Sportscaster to be fired for supporting ID on live TV?

_{Denyse O'Leary

January 21, 2015

Culture, Darwinism}

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

If so, Darwin’s followers are raising the stakes. Don’t think you can watch the game in peace any more—not unless you acknowledge their prophet.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

#15 News My experience of the news industry is utterly irrelevant. It is a simple matter of logic: Is the answer "yes" or "no" or "I don't know"? If it is the last it is not news. It is speculation.Mark Frank_{January 22, 2015
January
01
Jan
22
22
2015
03:34 AM
3
03
34
AM
PDT}

O'Leary:
Funny, I catch a nap, and you do all my work for me.
Someone has to do your work for you.keith s_{January 22, 2015
January
01
Jan
22
22
2015
12:56 AM
12
12
56
AM
PDT}

BA77: As to Bill Walton’s comment” “I believe in science and evolution.” .................. What I take away from Walton's comment is that he is separating "science" from "evolution" otherwise why would you separate the two if it was just about science ? This stupid childish double standard and Pot to Kettle in these comments here the local intellects here is tiring. The other side "Evos" would be "cry-babying" foul if Dave Pasch offered Bill Walton a bible and stated he believed in science and creation. Clearly Walton has no problem with "Science" and "Faith". There it's fixed now. Both these guys have been going round and round with each other for a long time http://tucson.com/sports/basketball/college/wildcats/unlikely-broadcast-duo-pasch-walton-swear-they-get-along/article_b76d7ce6-fe9a-5205-aa8c-a2db499b064b.htmlDavidD_{January 21, 2015
January
01
Jan
21
21
2015
11:51 PM
11
11
51
PM
PDT}

Lose the nonsense about Betteridge. It’s old and incorrect.
For being incorrect, it sure is remarkable how well it holds up around here.goodusername_{January 21, 2015
January
01
Jan
21
21
2015
11:33 PM
11
11
33
PM
PDT}

H'mm: A live, on air "birthday present" -- where were the candles . . . -- of Origin of Species joined to stuff on believing "Science" and naming Grand Canyon? This, given to a Christian who then responds by trying to get back on topic, only naming a theme, Irreducible Complexity? Sounds like an ideological set-up, loaded with insinuations. While dismissal is a rumour only, that it is even taken as noteworthy and adverse for the man set up on live TV should be troubling. KFkairosfocus_{January 21, 2015
January
01
Jan
21
21
2015
11:20 PM
11
11
20
PM
PDT}

Mark Frank at 14 has probably never been in the news business. Lose the nonsense about Betteridge. It's old and incorrect. Mentioning that someone might be fired for dissing the prophet Darwin is roughly like suggesting that someone might be beheaded for dissing a different Prophet. It happens. And as that lady said in the Stoning of Soraya M., one wants the world to know. No, this isn't as serious, but why should we let it get to be as serious before the world knows? The Darwinists who display themselves in all their glory above are perfectly content that that guy was set up and his career maybe wrecked - that'll teach HIM for having questions or doubts. Funny, I catch a nap, and you do all my work for me. Thanks, guys. I don't think you have any idea how much you contribute to our brand.News_{January 21, 2015
January
01
Jan
21
21
2015
11:01 PM
11
11
01
PM
PDT}

This seems to be yet another example of Betteridge's Law of Headlines. Any headline which ends in a question mark can be answered by the word "no." The reason why journalists use that style of headline is that they know the story is probably bullshit, and don’t actually have the sources and facts to back it up, but still want to run it."Mark Frank_{January 21, 2015
January
01
Jan
21
21
2015
10:47 PM
10
10
47
PM
PDT}

If anyone gets fired, it should be Walton for inciting religious persecution on national television. Pasch did the professional thing and tried to get back to the game quickly. So if you want to fire the guy who wasn't doing his job, it's the attacker and not the guy defending himselfMrCollins_{January 21, 2015
January
01
Jan
21
21
2015
10:01 PM
10
10
01
PM
PDT}

