature because they believed in a lawgiver." http://www.christianpost.com/news/the-god-particle-not-the-god-of-the-gaps-but-the-whole-show-80307/ The Genius and Faith of Faraday and Maxwell - Ian H. Hutchinson - 2014 Conclusion: Lawfulness was not, in their thinking, inert, abstract, logical necessity, or complete reducibility to Cartesian mechanism; rather, it was an expectation they attributed to the existence of a divine lawgiver. These men’s insights into physics were made possible by their religious commitments. For them, the coherence of nature resulted from its origin in the mind of its Creator. http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-genius-and-faith-of-faraday-and-maxwell “Our monotheistic traditions reinforce the assumption that the universe is at root a unity, that is not governed by different legislation in different places.” John D. Barrow The Origin of Science Excerpt: Modern science is not only compatible with Christianity, it in fact finds its origins in Christianity. http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/science_origin.html
In fact, atheists are 'surprised' that the constants don't vary. In other words, when scientists actually measure for variance in the fundamental constants of the universe they, at least scientists of the atheistic persuasion, always end up being very 'surprised' by the stability they find in the universal constants. This is because invariance is not to be a-priori expected in their worldview:
Latest Test of Physical Constants Affirms Biblical Claim - Hugh Ross - September 2010 Excerpt: The team’s measurements on two quasars (Q0458- 020 and Q2337-011, at redshifts = 1.561 and 1.361, respectively) indicated that all three fundamental physical constants have varied by no more than two parts per quadrillion per year over the last ten billion years—a measurement fifteen times more precise, and thus more restrictive, than any previous determination. The team’s findings add to the list of fundamental forces in physics demonstrated to be exceptionally constant over the universe’s history. This confirmation testifies of the Bible’s capacity to predict accurately a future scientific discovery far in advance. Among the holy books that undergird the religions of the world, the Bible stands alone in proclaiming that the laws governing the universe are fixed, or constant. http://www.reasons.org/files/ezine/ezine-2010-03.pdf Stronger and More Comprehensive Tests Affirm the Universe’s Unchanging Physics - July 1, 2013 By Dr. Hugh Ross Excerpt: For thousands of years, the Bible has been on record stating that the physical laws governing the universe do not vary. For example, Jeremiah 33:25, God declares that he “established the fixed laws of heaven and earth” (NIV, 1984).,,, Laboratory measurements have established that variations any greater than four parts per hundred quadrillion (less than 4 x 10-17) per year cannot exist in the fine structure constant, which undergirds several of the physical laws.,,, ,,they confirmed with 99 percent certainty that possible variations in the fine structure must be less than two parts per 10 quadrillion per year over the past 10 billion years. This limit is about a thousand times more constraining than the one I described in More Than a Theory. http://www.reasons.org/articles/stronger-and-more-comprehensive-tests-affirm-the-universe%E2%80%99s-unchanging-physics
Moreover, most atheists do not seem to realize that if the universal constants were actually found to have even a small variance in them then this would destroy our ability to practice science rationally, for it would undermine our ability to mathematically model the universe in a reliable fashion. For example, if the speed of light constant, or if the invisible glue that holds nuclei together, varied, e=mc2 would be totally useless to us as a reliable description of reality. Please note what chaos ensue if just a very small variance were found to be in the universal constants:
Scientists Question Nature’s Fundamental Laws – Michael Schirber – 2006 Excerpt: “There is absolutely no reason these constants should be constant,” says astronomer Michael Murphy of the University of Cambridge. “These are famous numbers in physics, but we have no real reason for why they are what they are.”,,, The observed differences are small-roughly a few parts in a million-but the implications are huge (if they hold up): The laws of physics would have to be rewritten, not to mention we might need to make room for six more spatial dimensions than the three that we are used to.”,,, The speed of light, for instance, might be measured one day with a ruler and a clock. If the next day the same measurement gave a different answer, no one could tell if the speed of light changed, the ruler length changed, or the clock ticking changed. http://www.space.com/2613-scientists-question-nature-fundamental-laws.html
Einstein himself expressed wonder at the ‘epistemological miracle’ that we should, merely by taking thought, reliably model the world with mathematics:
You find it strange that I consider the comprehensibility of the world (to the extent that we are authorized to speak of such a comprehensibility) as a miracle or as an eternal mystery. Well, a priori one should expect a chaotic world, which cannot be grasped by the mind in any way .... [T]he kind of order created by Newton’s theory of gravitation, for example, is wholly different. Even if man proposes the axioms of the theory, the success of such a project presupposes a high degree of ordering of the objective world, and this could not be expected a priori. That is the “miracle” which is being constantly reinforced as our knowledge expands. — Albert Einstein
Of supplemental note on Newton:
NEWTON'S REJECTION OF THE "NEWTONIAN WORLD VIEW": THE ROLE OF DIVINE WILL IN NEWTON'S NATURAL PHILOSOPHY Abstract: The significance of Isaac Newton for the history of Christianity and science is undeniable: his professional work culminated the Scientific Revolution that saw the birth of modern science, while his private writings evidence a lifelong interest in the relationship between God and the world. Yet the typical picture of Newton as a paragon of Enlightenment deism, endorsing the idea of a remote divine clockmaker and the separation of science from religion, is badly mistaken. In fact Newton rejected both the clockwork metaphor itself and the cold mechanical universe upon which it is based. His conception of the world reflects rather a deep commitment to the constant activity of the divine will, unencumbered by the "rational" restrictions that Descartes and Leibniz placed on God, the very sorts of restrictions that later appealed to the deists of the 18th century. http://home.messiah.edu/~tdavis/newton.htm "Newton proposed that Gravitational force is inversely proportional to the Square of the distance between two masses (Inverse Square Law). For an orderly, designed universe, this makes sense – why wouldn’t it be something nice and even, like the square of the distance? For someone who believes in a random universe though – why the Square? Why not r ^ 2.148273.. or r ^ 1.932157.. The universe is full of nice, neat relationships like this, at very fundamental levels – moreso than not. I find the ability of the atheist to accept so many coincidences (as happenstance) nothing short of astonishing." drc466 - UD blogger
bornagain77_{June 21, 2015
June
06
Jun
21
21
2015
04:13 PM
4
04
13
PM
PDT}

