Texas BOE Attacks Common Descent

The cover of Time magazine! That'll beat the expert opinions of thousands of scientists any day.

Hmmmm..... how many of the same old arguments can the experts stand... I think the creationists believe if they say it enough the scientists will miraculously start to believe it.

Stasis and "sudden" appearance don't support evolution, huh.
Send this guy back to 9th grade, he clearly needs an education.

The cambrian explosion "immediate"? The man has to be liar. He couldn't possibly be talking about this and not know that it lasted millions of years. How can a liar like this be tolerated in a political office responsible for children's education?

PZ needs to school this boy!

Holy Dumbfuck Batman!

Darwin's Big Bang?....Forget it, he's on a roll......

John said: PZ needs to school this boy!

To bad he has no real argument to make. Why is stasis a problem for evolution? Why is "sudden appearance" a problem for evolution? If these are problems for evolution, why is no one else convinced? Is everyone else more ignorant of the evidence than this guy? After all he is a dentist, he is a real expert. How does he explain wisdom teeth?

Why does he think that students are qualified to decide what the evidence shows? Are they experts? Who is preventing them from becoming familiar with the evidence and deciding for themselves? No scientist has that power, nor would they want it. This guy is just spouting nonsense. Why would be fooled by this? If they are, shame on them.

Why is he so proud that no "complicated math is required"? What alternative explanation is he proposing to explain the evidence? What is this guy even talking about? I thought creationists were supposed to be good public speakers. This guy must have missed the memo.

John said: PZ needs to school this boy!

Don McLeroy's impassioned plea shows just how desperate ID/Creationists are. He admits there is a mountain of evidence for evolution, that there is a successive and progressive nature to the fossil record, and that the Cambrian era happened. He admits that scientists are nice folk, and that Ken Miller exists. He is having to defy every Creationist talking point just to appear reasonable. Don is contributing to the schizophrenic nature of the ID/Creationist movement.

But aren't the long periods of stasis punctuated by periods of rapid evolutionary change? He denies that he is taking this out of context, but he obviously ignores the "rapid evolution" part of punctuated equilibrium.

Gary F said: But aren't the long periods of stasis punctuated by periods of rapid evolutionary change? He denies that he is taking this out of context, but he obviously ignores the "rapid evolution" part of punctuated equilibrium.

I don't think Don McLeroy is lying. I think he truly, honestly believes just what he is saying. But it is sad. He just needs to be removed from his position.

Fascinating.

On the one hand, McLeroy is DI and Luskin's waterboy of the moment.

On the other hand, this 6-minute stream-of-consciousness rhetorical YouTube trainwreck, now immortalized for future generations, seems at points to be Don McLeroy arguing with Don McLeroy.

He seems to have figured out that there's a whole world of real, serious scientists who are serious about teaching evolution, and this confuses him. It is especially tough because not only are these serious scientists rational...they are also very friendly and articulate. And the difficulty is further compounded by the fact that there is this massive fossil record to deal with, and all these millions of years, and advanced concepts like stasis, and whatnot.

In these six minutes, we get a glimpse inside that large, shiny brain case, and discover a brave, simple mind fighting valiantly against a complex, nuanced reality. "It's not complicated!"

But through the transformative power of belief (and a subscription to Time magazine), , the complications dissipate. We need to be honest with our kids. Science is simple.

Is this fool serious? This idiot says phylum never change in the fossil record, unless-- unless they are the most interesting (to me anyway since I have a backbone) chordates. This jabbering idiot must think Pikaia looks just like a chicken.

This guy is a stupid and very ignorant man because he is completely ignoring the fact that creationists like him are fighting a losing battle, and it greatly confuses him that the cambrian explosion can even happen. What did he evolve from the world's stupidest lfeform? Someone please shut this damned theist up and do it now.

It would be refreshing to hear him say "Look, I really love Jesus, and the bible tells me that this whole evolution thing just isn't right!" His lack of forthrightness leaves him beating around the bush.

silverspoon wrote:

"This idiot says phylum never change in the fossil record, ..."

Yea, by citing the Cambrian explosion. What a nit wit. The phylum Chordata originated in the Cambrian "explosion", but to claim that it didn't change since then is idiotic. After all, the vertebrates came much later. The guy must be completely clueless to say stuff like this.

I guess the argument here is that if evolution happens too fast it can't happen at all! Nice logic that.

I feel dumber for having watched that.

So he has an alternative explanation? How can he talk about 500 million year old rocks when he's trying to have fludism taught in schools?

What is his alternative explanation for the Cambian explosion?

He seems a bit unhinged.

Does anyone in Texas ever confront this character directly and tell him to his face that his “strengths and weakness” language would lard up science classes with exactly the same kind of misconceptions he just displayed to the whole world?

Does anyone ever tell him that he is exactly the epitome of stubborn, smug ignorance that schools should not be cranking out?

I guess we are just all too “wonderful and nice and brilliant” (and polite).

And he has a dental practice? Shudder!

I have this nagging suspicion he believes phylum is the equivalent of a ‘created kind’. Next we’ll be hearing from him how no one ever witnessed a cat giving birth to a dog therefore evolution is false. I really am getting tired of these buffoons ignorance.

When he says "If you'll pardon me a minute since this is kind of surprising me", I bet he's thinking he's being visited by the "Holy Spirit". I bet he thinks that whole speech was inspired by the "Holy Spirit".

I think that Don McLeroy is playing with the truth to achieve an aim that he thinks is justified. He is, after all, a young earth creationist. In an article in the New Year Times on June 4, 2008: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/04/us/04evolution.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1
it was stated: "Dr. McLeroy believes that Earth’s appearance is a recent geologic event — thousands of years old, not 4.5 billion. 'I believe a lot of incredible things,” he said, “The most incredible thing I believe is the Christmas story. That little baby born in the manger was the god that created the universe.' " So how does a belief in an earth thousands of years old relate to reference of the Cambrian "explosion", 550 million years ago?
I was unfortunate enough to listen to the entire audiofile of a talk (lasting over an hour) he gave to his Sunday school class, where he openly admitted his aim was to have evolution replaced by intelligent design, and then young earth creationism would replace ID.

"Someone has to stand up to these experts!"

LOL

Every time I watch it, it's just more crazier! He's utterly ignorant about that stuff.

On the fundamentalistics of Dentistry

In "The Living End", the hilarious account of the end of the world by Stanley Elkin (1977), we find -towards the end of the story - a description of "a gala, a levee at the Lord's" in heaven. After some muscle showing and a little argument with Jesus, the Lord starts explaining:

Quote

"Call on someone else, "Christ said.
"sure," God said. "I'm the Hero of Heaven. I call on Myself."
That was when He began his explanations. He revealed the secrets of books, of pictures and music,...how statues of women were superior to statues of men, but less impressive than engravings on postage. He explained why dentistry was a purer science than astronomy, biography a higher form than dance... and how many angels could dance on the head of a pin.

End of Quote

And this, ladies and gentlemen was written in 1977!

It terrifies me that this lunatic is in the position to effect the education of this country. I have not the words to express the rage and terror this man causes.

fnxtr said: Stasis and "sudden" appearance don't support evolution, huh. Send this guy back to 9th grade, he clearly needs an education.

I watched the video but have not read any comments, yet, so forgive me if I'm reinventing the wheel.

McLeroy clearly said that the Cambrian was 550 million years ago, without the YEC's mandatory "scientists say" disclaimer. But other (second hand) information suggests that he thinks that it was only a few thousand years ago. If he really does believe that, then he disputes virtually all of science, not just evolution. That he singles out evolution shows that his objection is purely emotional, as does his demeanor on the video.

If he has a nanogram of integrity (yes I know he doesn't) he would demand to debate Michael Behe on common descent, and on his alternative chronology (if he truly believes it as opposed to just faking it to placate the "masses").

If he's that convinced that the evidence supports an alternative to common descent (& the chronology), he ought to be able to convince Behe, who is on the same side of the "strengths and weaknesses" issue. If he can't convince Behe - who unlike McLeroy has conducted actual research - then he needs to admit that he is likely wrong about common descent, and remove his misleading language from the standards.

If he or Behe refuses to debate, or they do "debate" with evasions and "soft ball" questions, then it is clear that they both have something to hide (as if it isn't already).

But aren’t the long periods of stasis punctuated by periods of rapid evolutionary change? He denies that he is taking this out of context, but he obviously ignores the “rapid evolution” part of punctuated equilibrium.

— Gary F

It is always frustrating when someone can't resolve their beliefs with reality. Don McLeroy should be removed from his position. The citizens of Texas or any other state does not need such public officials as Don McLeroy. However, some seem to tolerate this kind of behaviour.

If every state has a Dan McLeroy, we can be sure that in 20 years fom now, the US will no longer produce Nobel standard scientists.

Wayne Robinson said: I was unfortunate enough to listen to the entire audiofile of a talk (lasting over an hour) he gave to his Sunday school class, where he openly admitted his aim was to have evolution replaced by intelligent design, and then young earth creationism would replace ID.

Wayne wrote:

"I was unfortunate enough to listen to the entire audiofile of a talk (lasting over an hour) he gave to his Sunday school class, where he openly admitted his aim was to have evolution replaced by intelligent design, and then young earth creationism would replace ID."

That should come in real handy in the court cases that are sure to come out of all of this. I don't suppose that anyone pointed out to him that that would be illegal, immoral and quite possibly fattening.

Listen, the soup isle in my grocery store "suddenly appeared" to change dramatically. One day it was mostly Campbell condensed soups, the next time I went to the store there was all this gourmet organic stuff everywhere. It changed instantenously I tell you. It had to be a supernatural event, there is no other possible explanation. The tree on my front lawn is a physical impossibility as well. All the main branches arise suddenly from the trunk near the bottom and no new major branches arise out near the tips. It's impossible I tell you, it must be a miracle tree.

What a pathetic display of fear and ignorance. The guy appears to be deliberately lying through his teeth since his comments cannot be reconciled with his previously stated beliefs. A YEC talking about millions of years? Faunal succession and order of appearance are just as evolution predicts but it still can't be true because it happens too fast? Since when is 50 million years too fast for a YEC? Why was he so surprsed that he was asked to speak? That's what happens when you challenge all of science as a BOE member. Some folks are just a waste of protoplasm. This guy definately needs to get a new job.

This man sets a new standard as the epitome of the Peter Principle! He is the new icon of incompetence.

When Texans get dumb, they get BIG dumb. It's like a whole other country!!!

I was hoping that big fancy chair might jes' open up its maw and swallar the little fella.

Science Nut said: This man sets a new standard as the epitome of the Peter Principle! He is the new icon of incompetence.

I was unfortunate enough to listen to the entire audiofile of a talk (lasting over an hour) he gave to his Sunday school class, where he openly admitted his aim was to have evolution replaced by intelligent design, and then young earth creationism would replace ID.

— Wayne Robinson

Frank J,
there are YECs who can't tell the difference between ID and YEC (Ray Comfort seems to be one of them, judging from his statements in that Radio Show he 'shared' with PZ - he was asked to talk about ID and started right off the bat with the Bible and YE). For some apparently - since they really think that creation science is science - ID is just one part of creationism, dealing with details the Bible doesn't address directly. Which is in a sense true and describes a part of why ID was introduced. There are YECs concerned for their market share, who will try to distance themselves from ID and vice versa, because they know it's about advertisement and propaganda to get at the chequebooks of the believers. Not participating in actual science, they are dependent on selling their books and other media, attracting people so that they keep getting funds from the large evangelical orgs.

Yet another creationist who thinks that Gould's "stasis" was referring to phyla and other large taxa and not to species as anyone who has bothered to read Gould knows.

Disturbing and enraging!

This is a very important issue that ALL State BOEs and ALL science organizations and/or institutions should confront head on,... literally and figuratively! But it should not be against the TX BoE. Imo, a campaign should be launched directly against this particular publisher to send a message to this industry!

If TX wants to have their own version of science, let them pay twice for it or go to another publisher. But the publisher is at fault here! For profit, they've chosen to de-evolve science literacy for our students, which ultimately undermines our competitiveness in S&T in the world.

I totally loathe creationists - who in truth, operate with primal minds.

Felix said: Frank J, there are YECs who can't tell the difference between ID and YEC (Ray Comfort seems to be one of them, judging from his statements in that Radio Show he 'shared' with PZ - he was asked to talk about ID and started right off the bat with the Bible and YE). For some apparently - since they really think that creation science is science - ID is just one part of creationism, dealing with details the Bible doesn't address directly. Which is in a sense true and describes a part of why ID was introduced. There are YECs concerned for their market share, who will try to distance themselves from ID and vice versa, because they know it's about advertisement and propaganda to get at the chequebooks of the believers. Not participating in actual science, they are dependent on selling their books and other media, attracting people so that they keep getting funds from the large evangelical orgs.

Among dentists, this guy must surely be one of the least intelligent and articulate.

McLeroy was reappointed Chair of the SBOE by our creationist governor, Rick Perry, who is apparently pleased with his performance. McLeroy was elected by the dedicated social right crowd, who apparently turn out in droves to vote. Most of my colleagues in a university biology department are outraged at his actions but completely apathetic about SBOE elections. Getting someone rational on this issue to run for the SBOE has happened (witness a few votes on our side last week)but is difficult. 95% of what the SBOE does is ajudicate policy disputes on graduation credit for football and other sports, maizes of budgetary issues, and other such work-a-day matters - not sexy issues like evolution and sexuality education. But we won't see a true change until the creationists are voted off. Evidence seems irrelevant to them when they are trying to save kids from eternal damnation in science class.