I use general terms to include all sports as I have no idea who these people are, nor do I have an opinion on US sports, which appear very strange to me. So, he was asked about his beliefs. Again, why is this even part of a sports broadcast? If he was pressed for an answer to a completely un-sport related field why did he not say, 'that's irrelevant Bill.' I have to add that NEWS is truly desperate to spread the victim theme. My only comment to that would be that ID today, has become so irrelevant to YEC, and OEC that the victim road is the only one that gets a mild notice.rvb8_{January 21, 2015
January
01
Jan
21
21
2015
09:46 PM
9
09
46
PM
PDT}

rvb8, To be fair, it was Bill Walton that started it (at least from the video cited), and then kind of put him on the spot. But yeah, it was a bit cringe-worthy.goodusername_{January 21, 2015
January
01
Jan
21
21
2015
09:22 PM
9
09
22
PM
PDT}

What business has a sports caster got mentioning any thing about god or religion? He should be fired for simply not doing his job. When the game is on do I really want the caster to say; "Well Bob, that play went like clockwork, probably the work of intelligence.."? No I do not! Clumsily shoving god onto the pitch is misplaced idiocy and the guy most certainly should be for the chop; get rid of the cretin. And as he walks to the door, ask him to explain why the most Christian of teams sometimes lose; perhaps one of the team is not pulling His weight?rvb8_{January 21, 2015
January
01
Jan
21
21
2015
08:55 PM
8
08
55
PM
PDT}

This is a 3Rd hand quote who cites the"word on the street" persecution complex for cheap points on display. There was another.articles on this site about conspiracy theories being believed by those with more extreme political views. Very tellingsmiddyone_{January 21, 2015
January
01
Jan
21
21
2015
08:49 PM
8
08
49
PM
PDT}

tjguy,
You may not think it is serious, but I bet the guy getting fired does.
Do you think the sportscaster is getting fired for this?goodusername_{January 21, 2015
January
01
Jan
21
21
2015
08:48 PM
8
08
48
PM
PDT}

Goodusername
What serious issue is that?
You may not think it is serious, but I bet the guy getting fired does. Since Darwinists are in control and can fire people at will for their views on evolution, you can rest at ease, but not the rest of us. It is serious for the us. Many scientists have had their careers derailed by their views on this subject.tjguy_{January 21, 2015
January
01
Jan
21
21
2015
08:42 PM
8
08
42
PM
PDT}

BA77, I wasn't talking about the times that it's been alleged that someone was fired for supporting ID or opposing Darwinism; I'm talking about all the times on UD that it's been predicted or asked if someone is going to be fired, such as in the OP.goodusername_{January 21, 2015
January
01
Jan
21
21
2015
08:06 PM
8
08
06
PM
PDT}

Teething biscuits...Gary S. Gaulin_{January 21, 2015
January
01
Jan
21
21
2015
07:54 PM
7
07
54
PM
PDT}

as to: “Will X be fired for supporting ID?” or something similar, has it ever happened? Even once?"
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (full movie) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5EPymcWp-g Slaughter of Dissidents - Book "If folks liked Ben Stein's movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," they will be blown away by "Slaughter of the Dissidents." - Russ Miller http://www.amazon.com/Slaughter-Dissidents-Dr-Jerry-Bergman/dp/0981873405 Origins - Slaughter of the Dissidents with Dr. Jerry Bergman - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6rzaM_BxBk “In the last few years I have seen a saddening progression at several institutions. I have witnessed unfair treatment upon scientists that do not accept macroevolutionary arguments and for their having signed the above-referenced statement regarding the examination of Darwinism. (Dissent from Darwinism list)(I will comment no further regarding the specifics of the actions taken upon the skeptics; I love and honor my colleagues too much for that.) I never thought that science would have evolved like this. I deeply value the academy; teaching, professing and research in the university are my privileges and joys… ” Professor James M. Tour – one of the ten most cited chemists in the world https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-world-famous-chemist-tells-the-truth-theres-no-scientist-alive-today-who-understands-macroevolution/ Top Ten Most Cited Chemist in the World Knows Darwinian Evolution Does Not Work - James Tour, Phd. - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Y5-VNg-S0s
bornagain77_{January 21, 2015
January
01
Jan
21
21
2015
07:50 PM
7
07
50
PM
PDT}

