Thoughts in a Haystack

The piece in the Advocate states, "The Central Community School Board approved a policy Monday that supports its science teachers if they decide to wade into scientific controversies, including teaching students about alternatives to the theory of evolution."

But the actual language of the very brief policy statement says nothing about an "alternative" to the ToE, which is generally interpreted as connoting a theory to replace evolutionary theory in toto, which has never been the case with the design hypothesis. The policy statement merely sanctions debate over controversial 'aspects' of a theory, which pertains in this case to causation, either totally natural, totally directed, or a mix of the two.

ID, the all-out villain here, has been widely misinterpreted as stealth creationism, based solely on isolated examples of religionists (the Dover school board) using ID terminology in their teleological arguments. But ID, properly defined, is merely an investigative hypothesis. And again, rather than one to replace natural causation, it merely supplants it, and is subject to precisely the same rigors of verification and falsification.

Two other points need clarification, and they are

• Is there indeed a controversy, and
• Is 'critical thinking' a valid criteria?

First, 'controversy' is not the best descriptor of the issue(s) regarding causation, since it has public debate connotations. Science, and this issue in particular has been over-politicized, and I blame the science regulatory agencies more than the religionists, since there is no way that the extreme religionists will ever get their dogmatisms within scientific curricula; no way, no how, given the Constitutional restraints reinforced with court decisions.

If anything, regulatory agencies' extreme opposition to any consideration of teleology as hypothetical, and often presented by mandate (AAAS statements) fuels the political debates, adds fuel to the fire(s).

And yes, critical thinking is a requirement of science, rather than an insistence upon an adherence to dated predictions that have yet to be affirmed, and may never be, due to their forensic nature. In short we need to end the opposition to ID as an adjunctive hypothesis within evolutionary theory, and totally divorce it from its false conflation with organized religion.
 

A "false conflation," Lee? Let me remind you of William Dembski's view:

Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory.

(Originally in his piece in Touchstone's special issue on intelligent design; quoted all over the web.)

Of course, perhaps there's an out for you in your use of "organized religion."
 

But the actual language of the very brief policy statement says nothing about an "alternative" to the ToE

Which was my point about talking out of both sides of their mouths.

While I only bothered to quote the lead paragraph, the story went on to say:

[Board member Jim] Lloyd and Board President Jim Gardner said they’ve been interested in having such a policy for a while. They noted Louisiana in 2008 approved the Science Education Act, which allows science teachers to address controversies such as alternatives to evolution.

It's pretty clear what they have in mind.

ID, the all-out villain here, has been widely misinterpreted as stealth creationism, based solely on isolated examples of religionists

... and the Wedge Document, and the little Science and Faith: Friends or Foes? conference the DI is staging, in a church, where ID makes "science" and faith "friends," and Phillip Johnson's "big tent" of science foes, and dozens of other examples besides RBH's.
 

Several points are raised by you guys, and they indeed are valid points of contention. Taken in order:

(1) Prominent DI fellows may be religiously motivated.

(2) If so, is their basic goal that of promoting religion rather than science, and

3) even if so, is ID religion based, or secular based?

The answer to (1) is yes. The answer to (2) is no [IMO] in most cases, due to their reliance on the scientific evidence for ID first, and their resulting religious faith second. The question of which came first, the chicken (faith) or the embryo (design inferences) is an open question, since neither I nor you guys cannot peer into their minds to know which is the more prominent influence.

And the answer to point (3), as stated earlier, is an emphatic NO, based solely on interpretation of the current data.

But going back to my original comment, regardless of possible religious motives in the minds of various political figures, which would include legislators and DI proponents, there is substantial evidentiary data in support of ID within evolutionary theory to qualify it as a secular investigative hypothesis. As stated, any religious inferences are an aside, and would not be presented as evidentiary within science.
 

I checked out the prior posts you had linked to, based largely on the above issues of 'religious motivation', and with a focus on the DI in particular. My overall response would be as stated above, that ID has a secular basis regardless of religious motivations of certain proponents of ID, me not included.

