True Believer's Syndrome

Dr. Dissent

Best Doctor in Town
Silver Member
True-believer syndrome

The need to believe in phony wonders sometimes exceeds not only logic but, seemingly, even sanity.
--The Rev. Canon William V. Rauscher

The true-believer syndrome merits study by science. What is it that compels a person, past all reason, to believe the unbelievable. How can an otherwise sane individual become so enamored of a fantasy, an imposture, that even after it's exposed in the bright light of day he still clings to it--indeed, clings to it all the harder?
--M. Lamar Keene

True-believer syndrome is an expression coined by M. Lamar Keene to describe an apparent cognitive disorder characterized by believing in the reality of paranormal or supernatural events after one has been presented overwhelming evidence that the event was fraudulently staged. Keene is a reformed phony psychic who exposed religious racketeering—to little effect, apparently. Phony faith healers, psychics, channelers, televangelist miracle workers, etc., are as abundant as ever.

Keene believes that "the true-believer syndrome is the greatest thing phony mediums have going for them" because "no amount of logic can shatter a faith consciously based on a lie." That those suffering from true-believer syndrome are consciously lying to themselves hardly seems likely, however. Perhaps from the viewpoint of a fraud and hoaxer, the mark who is told the truth but who continues to have faith in you must seem to believe what he knows is a lie. Yet, this type of self-deception need not involve lying to oneself. To lie to oneself would require admission that one believes what one knows is false. This does not seem logically possible. One can't believe or disbelieve what one knows. (Belief is distinct from belief in, which is a matter of trust rather than belief.) Belief and disbelief entail the possibility of error; knowledge implies that error is beyond reasonable probability. I may have overwhelming evidence that a "psychic" is a phony, yet still believe that paranormal events occur. I may be deceiving myself in such a case, but I don't think it is correct to say I am lying to myself.

It is possible that those suffering from true-believer syndrome simply do not believe that the weight of the evidence before them revealing fraud is sufficient to overpower the weight of all those many cases of supportive evidence from the past. The fact that the supportive evidence was largely supplied by the same person exposed as a fraud is suppressed. There is always the hope that no matter how many frauds are exposed, at least one of the experiences might have been genuine. No one can prove that all psychic "miracles" have been frauds; therefore, the true believer may well reason that he or she is justified in keeping hope alive. Such thinking is not completely illogical, though it may seem pathological to the one admitting the fraud.

It does not seem as easy to explain why the true believer continues to believe in, that is, trust the psychic once he has admitted his deception. Trusting someone who reveals he is a liar and a fraud seems irrational, and such a person must appear so to the hoaxer. Some true believers may well be mad, but some may be deceiving themselves by assuming that it is possible that a person can have psychic powers without knowing it. One could disbelieve in one's psychic ability, yet still actually possess paranormal powers. Just as there are people who think they have psychic powers but don't really have any such powers, there may be people who have psychic powers but think they don't.

wishful thinking?

A study done by psychologists Barry Singer and Victor Benassi at California State University at Long Beach illustrates the will to believe in psychic powers in the face of contrary evidence. They brought in a performing magician, Craig Reynolds, to do some tricks for four introductory psychology classes. Two of the classes were not told that he was a magician who would perform some amateur magic tricks. They were told that he was a graduate student who claimed to have psychic powers. In those classes, the psychology instructor explicitly stated that he didn't believe that the graduate student or anyone else has psychic abilities. In the other two classes the students were told that the magician was a magician. Singer and Benassi reported that about two-thirds of the students in both groups believed Craig was psychic. The researchers were surprised to find no significant difference between the "magic" and "psychic" classes. They then made the same presentation to two more classes who were explicitly told that Craig had no psychic abilities and that he was going to do some tricks for them whereby he pretends to read minds and demonstrate psychic powers. Nevertheless, more than half the students believed Craig was psychic after seeing his act.

