August 14, 2007


Part II

Looks like the old doctorate of piano playing is having a difficult time getting his readers to understand his superior intelligence. Yeagley so hates to have to explain and further expound on that which should be so obvious to all — his painfully obvious "superiority" ... and white superiority to boot.

Yes, Yeagley does his usual dance of “attack-advice” delivering putdowns and so-called “word game” attacks under the ruse of doling out “advice.” Yeagley is mundanely predictable and may not be worth the read; however, his overreacted responses to the more rationale commentators (below) is an interesting look at the rigidity of the flat-earthers like Yeagley.

I wish to also point out (yet again) that Yeagley earned a D.M.A. (Doctor of Musical Arts) in piano performance, and his written thesis was a paper on a piano piece he liked. Literally, Yeagley is a “doctor” of playing the piano, and should be understood accordingly.

Piano Doctor — “Be that as it may, the Darwin theory of evolution is so utterly unscientific and disproved at this point it is mentioned only as an example of the bias and prejudice of science as an enterprise” (8-12-07).

— “Then, pray tell, why can't you get yourself to relinquish your adoration for the social aspects of Darwinian theory. Time and time again, you do just what the nineteenth century evolutionists did, and classify human cultures and races on a grading scale from ‘lowest civilized’ to ‘highest civilized,’ according to Western European/pseudo Christian standards. You fit right in with the racialists/evolutionists of the late-ninteenth/early twentieth century sciences... Perhaps it's a case of good old fashioned cognitive dissonance, no?” (8-12-07).

Piano Doctor
— “’Fittest,’ among men, means weapons as well as numbers. Technology. Animals don't develope this, really. I don't believe in grand, macro evolution, but only micro... Are we pressed to say that superiority is a matter of technology? ...Do you concede any kind of superiority at all?” (8-12-07).

— “Superiority? What sort of inferiority complex is tormenting you, Dr. Yeagley? ...By your own dogma, different races are only able to interbreed - by the intelligent design of a ‘superior’ being! ...You have a dangerously inadequate understanding of science. ID could not even present any evidence to hold up in a courtroom, read the transcript! Scientific theories only give way when more effective ones are presented - with evidence. They must demonstrate more effective and efficient methods of investigation resulting in consistently more accurate predictions which can be verified independently... ID has never proven, nor predicted anything. It only proposes that we abandon the pursuit of scientific knowledge before it can further humiliate religious leaders. To discard science simply because it has not yet answered every question in barely a century of research, demonstrates the abysmal ignorance and childish impetuosity of prima donna celebrities incapable of dealing with the inconvenience and complexity in life...” (8-12-07).

Piano Doctor
— “...No responses could have been more impertinent... Rafael, I will not grant you the term ‘science’ as a blanket term. Too much of it simply isn't science. In turn, you should not render ‘religion’ as a catch-all for anything that isn't ‘science.’ Science has no canon, by your own admission of it's ever changing venues and conclusions. Religion is supposed to have a canon, but many Christians don't buy that, either. No, this was the farthest thing I've ever said from evangelical Christianity...” (8-12-07).

— “This column is another Sunday sermon, an attempt at proselytizing disguised as intellectual discourse. It's trying to market belief in Christianity in less than biased-sounding terms... The use of a quasi-intellectual discussion of Darwinism is a smoke screen to preach anti-intellectualism and Creationism. If this is an Indian blog, then this is a sermon directed toward Indians. And if this is directed toward Indians then we are being told to drop our pagan religions and become Christians. It's as though we were missionary or boarding school Indians who needed to be ‘saved’...” (8-12-07).

Piano Doctor
— “Tom, I'm not bound by Comanche believes [sic!]. Originally, there weren't any. No sun, no mother earth, no ‘spirituality.’ ...Religion has nothing to do with being Comanche... That's what I feel, anyway... A person can believe whatever he wants. Your Indian religion makes you Indian? That's kind of a new one, coming from a modernized man, isn't it? The religion makes the man? The man is the culture? Sounds bloodless to me. Anyone can be Indian. Any race...” (8-12-07).

— “And neither will I grant you the authority to redefine the common meaning of words for your own rhetorical sophistry, Dr. Yeagley. Science does indeed use a canon of specific method, which the proponents of ID have shown they are utterly incapable of employing:
Science...only shares the best understanding of what truth it discovers with the common people, arrived at by the most informed minds using the most accurate tools. There is nothing so ridiculously pompous and solipsistic as claiming possession of an ‘ultimate truth’ that is incapable of change. It has proven very effective in amassing great worldly empires by religious leaders bilking sweet old ladies though...” (8-13-07).

Piano Doctor
— “Here is an extract from Darwini's autobiographical work, The Autobiography of Charles Darwin... ‘The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble to us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic.’ Sounds like ‘evolution’ takes faith, too. After all, none of us were there to witness the beginning. And it is the nature of a created being that he cannot witness his own creation. We're forever dependent on the word of others for our own identity!” (8-13-07).