Dread Pirate wrote:

"If TX wants to have their own version of science, let them pay twice for it or go to another publisher. But the publisher is at fault here! For profit, they’ve chosen to de-evolve science literacy for our students, which ultimately undermines our competitiveness in S&T in the world."

Absolutely agree. If Texas really wants to do this then they can pay for it, in many ways. Unfortunately, because of the publisher, everyone else is most likely going to be paying as well.

Now the smart thing to do would be for Boards of Education all around the country to write to publishers and inform them that they will not be purchasing any texts with watered down treatment of evolution. Then we will see if the publisher was just selling out for the almight dollar or if they have a religious agenda as well. If the former, then perhaps we could make it clear that such a decision would not be cost effective in the long run. That way the McLeroys of the world could never win. If the latter, then perhaps they could be persuaded to sell choir books and Bibles instead and leave the rest of us alone.

It totally amazes me that we live in a country were we let dentists decide what kids will learn in biology. Amazing - simply amazing. I'm an electrical engineer, and if I do say so myself, I'm a pretty damned good one. But if, for one moment, you think that I should be given any power to determine what K-12 kids in any state should be taught in biology, then I submit that you need to have your head examined! Because I want biologists, not dentists or engineers or friggin politicians, to decide what my kids will learn in biology class!

Please, please somebody - help me to understand why we meekly accept this kind of total craziness!!!

Terry M. said: McLeroy was reappointed Chair of the SBOE by our creationist governor, Rick Perry, who is apparently pleased with his performance. McLeroy was elected by the dedicated social right crowd, who apparently turn out in droves to vote. Most of my colleagues in a university biology department are outraged at his actions but completely apathetic about SBOE elections. Getting someone rational on this issue to run for the SBOE has happened (witness a few votes on our side last week)but is difficult. 95% of what the SBOE does is ajudicate policy disputes on graduation credit for football and other sports, maizes of budgetary issues, and other such work-a-day matters - not sexy issues like evolution and sexuality education. But we won't see a true change until the creationists are voted off. Evidence seems irrelevant to them when they are trying to save kids from eternal damnation in science class.

Bob H said: It totally amazes me that we live in a country were we let dentists decide what kids will learn in biology. Amazing - simply amazing. I'm an electrical engineer, and if I do say so myself, I'm a pretty damned good one. But if, for one moment, you think that I should be given any power to determine what K-12 kids in any state should be taught in biology, then I submit that you need to have your head examined! Because I want biologists, not dentists or engineers or friggin politicians, to decide what my kids will learn in biology class!

Terry M. said: 95% of what the SBOE does is ajudicate policy disputes on graduation credit for football and other sports, maizes of budgetary issues, and other such work-a-day matters - not sexy issues like evolution and sexuality education. But we won't see a true change until the creationists are voted off. Evidence seems irrelevant to them when they are trying to save kids from eternal damnation in science class.

Hopefully, Governor Perry will be voted out of office next year as I understand that Senator Hutchinson is planning to run against him in the primary.

DreadPirate said: But the publisher is at fault here! For profit, they've chosen to de-evolve science literacy for our students, which ultimately undermines our competitiveness in S&T in the world.

McLeroy thinks his pet troupe of IDiots can trump them all.

Given that publishers are companies who are supposed to be making money for stockholders any suggestions that they make less money simply is not going to work.

It totally amazes me that we live in a country were we let dentists decide what kids will learn in biology.

— Bob H

McLeroy was reappointed Chair of the SBOE by our creationist governor, Rick Perry, who is apparently pleased with his performance.

— Terry M.

This idiot says phylum never change in the fossil record, unless– unless they are the most interesting...

Stevaroni,

The reality is, effectively three or four states decide what our textbooks are going to be. Texas, California, New York, and to a lesser degree Florida. With these core states you have two that have shown themselves to be, if not pro-science, at least not openly ant-science. Unfortunately the remaining two are in the middle of a "dumbest state ever" battle that neither seems to be willing to surrender to the other. That means half of the core of the barometer textbook manufacturers use to determine what they should publish are, quite often, openly anti-science.

To make matters worse, many states allow the school districts to select textbooks that the districts believe meet the state standards (sometimes they have lists, other times they don't). What that means to many textbook publishers is that those states really don't matter when it comes to content, they can present themselves from district to district and still make sales. Texas, on the other hand, orders the books for the state (at least they used to and I believe they still do). That means that Texas actually plays a bigger role than they might because if a publisher gets a Texas sale, they're set for years. Massive profits the year of the new acquisition, ongoing profits as they sell replacement books, supplementals, etc.

What makes this tougher for publishers is that they are dealing with after market competition, electronic databases and schools/districts going textbook free. Impoverished districts will buy refurbished/rebound textbooks, keep books longer, etc. Districts all over the country are experimenting with laptops, databases, etc. The University of Virginia found that only four freshmen showed up without their own laptop in the fall of 2007 [google news], a highschool here in southern Arizona went all laptop when it opened, they figured out that by eliminating textbooks, lockers, etc., they actually saved money while at the same time providing a better educational experience.

http://sify.com/news/international/fullstory.php?id=13920937

What this all means is that publishers even more driven by the big sale mentality which further emphasizes the role of the one or two big states, even New York and Florida slip a little.

Not to defend Perry in any way, but is there any evidence that he actually is a “creationist”, and if so, which “kind”?

At least McLeroy has left a gigantic trail of evidence behind in videos, transcripts, and audio files.

In a court case, those would be the equivalent of artillery shells for the reality based community.

we all know that creationists on the witness stand are deadly weapons capable of causing huge amounts of damage...to their case. LOL

raven said: I think what you are seeing is a drowning man. Someone who is realizing that he is wrong scientificly and unwilling to give up cherished religious dogma.

raven said: McLeroy is wrong on the facts pretty consistently. I think what you are seeing is a drowning man. Someone who is realizing that he is wrong scientificly and unwilling to give up cherished religious dogma. Common, and in recent times past, rather than modify their beliefs, the believers would simply kill those who were heretics, apostates, infidels, and blashemers.

Stanton said:

raven said: McLeroy is wrong on the facts pretty consistently. I think what you are seeing is a drowning man. Someone who is realizing that he is wrong scientificly and unwilling to give up cherished religious dogma. Common, and in recent times past, rather than modify their beliefs, the believers would simply kill those who were heretics, apostates, infidels, and blashemers.

He, and many, if not most evolution-deniers, don't necessarily know, or even suspect that they're wrong. They not only deny the fact of evolution, they also deny that they're wrong. They're the sort of people who would deny that they're drowning on a sinking ship, even after the rats and roaches have jumped ship, and the water is reaching past their eyebrows.

I was unfortunate enough to listen to the entire audiofile of a talk (lasting over an hour) he gave to his Sunday school class, where he openly admitted his aim was to have evolution replaced by intelligent design, and then young earth creationism would replace ID.

An interesting but ultimately irrelevant question. If he appoints creationists, he appoints creationists. If he secretly scoffs at them but appoints them for crass political considerations, that doesn’t make him any worse or better. Behavior is what counts.

— harold

It’s not much of a secret that he’s a YEC, as a 3/28/09 WSJ article about the Texas BOE’s decisions points out: " Board members also deleted a reference to the scientific consensus that the universe is nearly 14 billion years old. The board’s chairman has said he believes God created the universe fewer than 10,000 years ago. "

— Karen S.

Someone asked for the audio of McLeroy advocating creationism in schools. I found what appears to be the audio, but have not listened to it. From here, http://www.texasobserver.org/blog/index.php/2007/08/03/missing-links/, I found this link:
http://www.grace-bible.org/downloads/sermons/Intelligent_Design/DM05404_Intelligent_Design_Theory_Primer.mp3

The Texas Freedom Network (www.tfn.org) claims to have a transcript, but the internal links it has appear to be broken.

Cheers.

It makes me weep for the future of humanity (OK, that's an exaggeration, but not much of one) that someone like this would be allowed anywhere near something as important for determining science standards--or anything else--for anyone at all, let alone a huge, populous state like Texas.

Although I've lived outside of Texas most of my adult life, I was born and went to K-12 there (in the Panhandle--think "Friday Night Lights" but in a larger city with several high schools rather than just one). I had a real mixed bag of an education. Some absolutely terrific teachers, including a bona fide flaming liberal for American history, a drama teacher who was a genuine genius, and I was in a first-rate music program. I didn't take biology (aversion to dissection), and I honestly don't know how evolution was dealt with, but my chemistry teacher was excellent and there was a geeky cult around the physics teacher. Many of my classmates went on to successful careers in science and medicine, including one who became a Harvard med school professor. We read Bocaccio in literature class with nary a word of protest and put on Show Boat without sweetcoating the miscegenation issue at all (although of necessity the black parts were done by whites in makeup).

But we had prayers over the intercom twice a day through 1972 (after years of protest from the handful of Jewish students they finally dropped the "in Jesus' name" part), we flew the Confederate flag and the school fight song was "Dixie." I was in constant hot water over the length of my hair. And you wouldn't believe the garbage we were taught in government and economics classes.

A very strange place, Texas.

Ah! Here's that transcript:
http://www.tfn.org/site/PageServer?pagename=mcleroylecture

It's not always that SBOEs are staffed with stay at home moms and dentists. The Ohio SBOE has at one time been staffed by creationist university profs. Incompetent deniers can be found anywhere.

Behold, the Oracle McLeroy:

"In the days prior to evolution, the evolution matrix program, that is from the beginning of human life until Darwin came along in the mid-19th century, human beings would step outside their homes and survey their eyes and their minds the wonders of nature. They’d see majestic 400-year-old redwood trees, hummingbirds that were able to hover, and honeybees that somehow knew how to do a special figure-eight dance. Looking in every direction, we humans beheld not only fantastic complexity and diversity and order, but also the supreme intelligence behind creation as brashly evident as the noonday sun. This ubiquitous natural wonderland caused man to acknowledge and honor the creator of creation. Issac Newton, quote, ‘When I look at the solar system, I see the earth at the right distance from the sun to receive the proper amount of heat and light. This did not happen by chance.’ Did not happen by chance? Well, ever since Darwin and his successors succeeded in loading the evolution matrix program on mankind, a fantastic theory on which there is no proof and many serious problems. Now, when we walk outside and look at the created universe, what do many of us see? Chance. Although our eyes survey the same wonders of God’s creation that inspired faith in our predecessors, in our minds today we see only the meaningless result of million years of random chance mutation, That’s what our minds see. The eternal dance of purposelessness, recombination of ever more complex form, but all without meaning, without spirit, without love. And by direct implication, we also see that man is not a fallen being needful of God’s saving grace, but merely the cleverest, most evolved animal of all. Since evolution by definition always results in improvement and advancement, man in all his violent, and lustful and selfish desires, drives, are perfectly normal and natural in advance. There’s no good and evil, no heaven and hell, and man as a highly evolved monkey has no sin and no guilt. As these are logical impossibilities from the evolutionary point of view.”

Scott said: Ah! Here's that transcript: http://www.tfn.org/site/PageServer?pagename=mcleroylecture

Now I would like to talk a little bit about the big tent. Why is intelligent design the big tent? It’s because we’re all lined up against the fact that naturalism, that nature is all there is. Whether you’re a progressive creationist, recent creationist, young earth, old earth, it’s all in the tent of intelligent design. And intelligent design here at Grace Bible Church actually is a smaller, uh, tent than you would have in the intelligent design movement as a whole. Because we are all Biblical literalists, we all believe the Bible to be inerrant, and it’s good to remember, though, that the entire intelligent design movement as a whole is a bigger tent. So because it’s a bigger tent, just don’t waste our time arguing with each other about some of the, all of the side issues. And that’s one thing that I really enjoyed about our group is that we’ve put that all in the big tent, we’re all working together.

Apparently, if you believe in evolution, redwoods and hummingbirds and bees are no longer amazing and wondrous. Hear that, godless naturalists?

— jfx

YEC were correct, OEC would be just as falsified as evolution.

Scott said: Ah! Here's that transcript: http://www.tfn.org/site/PageServer?pagename=mcleroylecture

Francis Schaeffer in the book “The God Who was There” if you’ve never read a Francis Schaeffer book, that is the one you must read, “The God Who was There,” written in 1968. He says at the very first paragraph of his book, he said, talks about the naturalistic worldview “is like a suffocating and a particularly bad London fog and just as fog can’t be kept out of the walls or doors so this consensus comes in around us until the room we live in is no longer distinct. And yet we hardly realize what has happened.”

Flint said:

YEC were correct, OEC would be just as falsified as evolution.

A misunderstanding. I think Don would allow ANY "explanation" of the world around us that the has the Christian God doing it all somehow. We may differ on exactly how and when Don's god operates, but so long as nature is taught as having Divine purpose, motivation, inspiration, and engineering, with us folks at the crown of creation, everything is just ducky. Don is just upset that science has found no particular need for the god hypothesis, and has devised explanations for things that omit Don's god. Worse yet, these explanations WORK. If they did not, they'd be no more relevant than Don's religion is relevant in central India. I suspect he senses that in the world of science, his god is simply ignored (much less assigned the task of being responsible for everything by magic, all is explained, quite asking questions and PRAY!).

jfx said: Apparently, if you believe in evolution, redwoods and hummingbirds and bees are no longer amazing and wondrous.

