Here is a 6:57 pm EST live link from a different lecture making largely the same points.
Download it if you can.
Otherwise, Feel the Smug. You will be living with the tenured Smug the rest of your crappy lives.
18 Replies to “Coursera vid by “Darwinism is wrong” prof banned from YouTube”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Thanks for this post. Has Youtube made an official statement on why the video was banned? Could it have been a simple mistake?
It’s gone.
He references Karl Popper at the beginning of the video,,,
and then at the 41 second mark he states:
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:
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.”
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/early-complexity-a-case-study-of-evolutionary-theory/#comment-650322
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,,,
,,, 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”
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
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,,
,,, 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.
As William James Murray quipped, “Who would have thought that it would be biologists that came up with the first Theory of Everything?”
Supplemental Notes:
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.
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?
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.
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.
“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 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.
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,
Anyone who quotes Rush wins the internet.
Andrew
“The most endangered species
The honest man”
Andrew
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.
3/29/2018 4:41 EST still up.
We don’t need it on Youtube when BA is here to summarise it for us.
Still up at 1:35 pm EST.
News,
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.