Of particular interest was the link to Dembski's piece at ENV regarding the science conference at Portsmouth Institute on June 22 and 23 of this year. I located the video transcripts, a little hard to find and with little traffic and no comments at this point. I will definitely comment in a civil [but critical] manner on both Miller and Dembski's presentations later tonight. Now, back to the vids …
 

there is substantial evidentiary data in support of ID within evolutionary theory to qualify it as a secular investigative hypothesis

Oh, good! What is ID's "investigative hypothesis" of who the "Designer" is, when and how it did what it did, its means and methods, it's abilities, its motives and whether it is still operating at the present time. You know, the kind of things we have when we look for human design. Until we have that, it is all just handwaving aimed at allowing people to believe in god(s) ... perfectly fine (if somewhat primative ... Paley did it better) theology but not within spitting distance of empirically based science.
 

I went to Wikipedia, and found this definition of ID (with several references):
"certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

If we accept that description strictly, then we see that ID is not an alternative to evolution, but is rather a statement that there is an alternative.
It doesn't attempt to address the Who, What, Where, When, Why or How. Mathematicians, I think, would call it a pure (or non-constructive) existence statement, something like "there is a solution to this equation", as distinguished from "such-and-such is a solution to this equation".

TomS
 

"What is ID's "investigative hypothesis" of who the "Designer" is, when and how it did what it did, its means and methods, it's abilities, its motives and whether it is still operating at the present time."

These questions would *only* be addressable if one were a 'Creationist' with a pre-conceived belief system within. ID will not address questions of that ilk, unless and until there is supportive data. It only posits design, likely a form of genetic engineering, where plausible natural processes lacking.

I hold to Behe's IC, or irreducible complexity premise, but term it NEC, or non-evolvable complexity. It applies where:

• Multiple revisions are required, which
• offer no selective advantage as intermediates, and of
• co-dependent and multi-dependent systems, which need to co-exist to function.

I also hold to the embryo process, with zygote modifications perhaps, as the source of phylogenetic alterations beyond simple adaptive mods. I also hold to evolutionary adaptation as a 'designed in' process to enhance survival and minimize extinctions. Darwin, Mendel, Mayr and Doby were on the right track, but perhaps took too many detours from reality.
 

To view the Portsmouth Science talks with Miller and Dembski, go to the two links below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phwu7EPVXxg&feature=relmfu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuarexO9p0g&list=UUsT0mlYyPRiIzMQDq325R_A&index=8&feature=plcp
 

Anonymous compares ID to an existence statement in mathematics. I think it operates more as a non-existence statement. Typically, ID proponents look at (for instance) the bacterial flagellum and say there is no evolutionary explanation for this structure. Non-existence is notoriously hard to prove, and I don't think they have succeeded in doing so.
 

ID will not address questions of that ilk, unless and until there is supportive data. It only posits design, likely a form of genetic engineering, where plausible natural processes lacking.

Then it ain't science. All you are saying (at best ... the evolution of many of the so-called IC structures have been explained) is that we don't know right now. We don't know right now how gravity works at a distance. The "theory of intelligent grappling" is exactly on a par with ID as far as science goes.

What you need is actual empiric evidence of biological design, not arguments from ignorance.

I hold ...

Yes, exactly! Scientists say "I have evidence ..."
 

I was being overly generous (to say the least). When we're talking about something as vacuous and evasive as ID ...

TomS
 

It (ID) only posits design, likely a form of genetic engineering...

Bzzzt. Wrong. Nothing under ID is more likely than anything else. Remember that ID says nothing about the designer (more than it being intelligent); therefore you can't say anything about what we should expect the designer to do/have done.

Don't feel too bad about not getting this simple point. Demsbki didn't either when he said that ID expects there to be very little junk DNA.

-----
Hawks
 

" Nothing under ID is more likely than anything else. Remember that ID says nothing about the designer (more than it being intelligent); therefore you can't say anything about what we should expect the designer to do/have done."

Too easy Hawks. First, ID doesn't posit "a designer", just evidence of design. As far as what "the designer to do/have done", simply explore Dawkins' Greatest Show on Earth', but I'd suggest a more reasoned interpretation of the data.

"Don't feel too bad about not getting this simple point. Demsbki(sic) didn't either when he said that ID expects there to be very little junk DNA."

Oh? I guess you haven't kept up on the data. From a recent science paper:

"One of the more remarkable findings described in the consortium's 'entrée' paper is that 80% of the genome contains elements linked to biochemical functions, dispatching the widely held view that the human genome is mostly 'junk DNA'."
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v489/n7414/full/489052a.html

And feel free to join the discussion:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-a-shapiro/bob-dylan-encode-and-evol_b_1873935.html

The evidence of design is rampant within the biosphere. Those who stubbornly hold to [yes John, 'hold to' by 'faith'] evolution by Darwinian means have their heads stuck up their, well OK, in the ground.
 