Note this excerpt:

So because it’s a bigger tent, just don’t waste our time arguing with each other about some of the, all of the side issues. And that’s one thing that I really enjoyed about our group is that we’ve put that all in the big tent, we’re all working together.

BTW, I refused to watch the video because I figured I knew what it would say and I didn't want to inflict it on myself. From the comments it seems my judgement was spot on.

Don McLeroy is nothing but 'a snake oil salesman'. His grandstanding on trying to find the document that is essential to his argument is disturbing. It is hard to believe that he didn't expect someone to challenge him on the science.

It is obvious that McLeroy does not understand what the "Cambrian explosion" was. He seems to be more under the impression that the "Cambrian explosion" was significantly less about 20 million years, among other misunderstandings. With this belief McLeroy suggest that the "Cambrian explosion" does not support evolution.

McLeroy believes that his misrepresentation of the fossil records should be the reason for students to challenge "evolution and the concept of common descent specifically." This makes him a 'snake oil salesmen.'It is unfortunate that there is no reference to challenge to his misunderstanding of the "Cambrian explosion"

mrg said: BTW, I refused to watch the video because I figured I knew what it would say and I didn't want to inflict it on myself. From the comments it seems my judgement was spot on. MrG http://www.vectorsite.net

oh
my
God (facepalm)

Wow. Not only is Don McLeroy an ignorant, condescending jackass, but he's an atrocious public speaker. I thought that public speaking was the creationist's forte (like yon "Gish Gallop"). Evidently, McLeroy hasn't been spending enough time preaching to his favorite church.

McLeroy has the Bully Pulpit.

As he said at one point during the proceedings, cutting off a person making a statement, "Hey, we ask the questions, not you!"

Right.

McLeroy can make that YouTube video because he is unopposed. There is no Academic Freedom on the SBOE. No way! McLeroy rules like Yurtle the Turtle.

Such a little man.

McLeroy wrote/spoke: The eternal dance of purposelessness, recombination of ever more complex form, but all without meaning, without spirit, without love...

"Vee vill ask der kvestions," eh?

What's next, "Vee haff vays of making you tock!"?

[McLeroy shows clips from the movie, The Matrix.] Gotta get that sigh in. Well, everyone's heard a lot about manipulation, mind control and things like that. Nevertheless, we're really not sure about how much mind control stuff really works.

mrg said: I'm reading Carl Zimmer's book PARASITE REX right now. It's not Dawkins by any means, but I have to really admire CZ for just how cool he thinks parasites really are.

Doc Bill said: McLeroy has the Bully Pulpit. As he said at one point during the proceedings, cutting off a person making a statement, "Hey, we ask the questions, not you!" Right.

A misunderstanding. I think Don would allow ANY “explanation” of the world around us that the has the Christian God doing it all somehow.

— Flint

KP said:

McLeroy wrote/spoke: The eternal dance of purposelessness, recombination of ever more complex form, but all without meaning, without spirit, without love...

But Don, everything is meaningless, haven't you heard? http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=25&chapter=1&version=31

Dave C said: Not to get into an irrelevant side argument or anything, but I'd take Zimmer's writing over Dawkins' any day of the week. :)

McLeroy believes that his misrepresentation of the fossil records should be the reason for students to challenge “evolution and the concept of common descent specifically.” This makes him a ‘snake oil salesmen.'

— Anthony

I struggled to understand this guy's point. He admits the fossil record strongly supports evolution except for the cambrian explosion? And therefore god? It sounds like this guy got his butt handed to him by the science and he's shouting a lot about gaps, trying to save his god.

I struggled to understand this guy’s point. He admits the fossil record strongly supports evolution except for the cambrian explosion? And therefore god?

— karl

Frank J said: McLeroy is just much clumsier at pulling that off than the more skilled activists.

It's always fun to watch a creationist (and, in this case, let's remember that this guy is a young earth creationist) put his scientific illiteracy on public display. It would be even funnier - except for the fact that the man happens to be the head of the Texas State Board of Education. When creationists say they want to "teach the controversy" or teach "the strengths and weaknesses", it's always good when they show us what they mean, as McLeroy shows us here: It means "Teach our religion-motivated arguments against evolution based on taking what scientists have said out of context and misrepresenting them because we ourselves don't understand the relevant science." What makes this particular one so ironically amusing is how easy it is too look up the chart by Kenneth Miller in Miller's book Finding Darwin's God and see what Miller himself is discussing, and finding that Miller even specifically discusses the exact misrepresentation that McLeroy engages in here and explains what's wrong with it. Which proves how horribly incompetent McLeroy is that he could see the chart yet apparently not be able to read and comprehend Miller's discussion about it.

As he said at one point during the proceedings, cutting off a person making a statement, “Hey, we ask the questions, not you!”

What makes this particular one so ironically amusing is how easy it is too look up the chart by Kenneth Miller in Miller’s book Finding Darwin’s God and see what Miller himself is discussing, and finding that Miller even specifically discusses the exact misrepresentation that McLeroy engages in here and explains what’s wrong with it.

— SteveG

Which proves how horribly incompetent McLeroy is that he could see the chart yet apparently not be able to read and comprehend Miller’s discussion about it.

— SteveG

The first sentence of this article was, "As head of the Texas Board of Education, creationist dentist, Don McLeroy has probably more influence over American textbooks than any other individual."

Why is Texas the biggest hitter when it comes to textbooks? It can't be because of population, California has half again as many people.

Peter Henderson said: Possibly not KP: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUworKXBzdE Mcleroys's speach is just depressing though,and very reminiscent of our chair of the education committee at Stormont: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/feb/12/northern-ireland-charles-darwin-courts Still, what qualifications do you need to become a dentist in the US ???? In the UK, dentistry is a highly respected medical profession and most dentists are well educated , probably next to GPs in terms of status. Mcleroy should at least have done some biology and be scientifically literate.

Why is Texas the biggest hitter when it comes to textbooks? It can’t be because of population, California has half again as many people.

I haven't seen the most important point mentioned in any of the comments so far, and it's a point that even evolution proponentsists often miss, so here:

McLeroy says that the fossil record is the most powerful evidence for common descent. I claim it isn't. The most powerful evidence for common descent is the nested hierarchy of life, most especially that in the genomes of living organisms. We have many orders of magnitude more data from genomes than we could ever expect to get from fossils.

I couldn't listen through to the end, but here are a few more problems, minor compared to the big one. McLeroy says the Cambrian explosion happened 550 million years ago. Actually, the Cambrian didn't start until 543ma, and the explosion didn't start until late in the Lower Cambrian, about 530ma, perhaps as late as 520ma. Nor, of course, was it as sudden as he makes out, there being a fair amount of prior buildup. (And contrary to what one poster has claimed, vertebrates do appear first in the explosion, in the Chengjiang fauna -- see Haikouichthys -- though they're not much like living vertebrates.)

Yeah, that's how I understand it, too: compared to the nested hierarchies from comparing genomes, anatomies, and biochemicals, fossils are secondary.

On a side note, Darwin's first major clue was geographic distribution: close relatives are generally within geographic reach of each other. (Or they used to be, before lots of creatures started hitchhiking on human-built vehicles.)

Henry

Thanks Anton. You eased my mind somewhat that this overweening bozo in Texas doesn't have direct influence beyond that state. On the other hand, others just like him are a dime-a-dozen all over this country, so now I'm fuming again.

McLeroy says the Cambrian explosion happened 550 million years ago. Actually ... didn’t start until late in the Lower Cambrian, about 530ma... perhaps as late as 520ma.

Actually, what he says is not so bad. It’s within 5% of the current best estimate, and probably within the reasonable range of uncertainty that accompanies events this deep in geological time.

McLeroy says that the fossil record is the most powerful evidence for common descent. I claim it isn’t. The most powerful evidence for common descent is the nested hierarchy of life, most especially that in the genomes of living organisms. We have many orders of magnitude more data from genomes than we could ever expect to get from fossils.

— John Harshman

But I’ll admit 550ma is much better than 5ka. It always amazes me when YECs bring up the Cambrian explosion, since they are required to believe that it’s nothing more than hydrologic sorting.

— John Harshman

Anton Mates said: California only adopts textbooks statewide for K-8; high schools can use whatever books they want (provided they can be certified as meeting state standards, of course.) Texas has statewide adoption all the way through K-12.

SteveG said: Which proves how horribly incompetent McLeroy is that he could see the chart yet apparently not be able to read and comprehend Miller's discussion about it.

Anthony said:

SteveG said: Which proves how horribly incompetent McLeroy is that he could see the chart yet apparently not be able to read and comprehend Miller's discussion about it.

I would use the word disillusioned rather than incompetent. The reason being is that he has seen the chart, but really wants to the help support his argument. Here is a man who wants to use the CE as an example for his argument, but can't accept that the CE lasted about 40 million years.

I think it's remarkable that this post has 108, now 9, replies and, unless I missed something, not one comment has defended him.
Not there is any way to logically defend him, but not even any trolling?
Amazing.
He's even embarrassed the trolls.

True and amazing. Texas claims that it supports rugged individualism and that California represents creeping centrail-government-controlled socialism. Yet in truth the Texas textbook selection system is more central-government-controlled than the California system.

— Dan

I think we need to teach the strengths and weaknesses of the theory of gravity. There is strong evidence for gravity-things fall to the earth when they drop them-so I can see why these nice scientists believe in it. But there is evidence-scientific data-which doesn't support gravity. Birds fly, balloons float. This is evidence, and it doesn't support gravity. We should tell our students the truth-that there are weaknesses in the theory of gravity!

Aagcobb said: I think we need to teach the strengths and weaknesses of the theory of gravity. There is strong evidence for gravity-things fall to the earth when they drop them-so I can see why these nice scientists believe in it. But there is evidence-scientific data-which doesn't support gravity. Birds fly, balloons float. This is evidence, and it doesn't support gravity. We should tell our students the truth-that there are weaknesses in the theory of gravity!

If gravity is a function of mass, are Catholics heavier during their church service than at other times? ;)

But there is evidence-scientific data-which doesn’t support gravity. Birds fly, balloons float. This is evidence, and it doesn’t support gravity.

— Aagcobb

it's the Theory of Intelligent Falling. no, seriously. see this coffee cup on my desk? it's not falling *now*, but it *would* fall if i held it at exactly the same height, then let go. obviously, the cup itself can't *know* whether to fall or not-fall. but something must! ergo, some Intelligence is guiding the cup to fall or not-fall

Teach The Controversy!

skyotter said: it's the Theory of Intelligent Falling. no, seriously. see this coffee cup on my desk? it's not falling *now*, but it *would* fall if i held it at exactly the same height, then let go. obviously, the cup itself can't *know* whether to fall or not-fall. but something must! ergo, some Intelligence is guiding the cup to fall or not-fall Teach The Controversy!

"Actually, I thought it was because liquids are intelligently designed to fit into whatever container they’re poured into."

i thought that too, until i tried to pour the contents of a 20-oz. togo cup into my 16-oz. desk mug. fluids empirically do NOT fit whatever container, only certain ones

thus is Fluid Teleology falsified (and the Coffee Hates Keyboards theory is supported by yet another data point)

it’s the Theory of Intelligent Falling.

— skyotter

Frank J said:

it’s the Theory of Intelligent Falling.

— skyotter

Ad "Darwinism" is "subsumed" by ID (per the Isaac Newton of Information Theory) IF "theory" is subsumed by "Intelligent Electron Theory." Note that "macrofalling" has been observed, but not not "microfalling."

McLeroy and Punctuated Equilibria

Somewhere in that sorry mess McLeroy quotes Steven J. Gould saying "Stasis is data." Since McLeroy misuses the concept of stasis, it seems like a good idea to explain what it really means in biology. And for that it's necessary to understand Eldredge and Gould's punctuated equilibria theory.

Punctuated equilibria is a theory about the tempo and mode of evolution, first published by Eldredge and Gould in 1972. It proposed that species spend most of their lifetimes with no significant adaptive change. Changes are instead concentrated during speciation events. During normal times, some force prevents adaptive change.

PE began with a simple question: If we accept Ernst Mayr's ideas about speciation, what would the fossil record look like? Mayr had proposed that new species emerge from peripheral isolates -- small populations of a prior species that are isolated on the geographic and ecological edges of the species' range. In Mayr's view, major evolution would be prevented in the main population due to the existence of coadapted gene complexes, groups of interacting genes. A mutation in one gene that would, by itself, be advantageous would instead be deleterious against the background of the coadapted gene complex, because interactions with those other genes would be disrupted. And so adaptive evolution would be prevented; there is stasis. However, in peripheral isolates, primarily because of small population size, there can be a period of "genetic revolution", during which the coadapted gene complexes break up, adaptive evolution is possible, and new species can form. Peripheral isolates would form frequently; most would become extinct, but a few would form new species. Note that change still happens in the usual way, through natural selection, not macromutation. The unusual feature is the idea that evolution is prevented during normal times.

Eldredge and Gould figured out that if Mayr were correct, the fossil record would show predominant stasis, because most fossils would belong to the widespread, main populations of their species. Few peripheral isolates would be preserved, and thus the transitions to new species would be invisible. New species would appear in the fossil record after the few peripheral isolates lucky enough to form new species had expanded their ranges to become new widespread species, again in stasis.

So what about McLeroy and other creationists? In PE, stasis is something that happens within species. Groups above the species level don't show stasis. If an ancient species closely resembles, but is not identical to, a later species, that isn't stasis. In other words, stasis is a microevolutionary phenomenon, affecting a single species. The claimed prevalence of stasis in the fossil record says nothing about macroevolution, which is what creationists are trying to dispose of. It says something about microevolution, which they often claim to accept. Speciation breaks stasis, but the resulting new species is quite similar to the parent species. In creationist terms, "they're still just horses" (or monkeys, or fruit flies; whatever).

The creationist distortion of stasis is a claim that there are no intermediate fossils, and no evidence of macroevolution. But the intermediates are plentiful in macroevolutionary transitions. What we're missing are generally the microevolutionary transitions that are, in PE, claimed to be happening in peripheral isolates: the continuous series of forms separating one widespread species from its quite similar immediate descendant species. Stasis and punctuation, with the fossil gaps they generate, cover the sorts of transitions that creationists generally admit do happen. Go figure.

So, while "stasis is data", it's not data of the sort that can provide any comfort to creationists. Even those who, unlike McLeroy, believe that the fossil record isn't all the result of a single, yearlong flood.

(There are many problems with PE, by the way. Mayr's theories of speciation are not popular among modern biologists. Coadapted gene complexes of the sort Mayr postulated are not in evidence. And so PE has lost its original mechanism. There are also problems with showing the prevalence of stasis in the fossil record, and with recognizing species and speciation events. But none of this is relevant to creationism, or to McLeroy's misuse of PE.)

John Harshman said: Changes are instead concentrated during speciation events. During normal times, some force prevents adaptive change.

Thanks, John Harshman, for the explanation of PE. Maybe the final answer will show that PE is partially correct.

What often isn’t appreciated is how benign our current environment is relative to the far more drastic changes that have taken place long before humans arrived on the scene.

And another thing. Magnetic reversals don't actually result in a period of zero magnetic field, nor is the earth exposed to markedly more radiation during a reversal.

John Harshman said: And another thing. Magnetic reversals don't actually result in a period of zero magnetic field, nor is the earth exposed to markedly more radiation during a reversal.

I think you misunderstand the time scale involved. It’s not that our current environment is benign, it’s just that major disasters happen at intervals much longer than human history so far.

Now there is a separate notion of “coordinated stasis”, in which environmental change produces conditions that promote or prevent speciation in many species at once. But that’s a whole nother subject.

Mike Elzinga said:

John Harshman said: And another thing. Magnetic reversals don't actually result in a period of zero magnetic field, nor is the earth exposed to markedly more radiation during a reversal.

I don’t have numbers in front of me, but I had understood that there is enough of an increase to affect mutation rates. But, since this is not an area I have studied in any depth, I could have picked up some misinformation.

However, if you Google "magnetic reversal evolution" you do find a really cool-sounding crackpot book.

John Harshman said: However, if you Google "magnetic reversal evolution" you do find a really cool-sounding crackpot book.

I should also mention that it isn’t necessarily where the field goes to zero that is the issue. If there are places on the surface where field lines are entering or emerging, particles can spiral down to the surface. If those places are away from the poles so that they can face the Sun, then there can be a rather large influx of particles in that area.

And in rapidly changing situations, these patches move around a lot.

Oops, it was GvlGeologist who gave me the update. Thanks.

GvlGeologist, FCD said: One interesting effect of this that I've read about is that we would expect to see auroras over much more of the earth than currently seen!

For Punctuated Equilibria, wouldn't it be sufficient for stasis if the environment were to remain unchanged? If a species was well adapted to its environment and the environment didn't change, wouldn't we see that as "stasis"? If the species is already at a local maximum on the fitness graph, any small change would likely be forced back to the local maximum. The only time that mutations would cause "macro-evolution" would be when the environment changed dramatically, or at the geographical edges of the environment. Further, rather than coadapted gene complexes, how about coadapted species? If you get a faster cheetah, you deplete the population of gazelles, thus rendering the faster cheetahs at a disadvantage to their cousins. Maybe?? Kind of puts a crimp in evolution of species, but isn't it ecologies that evolve, and not just individual species? No species exists in isolation from others. (Just throwing out ideas. I'm no biologist.)

May I "punctuate" this "equilibrium" to alert any new lurkers to the mind-numbing irony of it all?

Above we have the usual healthy debates that are a cornerstone of science. Details get weaker and stronger, sometimes even replaced, but in the long run the general explanation gets ever more robust, and once-promising candidate alternatives end up in the dust bin of history.

Yet anti-science activists like McLeroy do not want students to know that. He would rather take those debates out of context to pretend that the robust general explanation is weak, or worse. But if that were the case, wouldn't it be prudent to revisit one or more of those discarded alternatives? McLeroy apparently thinks not. More than once he discouraged debating "side issues" such as the age of the earth. Even his DI-embarrassing questioning of common descent makes no mention whatever of a potential alternative, much less the several mutually contradictory ones proposed in the past. No mention of their "strengths and weaknesses" either.

Why the double standard Don?

Scott said: For Punctuated Equilibria, wouldn't it be sufficient for stasis if the environment were to remain unchanged?

Further, rather than coadapted gene complexes, how about coadapted species? If you get a faster cheetah, you deplete the population of gazelles, thus rendering the faster cheetahs at a disadvantage to their cousins.

John Harshman said: Yes, and this has been one of the mechanisms suggested to explain stasis. The PE claim is that stasis happens despite environmental change. PE further claims that stasis is broken only (or mainly, at least) during speciation, which can't be expected to correspond closely to environmental change.

John Harshman said: Nor does PE have anything to do with huge environmental changes. It's a theory about speciation in individual lineages. "Normal times" doesn't refer to the environment, but to the genetic situation within a widespread species. Now there is a separate notion of "coordinated stasis", in which environmental change produces conditions that promote or prevent speciation in many species at once. But that's a whole nother subject.

about 3:20

"This is the Paley-entologists saying this."

Yes, I'm sure they do. However, paleontologists say no such thing.

(Is it really fair to pick on his troubles with large words?)

Ok; now I am confused. What this is apparently saying, if I understand this correctly, is that there are cases where the species is “so robust” that even extreme environmental changes aren’t sufficient to dislodge it from “equilibrium”. Are these the species that are being discussed rather than those that respond to environmental changes quite sensitively, therefore remaining in stasis only when the environment is relatively stable?

When some critter discovers how to utilize a novel ecological niche, I could see how there could be a sudden explosion of radiation/speciation followed by a slowing down of speciation as all the (heretofore unused) resources come to be used. Is this a type of PE or does my example fall into the “environmental change produces conditions that promotes speciation?”

Apropos of this topic, I'm in Colorado right now visiting relatives, and opening up today's edition of the Denver Post I discovered this rather clueless opinion piece concerning the current Texas standards debate.

Someone needs to get over there and educate the author on the true reasons people object to these attempts to inject "strengths and weaknesses" into the curriculum.

John Harshman said: Mike: PE is not a theory about the effects of environmental change. Under PE, species remain in stasis except during speciation. They don't respond to selection in any other than small ways (though the mechanism by which selection would be resisted is one problem for PE), and sizeable change only happens during speciation. Stasis exists not because of stable environment, but because species are prevented by some mechanism from responding to change. And this is supposed to affect not some small proportion of exceptional species, but species in general. Under PE, the usual response to extreme environmental change is extinction. That's what PE claims. You may think, quite reasonably, that PE is wrong.

Ah. In physicist’s language, the species is sitting in a relatively deep potential well, relatively unperturbed by outside influences (environmental changes). But then, somehow it “tunnels out” to an adjacent well. Seems possible: the mechanisms are most likely at the molecular genetic level.

Altair IV said: Apropos of this topic, I'm in Colorado right now visiting relatives, and opening up today's edition of the Denver Post I discovered this rather clueless opinion piece concerning the current Texas standards debate. Someone needs to get over there and educate the author on the true reasons people object to these attempts to inject "strengths and weaknesses" into the curriculum.

John Harshman said: I want to repeat that hardly anyone believes in Mayr's mechanisms these days, and PE is left with no clear mechanism, if it exists at all. And I will also point out that stasis, as a phenomenon, has no necessary relation to PE. Nor, for that matter, does punctuation.

If a species was well adapted to its environment and the environment didn’t change, wouldn’t we see that as “stasis”? If the species is already at a local maximum on the fitness graph, any small change would likely be forced back to the local maximum.

raven said: Taht was always my idea about observed stasis. Evolution is blind and drives species towards local fitness optimuns at any given time. If the environment is stable, they sit there. However, over long periods of time, the environment is never stable.

What is his alternative explanation for the Cambian explosion?

John Harshman said:

Scott said: For Punctuated Equilibria, wouldn't it be sufficient for stasis if the environment were to remain unchanged?

Yes, and this has been one of the mechanisms suggested to explain stasis. The PE claim is that stasis happens despite environmental change. PE further claims that stasis is broken only (or mainly, at least) during speciation, which can't be expected to correspond closely to environmental change.

Further, rather than coadapted gene complexes, how about coadapted species? If you get a faster cheetah, you deplete the population of gazelles, thus rendering the faster cheetahs at a disadvantage to their cousins.

That would be group selection, and it's hard to devise parameters for which it overcomes individual selection. In this case, extra speed is advantageous to individual cheetahs, and so spreads through the population, even if it eventually results in detriment to the population as a whole. It seems more likely that the species interaction you describe would result in an arms race, with both predator and prey failing to exhibit stasis. There are plenty of arguments in the biological literature about what causes stasis, including arguments about just how common it is, and whether it needs much of an explanation at all.

Not always, Steve. There's this thing called "extinction", you may have heard of it. That's when evolution can't get over the rock.

Steve said:

What is his alternative explanation for the Cambian explosion?

Easy as pie. Each phase of biological development happened in rational order. All subsequent phases are dependent upon the effects on the environment each previous phase initiated.

"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists--whether through design or stupidity, I do not know--as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. Yet a pamphlet entitled 'Harvard Scientists Agree Evolution Is a Hoax' states: 'The facts of punctuated equilibrium which Gould and Eldredge...are forcing Darwinists to swallow fit the picture that Bryan insisted on, and which God has revealed to us in the Bible.'" - Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory"

TOE is so like invincible man, whenever it hits a rock, it evolves an explanation to get over the rock somehow.

TOE is so like invincible man, whenever it hits a rock, it evolves an explanation to get over the rock somehow.

This could be an interesting discussion

DS said: To bad he has no real argument to make. Why is stasis a problem for evolution? Why is "sudden appearance" a problem for evolution? If these are problems for evolution, why is no one else convinced? Is everyone else more ignorant of the evidence than this guy? After all he is a dentist, he is a real expert. How does he explain wisdom teeth? Why does he think that students are qualified to decide what the evidence shows? Are they experts? Who is preventing them from becoming familiar with the evidence and deciding for themselves? No scientist has that power, nor would they want it. This guy is just spouting nonsense. Why would be fooled by this? If they are, shame on them. Why is he so proud that no "complicated math is required"? What alternative explanation is he proposing to explain the evidence? What is this guy even talking about? I thought creationists were supposed to be good public speakers. This guy must have missed the memo.

fnxtr said: Not always, Steve. There's this thing called "extinction", you may have heard of it. That's when evolution can't get over the rock.

mrg said:

TOE is so like invincible man, whenever it hits a rock, it evolves an explanation to get over the rock somehow.

Raven, don't you find it interesting that anyone would actually come out and say an "ability to provide explanations" is a DEFECT? And on the hidden side of the same coin, would such folk stop complaining if that ability was lacking? Well, that's not even really a question, we we know the answer: HEADS I WIN TAILS YOU LOSE. Oh, and on "mountains of evidence" ... even if one is skeptical of the evidence in favor of evolutionary science, it still tilts the scales with a loud CLUNK! to one side when balanced against the "mountains of complaints" provided by the critics. MrG http://www.vectorsite.net

That’s just silly, but on the other hand being skeptical of a person’s ability to perceive, accumulate data, and draw conclusions on their own is also silly.

fnxtr said:

That’s just silly, but on the other hand being skeptical of a person’s ability to perceive, accumulate data, and draw conclusions on their own is also silly.

Even smart people can be wrong, Lissa. Especially under conditions where they are fed incorrect, corrupt (in the technical not moral sense), or deliberately biased data. That's why science works. Data is constantly scrutinized and challenged. Compare that to the "don't ask, don't tell" big tent of ID, the belief in inerrancy of Scripture, and the doctrine of papal infallibility.

True. But questioning a person’s exact experience with something is not really wise, the conclusions a person draws from their own experience are personal.

I'm sorry, to lie? How about to present Science in a fair and objective manner, ever cross your mind that thats what he wants to happen?

Or are you so obtuse that you can only see your side of things and no one else's? Perhaps you should question Evolution sometime and then maybe look at what we have to say before just outright calling us with a narrow minded tunnel vision of a brain "liars" as thats quite slanderous.

I really wonder what will happen when the day comes that they actually do decide to teach Creation Science in schools. I would not be surprised to see that happen. I don't want to see it happen because I believe Evolutionists will misconstrue the information and favor their side illegitimately.

Dr. Lewis said: I really wonder what will happen when the day comes that they actually do decide to teach Creation Science in schools. I would not be surprised to see that happen. I don't want to see it happen because I believe Evolutionists will misconstrue the information and favor their side illegitimately.

fnxtr said:

True. But questioning a person’s exact experience with something is not really wise, the conclusions a person draws from their own experience are personal.