BA77, Whoa, that's a lot of c&p. I'll pick one at random:
4. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the rate at which time passed was constant everywhere in the universe. Theism predicted God is eternal and is outside of time. – Special Relativity has shown that time, as we understand it, is relative and comes to a complete stop at the speed of light. (Psalm 90:4 – 2 Timothy 1:9) –
Can you show me where naturalism/materialism "predicted the rate at which time passed was constant everywhere in the universe"? Incidentally, presumably Newton, a theist, was ok with this prediction, since his laws of motion are invariant under Galilean transformations.daveS_{June 21, 2015
June
06
Jun
21
21
2015
03:51 PM
3
03
51
PM
PDT}

daveS, "If I actually believed that, then I wouldn’t be an atheist." As far as I can tell, your beliefs are just your personal preferences and have little, if anything, to do with actual empirical evidence. But since I'm all for reducing the nihilistic belief system of atheism, perhaps I can, for unbiased readers, help clarify just how far off base your worldview is scientifically speaking. Along with a rigid falsification criteria being a good measure for judging whether a hypothesis is scientific or not (Popper), successful predictions born out of a overarching hypothesis are also an excellent barometer so as to be able judge whether a hypothesis is true or false (Lakatos). In regards to making successful scientific predictions, atheistic materialism/naturalism, i.e. your preferred worldview, is an abject failure:
1. Naturalism/Materialism predicted time-space energy-matter always existed. Theism predicted time-space energy-matter were created. Big Bang cosmology now strongly indicates that time-space energy-matter had a sudden creation event approximately 14 billion years ago. 2. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that the universe is a self sustaining system that is not dependent on anything else for its continued existence. Theism predicted that God upholds this universe in its continued existence. Breakthroughs in quantum mechanics reveal that this universe is dependent on a ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, cause for its continued existence. 3. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that consciousness is an ‘emergent property’ of material reality and thus should have no particularly special position within material reality. Theism predicts consciousness precedes material reality and therefore, on that presupposition, consciousness should have a ‘special’ position within material reality. Quantum Mechanics reveals that consciousness has a special, even a central, position within material reality. - 4. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the rate at which time passed was constant everywhere in the universe. Theism predicted God is eternal and is outside of time. – Special Relativity has shown that time, as we understand it, is relative and comes to a complete stop at the speed of light. (Psalm 90:4 – 2 Timothy 1:9) - 5. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the universe did not have life in mind and that life was ultimately an accident of time and chance. Theism predicted this universe was purposely created by God with man in mind. Scientists find the universe is exquisitely fine-tuned for carbon-based life to exist in this universe. Moreover it is found, when scrutinizing the details of physics and chemistry, that not only is the universe fine-tuned for carbon based life, but is specifically fine-tuned for life like human life (R. Collins, M. Denton).- 6. Naturalism/Materialism predicted complex life in this universe should be fairly common. Theism predicted the earth is extremely unique in this universe. Statistical analysis of the hundreds of required parameters which enable complex organic life to be possible on earth gives strong indication the earth is extremely unique in this universe (Gonzalez). - 7. Naturalism/Materialism predicted it took a very long time for life to develop on earth. Theism predicted life to appear abruptly on earth after water appeared on earth (Genesis 1:10-11). Geochemical evidence from the oldest sedimentary rocks ever found on earth indicates that complex photosynthetic life has existed on earth as long as water has been on the face of earth. - 8. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the first life to be relatively simple. Theism predicted that God is the source for all life on earth. The simplest life ever found on Earth is far more complex than any machine man has made through concerted effort. (Michael Denton PhD) - 9. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the gradual unfolding of life would (someday) be self-evident in the fossil record. Theism predicted complex and diverse animal life to appear abruptly in the seas in God’s fifth day of creation. The Cambrian Explosion shows a sudden appearance of many different and completely unique fossils within a very short “geologic resolution time” in the Cambrian seas. - 10. Naturalism/Materialism predicted there should be numerous transitional fossils found in the fossil record, Theism predicted sudden appearance and rapid diversity within different kinds found in the fossil record. Fossils are consistently characterized by sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record(disparity), then rapid diversity within that group/kind, and then long term stability and even deterioration of variety within the overall group/kind, and within the specific species of the kind, over long periods of time. Of the few dozen or so fossils claimed as transitional, not one is uncontested as a true example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils. - 11. Naturalism/Materialism predicted animal speciation should happen on a somewhat constant basis on earth. Theism predicted man was the last species created on earth – Man (our genus ‘modern homo’ as distinct from the highly controversial ‘early homo’) is the last generally accepted major fossil form to have suddenly appeared in the fossil record. (Tattersall; Luskin)– 12. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that the separation of human intelligence from animal intelligence ‘is one of degree and not of kind’(C. Darwin). Theism predicted that we are made in the ‘image of God’- Despite an ‘explosion of research’ in this area over the last four decades, human beings alone are found to ‘mentally dissect the world into a multitude of discrete symbols, and combine and recombine those symbols in their minds to produce hypotheses of alternative possibilities.’ (Tattersall; Schwartz). Moreover, both biological life and the universe itself are found to be ‘information theoretic’ in their foundational basis. 13. Naturalism/Materialism predicted much of the DNA code was junk. Theism predicted we are fearfully and wonderfully made – ENCODE research into the DNA has revealed a “biological jungle deeper, denser, and more difficult to penetrate than anyone imagined.”. - 14. Naturalism/Materialism predicted a extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA which was ultimately responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. Theism predicted only God created life on earth – The mutation rate to DNA is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial, information building, mutations whatsoever. (M. Behe; JC Sanford) - 15. Naturalism/Materialism predicted morality is subjective and illusory. Theism predicted morality is objective and real. Morality is found to be deeply embedded in the genetic responses of humans. As well, morality is found to be deeply embedded in the structure of the universe. Embedded to the point of eliciting physiological responses in humans before humans become aware of the morally troubling situation and even prior to the event even happening. 16. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that we are merely our material bodies with no transcendent component to our being, and that we die when our material bodies die. Theism predicted that we have minds/souls that are transcendent of our bodies that live past the death of our material bodies. Transcendent, and ‘conserved’, (cannot be created or destroyed), ‘non-local’, (beyond space-time matter-energy), quantum entanglement/information, which is not reducible to matter-energy space-time, is now found in our material bodies on a massive scale (in every DNA and protein molecule).
As you can see when we remove the artificial imposition of the materialistic philosophy (methodological naturalism), from the scientific method, and look carefully at the predictions of both the materialistic philosophy and the Theistic philosophy, side by side, we find the scientific method is very good at pointing us in the direction of Theism as the true explanation. - In fact it is even very good at pointing us to Christianity as the much sought after 'Theory of Everything':
General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy & The Shroud Of Turin - (video) http://vimeo.com/34084462
Supplemental note to Darwinism in particular. Dr. Hunter has just compiled a list of the major failed predictions for neo-Darwinian evolution:
Darwin's (failed) Predictions - Cornelius G. Hunter - 2015 This paper evaluates 23 fundamental (false) predictions of evolutionary theory from a wide range of different categories. The paper begins with a brief introduction to the nature of scientific predictions, and typical concerns evolutionists raise against investigating predictions of evolution. The paper next presents the individual predictions in seven categories: early evolution, evolutionary causes, molecular evolution, common descent, evolutionary phylogenies, evolutionary pathways, and behavior. Finally the conclusion summarizes these various predictions, their implications for evolution’s capacity to explain phenomena, and how they bear on evolutionist’s claims about their theory. *Introduction Why investigate evolution’s false predictions? Responses to common objections *Early evolution predictions The DNA code is not unique The cell’s fundamental molecules are universal *Evolutionary causes predictions Mutations are not adaptive Embryology and common descent Competition is greatest between neighbors *Molecular evolution predictions Protein evolution Histone proteins cannot tolerate much change The molecular clock keeps evolutionary time *Common descent predictions The pentadactyl pattern and common descent Serological tests reveal evolutionary relationships Biology is not lineage specific Similar species share similar genes MicroRNA *Evolutionary phylogenies predictions Genomic features are not sporadically distributed Gene and host phylogenies are congruent Gene phylogenies are congruent The species should form an evolutionary tree *Evolutionary pathways predictions Complex structures evolved from simpler structures Structures do not evolve before there is a need for them Functionally unconstrained DNA is not conserved Nature does not make leaps *Behavior Altruism Cell death *Conclusions What false predictions tell us about evolution https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/home Why investigate evolution’s false predictions? Excerpt: The predictions examined in this paper were selected according to several criteria. They cover a wide spectrum of evolutionary theory and are fundamental to the theory, reflecting major tenets of evolutionary thought. They were widely held by the consensus rather than reflecting one viewpoint of several competing viewpoints. Each prediction was a natural and fundamental expectation of the theory of evolution, and constituted mainstream evolutionary science. Furthermore, the selected predictions are not vague but rather are specific and can be objectively evaluated. They have been tested and evaluated and the outcome is not controversial or in question. And finally the predictions have implications for evolution’s (in)capacity to explain phenomena, as discussed in the conclusions. https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/why-investigate-evolution-s-false-predictions
bornagain77_{June 21, 2015
June
06
Jun
21
21
2015
03:37 PM
3
03
37
PM
PDT}