Singer and Benassi then asked the students whether they thought magicians could do exactly what Craig did. Most of the students agreed that magicians could. Then they asked the students if they would like to change their estimate of Craig's psychic abilities in light of the negative data they themselves had provided. A few did, reducing the percentage of students believing in Craig's psychic powers to 55 percent. Then the students were asked to estimate how many so-called psychics were really fakes using magician's tricks. The consensus was that most "psychics" are frauds. The students were again asked if they wished to change their estimate of Craig's psychic powers. Again, a few did, but the percentage believing in Craig's psychic powers was still a hefty 52 percent. [Benassi and Singer; Hofstadter]

For many people, the will to believe at times overrides the ability to think critically about the evidence for and against a belief. The concept of the true-believer syndrome, however, does not help us understand why people believe in the psychic or supernatural abilities of admitted frauds. Since by definition those suffering from true-believer syndrome are irrationally committed to their beliefs, there is no point in arguing with them. Evidence and logical argument mean nothing to them. Such people are incapable of being persuaded by evidence and argument that their notions are in error.

kinds of true believers

In any case, there are at least three types of true believers, though they are clearly related. One is the kind Keene was referring to, namely, the type of person who believes in paranormal or supernatural things contrary to the evidence. Their faith is unshakable even in the face of overwhelming evidence against them, e.g., those who refused to disbelieve in "Carlos" once the hoax was revealed, or those chiropractors who would rather give up randomized, double-blind controlled experiments than admit that applied kinesiology doesn't work. Keene's examples are mostly of people who are so desperate to communicate with the dead that no exposé of fraudulent mediums (or channelers) can shake their faith in spiritualism (or channeling).

More at: http://skepdic.com/truebeliever.html
 

wahcheck

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
believing

Dr. Dissent said:
True-believer syndrome

The need to believe in phony wonders sometimes exceeds not only logic but, seemingly, even sanity.
--The Rev. Canon William V. Rauscher

The true-believer syndrome merits study by science. What is it that compels a person, past all reason, to believe the unbelievable. How can an otherwise sane individual become so enamored of a fantasy, an imposture, that even after it's exposed in the bright light of day he still clings to it--indeed, clings to it all the harder?
--M. Lamar Keene

True-believer syndrome is an expression coined by M. Lamar Keene to describe an apparent cognitive disorder characterized by believing in the reality of paranormal or supernatural events after one has been presented overwhelming evidence that the event was fraudulently staged. Keene is a reformed phony psychic who exposed religious racketeering—to little effect, apparently. Phony faith healers, psychics, channelers, televangelist miracle workers, etc., are as abundant as ever.

Keene believes that "the true-believer syndrome is the greatest thing phony mediums have going for them" because "no amount of logic can shatter a faith consciously based on a lie." That those suffering from true-believer syndrome are consciously lying to themselves hardly seems likely, however. Perhaps from the viewpoint of a fraud and hoaxer, the mark who is told the truth but who continues to have faith in you must seem to believe what he knows is a lie. Yet, this type of self-deception need not involve lying to oneself. To lie to oneself would require admission that one believes what one knows is false. This does not seem logically possible. One can't believe or disbelieve what one knows. (Belief is distinct from belief in, which is a matter of trust rather than belief.) Belief and disbelief entail the possibility of error; knowledge implies that error is beyond reasonable probability. I may have overwhelming evidence that a "psychic" is a phony, yet still believe that paranormal events occur. I may be deceiving myself in such a case, but I don't think it is correct to say I am lying to myself.

It is possible that those suffering from true-believer syndrome simply do not believe that the weight of the evidence before them revealing fraud is sufficient to overpower the weight of all those many cases of supportive evidence from the past. The fact that the supportive evidence was largely supplied by the same person exposed as a fraud is suppressed. There is always the hope that no matter how many frauds are exposed, at least one of the experiences might have been genuine. No one can prove that all psychic "miracles" have been frauds; therefore, the true believer may well reason that he or she is justified in keeping hope alive. Such thinking is not completely illogical, though it may seem pathological to the one admitting the fraud.