You are conflating what things are with what they mean. I don't know if that's deliberate, or if you just can't see the difference. If you insist that the fossilized bones you found are from the dragons and giants that lived in the olden days, then I have absolutely no qualms about saying "bullshit", unless you're four years old and like playing make-believe. If you say they're precious to you because they remind you of a good adventure you had, well great, more power to you.

Dr. Lewis said: I'm sorry, to lie? How about to present Science in a fair and objective manner, ever cross your mind that thats what he wants to happen? Or are you so obtuse that you can only see your side of things and no one else's? Perhaps you should question Evolution sometime and then maybe look at what we have to say before just outright calling us with a narrow minded tunnel vision of a brain "liars" as thats quite slanderous.

Also ID's doesn't have a "don't ask, don't tell policy" They have a "mind your own business about it policy, especially if your intent in asking questions about it is just to degrade another"

lissa said: Also ID's doesn't have a "don't ask, don't tell policy" They have a "mind your own business about it policy, especially if your intent in asking questions about it is just to degrade another"

GuyeFaux said: How is "mind your own business, we don't want to be criticized" different from "don't ask, don't tell?"

lissa said: Also ID's doesn't have a "don't ask, don't tell policy" They have a "mind your own business about it policy, especially if your intent in asking questions about it is just to degrade another"

Dr. Lewis said: I really wonder what will happen when the day comes that they actually do decide to teach Creation Science in schools. I would not be surprised to see that happen.

lissa said:

GuyeFaux said: How is "mind your own business, we don't want to be criticized" different from "don't ask, don't tell?"

lissa said: Also ID's doesn't have a "don't ask, don't tell policy" They have a "mind your own business about it policy, especially if your intent in asking questions about it is just to degrade another"

People are usually discreet about it JUST because they know others will not accept, understand, or they will literally degrade another. If they thought that people could be objective about it they probably wouldn't mind explaining it, but even when people attempt to explain it they get bashed, so why should they not have the policy. I think an attempt to change that is perfectly fine, but it will be resisted.

It was an example, Lissa, I thought you were smart enough to figure that out.

So everything is true if we want it to be, and there's no such thing as calling people on their bullshit?

Guess what? I can fly.

lissa said: Also ID's doesn't have a "don't ask, don't tell policy" They have a "mind your own business about it policy, especially if your intent in asking questions about it is just to degrade another"

They have a “mind your own business about it policy, especially if your intent in asking questions about it is just to degrade another”

All it means is they perceived something, dismissing theories out of hand just because one doesn’t like the way it is presented is just nearly as bad as dismissing Evolutionary Science out of hand.

fnxtr said: It was an example, Lissa, I thought you were smart enough to figure that out. So everything is true if we want it to be, and there's no such thing as calling people on their bullshit? Guess what? I can fly.

fnxtr said:

All it means is they perceived something, dismissing theories out of hand just because one doesn’t like the way it is presented is just nearly as bad as dismissing Evolutionary Science out of hand.

First of all, perception and theory are two entirely different things. And do you really think that's what's happening? "Dismissing theories out of hand just because one doesn't like the way it is presented"? You really have not been paying attention, Lissa. Sure, these fundie whackos can believe their fairy tales if they want, who cares. What they cannot do is pretend it's science and lie to our children about it. On the taxpayer's dime.

lissa said: Guess what? I can fly, and have done so. Because my brain said I was flying although my physical body didn't go anywhere. And I can tell you it gave me a very euphoric feeling.

Dave lovell said:

lissa said: Also ID's doesn't have a "don't ask, don't tell policy" They have a "mind your own business about it policy, especially if your intent in asking questions about it is just to degrade another"

So they are like children trying to protect their fantasy world from the critical attention of grown ups?

lissa said: Yep. pretty much. Atheists are like children wanting to bash other people for having a religious belief.

Flint said:

They have a “mind your own business about it policy, especially if your intent in asking questions about it is just to degrade another”

A wonderful illustration of how viewpoints can be so incredibly different. Scientists, being human, are often very competitive. They generally take great delight in demonstrating that some other scientist is wrong on the evidence, and work hard to dig up the (replicable) evidence necessary to do that demonstration. But their primary purpose isn't to "degrade" whoever got it wrong; their primary motivation is to get it right. Scientific claims are not the private personal business of whoever makes the claim, they are the business of how reality itself works. Someone who makes a claim about how reality works isn't declaring private business others should stay out of, they're proposing something that must stand up to rigorous test by anyone who chooses to test it. So what lissa doesn't seem to understand is, ID proponents have nothing that can be tested, they are making empty claims you either find congenial or you SHUT UP. These claims might be right, they might be wrong, nobody can possibly tell (magic is not testable). So scientists address most ID claims (with the exception of demonstrably false claims) not by saying they're wrong, but by saying they are useless - they can't be validated and they make no predictions. When scientists disagree, they dig into the evidence as hard as required to see how reality actually works. Eventually all is revealed, and the result is agreement. When ID proponents disagree, the result can only be a schism - a division of competing claims for which no resolution is possible in principle. And they realize this - their disagreements aren't matters of evidence, but matters of doctrine. A straight swearing contest. So they avoid this. The way a scientist is degraded is to be discovered faking the evidence. ID folks don't use evidence, they use religious conviction. Like lissa, they sincerely believe that things come true because they WANT those things to be true. I guess it's degrading to them to point out that reality doesn't work that way...

lissa said:

fnxtr said: It was an example, Lissa, I thought you were smart enough to figure that out.

So everything is true if we want it to be, and there's no such thing as calling people on their bullshit? Guess what? I can fly.

If it can't be discussed without people calling others on what THEY perceive as Bullshit then the policy might as well be Don't ask Don't tell.

Guess what? I can fly, and have done so. Because my brain said I was flying although my physical body didn't go anywhere. And I can tell you it gave me a very euphoric feeling.

lissa said: Actually magic IS testable. but calling it "magic" is just a misperception, it's a PHYSICAL thing. I've personally moved or changed objets without touching them it has always been spontaneous, although there's no reason to believe that by focusing one's attention on couldn't do it deliberately.

lissa said: Actually magic IS testable. but calling it "magic" is just a misperception, it's a PHYSICAL thing. I've personally moved or changed objets without touching them it has always been spontaneous, although there's no reason to believe that by focusing one's attention on couldn't do it deliberately.

lissa said:

fnxtr said: It was an example, Lissa, I thought you were smart enough to figure that out So everything is true if we want it to be, and there's no such thing as calling people on their bullshit? Guess what? I can fly.

I am smart enough to figure it out. No everything isn't true if we want it to be, however "reality" is what we perceive. If it can't be discussed without people calling others on what THEY perceive as Bullshit then the policy might as well be Don't ask Don't tell.

Guess what? I can fly, and have done so. Because my brain said I was flying although my physical body didn't go anywhere. And I can tell you it gave me a very euphoric feeling.

Dave lovell said:

lissa said: Actually magic IS testable. but calling it "magic" is just a misperception, it's a PHYSICAL thing. I've personally moved or changed objets without touching them it has always been spontaneous, although there's no reason to believe that by focusing one's attention on couldn't do it deliberately.

Lissa, you're in for a windfall of a million dollars! http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html

Dave lovell said:

lissa said: Actually magic IS testable. but calling it "magic" is just a misperception, it's a PHYSICAL thing. I've personally moved or changed objets without touching them it has always been spontaneous, although there's no reason to believe that by focusing one's attention on couldn't do it deliberately.

Lissa, you're in for a windfall of a million dollars! http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html

I’ve personally moved or changed objets without touching them it has always been spontaneous, although there’s no reason to believe that by focusing one’s attention on couldn’t do it deliberately.

Stanton said:

lissa said:

fnxtr said: It was an example, Lissa, I thought you were smart enough to figure that out So everything is true if we want it to be, and there's no such thing as calling people on their bullshit? Guess what? I can fly.

I am smart enough to figure it out. No everything isn't true if we want it to be, however "reality" is what we perceive. If it can't be discussed without people calling others on what THEY perceive as Bullshit then the policy might as well be Don't ask Don't tell.

If you're trying to hold an intelligent conversation with other people, you are not allowed to misuse, appropriate or inappropriately redefine terms at your leisure. Insisting on redefining terms without consensus, whether deliberately or not breeds confusion. And you will not win people over to your cause if you insist on berating people for pointing out that you're misusing terms and coining inappropriate neologisms.

Guess what? I can fly, and have done so. Because my brain said I was flying although my physical body didn't go anywhere. And I can tell you it gave me a very euphoric feeling.

If your body wasn't leaving the ground for a sustained period while moving around in the air, then you are not flying, period. That you felt like you were flying doesn't necessarily mean you were flying, and that you admit that your body stayed put means that you weren't flying. In shorter words, "sensation of flying" does not equal "flying"

Lissa, like the ID clowns, is not really interested in learning anything that might challenge her pretty little soap-bubble world.

And, like the ID clowns, she doesn't care if we believe what she believes, so is not interested in proving it to anyone.

Now, she may come back with "I know you are but what am I?".

The difference is, we do care. Hand us proof we can test for ourselves. Please? We've been asking for a long, long time, and got nothing.

Or should we all just stay in our safe little corners and believe whatever the hell we want, and never learn anything?

While we're at it, lets garble the meanings of words, just to put the icing on the cake.

Oh, and confuse wishful thinking with reality, too, to put the little chocolate sprinkles on the icing.

Stanton said:

lissa said: Actually magic IS testable. but calling it "magic" is just a misperception, it's a PHYSICAL thing. I've personally moved or changed objets without touching them it has always been spontaneous, although there's no reason to believe that by focusing one's attention on couldn't do it deliberately.

Can you please produce actual evidence that you can magically move objects with your mind, like, for example, video taping it in front of a live audience?

Lissa,

My brother was badly schizophrenic, and heard voices telling him to do what he knew was wrong.

Dad didn't understand what the problem was. "They're not real!" he would say.

Bro said "They're real to me."

Turns out it's just a body chemistry thing. The voices were his own mind running out of control. There was nothing behind the voices but the equivalent of crossed wires.

One night while burning garbage another brother thought he saw "a glowing eye" next to the barn. On closer examination it was street light reflected from a wet spare tire.

If you are at all interested in the real world, you need to be able to distinguish what is from what you think you saw. We have used this distinction to survive and thrive for quite a long time now so it may come in handy for you someday.

Your link is just a page of baseless assertions with zero actual evidence, just like everything you've said, and everthing the DI proposes.

Stanton said:

lissa said: Yep. pretty much. Atheists are like children wanting to bash other people for having a religious belief.

Why don't you go out and meet an atheist or 5 in the flesh before you begin forcing them into an arbitrary and grossly inaccurate stereotype?

fnxtr said: Lissa, My brother was badly schizophrenic, and heard voices telling him to do what he knew was wrong. Dad didn't understand what the problem was. "They're not real!" he would say. Bro said "They're real to me." Turns out it's just a body chemistry thing. The voices were his own mind running out of control. There was nothing behind the voices but the equivalent of crossed wires. One night while burning garbage another brother thought he saw "a glowing eye" next to the barn. On closer examination it was street light reflected from a wet spare tire. If you are at all interested in the real world, you need to be able to distinguish what is from what you think you saw. We have used this distinction to survive and thrive for quite a long time now so it may come in handy for you someday.

fnxtr said: Your link is just a page of baseless assertions with zero actual evidence, just like everything you've said, and everthing the DI proposes.

Stanton said:

lissa said: Yep. pretty much. Atheists are like children wanting to bash other people for having a religious belief.

Why don't you go out and meet an atheist or 5 in the flesh before you begin forcing them into an arbitrary and grossly inaccurate stereotype?

Breaking a cigarette by focusing on the cigarette INTENSELY and seeing it break is not what I “thought” I saw, it is exactly what happened.

lissa said: why shouldn't I place them into an arbitrary and grossly inaccurate stereotype when Creationists are being placed into an arbitrary and grossly inaccurate stereotypes?

lissa said: They hook up machines to people and test their rhythms, and it happens that their rhythm can become the same, is that exact enough for you? If someone wants to call it "telepathy" then that's what they can call it if that's what they want to call it.

... and apparently "The McLintock Effect" is under some criticism. More studies will show if it's real, or sampling bias, or something else.

Flint said:

Breaking a cigarette by focusing on the cigarette INTENSELY and seeing it break is not what I “thought” I saw, it is exactly what happened.

Experiences like this tend to meet with skepticism, no matter who has them. Scientists are well aware of this phenomenon - look up the case of N-Rays. Peoples' experiences are notoriously subjective, yet vigorously defended. (As an illustration, a common experiment is to show people a video of some event, then ask questions about it. Most people will answer some of the questions wrong. Many of those, when challenged, will "marry" their error, and their conviction about what they saw will harden into immutability. When they see the video again, and see that they were wrong, they don't accept the correction! Instead, they often claim the video was doctored, or a ringer was brought in, and they become quite hostile. They KNOW that it "is not what they 'thought' they say, it is exactly what happened." (to quote lissa). Which raises two important points: people aren't very good witnesses, and they are even worse at admitting error.) So scientists have, over the course of time, evolved numerous ways of largely neutralizing human fallibiliy: they specify their methodology in detail, they invite replication, they engage in disputes which inspires them to devise new tests, they have peer review, they must resolve any conflicts between their results and other related results, they construct experiments so that the expected results are not the default, etc. What they do NOT do is say "the tape was doctored" (which comes in many forms, such as "I don't have to prove it" or "I don't feel like proving it" or "I don't want to prove it" or "if you don't believe me, that's not my problem" or any such techniques of avoiding admitting error.) Psychologists are still trying to figure out why people who are so obviously wrong that every other witness sees it right there in front of them, can STILL not admit error. But the bottom line is, people would much rather be considered a fool by everyone else, than doubt their memories or their perceptions. The latter is much more frightening.

Tell us how and why your rant about Child Protective Services is relevant to either the fact that the head of the Texas Board of Education refuses to accept the fact of common descent, and how does your rant tie into the fact that we can not accept your claims of magic and psychic powers because you have no intention of putting up even the most minimal effort to support your claims.

I've never said I wouldn't admit an error if it was shown to me that I had erred either. Bottom line is all people err. The whole point of studying it ISN'T to decide who is right and who is wrong anyway, but to come to a better understanding of the whole thing. And like I said dismissing other people's theories (who happen to be doctors who are studying it) is at least as bad as dismissing Evolutionary Science.

Jung isn't accepted simply because people consider his ideas "odd" That's not a good enough reason for me, I think a lot could be learned from it from a clinical, cognitive, behavioral point of view.

They just want to take everybody with a similar problem and group them all together instead of treating them like individuals and I resist that simply because I AM not a group of people, I AM an individual with my own personality and I don't NEED to have my whole personality changed because someone else thinks I should change it. I'm easy to get along with as long as people respect my wishes, if they get disrespectful, rude, or forceful I might be a terror and I never feel bad about it because although I can change I think it's unreasonable for someone else to think I should change just because I don't do things the same way they do.

Stanton said: Tell us how and why your rant about Child Protective Services is relevant to either the fact that the head of the Texas Board of Education refuses to accept the fact of common descent, and how does your rant tie into the fact that we can not accept your claims of magic and psychic powers because you have no intention of putting up even the most minimal effort to support your claims.

lissa said:

Stanton said: Tell us how and why your rant about Child Protective Services is relevant to either the fact that the head of the Texas Board of Education refuses to accept the fact of common descent, and how does your rant tie into the fact that we can not accept your claims of magic and psychic powers because you have no intention of putting up even the most minimal effort to support your claims.

It's relevant to the whole thing because SOCIETY is deciding what is appropriate for kids and what isn't appropriate for kids, and I don't think they should be lied to, and I don't think they should be brainwashed either. But brainwashing techniques are used all the time in all classes, not just science classes, and teaching them at HOME or in a PRIVATE school is becoming more and more appealing to people for that very reason.

When I was a massage therapist, I ran into people like Lissa all the time, and had many frustrating discussions with them. Flint nailed their fundamental problem:

"...people would much rather be considered a fool by everyone else, than doubt their memories or their perceptions. The latter is much more frightening."

Indeed, people like Lissa cannot bear the thought that their perceptions and their memories are flawed, and this, despite all her flapjabber, is why she supposedly isn't interested in demonstrating her abilities before James Randi, or in Vegas. It's because deep down in her heart of hearts she knows she's wrong, and she'd rather come up with all sorts of goofy rationalizations to avoid a fair test than to risk seeing her belief disproved.

I mean really, doesn't want a million dollars? Are you freaking kidding me? What sane upstanding citizen with the ability to move objects with their mind would hesitate to go to Vegas, scoop up a few $million of mob money at the roulette wheel and give it to the many worthy charities out there? I used to be a big believer in the paranormal in my prescientific days, and I used to dream of developing my abilities (I used to fool others, and myself as well, as to my psychic abilities. You'd be amazed how easy it is) to the point of being able to use them Superhero style to help the world. Claiming to have no desire to do so makes you either evil or a liar.

And BTW Lissa, I don't reject Jung's blatherings because they are odd. I reject them (at least as they were portrayed in "The Road Less Travelled", a steaming pile of a tome) because they are untestable, easily rationalized gibberish.

Science Avenger said: When I was a massage therapist, I ran into people like Lissa all the time, and had many frustrating discussions with them. Flint nailed their fundamental problem: "...people would much rather be considered a fool by everyone else, than doubt their memories or their perceptions. The latter is much more frightening." Indeed, people like Lissa cannot bear the thought that their perceptions and their memories are flawed, and this, despite all her flapjabber, is why she supposedly isn't interested in demonstrating her abilities before James Randi, or in Vegas. It's because deep down in her heart of hearts she knows she's wrong, and she'd rather come up with all sorts of goofy rationalizations to avoid a fair test than to risk seeing her belief disproved. I mean really, doesn't want a million dollars? Are you freaking kidding me? What sane upstanding citizen with the ability to move objects with their mind would hesitate to go to Vegas, scoop up a few $million of mob money at the roulette wheel and give it to the many worthy charities out there? I used to be a big believer in the paranormal in my prescientific days, and I used to dream of developing my abilities (I used to fool others, and myself as well, as to my psychic abilities. You'd be amazed how easy it is) to the point of being able to use them Superhero style to help the world. Claiming to have no desire to do so makes you either evil or a liar. And BTW Lissa, I don't reject Jung's blatherings because they are odd. I reject them (at least as they were portrayed in "The Road Less Travelled", a steaming pile of a tome) because they are untestable, easily rationalized gibberish.

Stanton said:

lissa said:

Stanton said: Tell us how and why your rant about Child Protective Services is relevant to either the fact that the head of the Texas Board of Education refuses to accept the fact of common descent, and how does your rant tie into the fact that we can not accept your claims of magic and psychic powers because you have no intention of putting up even the most minimal effort to support your claims.

It's relevant to the whole thing because SOCIETY is deciding what is appropriate for kids and what isn't appropriate for kids, and I don't think they should be lied to, and I don't think they should be brainwashed either. But brainwashing techniques are used all the time in all classes, not just science classes, and teaching them at HOME or in a PRIVATE school is becoming more and more appealing to people for that very reason.

If your ranting about Child Protective Services on this thread is so relevant because of "SOCIETY," then how come Child Protective Services is not mentioned at all in what Reed Cartwright wrote in this entry?

If I wanted to FOOL others or myself about my psychic abilities, I'd be TRYING to prove something to them, or myself, I don't aspire to FOOL anybody or PROVE anything, so what the hell are you talking about FOOLING people for?

Seriously "Avenger" you got it all wrong, I AVOID people who think they have to prove their abilities to other people, they don't offer me much, I can only base my opinions on my own personal experience, just like anybody else, and I don't really even have to SHARE it with anyone, and I especially don't have to be happy when they insult me if I do.

Science Avenger said: When I was a massage therapist, I ran into people like Lissa all the time, and had many frustrating discussions with them.

I accept things as they are. If I am evil or a liar, because I do my own part PRIVATELY instead of having a desire to indulge in it publicly then that's just YOUR opinion of it now isn't it?

also, people's WANTING a million dollars is just a behavior i don't care to indulge in. It signifies a person who isn't happy with things the way they are, it doesn't signify anything else. I don't NEED a million dollars, I have enough already, if the rest of the world would catch onto that the world would be a better place.

mrg said:

Science Avenger said: When I was a massage therapist, I ran into people like Lissa all the time, and had many frustrating discussions with them.

When I run into people with a loopy line of talk, I usually figure out where they're coming from and spout back an equally loopy line of talk -- but NOT the same one, for example if they are talking New Age, I start talking aliens from another dimension, posing as circus clowns. They get REALLY mad.

lissa said:

Stanton said: If your ranting about Child Protective Services on this thread is so relevant because of "SOCIETY," then how come Child Protective Services is not mentioned at all in what Reed Cartwright wrote in this entry?

So sorry you are confused about the whole thing. Replace CPS with nosy schoolteachers, or nosy principles, or nosy other people then.

Stanton, you don't really think you're going to make any headway here, either, do you?

Stanton said:

lissa said:

Stanton said: If your ranting about Child Protective Services on this thread is so relevant because of "SOCIETY," then how come Child Protective Services is not mentioned at all in what Reed Cartwright wrote in this entry?

So sorry you are confused about the whole thing. Replace CPS with nosy schoolteachers, or nosy principles, or nosy other people then.

If you actually took the time to look at the post, Reed Cartwright wasn't talking about nosy people, he's talking about how a Creationist who is trying to rationalize his reasons for trying to wreck the educations of the children he's in charge of. So I rephrase my question: how is your rant about nosy people in Child Protective Services relevant to a Creationist making a fool out of himself trying to explain his reasons for rejecting good science?

Also Stanton, what they say is "keep up on your current diagnosis, because it might change" Of course it might change, it might even be a dual or multiple diagnosis, simply because they don't want to treat people like individuals.

It CHANGES because AGE CHANGES THE BRAIN CHEMISTRY IN EVERYBODY.

And there we have it. MY perceptions are flawless, I know exactly what happened because I SAW what happened, so how can my perceptions possibly be wrong?

What we have here, is a failure to communicate.

(Which is why Uri Geller could fool scientists with his spoon-bending, but got only horselaughs from your neighborhood parlor magician. Fooling people into thinking they witnessed something they didn't is a long and honored profession, still practiced VERY remuneratively by John Edwards and his ilk. There are people in Vegas who trick whole audiences into the same perceptual errors every night, night after night, and they are all fooled.

The telekenesis schtick (moving/breaking/altering something by mindpower alone) is pretty standard ordinary fare. I even learned how to do it. It's just a combination of misdirection peoples' attentions while misleading their expectations.

lissa said: I don't think my perceptions are flawed, they aren't flawed, every experience I have ever had is a real experience whether some silly other people would like to believe what they call "THE BIG LIE" or not.

lissa said: ...I can only base my opinions on my own personal experience, just like anybody else...

lissa said: I don't think my perceptions are flawed, they aren't flawed,

It is even worse then that Dan. The brain isn't set up to even properly interpret the data it receives.

Look at this image
http://users.on.net/~waynefrancis/Chessboard.jpg
The A and B squares are both the same colour. Bring the image into a graphics program and look at the RGB values if you don't trust me.

It is these aspects of how our brain works that cause many optical illusion. So it is much more then the sensitivity range of your eyes or ears. It is the way our brain processes the impulses coming in.

If someone claims they perceive A & B as the same shade then they are probably boarder line autistic.

Dan said:

lissa said: I don't think my perceptions are flawed, they aren't flawed,

Of course they are. Everyone's perceptions are flawed. Can you see infrared light? Of course not! So your perception of the infrared is flawed. Can you hear ultrasonic sound? Of course not! So your perception of sound if flawed. Can you feel magnetic field? Of course not! So your perception of magnetism is flawed. If you recognize the flaws in your perception, then you can guard against them and learn from them. If you claim "nothing's ever wrong with my perception," then you'll never get beyond the limitations of your perception.

Wayne Francis said: It is even worse then that Dan. The brain isn't set up to even properly interpret the data it receives. Look at this image http://users.on.net/~waynefrancis/Chessboard.jpg The A and B squares are both the same colour. Bring the image into a graphics program and look at the RGB values if you don't trust me. It is these aspects of how our brain works that cause many optical illusion. So it is much more then the sensitivity range of your eyes or ears. It is the way our brain processes the impulses coming in. If someone claims they perceive A & B as the same shade then they are probably boarder line autistic.

lissa said: How do you know I can't feel magnetic field? or hear ultrasonic sound? if you can't get past nothing's ever wrong with MY perception then YOU will never get beyond the limitations of YOUR perceptions.

The strangest thing about it was I got this impression about my Uncle's son, which turned out to be true. So go ahead and think it was completely unrelated to ESP, I don't care, if it wasn't then what would be YOUR explanation?

I've also experienced the impression of a person being next to me and having a discussion with them, and then being told that they were experiencing the same thing at the same time.

Wayne Francis said:

lissa said: How do you know I can't feel magnetic field? or hear ultrasonic sound? if you can't get past nothing's ever wrong with MY perception then YOU will never get beyond the limitations of YOUR perceptions.

Umm because we don't have any organs sensitive to magnetic fields and our ears do not have the structures to hear ultrasound. Just like I know that your car can not fly to the moon under its own power. Now even with blind people that can use echo location there is nothing different about their ears. They still hear the same range of sounds that is expected by humans. They have just trained themselves to process those signals differently and there is no reason other people can't do the same. This is a lot different then claiming you can see light from the electromagnetic spectrum at 300nm wavelengths.

lissa said:

Wayne Francis said:

lissa said: How do you know I can't feel magnetic field? or hear ultrasonic sound? if you can't get past nothing's ever wrong with MY perception then YOU will never get beyond the limitations of YOUR perceptions.

Umm because we don't have any organs sensitive to magnetic fields and our ears do not have the structures to hear ultrasound. Just like I know that your car can not fly to the moon under its own power. Now even with blind people that can use echo location there is nothing different about their ears. They still hear the same range of sounds that is expected by humans. They have just trained themselves to process those signals differently and there is no reason other people can't do the same. This is a lot different then claiming you can see light from the electromagnetic spectrum at 300nm wavelengths.

LOL. Yeah, that's where evolution comes into play here. I might have evolved farther along that you and my EARS and EYES are different than yours.

Of course there's no reason other people can't do the same. in fact I'm pretty sure that I said they CAN do the same, and maybe even SHOULD do the same, but then people would just prefer to say it's not worth considering at all and Dr. Herbert Benson is a quack even though a doctor would recommend it if THEY weren't quacks.

lissa said: The strangest thing about it was I got this impression about my Uncle's son, which turned out to be true. So go ahead and think it was completely unrelated to ESP, I don't care, if it wasn't then what would be YOUR explanation? I've also experienced the impression of a person being next to me and having a discussion with them, and then being told that they were experiencing the same thing at the same time.

lissa said: LOL. Yeah, that’s where evolution comes into play here. I might have evolved farther along that you and my EARS and EYES are different than yours.

Wayne Francis said:

lissa said: The strangest thing about it was I got this impression about my Uncle's son, which turned out to be true. So go ahead and think it was completely unrelated to ESP, I don't care, if it wasn't then what would be YOUR explanation? I've also experienced the impression of a person being next to me and having a discussion with them, and then being told that they were experiencing the same thing at the same time.

So you got the feeling that you standing next to someone...that you where standing next to and they had the same feeling that they where standing next to you. And you find this odd? I often get this feeling too. My normal reaction to this feeling when it first comes over me for a given individual is pretty remarkable too. I normally say "Hello" followed by their name if I know it. It is an unbelievable power that I have isn't it.

lissa said: LOL. Yeah, that’s where evolution comes into play here. I might have evolved farther along that you and my EARS and EYES are different than yours.

And you once again show how truly ignorant you are about what science means by evolution. Individuals don't evolve, populations do and unless all your relatives are involved in strict inbreeding...wait that might explain a lot of things about you.

None of my relatives play the "politically correct" game. Why? because we don't have to just to appease somebody else. If they got their own issues and wish to insult us, we will just laugh in their face. and say well then if you don't want to know, DON'T ask ME. Doing any other thing would just simply be being DISHONEST.

Stanton said:

lissa said:

Wayne Francis said:

lissa said: How do you know I can't feel magnetic field? or hear ultrasonic sound? if you can't get past nothing's ever wrong with MY perception then YOU will never get beyond the limitations of YOUR perceptions.

Umm because we don't have any organs sensitive to magnetic fields and our ears do not have the structures to hear ultrasound. Just like I know that your car can not fly to the moon under its own power. Now even with blind people that can use echo location there is nothing different about their ears. They still hear the same range of sounds that is expected by humans. They have just trained themselves to process those signals differently and there is no reason other people can't do the same. This is a lot different then claiming you can see light from the electromagnetic spectrum at 300nm wavelengths.

LOL. Yeah, that's where evolution comes into play here. I might have evolved farther along that you and my EARS and EYES are different than yours.

Do you have proof of this or are you bullshitting again, as usual?

http://www.occultopedia.com/i/incubus.htm

lissa said: I am not ignorant, I was just kidding. if you can't tell the difference then I guess that's your own fault not mine.

lissa said: All people's ANCESTORS were involved in INBREEDING so don't even go there with it.

lissa said: if they weren't humans wouldn't have survived very long. I know enough about genetics to discuss the whole thing, I know what EVOLUTION is.

lissa said: And also there's such a thing as ANCESTRAL memory, which is carried in the genes,

lissa said: the problem is SOCIETY wants to tell people HOW TO BEHAVE even if it's against their own nature, why would someone be happy with that?

lissa said: How do you know I can't feel magnetic field? or hear ultrasonic sound? if you can't get past nothing's ever wrong with MY perception then YOU will never get beyond the limitations of YOUR perceptions.

Dan said: Poe!

lissa said: I don't think my perceptions are flawed, they aren't flawed, every experience I have ever had is a real experience whether some silly other people would like to believe what they call "THE BIG LIE" or not.

lissa said: http://www.occultopedia.com/i/incubus.htm

Dave Lovell said:

lissa said: I don't think my perceptions are flawed, they aren't flawed, every experience I have ever had is a real experience whether some silly other people would like to believe what they call "THE BIG LIE" or not.

I would bet that this woman was certain her perceptions weren't flawed either. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/5123965/Mother-kills-son-with-a-bullet-to-back-of-head-at-Florida-shooting-range.html If you have no way, or even desire, to try to establish what is "real" and what is not, behavior like this is inevitable.

Wayne Francis said:

lissa said: I am not ignorant, I was just kidding. if you can't tell the difference then I guess that's your own fault not mine.

Are you kidding about your ESP, Ultrasound hearing and internal magnetic compass?

lissa said: All people's ANCESTORS were involved in INBREEDING so don't even go there with it.

Ummm yea but there is a big difference between a few hundred to thousand years ago and someone that is the product of the last 2 or more generations being involved in inbreeding. Do you understand that?

lissa said: if they weren't humans wouldn't have survived very long. I know enough about genetics to discuss the whole thing, I know what EVOLUTION is.

Do you know how to properly construct a sentence? First letter of a sentence should be capitalized. Do you know when to you a period instead of an comma? Do you understand that animals, to which humans are included, do not have to inbreed to survive. In fact in most cases it is preferential if they do not inbreed thus increasing the genetic diversity which in turn generally provides a better chance for the population to survive.

lissa said: And also there's such a thing as ANCESTRAL memory, which is carried in the genes,

are you referring to genetic memory? What do you mean by "ancestral memory"

lissa said: the problem is SOCIETY wants to tell people HOW TO BEHAVE even if it's against their own nature, why would someone be happy with that?

I'm not telling you how to behave. I'm disputing your claims that you have sensory powers that has never been verified to be possessed by any other human on the face of the Earth. I.E. I'm calling you a liar. You have the right to behave the way you are but we don't have to accept your lies as truth.

Dan said:

lissa said: How do you know I can't feel magnetic field? or hear ultrasonic sound? if you can't get past nothing's ever wrong with MY perception then YOU will never get beyond the limitations of YOUR perceptions.

Poe! http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Poe's_Law

Ancestral Memory. I didn't exactly just outright ignore your question altogether Wayne, I just figured its not worth answering to someone who is calling me a liar. But if you are really interested here it is.

http://www.merkaba.org/announcements/051706.htm

Lissa, here are some of my experiences regarding perceptions. Take from them what you will.

I have an inner ear disorder. Occasionally, I perceive a sound that sounds for all the world to me like a laboratory centrifuge running out of balance. I work in a lab, so the first couple of times this happened, I ran out of my office into the lab area to see which centrifuge had the problem, so as to correct it. Only to find that, not only was no one else in the area perceiving the sound, none of the centrifuges were even running. What would be the more sane, sensible thing to do? 1. Refuse to believe my perception could possibly be wrong and berate my staff for not correcting the problem and furthermore go off on them for lying to me by claiming not to hear the sound, even though my clear perception was that it was present? Or, 2. Realize that my perception was totally wrong, a phenomenon commonly experienced by those affected with my disorder, and seek appropriate treatment for that disorder.

Of course, being a scientist rather than someone who thinks her perceptions are infallible no matter what the evidence to the contrary, I chose the latter.

I also used to frequently suffer from the perception that the floor (or the very Earth) beneath my feet was rolling and pitching like a ship in a storm. I assure you this perception was so vivid and real for me that I could not stand without aid and would usually vomit violently, just as if I really were out on a ship in a rough sea. By accepting that none of this movement was actually happening but was merely an additional symptom of my inner ear disorder and seeking appropriate therapy (vestibular rehabilitation exercises), I have become able to use proprioception together with visual techniques to learn how to convince my brain that the signals it is getting from my faulty inner ear are indeed faulty and that the world is NOT rolling and pitching. Hence my vertigo problems are largely a thing of the past and are no longer keeping me from a normal life. I suppose I could have just yelled at people that they were wrong to believe that the room or the Earth was not actually moving, because I was having the vivid perception that they WERE, damn it, but then I would not have gotten control of my life back. Using evidence from sources other than our own perceptions is very useful for either corroborating or denying the reality of what we are experiencing. That is, if we want to have control of our lives rather than blaming others and refusing competent help when we develop physical and/or mental problems that need attention. Based on some of your posts, I think you could use some advice from others in getting your own life back under control, but that perception on my part could be wrong! It is purely up to you to decide if you really do have such problems and, if so, if you want to seek appropriate help. I wish you the best.

lissa said:

Dan said:

lissa said: I don't think my perceptions are flawed, they aren't flawed,

Of course they are. Everyone's perceptions are flawed. Can you see infrared light? Of course not! So your perception of the infrared is flawed. Can you hear ultrasonic sound? Of course not! So your perception of sound if flawed. Can you feel magnetic field? Of course not! So your perception of magnetism is flawed. If you recognize the flaws in your perception, then you can guard against them and learn from them. If you claim "nothing's ever wrong with my perception," then you'll never get beyond the limitations of your perception.

How do you know I can't feel magnetic field? or hear ultrasonic sound? if you can't get past nothing's ever wrong with MY perception then YOU will never get beyond the limitations of YOUR perceptions.

Dave Lovell said:

lissa said: I don't think my perceptions are flawed, they aren't flawed, every experience I have ever had is a real experience whether some silly other people would like to believe what they call "THE BIG LIE" or not.

I would bet that this woman was certain her perceptions weren't flawed either. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/5123965/Mother-kills-son-with-a-bullet-to-back-of-head-at-Florida-shooting-range.html If you have no way, or even desire, to try to establish what is "real" and what is not, behavior like this is inevitable.

Dan said:

lissa said:

Dan said:

lissa said: I don't think my perceptions are flawed, they aren't flawed,

Of course they are. Everyone's perceptions are flawed. Can you see infrared light? Of course not! So your perception of the infrared is flawed. Can you hear ultrasonic sound? Of course not! So your perception of sound if flawed. Can you feel magnetic field? Of course not! So your perception of magnetism is flawed. If you recognize the flaws in your perception, then you can guard against them and learn from them. If you claim "nothing's ever wrong with my perception," then you'll never get beyond the limitations of your perception.

How do you know I can't feel magnetic field? or hear ultrasonic sound? if you can't get past nothing's ever wrong with MY perception then YOU will never get beyond the limitations of YOUR perceptions.

Well gee, if you can feel magnetic field, how about the weak nuclear field? The strong nuclear field? If you can see infrared light, can you also see microwaves? Can you see X-rays? Tell me: What does a quark look like?

marilyn said: Lissa, here are some of my experiences regarding perceptions. Take from them what you will. I have an inner ear disorder. Occasionally, I perceive a sound that sounds for all the world to me like a laboratory centrifuge running out of balance. I work in a lab, so the first couple of times this happened, I ran out of my office into the lab area to see which centrifuge had the problem, so as to correct it. Only to find that, not only was no one else in the area perceiving the sound, none of the centrifuges were even running. What would be the more sane, sensible thing to do? 1. Refuse to believe my perception could possibly be wrong and berate my staff for not correcting the problem and furthermore go off on them for lying to me by claiming not to hear the sound, even though my clear perception was that it was present? Or, 2. Realize that my perception was totally wrong, a phenomenon commonly experienced by those affected with my disorder, and seek appropriate treatment for that disorder. Of course, being a scientist rather than someone who thinks her perceptions are infallible no matter what the evidence to the contrary, I chose the latter. I also used to frequently suffer from the perception that the floor (or the very Earth) beneath my feet was rolling and pitching like a ship in a storm. I assure you this perception was so vivid and real for me that I could not stand without aid and would usually vomit violently, just as if I really were out on a ship in a rough sea. By accepting that none of this movement was actually happening but was merely an additional symptom of my inner ear disorder and seeking appropriate therapy (vestibular rehabilitation exercises), I have become able to use proprioception together with visual techniques to learn how to convince my brain that the signals it is getting from my faulty inner ear are indeed faulty and that the world is NOT rolling and pitching. Hence my vertigo problems are largely a thing of the past and are no longer keeping me from a normal life. I suppose I could have just yelled at people that they were wrong to believe that the room or the Earth was not actually moving, because I was having the vivid perception that they WERE, damn it, but then I would not have gotten control of my life back. Using evidence from sources other than our own perceptions is very useful for either corroborating or denying the reality of what we are experiencing. That is, if we want to have control of our lives rather than blaming others and refusing competent help when we develop physical and/or mental problems that need attention. Based on some of your posts, I think you could use some advice from others in getting your own life back under control, but that perception on my part could be wrong! It is purely up to you to decide if you really do have such problems and, if so, if you want to seek appropriate help. I wish you the best.

lissa,

You remind me of a kid I once met who insisted he could read, he just couldn't read out loud.

Dean Wentworth said: lissa, You remind me of a kid I once met who insisted he could read, he just couldn't read out loud.

lissa said:

Dean Wentworth said: lissa, You remind me of a kid I once met who insisted he could read, he just couldn't read out loud.

Yeah, and these jokers remind me of kids who insist they know everything there is to know about all things imaginable. Because to quote Dr. Lewis: I’m sorry, to lie? How about to present Science in a fair and objective manner, ever cross your mind that thats what he wants to happen? Or are you so obtuse that you can only see your side of things and no one else’s? Perhaps you should question Evolution sometime and then maybe look at what we have to say before just outright calling us with a narrow minded tunnel vision of a brain “liars” as thats quite slanderous.

Dean Wentworth said: lissa, You remind me of a kid I once met who insisted he could read, he just couldn't read out loud.

I don't know anything about Dr. Lewis Stanton, but if the shoe fits, wear it.

lissa said: I don't know anything about Dr. Lewis Stanton, but if the shoe fits, wear it.

Stanton said:

lissa said: I don't know anything about Dr. Lewis Stanton, but if the shoe fits, wear it.

If you don't know anything about "Dr" Lewis, then why were you mentioning him as though he were some sort of authority? Why do you insist on getting bent out of shape when we refuse to believe your claims of having magical and psychic powers, as well as being able to see infrared, feel magnetic fields and hear ultrasonic sounds if you also insist on refusing to demonstrate that you really have such abilities?

How does one demonstrate something over the internet? I described it to you (in part only). If that's not good enough then too damned bad I guess. You will just continue to call me a liar, why wouldn't I get bent out of shape about that?

lissa said: I didn't mention him as if he was an authority. I quoted him on an extremely ACCURATE thing he said about YOU, and WAYNE. narrowminded tunnel-vision of brain people who aren't at all objective and can see only THEIR side of it.

ps said: How does one demonstrate something over the internet? I described it to you (in part only). If that's not good enough then too damned bad I guess. You will just continue to call me a liar, why wouldn't I get bent out of shape about that?

lissa,

You didn't answer Stanton's second question. In case you forgot, it was,

"Why do you insist on getting bent out of shape when we refuse to believe your claims of having magical and psychic powers, as well as being able to see infrared, feel magnetic fields and hear ultrasonic sounds if you also insist on refusing to demonstrate that you really have such abilities?"

Come on, inquiring minds want to know.

lissa,

So, the mere fact that you claim to have Carrie-esque powers (and other supernatural abilities) is supposed to be enough to overcome the skepticism of reasonable people. When it isn't, you take umbrage. Get a grip.

Dean Wentworth said: lissa, You didn't answer Stanton's second question. In case you forgot, it was, "Why do you insist on getting bent out of shape when we refuse to believe your claims of having magical and psychic powers, as well as being able to see infrared, feel magnetic fields and hear ultrasonic sounds if you also insist on refusing to demonstrate that you really have such abilities?" Come on, inquiring minds want to know.

Dean Wentworth said: lissa, So, the mere fact that you claim to have Carrie-esque powers (and other supernatural abilities) is supposed to be enough to overcome the skepticism of reasonable people. When it isn't, you take umbrage. Get a grip.

Tell me: What does a quark look like?

Stanton said:

lissa said: I didn't mention him as if he was an authority. I quoted him on an extremely ACCURATE thing he said about YOU, and WAYNE. narrowminded tunnel-vision of brain people who aren't at all objective and can see only THEIR side of it.

You fail to realize that "Dr" Lewis is a religious fraud who insists on chastising us simply because we point out how stupid creationists make themselves by lying and denying reality, as well as demonstrating that he is only capable of lying and denying reality. Furthermore, simply because we are not gullible idiots, and wish to receive proof of fantastic claims about magical and psychic powers, as well as superhuman senses does not make us narrow-minded or curse us with tunnel-vision. Or, are we to believe that you also castigate your coworkers and family members for deleting emails sent by deposed Nigerian officials seeking financial assistance?

ps said: How does one demonstrate something over the internet? I described it to you (in part only). If that's not good enough then too damned bad I guess. You will just continue to call me a liar, why wouldn't I get bent out of shape about that?

You could try setting up a webcamera to demonstrate your magical psychic powers, or you could try not mentioning your claims.

Dean Wentworth said: lissa, You didn't answer Stanton's second question. In case you forgot, it was, "Why do you insist on getting bent out of shape when we refuse to believe your claims of having magical and psychic powers, as well as being able to see infrared, feel magnetic fields and hear ultrasonic sounds if you also insist on refusing to demonstrate that you really have such abilities?" Come on, inquiring minds want to know.

I see. So it's all our fault for not being able to tell the difference between you trying to be funny and you being a flake.

So sorry.

Please help us.

In the future please preface your serious (flaky) remarks with "I'm serious:". Please precede all jokes with "This is a joke:"

Thank you.

lissa,

These are direct quotes of yours:

"I’ve personally moved or changed objets [sic] without touching them it has always been spontaneous, although there’s no reason to believe that by focusing one’s attention on couldn’t do it deliberately.

"Breaking a cigarette by focusing on the cigarette INTENSELY and seeing it break is not what I “thought” I saw, it is exactly what happened."

Both are unambiguous claims of psychokinetic ability. Like it or not, such claims require extensive corroboration to be taken seriously by anyone who isn't astoundingly gullible. Yet, in lieu of any supporting evidence whatsoever, you offer, "I don’t HAVE to PROVE IT TO YOU OR ANYONE ELSE."

Where are the Raelians? All the intelligent design supporters should pipe up in this thread. I'd call loki, but things probably are this bad for the ID perps.

It's unfortunate that the best minds at PT seem to spend the most time engaging the least constructive and cogent commenters. Lissa isn't even an opposing viewpoint, she's either mentally ill or just fucking with you. Why waste your time?

ben said: It's unfortunate that the best minds at PT seem to spend the most time engaging the least constructive and cogent commenters. Lissa isn't even an opposing viewpoint, she's either mentally ill or just fucking with you. Why waste your time?

Dean Wentworth said: lissa, These are direct quotes of yours: "I’ve personally moved or changed objets [sic] without touching them it has always been spontaneous, although there’s no reason to believe that by focusing one’s attention on couldn’t do it deliberately. "Breaking a cigarette by focusing on the cigarette INTENSELY and seeing it break is not what I “thought” I saw, it is exactly what happened." Both are unambiguous claims of psychokinetic ability. Like it or not, such claims require extensive corroboration to be taken seriously by anyone who isn't astoundingly gullible. Yet, in lieu of any supporting evidence whatsoever, you offer, "I don’t HAVE to PROVE IT TO YOU OR ANYONE ELSE."

ben said: It's unfortunate that the best minds at PT seem to spend the most time engaging the least constructive and cogent commenters. Lissa isn't even an opposing viewpoint, she's either mentally ill or just fucking with you. Why waste your time?

and frankly I could care less about whether you believe me

fnxtr said: I see. So it's all our fault for not being able to tell the difference between you trying to be funny and you being a flake. So sorry. Please help us. In the future please preface your serious (flaky) remarks with "I'm serious:". Please precede all jokes with "This is a joke:" Thank you.

fnxtr said:

and frankly I could care less about whether you believe me

Then why are you here? This is a place where people discuss the value of evidence. You have none. So?

Stanton said:

ben said: It's unfortunate that the best minds at PT seem to spend the most time engaging the least constructive and cogent commenters. Lissa isn't even an opposing viewpoint, she's either mentally ill or just fucking with you. Why waste your time?

Lissa won't go away if we ignore her: the last time we ignored her, she continued to post a 220+ comment long, tedious rant about how her life and the lives of her ex's family have been ruined by overmedication and the Child Protective Services.

lissa,

You wrote,

“I’ve personally moved or changed objets without touching them it has always been spontaneous, although there’s no reason to believe that by focusing one’s attention on couldn’t do it deliberately."

This is a straightforward claim, independent of context, that you yourself possess psychokinetic ability. You have provided no supporting evidence. Reasonable people are justified in being skeptical.

ben said: It’s unfortunate that the best minds at PT seem to spend the most time engaging the least constructive and cogent commenters. Lissa isn’t even an opposing viewpoint, she’s either mentally ill or just fucking with you. Why waste your time?

Actually Ben THEY are FUCKING with ME, simply because they don’t like the way I present something when THEY ask for it.

Sorry, meant to add: "Now I no longer wonder whether you're mentally ill."

ben said:

ben said: It’s unfortunate that the best minds at PT seem to spend the most time engaging the least constructive and cogent commenters. Lissa isn’t even an opposing viewpoint, she’s either mentally ill or just fucking with you. Why waste your time?

Actually Ben THEY are FUCKING with ME, simply because they don’t like the way I present something when THEY ask for it.

No, actually people were mostly ignoring you while you posted over and over and over again about things having nothing to do (except perhaps in your mind) with the subject of the original post. I don't think anyone is "fucking with you" here, they're just tired of you clogging up comment threads with stuff that should probably be either shared with your psychiatrist or just not said at all. Oh and BTW I hadn't noticed your claims of telekenetic ability.

ben said: Sorry, meant to add: "Now I no longer wonder whether you're mentally ill."

ben said: Sorry, meant to add: "Now I no longer wonder whether you're mentally ill."

They are asking me for information, taking all my comments out of context, calling me a liar, and yes I have experienced telekinesis, so what? I didn’t claim that it was a “magical” abilty, and I didn’t claim it was “supernatural”, I just said I don’t care to “prove” it to anybody. If they want “proof” they can go look for it somewhere else, I’m not here to “prove” it. I offered something and suggested they look at objectively, which they refuse to do

lissa,

If Ben thinks that you are mentally ill then that is his perception. You have no right to question it and you have no right to demand any evidence or to insist that his perception is in error. In short, you must simply accept that that is his perception and that there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. The fact that that perception is also shared by many others is nothing at all to be concerned about I'm sure.

Ben,

Don't be too hard on lissa. She apparently thinks that you are her doctor and she has many issues with her doctor. She also apparently thinks that she is a chicken but refuses to go to therapy because she claims that she needs the eggs. Whatever you do, don't point out that she is obviously schizophrenic, you know how she hates lables. Besides, if you do she will probably just reply - "I know I am but what am I".

DS said: lissa, If Ben thinks that you are mentally ill then that is his perception. You have no right to question it and you have no right to demand any evidence or to insist that his perception is in error. In short, you must simply accept that that is his perception and that there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. The fact that that perception is also shared by many others is nothing at all to be concerned about I'm sure. Ben, Don't be too hard on lissa. She apparently thinks that you are her doctor and she has many issues with her doctor. She also apparently thinks that she is a chicken but refuses to go to therapy because she claims that she needs the eggs. Whatever you do, don't point out that she is obviously schizophrenic, you know how she hates lables. Besides, if you do she will probably just reply - "I know I am but what am I".

Reed why don't you just start a new thread called "Lissa's problems" and she can spew there.

There may be a terminology issue here. Magic, by definition, means an effect without any natural cause. The problem with Intelligent Design is, it proposes that life (however defined) arose, and perhaps changes, through supernatural mechanisms. Supernatural means, not accessible to any natural methods of testing. Science deals ONLY with natural methods. Science presumes that, in principle, natural mechanisms produce all observable results - even if we do not yet understand exactly what those mechanisms are or how they work.

Science doesn't rule out telekenesis. Science merely says that if telekenesis operates by supernatural means, science is incompetent to explain how it works. IF there are gods, science cannot investigate them, because gods by definition use means outside the boundaries of the scientific method. IF lissa is capable of telekenesis, science therefore presumes that, eventually and with enough research and testing, the exact mechanisms by which lissa does this can be determined, replicated, perhaps reproduced mechanically by devices that exactly duplicate this mechanism.

The other side of what we're talking about here is, people have an apparently infinitely flexible capacity to kid themselves. This even includes scientists. As Dawkins wrote, "There is no sensible limit to what the human mind is capable of believing, against any amount of contrary evidence." So there's this ever-present subtext underlying the application of science, that people will believe what they sincerely wish to be true. Separating what IS true from what someone WANTS to be true is not a trivial task, especially since very often the two are the same. Our ability to rationalize, to generate special pleading, is boundless.

I think ID rests on this difficulty. It relies utterly on the ability of those who WISH to believe, to reject facts and evidence, or to fabricate them or to misinterpret them, or whatever it takes to defend preferences from the slings and arrows of outrageous reality. Which explains why many otherwise intelligent people go to extraordinary lengths to "discover" that their beliefs are somehow consistent with clear and obvious refutations.

Flint said: Science doesn't rule out telekenesis. Science merely says that if telekenesis operates by supernatural means, science is incompetent to explain how it works.

Science deals ONLY with natural methods. Science presumes that, in principle, natural mechanisms produce all observable results - even if we do not yet understand exactly what those mechanisms are or how they work.

Henry J said:

Science deals ONLY with natural methods. Science presumes that, in principle, natural mechanisms produce all observable results - even if we do not yet understand exactly what those mechanisms are or how they work.

I'm not sure about that. Seems to me that scientific investigation depends more on finding consistent patterns in the data than it does on whether the causes are "natural" or "supernatural" (whatever those words even mean). If God(s) exist, the reason he/she/it/they'd be hard to investigate scientifically isn't so much the natural/supernatural distinction, but simply that the actions of such might be unique events*, rather than repeatable patterns that could then be described and tested. *Especially if said beings notice that some upstart creature is trying to investigate it/he/she/them. ;) Henry

actually, I’m not particularly interested in “investigating” it, “proving” it or any like thing

stevaroni said:

actually, I’m not particularly interested in “investigating” it, “proving” it or any like thing

Well, that's great. There's a lot of people on the Texas BOE who feel pretty much the same way. Problem is, they are 1) getting directly in the way of the people who are competently investigating it, and 2) insisting that those people who do actually understand this stuff because it has been investigated refrain from explaining the simple, easy to understand laws of nature to school children studying this very topic because, um... Well, it's theologically inconvenient.

Seems to me that scientific investigation depends more on finding consistent patterns in the data than it does on whether the causes are “natural” or “supernatural” (whatever those words even mean).

Flint said: It's been difficult to marshal scientific opposition to intelligent design and creation science and the like, because scientists simply don't see any sense in it or any utility in wasting time on obvious nonsense. The entire scientific method is so tightly interwoven with the presumption of natural phenomena that it's not even questioned or often even recognized.

Lissa,

We have a forum on which you can start whatever topic you want to. Take advantage of it, or you risk having your posting privileges decreased for being continually off topic.

Everyone else,

Do the same and do not respond to off topic comments. Otherwise, you risk the same decreased privileges.