Oh? I guess you haven't kept up on the data. From a recent science paper

Oh? Are you a geneticist or a biochemist? Have you kept up with the scientific criticism of what that paper counted as "function"? Or are you, as the DI has, just quote mining the paper's abstract? Check out Larry Moran's Sandwalk blog if you want to even pretend to understand what is going on. At most, this is just the beginning of a scientific debate that has no more credence (yet) than "cold fusion" did at the beginning. And that doesn't even take into account that junk DNA is not a prediction of evolutionary theory. After all, the keeping of junk in the genome could have a cost that we don't presently recognize that would make it subject to selection.

The evidence of design is rampant within the biosphere.

Funny how you can't point to any but keep babbling on about what we (supposedly) don't know.
 

"Are you a geneticist or a biochemist?"

No I'm a biomedical engineer, but both Behe and Shapiro are, and face considerable disagreements by colleagues, both Coyne and Moran. I do follow the data both pro and con [for and against teleological conclusions], and have no agenda either way. It's just that I see one with more substantiating data than the other.

Regarding criticisms of that paper (and others), I will read and consider that evidence as well. Another example of protein/ enzymatic formation improbabilities are stated in Douglas Axe's work, and I consider not just his and Gauger's conclusions, but the contra conclusions of others as well. As stated, I have no fixed agenda either way.

And yes, as Cher once noted, "The beat goes on. Drums [data] keep pounding rhythm to the brain." And since empirical data in support of totally natural causation is sparse, actually *totally* lacking, it may continue to be the hot bed of contention for years (perhaps milenia) to come.
 

It's just that I see one with more substantiating data than the other.

Well, just let us know when you intend to give us any on the side of design.

And since empirical data in support of totally natural causation is sparse, actually *totally* lacking ...

Really? Some 300 years of the spectacular success of science when it looks for natual causation (and finds it) and the accompanying increase of human knowledge is not empiric evidence in favor of the heuristic? Tell me, exactly, what advance in human knowledge has the "design hypothesis" lead to?

If you have no agenda, why even consider it?
 

A general comment here, on the issues that Lee Bowman is raising.

Design thinking seems to be a natural way of thinking. Many people, including many who are not religious, seem to depend on design thinking.

From that, I conclude that design thinking, by itself, is not necessarily in indication of a religious motive.

Personally, I have no objection to a truly scientific study of ID, though I doubt that it would produce much.

Here's the problem for the claim that ID is purely scientific: if it were purely scientific, we would not have politicians trying to insert in into the classroom. Real scientists understand that they have to produce important results, if they want to persuade others that there is value in what they are doing.

My message to the ID proponents: Call off the politicians; call off the lawyers; start doing some real science. And then I will stop laughing at you.
 

Design thinking seems to be a natural way of thinking. Many people, including many who are not religious, seem to depend on design thinking.

I'm not sure how many "design thinkers" end up non-religious (it would be a natural affinity, after all) or, at least, go around describing themselves as "spiritual" (which is, to me, the same thing) and subscribing to all sorts of woo, New Age and otherwise. There are also some percentage of contrarians who just like to sail against the wind.

But there is no question that the origin and the driving force behind the "Intelligent Design movement" (with all its lawyers and politicians) was and is religious and specifically aimed at "saving" children in public schools from learning anything that might dilute their faith in the pleasant poetry of Genesis.
 

Design thinking seems to be a natural way of thinking.

There seems to be a natural tendency to find a pattern in random data.

Secondly, there seems to be a natural tendency to see a purposeful agent behind the pattern.

And then there is the tendency to make the agent super-human.

TomS
 

Design thinking seems to be a natural way of thinking.

We are a social species. We spend a great deal of time discussing, interpreting, anticipating and talking to our fellow teleological agents. Small wonder our thinking and languages are heavily biased towards purposeful behavior. Anyone who doubts it is invited to try writing about something in strictly non-teleological terms. Easy it isn't.

There may be many other intelligent designers elsewhere in this universe. I have no problem with that. Maybe one or more of them visited Earth in the far distant past and did a bit of tinkering with life here. Maybe they seeded it. Maybe the landscape was littered with black monoliths at one time. I have no problem with that either. I just don't see any evidence of it.
 

Right again, Ian. Where's the beef? (i.e. evidence.) Without that, it is speculation, not science. Speculation can be fun, but as fiction, not reality.
 

TomS (when I see your sig, for some reason, in my mind, I put the word "Doubting" in front of it.) As far as I can see the entire Intelligent Design movement seems to be based on pareidolia.

Instead of seeing beatific women on stained subway walls , or religious figures in baked goods, their vision is of some ill-defined ghostly designer in nature, and particularly in science that is new enough to seem insufficiently verified. In some cases, "new enough" can be a couple ofhundred years old.
 

"Design thinking seems to be a natural way of thinking."

Correct. Call it intuition, which although generally ruled as subjective thinking, is based upon insights that are often correct. Science claims that all 'truth in science' is based upon hard empirical data. But reality discerned, our access to hard data is extremely limited. We therefore 'inject' our subjective conclusions to arrive at interpretations of the data at hand, which is extremely limited in forensic investigations.

So how does 'design' then fit into reality, whether hypothetically valid or invalid. Simply this; by weighing all available conclusions gleaned from the data, we accept or reject them on a kind of point scale. And this is where, IMO, design trumps natural causation regardless of Daddy 'D's initial prediction. Today's data plainly supports an altered premise, that of intelligent input, and not necessarily in toto, but to a probabilistic degree, i.e. where required. Natural processes fill in for the balance.

"We are a social species. We spend a great deal of time discussing, interpreting, anticipating and talking to our fellow teleological agents. Small wonder our thinking and languages are heavily biased towards purposeful behavior."

Correct, and these are factors that influence our intuitive senses, which may well be spot on. If directed causation to any degree is correct, it certainly is evidentiary. But the extension of that premise does not include, by rote, an adherence to religion, or even accountability, which may or may not be an operative of our existence.

In sum, religion is not science, but ID is, as an investigative hypothesis that can function not as contradictory to, but fully in concert with natural causation. To summarily brush it aside is inhibitory to science.
 

"Right again, Ian. Where's the beef? (i.e. evidence.) Without that, it is speculation, not science. Speculation can be fun, but as fiction, not reality."

The 'beef' is plainly at hand, as:

• purpose, including the competitive nature of nature, which may well be intentional,

• aesthetics, which although deemed illusionary or merely a product of evolutions [having a sense of aesthetics] may aid in survival,

• synergies, and not just between bees and flora, but within physical bodies. Multi-dependent functionalities point to design.

• An 'ultimate' purpose, which may be that a 'life cycle' is contributory to advancement in a later realm, but the accumulation of earth-bound experiences.

These I feel are valid evidences of a reason for biologic existence, and certainly not just ours, since 'chance' by itself is highly unlikely (no initial purpose, ∴ no subsequent outcome(s)).

But there are also improbabilities of totally natural causation based upon statistical improbabilities, and they include IC, NEC (non evolvable complexity), and the plethora of convergent evolution examples that at this time defy verification [convergent evolution of vertebrate eyes, immune systemes et al]. These are the filet mignon of the 'beef' you are seeking.

Cheers, or in this case 'chows'.
 

Call it intuition ...

Like the intuition that the Earth is fixed and everything else goes around it?

... by weighing all available conclusions gleaned from the data, we accept or reject them on a kind of point scale.

Are you weighing it in pounds or grams? What scale are you using? Positive empiric evidence, which evolution has in spades and ID totally lacks, provides, at the very least, a way to check whether one's "intuition" is not just the effect of having your head up your ass.

Today's data plainly supports an altered premise ...

Once again, feel free at any time to give us that "data" because, in case you haven't noticed, you haven't done so to date.

In sum, religion is not science, but ID is, as an investigative hypothesis that can function not as contradictory to, but fully in concert with natural causation. To summarily brush it aside is inhibitory to science.

Really, Lee ... I like a good word salad as much as the next man but this is pretty lame. I'm not going to write a treatise on the philosophy of science in the comments but I'll ask you this question: What "investigative hypothesis" does ID provide? What empiric evidence can I look for to support a "designer" when ID won't tell me what the heck I'm looking for?