It does not seem as easy to explain why the true believer continues to believe in, that is, trust the psychic once he has admitted his deception. Trusting someone who reveals he is a liar and a fraud seems irrational, and such a person must appear so to the hoaxer. Some true believers may well be mad, but some may be deceiving themselves by assuming that it is possible that a person can have psychic powers without knowing it. One could disbelieve in one's psychic ability, yet still actually possess paranormal powers. Just as there are people who think they have psychic powers but don't really have any such powers, there may be people who have psychic powers but think they don't.

wishful thinking?

A study done by psychologists Barry Singer and Victor Benassi at California State University at Long Beach illustrates the will to believe in psychic powers in the face of contrary evidence. They brought in a performing magician, Craig Reynolds, to do some tricks for four introductory psychology classes. Two of the classes were not told that he was a magician who would perform some amateur magic tricks. They were told that he was a graduate student who claimed to have psychic powers. In those classes, the psychology instructor explicitly stated that he didn't believe that the graduate student or anyone else has psychic abilities. In the other two classes the students were told that the magician was a magician. Singer and Benassi reported that about two-thirds of the students in both groups believed Craig was psychic. The researchers were surprised to find no significant difference between the "magic" and "psychic" classes. They then made the same presentation to two more classes who were explicitly told that Craig had no psychic abilities and that he was going to do some tricks for them whereby he pretends to read minds and demonstrate psychic powers. Nevertheless, more than half the students believed Craig was psychic after seeing his act.

Singer and Benassi then asked the students whether they thought magicians could do exactly what Craig did. Most of the students agreed that magicians could. Then they asked the students if they would like to change their estimate of Craig's psychic abilities in light of the negative data they themselves had provided. A few did, reducing the percentage of students believing in Craig's psychic powers to 55 percent. Then the students were asked to estimate how many so-called psychics were really fakes using magician's tricks. The consensus was that most "psychics" are frauds. The students were again asked if they wished to change their estimate of Craig's psychic powers. Again, a few did, but the percentage believing in Craig's psychic powers was still a hefty 52 percent. [Benassi and Singer; Hofstadter]

For many people, the will to believe at times overrides the ability to think critically about the evidence for and against a belief. The concept of the true-believer syndrome, however, does not help us understand why people believe in the psychic or supernatural abilities of admitted frauds. Since by definition those suffering from true-believer syndrome are irrationally committed to their beliefs, there is no point in arguing with them. Evidence and logical argument mean nothing to them. Such people are incapable of being persuaded by evidence and argument that their notions are in error.

kinds of true believers

In any case, there are at least three types of true believers, though they are clearly related. One is the kind Keene was referring to, namely, the type of person who believes in paranormal or supernatural things contrary to the evidence. Their faith is unshakable even in the face of overwhelming evidence against them, e.g., those who refused to disbelieve in "Carlos" once the hoax was revealed, or those chiropractors who would rather give up randomized, double-blind controlled experiments than admit that applied kinesiology doesn't work. Keene's examples are mostly of people who are so desperate to communicate with the dead that no exposé of fraudulent mediums (or channelers) can shake their faith in spiritualism (or channeling).

More at: http://skepdic.com/truebeliever.html

Does all this just mean a person believes what he wants to believe?
 

cuetique

IPT? Smells like roadkill
Silver Member
wahcheck said:
Does all this just mean a person believes what he wants to believe?
No, it means if a skilled con knows what buttons to push, the uncritical can be led around by the nose --- believing what the con man wants them to believe...
 

jimmyg

Mook! What's a Mook?
Silver Member
cuetique said:
No, it means if a skilled con knows what buttons to push, the uncritical can be led around by the nose --- believing what the con man wants them to believe...

I believe that! :D
 

jay helfert

Shoot Pool, not people
Gold Member
Silver Member
Dr. Dissent said:
True-believer syndrome

The need to believe in phony wonders sometimes exceeds not only logic but, seemingly, even sanity.
--The Rev. Canon William V. Rauscher

The true-believer syndrome merits study by science. What is it that compels a person, past all reason, to believe the unbelievable. How can an otherwise sane individual become so enamored of a fantasy, an imposture, that even after it's exposed in the bright light of day he still clings to it--indeed, clings to it all the harder?
--M. Lamar Keene

True-believer syndrome is an expression coined by M. Lamar Keene to describe an apparent cognitive disorder characterized by believing in the reality of paranormal or supernatural events after one has been presented overwhelming evidence that the event was fraudulently staged. Keene is a reformed phony psychic who exposed religious racketeering—to little effect, apparently. Phony faith healers, psychics, channelers, televangelist miracle workers, etc., are as abundant as ever.

Keene believes that "the true-believer syndrome is the greatest thing phony mediums have going for them" because "no amount of logic can shatter a faith consciously based on a lie." That those suffering from true-believer syndrome are consciously lying to themselves hardly seems likely, however. Perhaps from the viewpoint of a fraud and hoaxer, the mark who is told the truth but who continues to have faith in you must seem to believe what he knows is a lie. Yet, this type of self-deception need not involve lying to oneself. To lie to oneself would require admission that one believes what one knows is false. This does not seem logically possible. One can't believe or disbelieve what one knows. (Belief is distinct from belief in, which is a matter of trust rather than belief.) Belief and disbelief entail the possibility of error; knowledge implies that error is beyond reasonable probability. I may have overwhelming evidence that a "psychic" is a phony, yet still believe that paranormal events occur. I may be deceiving myself in such a case, but I don't think it is correct to say I am lying to myself.

It is possible that those suffering from true-believer syndrome simply do not believe that the weight of the evidence before them revealing fraud is sufficient to overpower the weight of all those many cases of supportive evidence from the past. The fact that the supportive evidence was largely supplied by the same person exposed as a fraud is suppressed. There is always the hope that no matter how many frauds are exposed, at least one of the experiences might have been genuine. No one can prove that all psychic "miracles" have been frauds; therefore, the true believer may well reason that he or she is justified in keeping hope alive. Such thinking is not completely illogical, though it may seem pathological to the one admitting the fraud.

It does not seem as easy to explain why the true believer continues to believe in, that is, trust the psychic once he has admitted his deception. Trusting someone who reveals he is a liar and a fraud seems irrational, and such a person must appear so to the hoaxer. Some true believers may well be mad, but some may be deceiving themselves by assuming that it is possible that a person can have psychic powers without knowing it. One could disbelieve in one's psychic ability, yet still actually possess paranormal powers. Just as there are people who think they have psychic powers but don't really have any such powers, there may be people who have psychic powers but think they don't.

wishful thinking?

A study done by psychologists Barry Singer and Victor Benassi at California State University at Long Beach illustrates the will to believe in psychic powers in the face of contrary evidence. They brought in a performing magician, Craig Reynolds, to do some tricks for four introductory psychology classes. Two of the classes were not told that he was a magician who would perform some amateur magic tricks. They were told that he was a graduate student who claimed to have psychic powers. In those classes, the psychology instructor explicitly stated that he didn't believe that the graduate student or anyone else has psychic abilities. In the other two classes the students were told that the magician was a magician. Singer and Benassi reported that about two-thirds of the students in both groups believed Craig was psychic. The researchers were surprised to find no significant difference between the "magic" and "psychic" classes. They then made the same presentation to two more classes who were explicitly told that Craig had no psychic abilities and that he was going to do some tricks for them whereby he pretends to read minds and demonstrate psychic powers. Nevertheless, more than half the students believed Craig was psychic after seeing his act.

Singer and Benassi then asked the students whether they thought magicians could do exactly what Craig did. Most of the students agreed that magicians could. Then they asked the students if they would like to change their estimate of Craig's psychic abilities in light of the negative data they themselves had provided. A few did, reducing the percentage of students believing in Craig's psychic powers to 55 percent. Then the students were asked to estimate how many so-called psychics were really fakes using magician's tricks. The consensus was that most "psychics" are frauds. The students were again asked if they wished to change their estimate of Craig's psychic powers. Again, a few did, but the percentage believing in Craig's psychic powers was still a hefty 52 percent. [Benassi and Singer; Hofstadter]

For many people, the will to believe at times overrides the ability to think critically about the evidence for and against a belief. The concept of the true-believer syndrome, however, does not help us understand why people believe in the psychic or supernatural abilities of admitted frauds. Since by definition those suffering from true-believer syndrome are irrationally committed to their beliefs, there is no point in arguing with them. Evidence and logical argument mean nothing to them. Such people are incapable of being persuaded by evidence and argument that their notions are in error.

kinds of true believers

In any case, there are at least three types of true believers, though they are clearly related. One is the kind Keene was referring to, namely, the type of person who believes in paranormal or supernatural things contrary to the evidence. Their faith is unshakable even in the face of overwhelming evidence against them, e.g., those who refused to disbelieve in "Carlos" once the hoax was revealed, or those chiropractors who would rather give up randomized, double-blind controlled experiments than admit that applied kinesiology doesn't work. Keene's examples are mostly of people who are so desperate to communicate with the dead that no exposé of fraudulent mediums (or channelers) can shake their faith in spiritualism (or channeling).

More at: http://skepdic.com/truebeliever.html


How many people do you think still believe in Creationism as opposed to Evolution? One is proven and the other only a dream. But there are millions of dreamers that go to fundamentalist churches every week, and voted for George W. BS by the way.
 

cuetique

IPT? Smells like roadkill
Silver Member
For the love of Jeebuz, can we PLEASE refrain from quoting huge effing globs of text? Pretty please? With sugar on top? :D
 

cuetique

IPT? Smells like roadkill
Silver Member
recoveryjones said:
Huh?
Jay are you saying evolution is a PROVEN fact?
Last I heard, it was the THEORY of evolution.
RJ
Gah, trotting out that old horse again. "Theory" does NOT mean "wild ass guess". Theories are derived from well-studied scaffolds of FACTS. The only reason it is labeled a theory is that it can not be independently verified in a controlled study, since there is no secondary universe to hold steady while we make changes to this one and note the differences. But when the theory is used to answer actual questions, it repeatedly and reliably answers them. It is therefore, an operative, pragmatic fact in the real world.

Nuclear weapons are based on "theoretical" physics --- and they sure make one effing huge BOOOOOM! Magnetic resonance imaging relies on highly theoretical science, and it still manages to tell you where your tumors are. The scientific process that arrives at the theory of evolution is NO DIFFERENT in its construction. It is well-worn ground, tested, re-tested and refined. It is an operative fact. Have a banana, and get over the reality of who and what you are.

It galls me that folks will eagerly accept the blessings of scientific thought when it protects their country, saves their life, or microwaves their popcorn -- but if it gores their sacred cow, they scream how it's all a "theory". We are falling behind the world in math and science, we are losing scholars and future market advantage to this defective thinking. Time to put knowledge over emotion, and let our God-given reason be our lead card. Bringing threadbare superstitions into the 21st century will cost us dearly.
 

ShootingArts

Smorg is giving St Peter the 7!
Gold Member
Silver Member
evolution

jay helfert said:
You got a better one?

Jay,

I like the cyclic theory of evolution. The simple truth is that no theory has ever had as much effort put into proving it as the theory of evolution and all efforts have failed. It is actually the least likely theory of the origin of life since after all of this effort it can't be proven or duplicated.

Definitely a sidetrack but not accepting the current theory of evolution is far more reasonable than blindly accepting it. My real theory on the subject is that none of us know or has one shred of genuine proof so one theory is about as good as another with the ones that have seen the most testing without finding proof being the least likely.

Hu
 

cuetique

IPT? Smells like roadkill
Silver Member
The theory of evolution makes no claims on the origin of life, only the naturally selected traits that change one species into another. Biogenesis is a completely different set of theories. Conflating the two questions is a common tactic among those aiming to confuse the issue.
 

jay helfert

Shoot Pool, not people
Gold Member
Silver Member
cuetique said:
Gah, trotting out that old horse again. "Theory" does NOT mean "wild ass guess". Theories are derived from well-studied scaffolds of FACTS. The only reason it is labeled a theory is that it can not be independently verified in a controlled study, since there is no secondary universe to hold steady while we make changes to this one and note the differences. But when the theory is used to answer actual questions, it repeatedly and reliably answers them. It is therefore, an operative, pragmatic fact in the real world.

Nuclear weapons are based on "theoretical" physics --- and they sure make one effing huge BOOOOOM! Magnetic resonance imaging relies on highly theoretical science, and it still manages to tell you where your tumors are. The scientific process that arrives at the theory of evolution is NO DIFFERENT in its construction. It is well-worn ground, tested, re-tested and refined. It is an operative fact. Have a banana, and get over the reality of who and what you are.

It galls me that folks will eagerly accept the blessings of scientific thought when it protects their country, saves their life, or microwaves their popcorn -- but if it gores their sacred cow, they scream how it's all a "theory". We are falling behind the world in math and science, we are losing scholars and future market advantage to this defective thinking. Time to put knowledge over emotion, and let our God-given reason be our lead card. Bringing threadbare superstitions into the 21st century will cost us dearly.

Well said. You are one intelligent monkey. lol
 

cuetique

IPT? Smells like roadkill
Silver Member
Thanks. I like to read science books, when I'm not flinging poo at zoo visitors.... :D
 

!Smorgass Bored

Hump ? What HUMP ?
Gold Member
Man Descended From Monkeys ?

If you think that man descended from monkeys, you should listen to this song (the 1st rap song... imo) from 50 years ago and well played on the radio in New Orleans:
"The Monkey Speaks His Mind"

And three monkeys sat in a coconut tree

Discussing things as they are said to be

Said one to other now listen, you two

“There’s a certain rumour that just can’t be true

That man descended from our noble race

Why, the very idea is a big disgrace, yea”

No monkey ever deserted his wife

Starved her baby and ruined her life


Yea, the monkey speaks his mind


And you’ve never known a mother monk

To leave her babies with others to bunk

And passed them on from one to another

‘Til they scarcely knew which was their mother

Yea, the monkey speak his mind


And another thing you will never see

A monkey build a fence around a coconut tree

And let all the coconuts go to waste

Forbidding other monkeys to come and taste

Why, if I put a fence around this tree

Starvation would force you to steal from me


Yea, the monkey speaks his mind


Here’s another thing a monkey won’t do

Go out on a night and get all in a stew

Or use a gun or a club or a knife

And take another monkey’s life

Yes, man descended, the worthless bum

But, brothers, from us he did not come


Yea, the monkey speaks his mind

Yea, now the monkey speaks his mind


There's a great rendition by Andre Williams in 2002.
Doug
( eating my bananas with a fork & knife )
 

Jerry Forsyth

Well-known member
OK, I don't know what evolution has to do with the IPT, but as someone with a fondness for science and a dislike for superstition...

First, evolution does not contend that man descended from monkeys or apes. They are separate branches on the primate tree.

Second, if you do not believe in evolution then the next time your child gets sick with Tuberculosis just give them penicillin. Penicillin easily took care of that disease until it evolved a resistance to it that now makes penicillin ineffective. The problem we now see with antibiotics is all due to the ability of disease to evolve resistance.

Evolution not only works, it works very quickly.
 

ShootingArts

Smorg is giving St Peter the 7!
Gold Member
Silver Member
evolution or natural selection?

Evolution or natural selection? Darwin thought his theory was flawed before he died yet we mostly all blindly follow it since we were taught that as a truth.

Hu

Jerry Forsyth said:
OK, I don't know what evolution has to do with the IPT, but as someone with a fondness for science and a dislike for superstition...

First, evolution does not contend that man descended from monkeys or apes. They are separate branches on the primate tree.

Second, if you do not believe in evolution then the next time your child gets sick with Tuberculosis just give them penicillin. Penicillin easily took care of that disease until it evolved a resistance to it that now makes penicillin ineffective. The problem we now see with antibiotics is all due to the ability of disease to evolve resistance.

Evolution not only works, it works very quickly.
 

ShootingArts

Smorg is giving St Peter the 7!
Gold Member
Silver Member
the theory of physics

The perfect world of physics theory gets turned on it's head every few decades. The fact is that people one hundred years from now will think that many of the things we accept as fact are just as silly as the things that we laugh about that were accepted fact one hundred years ago.

Theory doesn't mean diddly unless it is supported by empirical evidence. The theory indicated how to build the bomb. The boom proved the theory, if not perfect, at least sound enough to use as a working theory.

I spent years in R&D. My end of the stick was putting theories into practice or proving them unworkable. A lot of perfectly sound seeming theory failed when proto-typed despite lots of pretty numbers and pictures. On the other hand, I saw a heavier than air craft fly without any motor or means of propulsion other than electrical and magnetic fields generated by itself and acting on itself. "Anybody" knows that is impossible, yet it flies. Under the direction of the inventor/discoverer I built a flying model myself.

Hu


cuetique said:
Gah, trotting out that old horse again. "Theory" does NOT mean "wild ass guess". Theories are derived from well-studied scaffolds of FACTS. The only reason it is labeled a theory is that it can not be independently verified in a controlled study, since there is no secondary universe to hold steady while we make changes to this one and note the differences. But when the theory is used to answer actual questions, it repeatedly and reliably answers them. It is therefore, an operative, pragmatic fact in the real world.

Nuclear weapons are based on "theoretical" physics --- and they sure make one effing huge BOOOOOM! Magnetic resonance imaging relies on highly theoretical science, and it still manages to tell you where your tumors are. The scientific process that arrives at the theory of evolution is NO DIFFERENT in its construction. It is well-worn ground, tested, re-tested and refined. It is an operative fact. Have a banana, and get over the reality of who and what you are.

It galls me that folks will eagerly accept the blessings of scientific thought when it protects their country, saves their life, or microwaves their popcorn -- but if it gores their sacred cow, they scream how it's all a "theory". We are falling behind the world in math and science, we are losing scholars and future market advantage to this defective thinking. Time to put knowledge over emotion, and let our God-given reason be our lead card. Bringing threadbare superstitions into the 21st century will cost us dearly.
 

cuetique

IPT? Smells like roadkill
Silver Member
OF COURSE Darwin's theory was flawed in the 19th century -- that doesn't mean it was not the correct starting point. Unlike religious dogma, science makes no attempt to keep its truths frozen in time. Darwin took the baby steps, and subsequent researchers have refined, expanded upon, and applied new knowledge, building on the initial insights of Darwin.

Evolution is the process in which natural selection operates. Trying to hair-split between them is pointless. Evolution is also the undeniable cornerstone of all modern biology and medicine. So, unless you refuse all medical treatment, you are accepting the legacy of Darwin, albeit in a new and improvement "model year 2006" form.

No one "blindly" follows it --- that is pure disinformation generated by the "Intelligent Design" "think tanks". In science one fact leads to another; useful, helpful, lifesaving, tangible results ensue from it, and its accomplishments end up speaking for themselves.

The dogma peddlers had to be brought kicking and screaming into the reality of the heliocentric universe and the round earth, but in the end, they were swept away in the tsunami of obvious truths. All these handy dandy anti-evolution oneliners will meet the same quaint fate.
 

cuetique

IPT? Smells like roadkill
Silver Member
BTW, and FWIW, this will be my last post in this thread. This is a dead-end street, and no good comes from beating it to death.

Peace
 
Top