Funny, so a comma being out of place bugs you, but being shown your entire atheistic worldview is 'out of place' does not bug you?
If I actually believed that, then I wouldn't be an atheist.daveS_{June 21, 2015
June
06
Jun
21
21
2015
03:18 PM
3
03
18
PM
PDT}

Funny, so a comma being out of place bugs you, but being shown your entire atheistic worldview is 'out of place' does not bug you? Can you say severely misplaced priorities? https://images-01.authint.com/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/assets/article-photos/2015/15/09/misplaced-priorities-1428602242-nod-3.jpgbornagain77_{June 21, 2015
June
06
Jun
21
21
2015
03:01 PM
3
03
01
PM
PDT}

slight correction,,
Missed a comma there.daveS_{June 21, 2015
June
06
Jun
21
21
2015
01:44 PM
1
01
44
PM
PDT}

as to: "unfalsifiable theories (possibly string theory, the multiverse) are impossible to debunk even if they are false." slight correction,, "unfalsifiable theories (~~possibly~~ tea leaf reading, Darwinian evolution, string theory, the multiverse) are impossible to debunk even if they are false." There, made it all better for ya. :) A few related notes:
"In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality." Karl Popper - The Two Fundamental Problems of the Theory of Knowledge (2014 edition), Routledge It’s (Much) Easier to Falsify Intelligent Design than Darwinian Evolution – Michael Behe, PhD https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_T1v_VLueGk The National Academy of Sciences has objected that intelligent design is not falsifiable, and I think that’s just the opposite of the truth. Intelligent design is very open to falsification. I claim, for example, that the bacterial flagellum could not be produced by natural selection; it needed to be deliberately intelligently designed. Well, all a scientist has to do to prove me wrong is to take a bacterium without a flagellum, or knock out the genes for the flagellum in a bacterium, go into his lab and grow that bug for a long time and see if it produces anything resembling a flagellum. If that happened, intelligent design, as I understand it, would be knocked out of the water. I certainly don’t expect it to happen, but it’s easily falsified by a series of such experiments. Now let’s turn that around and ask, How do we falsify the contention that natural selection produced the bacterial flagellum? If that same scientist went into the lab and knocked out the bacterial flagellum genes, grew the bacterium for a long time, and nothing much happened, well, he’d say maybe we didn’t start with the right bacterium, maybe we didn’t wait long enough, maybe we need a bigger population, and it would be very much more difficult to falsify the Darwinian hypothesis. I think the very opposite is true. I think intelligent design is easily testable, easily falsifiable, although it has not been falsified, and Darwinism is very resistant to being falsified. They can always claim something was not right. - Dr Michael Behe The Law of Physicodynamic Incompleteness - David L. Abel Excerpt: "If decision-node programming selections are made randomly or by law rather than with purposeful intent, no non-trivial (sophisticated) function will spontaneously arise." If only one exception to this null hypothesis were published, the hypothesis would be falsified. Falsification would require an experiment devoid of behind-the-scenes steering. Any artificial selection hidden in the experimental design would disqualify the experimental falsification. After ten years of continual republication of the null hypothesis with appeals for falsification, no falsification has been provided. The time has come to extend this null hypothesis into a formal scientific prediction: "No non trivial algorithmic/computational utility will ever arise from chance and/or necessity alone." https://www.academia.edu/Documents/in/The_Law_of_Physicodynamic_Incompleteness Evolutionary Computing: The Invisible Hand of Intelligence - June 17, 2015 Excerpt: William Dembski and Robert Marks have shown that no evolutionary algorithm