As to Bill Walton's comment"
“I believe in science and evolution."
Actually if Bill Walton truly does 'believe in science' then he should definitely not believe in Darwinian Evolution. Darwinian evolution is not even a real science in the first place but is in fact a pseudo-science that does not even have a rigid falsification criteria like other overarching theories of science have,,,
Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science: The primary reasons why Darwinism is a pseudo-science instead of a proper science are as such: 1. No Rigid Mathematical Basis (Falsification Criteria) 2. No Demonstrated Empirical Basis 3. Random Mutation and Natural Selection are both grossly inadequate as ‘creative engines’ 4. Information is not reducible to a material basis, (in fact, in quantum teleportation it is found that material ultimately reduces to a information basis) https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oaPcK-KCppBztIJmXUBXTvZTZ5lHV4Qg_pnzmvVL2Qw/edit
Besides that little embarrassing fact for Darwinists (i.e. that Darwinism does not even qualify as a real science in the first place), is the fact that 'science' cannot even be grounded in the naturalistic/materialistic worldview that undergirds Darwinian thought. In fact, if naturalism were true it would lead to the epistemological failure of science:
Scientific Peer Review is in Trouble: From Medical Science to Darwinism - Mike Keas - October 10, 2012 Excerpt: Survival is all that matters on evolutionary naturalism. Our evolving brains are more likely to give us useful fictions that promote survival rather than the truth about reality. Thus evolutionary naturalism undermines all rationality (including confidence in science itself). Renown philosopher Alvin Plantinga has argued against naturalism in this way (summary of that argument is linked on the site:). Or, if your short on time and patience to grasp Plantinga's nuanced argument, see if you can digest this thought from evolutionary cognitive psychologist Steve Pinker, who baldly states: "Our brains are shaped for fitness, not for truth; sometimes the truth is adaptive, sometimes it is not." Steven Pinker, evolutionary cognitive psychologist, How the Mind Works (W.W. Norton, 1997), p. 305. http://blogs.christianpost.com/science-and-faith/scientific-peer-review-is-in-trouble-from-medical-science-to-darwinism-12421/ Why No One (Can) Believe Atheism/Naturalism to be True (Plantinga’s Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism) - video Excerpt: "Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not concerned with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life." Richard Dawkins - quoted from "The God Delusion" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4QFsKevTXs Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (An Introduction) - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpQ1-AGPysM Quote: "In evolutionary games we put truth (true perception) on the stage and it dies. And in genetic algorithms it (true perception) never gets on the stage" Donald Hoffman PhD. - Consciousness and The Interface Theory of Perception - 7:19 to 9:20 minute mark - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=dqDP34a-epI#t=439 BRUCE GORDON: Hawking's irrational arguments - October 2010 Excerpt: What is worse, multiplying without limit the opportunities for any event to happen in the context of a multiverse - where it is alleged that anything can spontaneously jump into existence without cause - produces a situation in which no absurdity is beyond the pale. For instance, we find multiverse cosmologists debating the "Boltzmann Brain" problem: In the most "reasonable" models for a multiverse, it is immeasurably more likely that our consciousness is associated with a brain that has spontaneously fluctuated into existence in the quantum vacuum than it is that we have parents and exist in an orderly universe with a 13.7 billion-year history. This is absurd. The multiverse hypothesis is therefore falsified because it renders false what we know to be true about ourselves. Clearly, embracing the multiverse idea entails a nihilistic irrationality that destroys the very possibility of science. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/1/hawking-irrational-arguments/
Moreover, modern science was not born out of naturalism but was born out of the Judeo Christian belief that the universe was created by the rational mind of God and that we, being made in God's image, could therefore discern the rationality with which God has created the universe
The Threat to the Scientific Method that Explains the Spate of Fraudulent Science Publications - Calvin Beisner | Jul 23, 2014 Excerpt: It is precisely because modern science has abandoned its foundations in the Biblical worldview (which holds, among other things, that a personal, rational God designed a rational universe to be understood and controlled by rational persons made in His image) and the Biblical ethic (which holds, among other things, that we are obligated to tell the truth even when it inconveniences us) that science is collapsing. As such diverse historians and philosophers of science as Alfred North Whitehead, Pierre Duhem, Loren Eiseley, Rodney Stark, and many others have observed, and as I pointed out in two of my talks at the Ninth International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC), science—not an occasional flash of insight here and there, but a systematic, programmatic, ongoing way of studying and controlling the world—arose only once in history, and only in one place: medieval Europe, once known as “Christendom,” where that Biblical worldview reigned supreme. That is no accident. Science could not have arisen without that worldview. http://townhall.com/columnists/calvinbeisner/2014/07/23/the-threat-to-the-scientific-method-that-explains-the-spate-of-fraudulent-science-publications-n1865201/page/full Several other resources backing up this claim are available, such as Thomas Woods, Stanley Jaki, David Linberg, Edward Grant, J.L. Heilbron, and Christopher Dawson. Science and Theism: Concord, not Conflict* – Robert C. Koons IV. The Dependency of Science Upon Theism (Page 21) Excerpt: Far from undermining the credibility of theism, the remarkable success of science in modern times is a remarkable confirmation of the truth of theism. It was from the perspective of Judeo-Christian theism—and from the perspective alone—that it was predictable that science would have succeeded as it has. Without the faith in the rational intelligibility of the world and the divine vocation of human beings to master it, modern science would never have been possible, and, even today, the continued rationality of the enterprise of science depends on convictions that can be reasonably grounded only in theistic metaphysics. http://www.robkoons.net/media/69b0dd04a9d2fc6dffff80b3ffffd524.pdf
Moreover, modern science flourished quite well when Christianity was far more respected in America than it currently is:
Bruce Charlton's Miscellany - October 2011 Excerpt: I had discovered that over the same period of the twentieth century that the US had risen to scientific eminence it had undergone a significant Christian revival. ,,,The point I put to (Richard) Dawkins was that the USA was simultaneously by-far the most dominant scientific nation in the world (I knew this from various scientometic studies I was doing at the time) and by-far the most religious (Christian) nation in the world. How, I asked, could this be - if Christianity was culturally inimical to science? http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2011/10/meeting-richard-dawkins-and-his-wife.html
Thus, if Bill Walton truly 'believes in science' then he should definitely not believe in Darwinian evolution. Moreover, he, especially, should not believe in the atheistic naturalism that undergirds Darwinian thought since it is the root cause for the epistemological failure of science.!bornagain77_{January 21, 2015
January
01
Jan
21
21
2015
07:40 PM
7
07
40
PM
PDT}

News,
We are discussing a serious issue here.
What serious issue is that? Do you really think the sportscaster may be fired for that? Seriously? Stories like this have been a regular feature on UD. In all the times over the years that you've asked "Will X be fired for supporting ID?" or something similar, has it ever happened? Even once?goodusername_{January 21, 2015
January
01
Jan
21
21
2015
07:11 PM
7
07
11
PM
PDT}

AVS:
Meanwhile people are being beheaded in the Middle East and there’s a mass shooting every other day. Thanks god.
Atheists Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao killed tens of millions. Thanks, atheism. And we all can't wait to go on vacation to atheist North Korea, the favorite holiday destination of billions. Not.Mapou_{January 21, 2015
January
01
Jan
21
21
2015
06:45 PM
6
06
45
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply