I'm from Missouri

This site is named for the famous statement of US Congressman Willard Duncan Vandiver from Missouri : "I`m from Missouri -- you'll have to show me." This site is dedicated to skepticism of official dogma in all subjects. Just-so stories are not accepted here. This is a site where controversial subjects such as evolution theory and the Holocaust may be freely debated.

Location: Los Angeles, California, United States

My biggest motivation for creating my own blogs was to avoid the arbitrary censorship practiced by other blogs and various other Internet forums. Censorship will be avoided in my blogs -- there will be no deletion of comments, no closing of comment threads, no holding up of comments for moderation, and no commenter registration hassles. Comments containing nothing but insults and/or ad hominem attacks are discouraged. My non-response to a particular comment should not be interpreted as agreement, approval, or inability to answer.

Sunday, March 27, 2011

IMO best poll choices are OEC and "not sure"

Public opinion polls on origins usually allow the folllowing choices--

unguided evolution -- -some supporting evidence, a lot of opposing evidence

old--earth creationism-- a lot of evidence for an old earth and "changes through time"

young-earth creattionism -- little supporting evidence, no opposing evidence other than a lack of supporting evidence. The appearance that the earth is old could be an illusion

IMO best poll choices are OEC and "not sure"


Thursday, March 24, 2011

I got it! Instead of "Intelligent Design," how about "Apparent Design"or"Seeming Design"!

Advantages of terms "AD" and "SD"-

No intelligent designer needed

Bad design as well as good design allowed

Unintelligent causes as well as intelligent causes allowed


Tuesday, March 22, 2011

Even if evolution is true -- discussing criticisms of it enhances understanding of it and biology in general

The taboo against criticizing evolution is extremely anti-science and anti-intellectual.

I have been banned from many Darwinist blogs because my arguments against evolution were too persuasive. In contrast, the Panda's Thumb blog now has two creationist trolls, FL and IBELIEVEINGOD, who submit really nonsensical comments, but these trolls are allowed to stay in order to (1) give a false image of tolerance and open-mindedness and (2) give the false impression that opposing arguments are weak.


Sunday, March 20, 2011

"Academic freedom" bills protect objective teaching of co-evolution

Co-evolution presents one of the biggest challenges to evolution theory. For example, some parasites do not just kill or paralyze their hosts but make dramatic changes in the host's behavior. Multi-host parasiticrelationships have no apparent evolutionary pathway. Using wasp sex pheromones for attraction, a species of orchid is pollinated by only one species of wasp. Some mutualistic relationships require simultaneous mutations(sometimes whole groups of mutations in each species)in two different species at the exact same time and place. Co-evolution represents the most complex and most unlikely adaptations in nature. For more details, click on the two blog post label groups on Non-ID Criticisms of Evolution---the original such group and the new #1 such group (Post label groups are listed in the left sidebar of the homepage)


Majority of public wants scientfic and even pseudoscientific criticisms of evolution taught in public schools

The website of the National Center for Science Education describes several state "academic freedom" bills. Why shouldn't these bills pass ? They are constitutional as written and they represent the wishes of the majority. We have all heard that "science is not a democracy"-- but constitutional education policy is.


Tuesday, March 15, 2011

Wesley "Ding" Elsberry puts foot in mouth

"Ding" wrote of a Florida bill,

Floridians should tell their representatives that there’s too little time and definitely too little money in our education system to spend any of either telling kids narrow sectarian religious antievolution lies. The folks pushing hardest for this are not generically for religion; they are for an exclusionary view that aims to undercut not just atheism and agnosticism, but also any Christian denomination that accepts “theistic evolution” or “evolutionary creationism”.

"The folks pushing hardest for this are not generically for religion"? I thought that they were all supposed to be a bunch of fundy crackpots.

Why are "theistic evolution” and “evolutionary creationism”kosher while "intelligent design" is not? TE and EC are explicitly religious while ID is not. ID can be defined as the study of the extent to which things in nature appear to be intelligently designed rather than being products of blind chance.


Tuesday, March 08, 2011

Evokution is NOT central to biology

We keep hearing that tired old refrain that evolution is"central" to biology, or some such drivel. That is like saying that because manufacturing is the origin of engineered things, manufacturing engineering is central to engineering. Other engineeering disciplines -- e.g.mechanical,electrical, and chemical -- are needed to understand and design those things.