Even granting that we could look for empiric evidence for a designer "fully in concert with natural causation," it is clear that the actual, on the ground, ID advocates are not doing so. They are just looking for more gaps in which to stuff their God. When you actually have an "investigative hypothesis" to look for a natural designer, get back to us. Until then, we are perfectly justified in saying that ID, as it is practiced is religious.
 

"As far as I can see the entire Intelligent Design movement seems to be based on pareidolia.

Instead of seeing beatific women on stained subway walls, or religious figures in baked goods, their [the ID folks?] vision is of some ill-defined ghostly designer in nature … "

Not at all. There is no evidence of such, just the end result of an epoch of innovation, similar in some ways to our own creative efforts, but on a much grander scale. I see no evidence of "a designer", just the results of innovation [design if you will].

The processes may not have involved a monotheistic male god figure, but of multiple designers from various galaxies (one possibility, and one that helps to explain nature's competitive nature), or of spirit entities that are not of necessity housed in carbon molecule based robot forms (us). If our own reality extends fore and aft of the bio experience, we ourselves, or our lineage, may have partaken in the creative efforts.

RBH, if you're still around here, care to comment on your MDT hypothesis that you so well articulated at Panda's Thumb back in 2004? And don't be embarrassed by your proposition, just state that you were only jesting, or that it was merely science fiction. Fact be known, it made perfect sense, and it's one I have held to since my youth.
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2004/09/introduction-to.html
 

The 'beef' is plainly at hand ...

Oh, for crying out loud!

purpose, including the competitive nature of nature, which may well be intentional ...

... no initial purpose, ∴ no subsequent outcome(s) ...

What is that even supposed to mean? Are you really saying that nothing happens unless it has a "purpose" (and, presumably, a "purposer")? How would you test that? I suppose you could construct a philosophy around that idea (we know people have constructed religions around it) but how would it be "science"?

aesthetics ...

Because we have what we call "aesthetics" (which even you admit can be plausibly explained by evolution) or because you would aesthetically prefer a world which was designed? Can I have ranch dressing with my word salad?

synergies, and not just between bees and flora, but within physical bodies. Multi-dependent functionalities point to design

The "synergy" between bees and flora is well explained (try reading Darwin's book on orchids). The supposed "synergy" of "multi-dependent functionalities" in organisms is just an example of what I call the "wrong end of the telescope" fallacy. The "functionalities" of organism we see around us that depend on other "functionalities" wouldn't exist if the functions they depended on didn't. It's like talking about the "synergy" of the "functionalities" of hurricanes and the "functionalities" of an atmosphere and then claiming that hurricanes are "evidences" (you can't help slipping into creationist-speak?) that hurricanes are designed.

An 'ultimate' purpose, which may be that a 'life cycle' is contributory to advancement in a later realm, but the accumulation of earth-bound experiences

A "later realm"?!?!? I was willing to take at face value that you were not advocating ID on religious grounds but just on a confused understanding of what science is. I stand corrected.

But there are also improbabilities of totally natural causation based upon statistical improbabilities ...

You are not talking about "proabilities" in the mathematical sense, you are talking about your own "intuition" of what's likely or not ... an argument from personal incredulity. To see why, go here. Needless to say, your level of incredulity is not science. If that's the filet mignon, ID just starved to death.
 

I see no evidence of "a designer", just the results of innovation ...

Right! Just as people see the results of water staining subway walls and assert that it was an intentional "innovation" of the wall. The problem is you can see how disconnected the phenomenon is from the conclusion in the case of the subway wall but somehow can't when you see the phenomenon of life.

RBH, if you're still around here, care to comment on your MDT hypothesis that you so well articulated at Panda's Thumb back in 2004?

OMG, Lee! Are you really so tone deaf, clueless and humor impaired not to recognize what Richard was doing? And if you think a satire makes "perfect sense," then I think this "argument" is over. You might just as well have suggested that Swift's "A Modest Proposal" was a good idea.
 

"And if you think a satire makes "perfect sense," then I think this "argument" is over."

A satire?! I'm afraid that you're the one who's 'tone deaf'. Nice try to it, but I would rather have Richard speak for himself.

And have you read the comments? Sans skeptic PvM, most saw relevance in its conjectural aspects, and even elaborated on them.

You are apparently one of the closed minded individuals who only accept what you've been taught. Not much different from what we're seeing in the news this week end ...

Suggestion: Consider the 'free thought' proposition.
 