— “You wrote: ‘Religion has nothing to do with being Comanche. Other tribes, yes. But not the old way of the Comanche. That's what I feel, anyway.’ I thought I'd check the veracity of your statement by using the search engine method of truth verification you described in your August 10, 2007 posting (‘Over a million entries on "Canadian+Mohawk" on Yahoo.’). Sorry, but I used Google:
‘Godless + comanches’ returned 899 web pages I wasn't sure if this proved or disproved anything so I tried: ‘Canadian + comanches’ which returned 1,450,000 hits. Then, just for fun I tried: ‘Conservative + christian + white + mexican + christian + comanche + oklahoma city’ and I got 18,100 pages! But guess who's name appeared in the top three spots? So if I added ‘gay’... :)” (8-13-07).

Piano Doctor
— “Tom, it is my contention that what made the Comanche absolutely unique was the absense of organized thought or religion... If we did live in the southern Rockies for untold amount of time, when we came out, we were stripped of all superfluity. This was man, naked, in the world. A tabula rasa. A reversion, a recovery of pure human experience and nature. No frills, only thrills. Now, can I suggest some other ‘search’ words? I don't think you're going to find anything under Comanche religion. Our secrets are implied in our language. I'm learning more about this. It tends to confirm my intuitions in this matter...” (8-13-07).

Tom — “You wrote: ‘...(I)t is my contention that what made the Comanche absolutely unique was the absense(sic) of organized thought or religion, or any abstraction that was outside the most pragmatic, most practical use in daily living.’ ...and this is based on... ‘When we first were noticed by others, anyway, we apparently had no visible religion or politics among us.’
There' s a story from the Pima. One day the white man rode up to an Indian and said, ‘Hi, what do you people call yourselves?’ The puzzled Indian, who had no idea what they were saying, said, ‘Pimache?’, which translates as ‘I don't know.’ From that day, the white man called these Indians the Pima. Relying on anecdotal observations from people who can't communicate with people they observe equals little to nothing. ‘If we did live in the southern Rockies for untold amount of time, when we came out, we were stripped of all superfluity. This was man, naked, in the world. A tabula rasa. A reversion, a recovery of pure human experience and nature. No frills, only thrills.’ Ah, it's just so Shangri-la, romantic and Adam and Eve-like! And this is based on... ‘Our secrets are implied in our language. I'm learning more about this. It tends to confirm my intuitions in this matter...’ Fluent in Comanche are we? That's great! But if not, well, that's ‘the absense [sic!] of organized thought.’ But I guess that would make you a traditionalist, as well” (8-13-07).

Piano Doctor
— “...All humans came from Lucy, and all apes came from the same kind of strain of bipod hominids. This is all rather foolish imagination, some vicarious identification with animals. It think it is some kind of escape-ism... Evolution thought is a manifestation of Freudian psychological theory, really... But, I'm no scientist. I'm a mythicist! I see things in allegory, symbol, archetype, myth, intuition. My intuition doesn't lead me to the apes, however” (8-13-07).

— “’But, I'm no scientist. I'm a mythicist! I see things in allegory, symbol, archetype, myth, intuition. My intuition doesn't lead me to the apes, however.’ proclaims Dr. Yeagley. -- Aye, there's the rub! What unmitigated hubris to presume that YOUR intuition is ‘superior’ to the proven conclusions of the most qualified minds using factual evidence. Lucy lived before racial differentiation emerged in the species. Can you still admit to accepting even micro-evolution now? It is the content of your very own mitochondrial DNA, living inside you right now, that binds you to a common ancestral ‘negress,’ as you would put it. However distasteful that may be to your intuition, it is irrefutable. It is based on proven principles of medical microbiology, not fossil records.
Perhaps you could enlighten the rest of us by explaining the ‘superior intelligence’ of placing hind legs in whales and finger bones in dolphins. Darwin was hardly the flawless patriarch writing in stone that creationists require. The basic principles he proposed have merely been repeatedly confirmed by branches of science which did not even exist in his day. Isaac Newton devoted far more time and effort pursuing alchemy than mathematics and physics. Should we demonize him as well? When irregularities were found in the orbits of the outer planets, it did not ‘prove’ that the biblical geocentric universe was superior... Evolution is merely the mechanism which best describes the evidence. Creationists have failed to propose any mechanism other than magic and are perpetrating mass child abuse in our education system” (8-13-07).

Piano Doctor
— “Raph, very little in ‘science’ is irrefutable. Honest scientists always confess that their work is theory. There are basically two kinds of science: 1) temporal 2) laboratory
1) That which involved historical reconstruction, that which involves imaginary recreation of events, through analogy and projection. The past cannot be replayed, ever. This would be cosmology, astronomy, paleontology, anthropology, geology, etc. 2) that which can be tested by experiment. Chemistry, physics, mathematics, etc. True, scientists try to combine the laws of No.2 and apply them to No.1, but, this is still theory. You certainly can't assume all laws proven today were operative from all time before. Evolution itself shows that. There have been no observable changes of life forms (kinds) since humanity has consciously observed anything at all. There have been but variations within species. This is all that has been observed. The rest is pure fantasy. Or, are you somehow able to witness the eons passed in some trance?” (8-13-07).

Rafael — “My apologies, Dr. Yeagley, for assuming you were a serious, sincere person. Your abominable understanding of even the basics of science is really unforgivable for someone of your alleged education. What possible background or experience do you claim in any science, with " ", or without " "? ...There is a fundamental, qualitative difference in the definition of the specific term ‘scientific theory,’ used in the formal practice of the profession, and the common misuse of the word ‘theory,’ in popular culture to impart the illusion of substance to what is otherwise nothing more than fantastical, unsubstantiated conjecture. Hypothesis is a more appropriate term, since it only based on a rudimentary observation and has yet to be tested and confirmed by consistent results.
Blurring the two only serves to poison the public debate. There is indeed a time machine, Dr. Yeagley. Every time you look up at the sky, you are seeing the past. The fundamental laws of physics still apply in the most remote recesses of space and time, so far detected. Physical materials do indeed contain footprints that betray where and when they have been and we can indeed measure it as remote witnesses. It does not require your personal comprehension or consent for carbon atoms to divulge their dating secrets. You neglected the most important kind of science -- applied science. Principles confirmed by repeated results in the laboratory are repeatedly thrown against the real world under all possible conditions and still keep on ticking. It is true that any scientific principle may be refuted, but only through a more rigorous application of science... You should sharpen you powers of observation” (8-13-07).

Piano Doctor
— “Very little subtance in your remarks, Raf. Very little. I'm still looking for something. Blank refutations are not sufficient. They impress ignorant people, so, maybe you should go on some lower level discussion board... You play word games. I think you appear dishonest, and fake about it... All bravura. I gave very specific philosophical challenges, to which you responded with ablsolutely nothing. Did you not comprehend what I said? You cannot replay the past. You're understanding (and everyone else's) of the past is based on analogy and projection. You cannot demonstrate one second of the past in the laboratory. If you cannot understand this, it is useless to try and reason with you. You are sophomoric about science. Certainly not an open minded scientists. (Is there really any other kind--worthy of the name?)” (8-13-07).

— All you offer is your personal fantasy and illusions. How do you expect to find agreement on that? If the past cannot be recreated in its entirety, then any other means of accessing it are meaningless? How ignorant is that? You have thrown down the gauntlet for christians: either accept Genesis completely, or not at all. You are either with us, or against us. Gee, where have I heard one that before? Do you suppose there might have been a good reason for abandoning the doctrine of Papal infallibility? It amuses me that you can't see that you have so much in common with the radical Islamists produced by the madrassas. Blind faith, taught through fear of eternal damnation for challenging the veracity of proclamations which cannot be verified until after death...” (8-14-07).

Piano Doctor — “Raph, your abjectly sophmoric. You're throwing words around aimlessly. I can only assume you have no formal knowledge of logic or philosophy. I don't know how to talk with you. You rely only on insult for validation... This is the quintessence of presumption and aggression, and is quite silly when one considers the circumstance of each individual mind. You are too blind to admit that you depend, desperately, on someone else's word... your braggadocio about the absurd is rather self-idolizing, don't you think? We're not arguing about existence. That's your sophomoric contention. If you'd think about what I'm saying, you'd see that we're arguing about methodology in theoretical reconstructions of the past... Science is simply another tale of origins. Objectively speaking, it cannot be otherwise classified. It may think itself outside former classifications, but, that is only arrogance. All that man does is what man does. It's never anything else” (8-14-07).

Tom — “You wrote: ‘Tom, what exactly are you looking for...’ I'm looking for the Indian in this supposed Indian web site. It's simply not enough to claim one's site is ‘Indian’. Being some blood percentage doesn't make one's words Indian. And since you're playing this Indian card on a global stage you owe it to Indians to consistently present recognizable Indian ideology. This particular piece highlights Darwin, creationism and Genesis. While this may be a heady combination at the Young America's Foundation picnic, it doesn't amount to a hill of beans at a pow wow or even an Indian Methodist church. Have you ever wondered why those invitations to speak at Indian functions aren't on your answering machine? Better luck with future columns...” (8-14-07).

Rafael — “We all depend desperately on the words of others, Dr. Yag. Only imbeciles accept lies, once they are known to be lies though. Logic is indeed man-made and the most reliable truth detector in existence. It is far more important than knowing whether or not a god exists. People will often refuse to answer questions when they fear they may be caught in a lie. Are there factual errors in the bible, Dr. Yag??” (8-14-07).
As the Sermonizer Turns ... Will Dr. Yag accept “the bait” and actually cite a “biblical error” for Rafael? If the piano doctor does it, will he get slammed as a hypocrite? If he does not do it, will Rafael point out an irrefutable error? (i.e., the Bible is probably riddled with them, as the book is the byproduct of fallible beings, etc.) Stay tuned as the Sermonizer Soap Opera turns ... ugly and laughable.