Results for: nyu Search Results
Family Filter:
5:54
Dr. James D. Sterling began private practice soon after obtaining his Doctor of Philosophy in psychology from the University of Chicago. Today, through his New York Center for Psychotherapy, Dr. James D. Sterling is able to leverage the many relationships he has been fortunate to make through the years in order to increase care for his clients. In addition to being a respected family and marital therapist, Dr. James D. Sterling serves as an Assistant Clinical Professor at Mount Sinai Medical Center. Recently, Dr. James D. Sterling spoke with Interviewing Experts Blog about the other specialists he works with to provide the highest quality care for New York residents who need it. Interviewing Experts: You’ve been on the faculty at Mt. Sinai for a while. Tell us about your position there. Dr. James D. Sterling: I’ve been an Assistant Clinical Professor in the Department of Psychiatry at Mount Sinai since 2000 before that I was a clinical instructor in the same department. Prior to that, I was a clinical instructor at Metropolitan Hospital in New York in the Department of Psychiatry. Interviewing Experts: How has this enhanced your practice? Dr. James D. Sterling: In part, my work as a clinical instructor helps me educate others, but I find I actually learn from my students as well. And it also helps me to be able to make connections that help my clients. In addition regular weekly meetings with faculty lead by Dr. Hillel Swiller provided the opportunity a stimulating opportunity to exchange ideas with other professionals. Interviewing Experts: Because of this, you have connections at Mount Sinai. How does this help you serve your clients better? Dr. James D. Sterling: Mount Sinai has one of the outstanding psychiatry departments in the country, with revolutionary research into emotional and mental disorders and autism. Having access to the excellent specialists at Mount Sinai allows me to refer patients who need extremely specialized care. Interviewing Experts: We often send clients to physicians in particular medical specialties at New York Cornell Medical Center like Dr. David Blumenthal in Cardiology and Dr. Frank Petito in neurology and Patrick O’Leary in Orthopedics and Edward Muecke in urology to get the specialized care they need. Interviewing Experts: You also have connections at NYU. Can you tell us a little about how those connections help your practice? Dr. James D. Sterling: NYU’s Langone Medical Center has a focus on addiction, brain aging, schizophrenia, trauma, and obesity. This emphasis gives the center a specialty that comes in useful when we have a client who needs assistance in this particular area. Interviewing Experts: The hospital also does extensive neuroscience research… Dr. James D. Sterling: Yes. NYU has the Center for Neural Science, which delves into the relationship between the brain’s physiological makeup and a variety of psychological issues. Interviewing Experts: What are some of your other connections in New York? Dr. James D. Sterling: Columbia University is another valuable referral source for the New York Center for Psychotherapy. Interviewing Experts: And I know that Columbia is known for its innovative research, as well. Dr. James D. Sterling: Absolutely! Columbia Psychiatry has a large faculty that includes some of the premier neuroscientists of our time. Interviewing Experts: Columbia has a large psychiatric hospital, doesn’t it? Dr. James D. Sterling: Yes, and one of the many features at Columbia University is a child psychiatric clinic. This is a newly renovated clinic, with doctors specializing in child psychiatry. Interviewing Experts: Since New York Center for Psychotherapy specializes in family and marital care, do you find you often refer clients? Dr. James D. Sterling: Yes often. While we work with our clients to improve communication and intimacy in relationships, sometimes there are issues that impact the individuals in a relationship. Dr. James D. Sterling practices at the New York Center for Psychotherapy on Park Avenue in New York, where he serves as Director.
30 Dec 2012
289
Share Video

9:55
Entire video: Refuting Darwinian Evolution - Jon Rittenhouse - video *******www.youtube****/watch?v=sLPk4IJw_E8 What evidence is found for the first life on earth? - article *******lettherebelight-77.blogspot****/2012/02/what-evidence-is-found-for-first-life.html Dean Kenyon, who was a leading Origin Of Life researcher as well as a college textbook author on the subject in the 1970s, admitted after years of extensive research: "We have not the slightest chance for the chemical evolutionary origin of even the simplest of cells". Origin Of Life? - Probability Of Protein And The Information Of DNA - Dean Kenyon - video *******www.youtube****/watch?v=9VhR2BHhxeo Programming of Life - Probability of a Cell Evolving - video *******www.youtube****/user/Programmingoflife#p/c/AFDF33F11E2FB840/9/nyTUSe99z6o Probability Of A Protein and First Living Cell - Chris Ashcraft - video (notes in description) *******vimeo****/31536455 The Origin of Life - Lecture On Probability - John Walton - Professor Of Chemistry - short video *******www.metacafe****/watch/4012749 Protein Molecules and "Simple" Cells - video *******www.youtube****/watch?v=uFNwStNhHIc Evolution: Possible or Impossible? - free e-book (with plenty of examples from math) - by Dr. James F. Coppedge *******creationsafaris****/epoi_toc.htm Stephen Meyer - Proteins by Design - Doing The Math - video *******www.metacafe****/watch/6332250/ Centre for Intelligent Design Lecture 2011 by Stephen Meyer on 'Signature in the Cell' - video *******www.youtube****/watch?v=NbluTDb1Nfs Signature in the Cell - Book Review - Ken Peterson Excerpt: If we assume some minimally complex cell requires 250 different proteins then the probability of this arrangement happening purely by chance is one in 10 to the 164th multiplied by itself 250 times or one in 10 to the 41,000th power. *******www.spectrummagazine****/reviews/book_reviews/2009/10/06/signature_cell In fact years ago Fred Hoyle arrived at approximately the same number, one chance in 10^40,000, for life spontaneously arising. From this number, Fred Hoyle compared the random emergence of the simplest bacterium on earth to the likelihood “a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 therein”. Fred Hoyle also compared the chance of obtaining just one single functioning protein molecule, by chance combination of amino acids, to a solar system packed full of blind men solving Rubik’s Cube simultaneously. Professor Harold Morowitz shows the Origin of Life 'problem' escalates dramatically over the 1 in 10^40,000 figure when working from a thermodynamic perspective,: "The probability for the chance of formation of the smallest, simplest form of living organism known is 1 in 10^340,000,000. This number is 10 to the 340 millionth power! The size of this figure is truly staggering since there is only supposed to be approximately 10^80 (10 to the 80th power) electrons in the whole universe!" (Professor Harold Morowitz, Energy Flow In Biology pg. 99, Biophysicist of George Mason University) Dr. Don Johnson lays out some of the probabilities for life in this following video: Probabilities Of Life - Don Johnson PhD. - 38 minute mark of video a typical functional protein - 1 part in 10^175 the required enzymes for life - 1 part in 10^40,000 a living self replicating cell - 1 part in 10^340,000,000 *******www.vimeo****/11706014 Increasing Genomic Information - Don Johnson - video Excerpt: Forming the simplest life is 10^300,000,000 more likely that forming a human life *******www.youtube****/watch?v=VYFq9mpCT6c Dr. Morowitz did another probability calculation working from the thermodynamic perspective with a already existing cell and came up with this number: DID LIFE START BY CHANCE? Excerpt: Molecular biophysicist, Horold Morowitz (Yale University), calculated the odds of life beginning under natural conditions (spontaneous generation). He calculated, if one were to take the simplest living cell and break every chemical bond within it, the odds that the cell would reassemble under ideal natural conditions (the best possible chemical environment) would be one chance in 10^100,000,000,000. You will have probably have trouble imagining a number so large, so Hugh Ross provides us with the following example. If all the matter in the Universe was converted into building blocks of life, and if assembly of these building blocks were attempted once a microsecond for the entire age of the universe. Then instead of the odds being 1 in 10^100,000,000,000, they would be 1 in 10^99,999,999,916 (also of note: 1 with 100 billion zeros following would fill approx. 20,000 encyclopedias) *******members.tripod****/~Black_J/chance.html Punctured cell will never reassemble - Jonathan Wells - 2:40 mark of video *******www.youtube****/watch?v=WKoiivfe_mo The Humpty-Dumpty Effect: A Revolutionary Paper with Far-Reaching Implications - Paul Nelson - October 23, 2012 Excerpt: Tompa and Rose calculate the "total number of possible distinct patterns of interactions," using yeast, a unicellular eukaryote, as their model system; this "total number" is the size of the space that must be searched. With approximately 4,500 proteins in yeast, the interactome search space "is on the order of 10^7200, an unimaginably large number," they write -- but "more realistic" estimates, they continue, are "yet more complicated." Proteins present many possible surfaces for chemical interaction. "In all," argue Tompa and Rose, "an average protein would have approximately 3540 distinguishable interfaces," and if one uses this number for the interactome space calculation, the result is 10 followed by the exponent 7.9 x 10^10.,,, the numbers preclude formation of a functional interactome (of 'simple' life) by trial and error,, within any meaningful span of time. This numerical exercise...is tantamount to a proof that the cell does not organize by random collisions of its interacting constituents. (i.e. that life did not arise, nor operate, by chance!) *******www.evolutionnews****/2012/10/a_revolutionary065521.html Also of interest is the information content that is derived in a cell when working from a thermodynamic perspective: “a one-celled bacterium, e. coli, is estimated to contain the equivalent of 100 million pages of Encyclopedia Britannica. Expressed in information in science jargon, this would be the same as 10^12 bits of information. In comparison, the total writings from classical Greek Civilization is only 10^9 bits, and the largest libraries in the world – The British Museum, Oxford Bodleian Library, New York Public Library, Harvard Widenier Library, and the Moscow Lenin Library – have about 10 million volumes or 10^12 bits.” – R. C. Wysong 'The information content of a simple cell has been estimated as around 10^12 bits, comparable to about a hundred million pages of the Encyclopedia Britannica." Carl Sagan, "Life" in Encyclopedia Britannica: Macropaedia (1974 ed.), pp. 893-894 of note: The 10^12 bits of information number for a bacterium is derived from entropic considerations, which is, due to the tightly integrated relationship between information and entropy, considered the most accurate measure of the transcendent quantum information/entanglement constraining a 'simple' life form to be so far out of thermodynamic equilibrium. "Is there a real connection between entropy in physics and the entropy of information? ....The equations of information theory and the second law are the same, suggesting that the idea of entropy is something fundamental..." Siegfried, Dallas Morning News, 5/14/90, [Quotes Robert W. Lucky, Ex. Director of Research, AT&T, Bell Laboratories & John A. Wheeler, of Princeton & Univ. of TX, Austin] For calculations, from the thermodynamic perspective, please see the following site: Moleular Biophysics – Information theory. Relation between information and entropy: - Setlow-Pollard, Ed. Addison Wesley Excerpt: Linschitz gave the figure 9.3 x 10^12 cal/deg or 9.3 x 10^12 x 4.2 joules/deg for the entropy of a bacterial cell. Using the relation H = S/(k In 2), we find that the information content is 4 x 10^12 bits. Morowitz' deduction from the work of Bayne-Jones and Rhees gives the lower value of 5.6 x 10^11 bits, which is still in the neighborhood of 10^12 bits. Thus two quite different approaches give rather concordant figures. *******www.astroscu.unam.mx/~angel/tsb/molecular.htm Ilya Prigogine was an eminent chemist and physicist who received two Nobel Prizes in chemistry. Regarding the probability of life originating by accident, he said: “The statistical probability that organic structures and the most precisely harmonized reactions that typify living organisms would be generated by accident, is zero.” Ilya Prigogine, Gregoire Nicolis, and Agnes Babloyantz, Physics Today 25, pp. 23-28. *******en.wikiquote****/wiki/Western_Thought_on_Creation Quotes of Note: The Theist holds the Intellectual High-Ground - March 2011 Excerpt: To get a range on the enormous challenges involved in bridging the gaping chasm between non-life and life, consider the following: “The difference between a mixture of simple chemicals and a bacterium, is much more profound than the gulf between a bacterium and an elephant.” (Dr. Robert Shapiro, Professor Emeritus of Chemistry, NYU) *******www.faithfulnews****/contents/view_content2/49631/rabbi-moshe-averick-the-theist-holds-the-intellectual-high-ground-apologetics-christian-apologetics-defending-gospel Scientists Prove Again that Life is the Result of Intelligent Design - Rabbi Moshe Averick - August 2011 Excerpt: “To go from bacterium to people is less of a step than to go from a mixture of amino acids to a bacterium.” - Dr. Lynn Margulis *******www.algemeiner****/2011/08/17/scientists-prove-again-that-life-is-the-result-of-intelligent-design/ Stephen Meyer - The Scientific Basis for the Intelligent Design Inference - video *******vimeo****/32148403
20 Jan 2013
2633
Share Video

6:03
Neo-Darwinism isn’t ‘science’ because, besides its stunning failure at establishing empirical validation in the lab, it has no mathematical basis, and furthermore neo-Darwinism can have no mathematical basis because of the atheistic insistence for the ‘random’ variable postulate at the base of its formulation: Evolution and the Illusion of Randomness – Talbott – Fall 2011 Excerpt: In the case of evolution, I picture Dennett and Dawkins filling the blackboard with their vivid descriptions of living, highly regulated, coordinated, integrated, and intensely meaningful biological processes, and then inserting a small, mysterious gap in the middle, along with the words, “Here something random occurs.” This “something random” looks every bit as wishful as the appeal to a miracle. It is the central miracle in a gospel of meaninglessness, a “Randomness of the gaps,” demanding an extraordinarily blind faith. At the very least, we have a right to ask, “Can you be a little more explicit here?” *******www.thenewatlantis****/publications/evolution-and-the-illusion-of-randomness “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. Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Wolfgang Pauli on the Empirical Problems with Neo-Darwinism - Casey Luskin - February 27, 2012 Excerpt: "In discussions with biologists I met large difficulties when they apply the concept of 'natural selection' in a rather wide field, without being able to estimate the probability of the occurrence in a empirically given time of just those events, which have been important for the biological evolution. Treating the empirical time scale of the evolution theoretically as infinity they have then an easy game, apparently to avoid the concept of purposesiveness. While they pretend to stay in this way completely 'scientific' and 'rational,' they become actually very irrational, particularly because they use the word 'chance', not any longer combined with estimations of a mathematically defined probability, in its application to very rare single events more or less synonymous with the old word 'miracle.'" Wolfgang Pauli (pp. 27-28) - *******www.evolutionnews****/2012/02/nobel_prize-win056771.html “nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific” – Imre Lakatos (November 9, 1922 – February 2, 1974) a philosopher of mathematics and science, quote as stated in 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture “On the other hand, I disagree that Darwin’s theory is as `solid as any explanation in science.; Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?” (Berlinski, D., “A Scientific Scandal?: David Berlinski & Critics,” Commentary, July 8, 2003) Dr. David Berlinski: Head Scratching Mathematicians – video *******www.youtube****/watch?v=hEDYr_fgcP8 quote from preceding video: “John Von Neumann, one of the great mathematicians of the twentieth century, just laughed at Darwinian theory, he hooted at it!” Dr. David Berlinski Macroevolution, microevolution and chemistry: the devil is in the details – Dr. V. J. Torley – February 27, 2013 Excerpt: After all, mathematics, scientific laws and observed processes are supposed to form the basis of all scientific explanation. If none of these provides support for Darwinian macroevolution, then why on earth should we accept it? Indeed, why does macroevolution belong in the province of science at all, if its scientific basis cannot be demonstrated? *******www.uncommondescent****/intelligent-design/macroevolution-microevolution-and-chemistry-the-devil-is-in-the-details/ Moreover Darwinism isn’t science because math, as far as math is able to be put to Darwinian claims through population genetics, and probability, falsifies Darwinian claims,,, Using Numerical Simulation to Test the Validity of Neo-Darwinian Theory – 2008 Abstract: Evolutionary genetic theory has a series of apparent “fatal flaws” which are well known to population geneticists, but which have not been effectively communicated to other scientists or the public. These fatal flaws have been recognized by leaders in the field for many decades—based upon logic and mathematical formulations. However population geneticists have generally been very reluctant to openly acknowledge these theoretical problems, and a cloud of confusion has come to surround each issue. Numerical simulation provides a definitive tool for empirically testing the reality of these fatal flaws and can resolve the confusion. The program Mendel’s Accountant (Mendel) was developed for this purpose, and it is the first biologically-realistic forward-time population genetics numerical simulation program. This new program is a powerful research and teaching tool. When any reasonable set of biological parameters are used, Mendel provides overwhelming empirical evidence that all of the “fatal flaws” inherent in evolutionary genetic theory are real. This leaves evolutionary genetic theory effectively falsified—with a degree of certainty which should satisfy any reasonable and open-minded person. *******www.icr****/i/pdf/technical/Using-Numerical-Simulation-to-Test-the-Validity-of-Neo-Darwinian-Theory.pdf The Universal Plausibility Metric (UPM) & Principle (UPP) - Abel - Dec. 2009 Excerpt: Mere possibility is not an adequate basis for asserting scientific plausibility. A precisely defined universal bound is needed beyond which the assertion of plausibility, particularly in life-origin models, can be considered operationally falsified. But can something so seemingly relative and subjective as plausibility ever be quantified? Amazingly, the answer is, "Yes.",,, cΩu = Universe = 10^13 reactions/sec X 10^17 secs X 10^78 atoms = 10^108 cΩg = Galaxy = 10^13 X 10^17 X 10^66 atoms = 10^96 cΩs = Solar System = 10^13 X 10^17 X 10^55 atoms = 10^85 cΩe = Earth = 10^13 X 10^17 X 10^40 atoms = 10^70 *******www.tbiomed****/content/6/1/27 Programming of Life - Probability - Defining Probable, Possible, Feasible etc.. - video *******www.youtube****/user/Programmingoflife#p/c/AFDF33F11E2FB840/8/kckv0wVBYpA Could Chance Arrange the Code for (Just) One Gene? "our minds cannot grasp such an extremely small probability as that involved in the accidental arranging of even one gene (10^-236)." *******www.creationsafaris****/epoi_c10.htm Probabilities Of Life - Don Johnson PhD. - 38 minute mark of video a typical functional protein - 1 part in 10^175 the required enzymes for life - 1 part in 10^40,000 a living self replicating cell - 1 part in 10^340,000,000 *******www.vimeo****/11706014 "The probability for the chance of formation of the smallest, simplest form of living organism known is 1 in 10^340,000,000. This number is 10 to the 340 millionth power! The size of this figure is truly staggering since there is only supposed to be approximately 10^80 (10 to the 80th power) electrons in the whole universe!" (Professor Harold Morowitz, Energy Flow In Biology pg. 99, Biophysicist of George Mason University) Dr. Morowitz did another probability calculation working from the thermodynamic perspective with a already existing cell and came up with this number: DID LIFE START BY CHANCE? Excerpt: Molecular biophysicist, Horold Morowitz (Yale University), calculated the odds of life beginning under natural conditions (spontaneous generation). He calculated, if one were to take the simplest living cell and break every chemical bond within it, the odds that the cell would reassemble under ideal natural conditions (the best possible chemical environment) would be one chance in 10^100,000,000,000. You will have probably have trouble imagining a number so large, so Hugh Ross provides us with the following example. If all the matter in the Universe was converted into building blocks of life, and if assembly of these building blocks were attempted once a microsecond for the entire age of the universe. Then instead of the odds being 1 in 10^100,000,000,000, they would be 1 in 10^99,999,999,916 (also of note: 1 with 100 billion zeros following would fill approx. 20,000 encyclopedias) *******members.tripod****/~Black_J/chance.html “The statistical probability that organic structures and the most precisely harmonized reactions that typify living organisms would be generated by accident, is zero.” Ilya Prigogine, Gregoire Nicolis, and Agnes Babloyantz, Physics Today 25, pp. 23-28. (Sourced Quote) “The formation within geological time of a 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 by chance of the atmosphere into its components.” Kurt Gödel, was a preeminent mathematician/logician who is considered one of the greatest to have ever lived. Of Note: Godel was a Christian Theist! In Barrow and Tippler's book The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, they list ten steps necessary in the course of human evolution, each of which, is so improbable that if left to happen by chance alone, the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have incinerated the earth. They estimate that the odds of the evolution (by chance) of the human genome is somewhere between 4 to the negative 180th power, to the 110,000th power, and 4 to the negative 360th power, to the 110,000th power. Therefore, if evolution did occur, it literally would have been a miracle and evidence for the existence of God. William Lane Craig William Lane Craig - If Human Evolution Did Occur It Was A Miracle - video *******www.youtube****/watch?v=GUxm8dXLRpA ,,, Yet Darwinists refuse to accept falsification through mathematics.,,, “However, mathematical population geneticists mainly deny that natural selection leads to optimization of any useful kind. This fifty-year old schism is intellectually damaging in itself, and has prevented improvements in our concept of what fitness is.” – On a 2011 Job Description for a Mathematician, at Oxford, to ‘fix’ the persistent mathematical problems with neo-Darwinism within two years. Thou Shalt Not Put Evolutionary Theory to a Test – Douglas Axe – July 18, 2012 Excerpt: “For example, McBride criticizes me for not mentioning genetic drift in my discussion of human origins, apparently without realizing that the result of Durrett and Schmidt rules drift out. Each and every specific genetic change needed to produce humans from apes would have to have conferred a significant selective advantage in order for humans to have appeared in the available time (i.e. the mutations cannot be ‘neutral’). Any aspect of the transition that requires two or more mutations to act in combination in order to increase fitness would take way too long (>100 million years). My challenge to McBride, and everyone else who believes the evolutionary story of human origins, is not to provide the list of mutations that did the trick, but rather a list of mutations that can do it. Otherwise they’re in the position of insisting that something is a scientific fact without having the faintest idea how it even could be.” Doug Axe PhD. *******www.evolutionnews****/2012/07/thou_shalt_not062351.html Michael Behe on the theory of constructive neutral evolution – February 2012 Excerpt: I don’t mean to be unkind, but I think that the idea seems reasonable only to the extent that it is vague and undeveloped; when examined critically it quickly loses plausibility. The first thing to note about the paper is that it contains absolutely no calculations to support the feasibility of the model. This is inexcusable. – Michael Behe “No human investigation can be called true science without passing through mathematical tests.” Leonardo Da Vinci Accounting for Variations – Dr. David Berlinski: – video *******www.youtube****/watch?v=aW2GkDkimkE Moreover neo-Darwinism isn’t science because the random variable postulate at the base of its formulation, when it is pushed to the limits of its explanatory power for our ability to comprehend reality through science, winds up driving the entire enterprise of science into epistemological failure: 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. *******www.washingtontimes****/news/2010/oct/1/hawking-irrational-arguments/ The Absurdity of Inflation, String Theory and The Multiverse – Dr. Bruce Gordon – video *******vimeo****/34468027 This ‘lack of a guarantee’, for trusting our perceptions and reasoning in science to be trustworthy in the first place, even extends into evolutionary naturalism (neo-Darwinism) itself; 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. *******blogs.christianpost****/science-and-faith/scientific-peer-review-is-in-trouble-from-medical-science-to-darwinism-12421/ Alvin Plantinga – Evolutionary Argument against Naturalism – video *******www.youtube****/watch?v=r34AIo-xBh8 God = ? NYU Questions World-class Philosopher Alvin Plantinga on Science & Religion - March 2012 - video *******www.youtube****/watch?v=7Sp7U9Es3yw Philosopher Sticks Up for God Excerpt: Theism, with its vision of an orderly universe superintended by a God who created rational-minded creatures in his own image, “is vastly more hospitable to science than naturalism,” with its random process of natural selection, he (Plantinga) writes. “Indeed, it is theism, not naturalism, that deserves to be called ‘the scientific worldview.’” *******www.nytimes****/2011/12/14/books/alvin-plantingas-new-book-on-god-and-science.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all “Modern science was conceived, and born, and flourished in the matrix of Christian theism. Only liberal doses of self-deception and double-think, I believe, will permit it to flourish in the context of Darwinian naturalism.” ~ Alvin Plantinga Why No One (Can) Believe Atheism/Naturalism to be True - 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" *******www.youtube****/watch?v=N4QFsKevTXs The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences – Eugene Wigner – 1960 Excerpt: ,,certainly it is hard to believe that our reasoning power was brought, by Darwin’s process of natural selection, to the perfection which it seems to possess.,,, *******www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html
15 Apr 2013
2986
Share Video

4:59
*******www.redcarpetreporttv**** Mingle Media TV's Red Carpet Report and host, Ashley Bornancin, were invited to come out to NYU’s Tisch School of the Arts Annual Gala honoring Academy Award winning film director, screenwriter and producer Oliver Stone at the Beverly Wilshire Hotel, in Beverly Hills. Tisch alumna, director and award winning star of ABC’s Grey’s AnatomyChandra Wilson will co-host the benefit, with alumnus and Tony-Award winning actor, Steve Kazee. Get the Story from the Red Carpet Report Team - follow us on Twitter and Facebook at: *******twitter****/TheRedCarpetTV ********www.facebook****/RedCarpetReportTV *******www.redcarpetreporttv**** *******www.youtube****/MingleMediaTVNetwork About NYU’s Tisch School of the Arts For more than 45 years, the NYU Tisch School of the Arts has drawn on the vast resources of New York City and New York University to create an extraordinary training ground for the individual artist and scholar of the arts. Students learn their craft in a spirited, risk-taking environment that combines the professional training of a conservatory with the liberal arts education of a major research university. Learn more at www.tisch.nyu.edu. For more of Mingle Media TV’s Red Carpet Report coverage, please visit our website and follow us on Twitter and Facebook here: ********www.minglemediatv**** ********www.facebook****/minglemediatvnetwork *******www.flickr****/MingleMediaTVNetwork ********www.twitter****/minglemediatv Follow our host, Ashley Bornancin at ********twitter****/AshleyBInspired - - Distributed by OneLoad****
29 Oct 2013
317
Share Video

3:47
*******www.redcarpetreporttv**** Mingle Media TV's Red Carpet Report and host, Ashley Bornancin, were invited to come out to NYU’s Tisch School of the Arts Annual Gala honoring Academy Award winning film director, screenwriter and producer Oliver Stone at the Beverly Wilshire Hotel, in Beverly Hills. Tisch alumna, director and award winning star of ABC’s Grey’s AnatomyChandra Wilson will co-host the benefit, with alumnus and Tony-Award winning actor, Steve Kazee. Get the Story from the Red Carpet Report Team - follow us on Twitter and Facebook at: *******twitter****/TheRedCarpetTV ********www.facebook****/RedCarpetReportTV *******www.redcarpetreporttv**** *******www.youtube****/MingleMediaTVNetwork About NYU’s Tisch School of the Arts For more than 45 years, the NYU Tisch School of the Arts has drawn on the vast resources of New York City and New York University to create an extraordinary training ground for the individual artist and scholar of the arts. Students learn their craft in a spirited, risk-taking environment that combines the professional training of a conservatory with the liberal arts education of a major research university. Learn more at www.tisch.nyu.edu. For more of Mingle Media TV’s Red Carpet Report coverage, please visit our website and follow us on Twitter and Facebook here: ********www.minglemediatv**** ********www.facebook****/minglemediatvnetwork *******www.flickr****/MingleMediaTVNetwork ********www.twitter****/minglemediatv Follow our host, Ashley Bornancin at ********twitter****/AshleyBInspired - - Distributed by OneLoad****
29 Oct 2013
673
Share Video

1:18
Watch Prof. Anindya Ghose, Director of Business Analytics Program at NYU-Stern, Visiting faculty at The Wharton School & ISB, and Consultant in the field of AI, Business Analytics, Digital Marketing to leading Fortune 500 companies like Facebook, Alibaba, Microsoft, Samsung, 3TI China etc., sharing his views upon The Future of Education powered AI.
28 Feb 2019
75
Share Video

0:28
Hale Education Group employs a team of North American university professionals with relevant firsthand admissions knowledge. Our team has graduated from universities such as Harvard, Brown, Dartmouth, UChicago, Yale, UPenn, Georgetown and NYU.
17 Sep 2020
6
Share Video

0:22
Hale Education Group employs a team of North American university professionals with relevant firsthand admissions knowledge. Our team has graduated from universities such as Harvard, Brown, Dartmouth, UChicago, Yale, UPenn, Georgetown and NYU.
23 Sep 2020
9
Share Video

1:19
Hale Education Group employs a team of North American university professionals with relevant firsthand admissions knowledge. Our team has graduated from universities such as Harvard, Brown, Dartmouth, UChicago, Yale, UPenn, Georgetown and NYU.
30 Sep 2020
8
Share Video