And regarding one's choice of beef ...

The bullet points weren't given as scientific evidences but as intuitive confirmations, as enumerated somewhat in the comment prior to that one.

And as stated there, intuition is often correct. And if correct, it may lead to empirical proofs, although these are more difficult to formulate, especially within evolutionary theory. There rarely a scientific theory, in fact, that does not employ a degree of intuitive thought to define and confirm its conclusions. But I digress.

"A "later realm"?!?!? I was willing to take at face value that you were not advocating ID on religious grounds but just on a confused understanding of what science is. I stand corrected."

This has nothing to do with religious dogma, but is based on the hard evidence of OOB experience. But I see that you reject it based on a hard line reductionist, neuron based consciousness perspective. Feel free to 'believe' what you choose to.

And regarding probability bounds, these are definitely quantifiable. You may not agree with all of the statistical probabilities tossed out in various papers [I laughed at the ones posited in Dan-Erik Nilsson's 1994 paper on eve evolution], have you seen some of Carl Sagans … ;-)

But statistical probabilities are definitely a component of scientific conclusions, and here is just one example, and don't stop with the abstract. Read it all.
http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2011.1
 

A satire?! I'm afraid that you're the one who's 'tone deaf'. ...

And have you read the comments? Sans skeptic PvM, most saw relevance in its conjectural aspects, and even elaborated on them.

Yes, they were playing along with the joke. Do you think "Calzaer" was seriously proposing designers named Brenda and Rob? Do you think Richard hadn't got his tongue firmly in cheek when he "concluded that the assumption of a designer for every species leads to the cosmic oddity shop model of science and thus is unfruitful for anything but last-minute Xmas shopping. ;)"

I'm really stunned, Lee. Would you have to be missing a leg before you noticed that someone was pulling it?
 

... the hard evidence of OOB experience

Go away, Lee. I've wasted enough time on a woo meister. You tried to present yourself as a reasonable person and I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt but you've now shown your true colors.

And why should I read "probabilities" concocted by DI drones? It's been firmly established that they are making religious "god in the gaps" arguments, which is why you originally tried to distance yourself from them.

You've disappointed me.
 

typo:

"I laughed at the ones posited in Dan-Erik Nilsson's 1994 paper on eye evolution]?"

His "conservative" estimate of convergent (non related lineages) was total conjecture, and based solely upon a light sensitive patch invaginating, and thus improving. He conjectured that simple environmental selective pressures are all that would be needed, and that the process would duplicate itself in multiple unrelated genera.

Further, he stated: "The only real threat to the usefulness of our model is that we may have failed to introduce structures that are necessary for a functional eye"

Correct. Like rods, cones, glial (fiber optic guiding) cells, pigmentation, a metabolic replenishment system, musculature for aiming and focusing, and a cebral cortex that encompasses over 1/3 of the brain. Did I miss anything?

In short, statistical values help to establish probabilities, but can be misinterpreted.
http://www.rpgroup.caltech.edu/courses/aph161/Handouts/Nilsson1994.pdf

Unfortunately, this .pdf version is not searchable, meaning you'll have to read it all.

Cheers, and good night (for me, anyway)
 

One more brief point:

You will always find those who inject humor, even in legit science exchanges (read Coyne's blog and see numerous examples).

But reality IS reality, humor invested or not. I sometimes wonder why those who consider themselves 'free thinkers' are so closed minded. Sorry, but many are.

And regarding 'woo', someday you may discover at least one flavor of woo consists of reality.
 

His "conservative" estimate of convergent (non related lineages) was total conjecture ...

I don't suppose you recognize the irony of you saying this anymore than you can recognize satire.

You will always find those who inject humor ...

You were the one who said the comments showed Richard's MDT hypothesis was being taken seriously, including by Richard. I guess that was just another of your "intuitions."

I sometimes wonder why those who consider themselves 'free thinkers' are so closed minded.

The cry of every woo meister everywhere. Asking for facts is somehow "closed minded."

And regarding 'woo', someday you may discover at least one flavor of woo consists of reality.

Yeah, yeah ... and someday I might be "standing before the judgment seat of God." Typical!

GOODBYE!
 

You can’t expect the other side to listen to what you have to say if you don’t first open your own ears. We can all create an open environment that all members will able to understand each other. Click the link to Tweet this http://www.juicingforhealthlifestyle.com