is superior to blind search -- unless information is added from an intelligent cause, which means it is not, in the Darwinian sense, an evolutionary algorithm after all. This mathematically proven law, based on the accepted No Free Lunch Theorems, seems to be lost on the champions of evolutionary computing. Researchers keep confusing an evolutionary algorithm (a form of artificial selection) with "natural evolution." ,,, Marks and Dembski account for the invisible hand required in evolutionary computing. The Lab's website states, "The principal theme of the lab's research is teasing apart the respective roles of internally generated and externally applied information in the performance of evolutionary systems." So yes, systems can evolve, but when they appear to solve a problem (such as generating complex specified information or reaching a sufficiently narrow predefined target), intelligence can be shown to be active. Any internally generated information is conserved or degraded by the law of Conservation of Information.,,, What Marks and Dembski prove is as scientifically valid and relevant as Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem in mathematics. You can't prove a system of mathematics from within the system, and you can't derive an information-rich pattern from within the pattern.,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/06/evolutionary_co_1096931.html
bornagain77_{June 21, 2015
June
06
Jun
21
21
2015
12:21 PM
12
12
21
PM
PDT}

One addition: unfalsifiable theories (possibly string theory, the multiverse) are impossible to debunk even if they are false. That's the issue being discussed by the physicists and cosmologists on the PBS link. It's not that string theory and the multiverse are known to be false yet persist because they conform to favored narratives.daveS_{June 21, 2015
June
06
Jun
21
21
2015
12:12 PM
12
12
12
PM
PDT}

News,
daveS at 1, it is heartening to hear that some people are not sure what falsifiability in media would mean. It would mean showing that false claims are in fact false, even if they support a victimhood scenario. Because, you see, debunking false claims would “offend” the faux victims, cause microagressions, and require trigger warnings. But lies are okay if they support favoured “narratives.” In Canada, we have had a heck of a fight against that general mindset, and the fight continues. In the States, it seems people have hardly begun.
Thanks for the further explanation. I agree that debunking false claims is a desireable goal, but that is completely different from the concept of falsifiability that is discussed in the PBS link.daveS_{June 21, 2015
June
06
Jun
21
21
2015
11:42 AM
11
11
42
AM
PDT}

daveS at 1, it is heartening to hear that some people are not sure what falsifiability in media would mean. It would mean showing that false claims are in fact false, even if they support a victimhood scenario. Because, you see, debunking false claims would "offend" the faux victims, cause microagressions, and require trigger warnings. But lies are okay if they support favoured "narratives." In Canada, we have had a heck of a fight against that general mindset, and the fight continues. In the States, it seems people have hardly begun.News_{June 21, 2015
June
06
Jun
21
21
2015
10:25 AM
10
10
25
AM
PDT}

News,
Remember, if falsifiability were illegal in media today, Williams would still have his $15m per year job, unchallenged.
I'm trying to envision the scenario where falsifiability was illegal in media. What does that mean, precisely? My first thought is that it means journalists would be legally forbidden from making falsifiable statements. Is that really on the horizon? However, in context of the Brian Williams story, it would seem you're talking about the situation where no one is allowed to point out instances of journalists actually making false statements. But that's not really related to "falsifiability" as I understand it.daveS_{June 21, 2015
June
06
Jun
21
21
2015
08:24 AM
8
08
24
AM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply