Coursera vid by “Darwinism is wrong” prof banned from YouTube

News,

Bob O’H at 9, I am going to wait and see what happens, update later. Somebody banned it and we do not know why.

Videos removed from YouTube are done for many reasons. Violating youtube nudity and violence policies. Violating copyright. Removal by the person who posted it. If it was a university lecture, the university owns the copyright, not the prof. If it was a talk given at a conference, the conference organizers own the copyright, not the speaker. Even with science journals, the journal owns the copyright, not the author. I’m not going to jump to some anti ID conspiracy when there is probably a more innocent explanation. Allan Keith

Still up at 1:35 pm EST. News

We don't need it on Youtube when BA is here to summarise it for us. aarceng

3/29/2018 4:41 EST still up. News

Bob O’H at 9, I am going to wait and see what happens, update later. Somebody banned it and we do not know why.

No, someone took down one (or a few) videos. You dn't seem to have any evidence that the "prof" (i.e. the person) has been banned. Bob O'H

"The most endangered species The honest man" Andrew asauber

“those that know what’s best for us, must rise and save us from ourselves”

Tom Robbins, Anyone who quotes Rush wins the internet. Andrew asauber

We must worship Darwin and no other Gods, We must worship Darwin and no other Gods....damn automatons, what are they afraid of? I think in this case it is a matter of self-righteous know-it-all-ism, rather than some evil plot, but that's how it starts. I think the words Creationism and Darwin must have been tag by their algorhythms, one wonders if a human has the final say. I would imagine so. I for one, unless it is ultra-violent, or encouraging violence, say let the people decide with up down votes. But the people deciding seems to be a quaint idea today - "those that know what's best for us, must rise and save us from ourselves" Tom Robbins

Bob O'H at 9, I am going to wait and see what happens, update later. Somebody banned it and we do not know why. I've had enough personal experience of big social media to know what crap can happen, especially when Darwin trolls get involved. News

"The source" being the University of Edinburgh, not YouTube, then? IOW, he hasn't been banned from YouTube, and your headline is wrong. Unless you have any evidence that he was actually banned from YouTube, I hope you'll correct your headline. Bob O'H

polistra at 6, yes, other sources are becoming essential for the free flow of information. Radio Free Internet? ;) Bob O'H at 10, "the setting was changed by the uploader" is what would happen if the banning occurs from the source. Private information suggests that Super-A Darwinistas played a role but further events will doubtless provide more info. News

Is there any evidence this video was banned? The other videos are listed as private, which suggests the setting was changed by the uploader. The speaker moved to Cardiff U. last year, so possibly that might have affected decisions about the video's availability. Hopefully there's a journalist available who can do some basic checking of the story. Bob O'H

Well, there are plenty of alternative places to post a video for free. When you don't USE the alternatives, you can't complain about a monopoly. Vimeo is easy to use. Why not? polistra

The second vid, making largely the same points, is still here https://www.coursera.org/learn/philosophy-science-religion-1/lecture/cAdvB/lecture-4-9-is-evolutionary-biology-scientific as of 2:44 am EST Note: I hear lots of complaints about Silicon Valley these days. All one can think of to say in response is: We need alternative social media giants. That guy could be right or wrong but we don't need some whiny super-annuable Darwinist deciding what we are allowed to see and hear. Thanks to bornagain77 above for summarizing some of the issues. News

Imre Lakatos, who, like Popper, is another prominent philosopher of science, although he tipped toed around the failure of Darwinism to have a rigid demarcation criteria in science,,,

Imre Lakatos In his 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture 1[12] he (Lakatos) also claimed that “nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific”. - per wikipedia A Philosophical Question…Does Evolution have a Hard Core? Some Concluding Food for Thought In my research on the demarcation problem, I have noticed philosophers of science attempting to balance (usually unconsciously) a consistent demarcation criteria against the disruptive effects that its application might have with regard to the academic status quo (and evolution in particular)… Few philosophers of science will even touch such matters, but (perhaps unintentionally) Imre Lakatos does offer us a peek at how one might go about balancing these schizophrenic demands (in Motterlini1999: 24) “Let us call the first school militant positivism; you will understand why later on. The problem of this school was to find certain demarcation criteria similar to those I have outlined, but these also had to satisfy certain boundary conditions, as a mathematician would say. I am referring to a definite set of people to which most scientists as well as Popper and Carnap would belong. These people think that there are goodies and baddies among scientific theories, and once you have defined a demarcation criterion. you should divide all your theories between the two groups. You would end up. for example, with a goodies list including Copernicus’s (Theory1), Galileo’s (T2), Kepler’s (T3), Newton’s (T4) … and Einstein’s (T5), along with (but this is just my supposition) Darwin’s (T6). Let me just anticipate that nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific, but this is exactly what we are looking for.” So basically, the demarcation problem is a fun game philosophers enjoy playing, but when they realize the implications regarding the theory of evolution, they quickly back off… http://www.samizdat.qc.ca/cosmos/philo/hardcore_pg.htm

,,, although Lakatos tipped toed around the failure of Darwinism to have a rigid demarcation criteria in science, Lakatos was brave enough to state that a good scientific theory will make successful predictions in science whereas “In degenerating programmes, however, (epicycle) theories are fabricated only in order to accommodate known facts”

Science and Pseudoscience (transcript) – “In degenerating programmes, however, theories are fabricated only in order to accommodate known facts” – Imre Lakatos (November 9, 1922 – February 2, 1974) a philosopher of mathematics and science, , quote as stated in 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture http://www2.lse.ac.uk/philosophy/about/lakatos/scienceandpseudosciencetranscript.aspx

And in regards to a theory making false predictions and then making up ad hoc theories to cover up those false predictions, then Darwinian evolution more than qualifies as a pseudoscience using Lakatos's criteria for classifying something as a pseudoscience

Here’s That Algae Study That Decouples Phylogeny and Competition – June 17, 2014 Excerpt: “With each new absurdity another new complicated just-so story is woven into evolutionary theory. As Lakatos explained, some theories simply are not falsifiable. But as a result they sacrifice realism and parsimony.” – Cornelius Hunter http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2014/06/heres-that-algae-study-that-decouples.html Darwin’s (Failed) Predictions - Cornelius Hunter https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/ Darwin’s (Failed) Predictions: An Interview with Cornelius Hunter, Part I and II http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/06/darwins_failed_predictions_an021311.html http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/06/darwins_failed_predictions_an_1021321.html

Of humorous note, in regards to a theory adding ad hoc theories to cover up embarrassing findings, the only thing that anyone can ever seem to catch ‘evolving’ in the real world,,

How Biochemist Matti Leisola’s Lab Experience Persuaded Him of Intelligent Design - March 27, 2018 Excerpt: Dr. Leisola (a biochemist),, spoke via Skype recently to a gathering in Dallas and summarized the situation this way: "My experience as a scientist has been that although we can modify microorganisms to do something that we want them to do, or modify proteins to function better, this modification is fairly modest. We really cannot change nature’s system very much, very far. And even when we change the organism to do something we want [it] to do, they usually return to their natural, original state.",,, ,,,there’s a limit to what can be achieved by bioengineers. Beyond that, nature resists mightily. Even his own design, as an expert researcher and with the most advanced technology at his disposal, is not sufficient to overcome such resistance. https://evolutionnews.org/2018/03/how-matti-leisolas-lab-experience-persuaded-him-of-intelligent-design/

,,, the only thing that anyone can ever seem to catch ‘evolving’ in the real world is the theory of Darwinian evolution itself. Darwin’s pseudo-theory is forever plastic and is able to explain completely contradictory results with equal ease.

“Being an evolutionist means there is no bad news. If new species appear abruptly in the fossil record, that just means evolution operates in spurts. If species then persist for eons with little modification, that just means evolution takes long breaks. If clever mechanisms are discovered in biology, that just means evolution is smarter than we imagined. If strikingly similar designs are found in distant species, that just means evolution repeats itself. If significant differences are found in allied species, that just means evolution sometimes introduces new designs rapidly. If no likely mechanism can be found for the large-scale change evolution requires, that just means evolution is mysterious. If adaptation responds to environmental signals, that just means evolution has more foresight than was thought. If major predictions of evolution are found to be false, that just means evolution is more complex than we thought.” ~ Cornelius Hunter

As William James Murray quipped, “Who would have thought that it would be biologists that came up with the first Theory of Everything?”

Who would have thought that it would be biologists that came up with the first Theory of Everything? Biological divergence? Evolution. Biological convergence? Evolution. Gradual variation? Evolution. Sudden variation? Evolution. Stasis? Evolution. Junk DNA? Evolution. No Junk DNA? Evolution. Tree of life? Evolution. No tree of life? Evolution. Common genes? Evolution. Orfan genes? Evolution. Cell with little more than a jelly-like protoplasm? Evolution. Cell filled with countless, highly-specified nano-machines directed by a software code? Evolution. More hardy, more procreative organisms? Evolution. Less hardy, less procreative organisms? Evolution. – Evolution explains everything. – William J Murray

Supplemental Notes:

Darwinian Evolution: A Pseudoscience based on Unrestrained Imagination and Bad Liberal Theology - video https://youtu.be/KeDi6gUMQJQ Darwinian Evolution Fails the Five Standard Tests of a Scientific Hypothesis - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7f_fyoPybw

bornagain77

He references Karl Popper at the beginning of the video,,,

Dubitable Darwin? Why Some Smart, Nonreligious People Doubt the Theory of Evolution By John Horgan on July 6, 2010 Excerpt: Early in his career, the philosopher Karl Popper ,, called evolution via natural selection "almost a tautology" and "not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research program." Attacked for these criticisms, Popper took them back (in approx 1978). But when I interviewed him in 1992, he blurted out that he still found Darwin's theory dissatisfying. "One ought to look for alternatives!" Popper exclaimed, banging his kitchen table. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/dubitable-darwin-why-some-smart-nonreligious-people-doubt-the-theory-of-evolution/

and then at the 41 second mark he states:

Evolutionary Biology 1 Not guided by natural law 2. Not falsifiable 3. Cannot be empirically tested

The primary reason why Darwinian evolution is more properly classified as a pseudoscience instead of a testable science is that Darwinian evolution has no mathematical model to test against. As Dr Robert Marks states ““there exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. According to our current understanding, there never will be.,,,” <blockquote “There exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. Hard sciences are built on foundations of mathematics or definitive simulations. Examples include electromagnetics, Newtonian mechanics, geophysics, relativity, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, optics, and many areas in biology. Those hoping to establish Darwinian evolution as a hard science with a model have either failed or inadvertently cheated. These models contain guidance mechanisms to land the airplane squarely on the target runway despite stochastic wind gusts. Not only can the guiding assistance be specifically identified in each proposed evolution model, its contribution to the success can be measured, in bits, as active information.,,,”,,, “there exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. According to our current understanding, there never will be.,,,” – Robert J. Marks II – Top Ten Questions and Objections to ‘Introduction to Evolutionary Informatics’ – June 12, 2017 The primary reason why nobody has ever been able to build a realistic mathematical model for Darwinian evolution to test against is simply because there is no ‘law of evolution’ within the known physical universe for mathematicians and physicists to build a realistic mathematical model upon:

Laws of science 1 Conservation laws 1.1 Conservation and symmetry 1.2 Continuity and transfer 2 Laws of classical mechanics 2.1 Principle of least action 3 Laws of gravitation and relativity 3.1 Modern laws 3.2 Classical laws 4 Thermodynamics 5 Electromagnetism 6 Photonics 7 Laws of quantum mechanics 8 Radiation laws 9 Laws of chemistry 10 Geophysical laws per wikipedia

As Ernst Mayr himself conceded, “In biology, as several other people have shown, and I totally agree with them, there are no natural laws in biology corresponding to the natural laws of the physical sciences.”

The Evolution of Ernst: Interview with Ernst Mayr – 2004 (page 2 of 14) Excerpt: biology (Darwinian Evolution) differs from the physical sciences in that in the physical sciences, all theories, I don’t know exceptions so I think it’s probably a safe statement, all theories are based somehow or other on natural laws. In biology, as several other people have shown, and I totally agree with them, there are no natural laws in biology corresponding to the natural laws of the physical sciences. ,,, And so that’s what I do in this book. I show that the theoretical basis, you might call it, or I prefer to call it the philosophy of biology, has a totally different basis than the theories of physics. https://www.scientificamerican.com/media/pdf/0004D8E1-178C-10EB-978C83414B7F012C.pdf

In the following article, Roger Highfield makes much the same observation as Ernst Mayr and states, ,,, Whatever the case, those universal truths—’laws’—that physicists and chemists all rely upon appear relatively absent from biology.

WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? Evolution is True – Roger Highfield – January 2014 Excerpt: If evolutionary biologists are really Seekers of the Truth, they need to focus more on finding the mathematical regularities of biology, following in the giant footsteps of Sewall Wright, JBS Haldane, Ronald Fisher and so on. ,,, Whatever the case, those universal truths—’laws’—that physicists and chemists all rely upon appear relatively absent from biology. Little seems to have changed from a decade ago when the late and great John Maynard Smith wrote a chapter on evolutionary game theory for a book on the most powerful equations of science: his contribution did not include a single equation. http://www.edge.org/response-detail/25468

Professor Murray Eden of MIT, in a paper entitled “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory” stated that “the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.”

“It is our contention that if ‘random’ is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.” Murray Eden, “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory,” Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, June 1967, p. 109. https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~christos/evol/compevol_files/Wistar-Eden-1.pdf

In fact, not only is there no ‘law of evolution’ within the known physical universe for Darwinists to build a realistic mathematical model upon, the second law of thermodynamics, entropy, a law with great mathematical explanatory power in science, almost directly contradicts the primary Darwinian claim that greater and greater levels of functional complexity can easily be had and/or ‘naturally selected’ for over long periods of time. Indeed, entropy’s main claim is that, over long periods of time, everything in the universe will decay into simpler and simpler states until what is termed thermodynamic equilibrium is finally reached. And whereas Darwinian evolution has no known law of nature to appeal to so as to establish itself as a proper, testable, science, Intelligent Design does not suffer from such a disconnect from physical reality. In other words, Intelligent Design can appeal directly to ‘the laws of conservation of information’ (Dembski, Marks, etc..) in order to establish itself as a proper, testable, and rigorous science.

Conservation of information, evolution, etc – Sept. 30, 2014 Excerpt: Kurt Gödel’s logical objection to Darwinian evolution: “The formation in geological time of the human body by the laws of physics (or any other laws of similar nature), starting from a random distribution of elementary particles and the field is as unlikely as the separation of the atmosphere into its components. The complexity of the living things has to be present within the material [from which they are derived] or in the laws [governing their formation].” Gödel – As quoted in H. Wang. “On `computabilism’ and physicalism: Some Problems.” in Nature’s Imagination, J. Cornwall, Ed, pp.161-189, Oxford University Press (1995). Gödel’s argument is that if evolution is unfolding from an initial state by mathematical laws of physics, it cannot generate any information not inherent from the start – and in his view, neither the primaeval environment nor the laws are information-rich enough.,,, More recently this led him (Dembski) to postulate a Law of Conservation of Information, or actually to consolidate the idea, first put forward by Nobel-prizewinner Peter Medawar in the 1980s. Medawar had shown, as others before him, that in mathematical and computational operations, no new information can be created, but new findings are always implicit in the original starting points – laws and axioms.,,, http://potiphar.jongarvey.co.uk/2014/09/30/conservation-of-information-evolution-etc/ 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 (mathematically) 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

And since Intelligent Design is mathematically based on the ‘law of conservation of information’, that makes Intelligent Design very much testable and potentially falsifiable, and thus makes Intelligent Design, unlike Darwinism, a rigorous science instead of a unfalsifiable pseudoscience.

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

Of supplemental note: Although Darwinian evolution, (since it has no mathematical basis that is based on a universal law), certainly does not qualify as a real science but is more realistically classified as a pseudoscience, Darwinian evolution has still, nonetheless, been falsified by empirical evidence and mathematics. (even though Darwinists STILL refuse to accept falsification for their theory) https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/early-complexity-a-case-study-of-evolutionary-theory/#comment-650322 bornagain77

It's gone. ronvanwegen

Thanks for this post. Has Youtube made an official statement on why the video was banned? Could it have been a simple mistake? Truth Will Set You Free