Brian Cox's Wonders of Life - Evolution Clips and Critiques

1 comments
"ANY theory that explains the evolution and diversity of life must have a significant non-random component. There are simply too many combinations in the genetic code for anything interesting to appear spontaneously as a result of random mutations and assembly of bases ... The requirement that every code must produce a living animal ... is highly restrictive, and rules out the overwhelming majority of possible codes."
~ Brian Cox & Andrew Cohen, Wonders of Life: The Book of the Acclaimed BBC TV Series




I agree that there must be a non-random element to the evolution of new functional genetic information, but is natural selection really adequate to do the job? Can it really function as a "blind watchmaker"? So far, I've seen no good evidence for this. Only assertions and storytelling.

On the eye evolution story

The Oversimplified Eye Evolution Fairytale

On evolution being a "law" or an "underlying theory" akin to thermodynamics or relativity

Why Do We Invoke Darwin?
Why We Invoke Darwin: Philip Skell Responds
Giving Thanks for Dr. Philip Skell
ID The Future: Philip Skell Interviews

On life being an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics (the thesis of episode one)

Front-Loading & Theistic Evolution: Dr. Stephen Meyer Explains

See also

Rockstars of Scientism: Brian Cox's Orwellian Conclusion
Rockstars of Scientism 2: Nye & Dawkins
In Defense of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed and Intelligent Design

Rockstars of Scientism 2: Nye & Dawkins

4 comments


Examining the subject of Darwinian evolution, this video refutes Bill Nye's comments in a video that went viral last year and deconstructs Richard Dawkins' foundational works and hypocritical demarcation arguments that are used to justify persecution of Darwin dissenters.

Music: DJ Shadow - Building Steam with a Grain of Salt (Instrumental)

Animations: Drew Berry / WEHI-TV, Harvard Biovisions, NOVA

Cambrian Art: D.W. Miller

Links

Rockstars of Scientism: Brian Cox's Orwellian Conclusion

In Defense of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed and Intelligent Design

David Icke on Richard Dawkins

Sponge genome goes deep

Macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution

Why Do We Invoke Darwin?
Why We Invoke Darwin: Philip Skell Responds
Giving Thanks for Dr. Philip Skell
ID The Future: Philip Skell Interviews

Rockstars of Scientism: Brian Cox's Orwellian Conclusion

0 comments


The first in what is intended to be a series of videos debunking pop "science" celebrities. This video addresses comments made by Professor Brian Cox during a 2010 Royal Television Society lecture which aired on the BBC. In the lecture, the pop-star physicist spouted an Orwellian definition of impartiality and justified it by appealing to almighty peer-review - a familiar tactic often employed by global warming propagandists. This video challenges his fundamental idealist assumption that "the peer-reviewed consensus is, by definition, impartial".

It's all very well and good making videos debunking the likes of Al Gore and the IPCC, but let's be honest, those guys are a joke! But popular scientists and naturalists like Brian Cox and David Attenborough are more respected and trusted. And so when they make programs about climate change, people believe them. It's time their propaganda was subjected to the same scrutiny.

I just want to be clear that I am not "anti-science". I love science. What my videos are attacking is Scientism - the almost religious worship of the scientific establishment and materialist philosophy, which is what pop science has largely become nowadays.

Music: CSS Music - Suspicion Confirmed.

Links

The Life of Brian – Science Messiah or Very Naughty Boy?

Climategate and Peer-review

Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered
Reviewed or Not Reviewed?

Supreme Court Opinion: Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (1993)
Brief Amici Curiae of Stephen Jay Gould et al

Publication Prejudices: An Experimental Study of Confirmatory Bias in the Peer Review System

Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals
Is Peer Review Censorship?

The Ten Commandments of "Skeptics" and "Science Bloggers"

1 comments


01. The scientific establishment is thy lord thy god. Thou shalt have no other gods before it. Thou shalt worship it and its trinity: The consensus, the prestige and the holy peer-review. Thou shalt label anyone who dare challenge it as "anti-science".

02. Thou shalt make unto thy opponent a graven image of a man out of straw, with no likeness to their actual arguments, and knock it down.

03. Thou shalt equivocate terms such as "climate change", "evolution", "vaccines", "GMOs" and "science" to misrepresent thy opponent's position, and to create the illusion of overwhelming evidence for the establishment position.

04. Remember the term "denialist", and keep it holy.

05. Honour thy Darwin and thy materialism. Science is not science unless it is materialistic and Darwinian. Any professor who lies with design as one lies with Darwin shall be trolled to tenure death, for they have committed an abomination.

06. Correlation doth not equal causation, unless said correlation doth support man-made global warming or vaccine safety and effectiveness.

07. Thou shalt not believe in any supernatural phenomena, because there is no empirical evidence for such tripe, only anecdotal. However, thou shalt believe in the multiverse - for which there is no evidence whatsoever, not even anecdotal - because scientists say so.

08. Apply thy infinite skepticism only one way. Never be skeptical of thyself.

09. Thy tone shalt be dismissive, arrogant and elitist and thou shalt favour ad-hominems, buzzwords and psychological profiling over reasoned debate over the evidence.

10. Being a free-thinker means keeping thy mind open to the possibility of ludicrously improbable coincidence and closed to any other explanation.