July 10, 2009

Yeagley’s thickheaded view of race and evolution

from the Bad Eagle journal

Today, Bad Eagle dot org thought we’d take a look at David Yeagley’s peculiar brand of “reasoning” that seems to lead him to rather “interesting” conclusions albeit faulty ones. Much of the piano doctor’s blogger efforts revolve around race preservation for a mythical subset of beings called “whites” which of course do not really exist. Looking at the question from an evolutionary standpoint however, all humans are mixed, and any assertion of a pure “white race” is unsupported and unfounded speculation.

"No wonder nobody will play with you
if you insist on being white all the time."
YEAGLEY — “Is there a reason for race? We humans come in several varieties. Why? Is one better than another? What is the real function of race? I developed a course called “Psychology of Race” in 1997 for Oklahoma State University-OKC. It was a 2000-level course, designed to account for the existence of race and thereby to understand its purpose” (2003).
After reading this statement above, it’s no wonder Yeagley was fired from teaching anyplace. The ignorance of science shown above is astounding. Race, if there is such a thing (which is open to serious debate) would necessarily be the resultant product of a long evolutionary process of breeding by selection. In our case, nature was doing the breeding, not humanity, thereby defining this long hereditary process as “natural selection” as opposed to some other form of purposeful breeding. In other words, nature did it, and it seriously has no real purpose other than the hereditary continuation of life. To posit a “purpose” for race, ignores the basic understandings of science and evolution.
YEAGLEY — “I surveyed creation myths of the different cultures in the world, and also considered the basic scientific version of natural origins. I presented evolution as just the latest theory of origins. I thought logic suggested those humans who lived much earlier than we, obviously lived closer to whatever the origins were. They should have had a better idea of how things came about, or at least an idea to be considered equally valid as any that we now concoct” (2003).

This next statement above is completely laughable, and in fact I did laugh out loud when I read it. Again, Yeagley exhibits a fundamental lack of understanding in both logical thinking and evolutionary science. The so-called “theory” of evolution is actually an undisputed fact in normal conversation, it is only a theory in the scientific sense. In science, all posits of fact are theories because they are all subject to verification and peer review even if the evidence overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis.

For example, from a scientific view, it would be a “theory” that water boils at a consistent temperature, under a consistent barometric pressure and altitude. The exact tempertaure of boiling water is a fact, of course, but in scientific terms it’s labeled a “theory” even though it’s provable maybe 99.99% of the time. In other words, the evidence is so overwhelming that the temperature of boiling water is treated as a certainty — a fact.

Similarly, evolution is an overwhelmingly proven fact. Yeagley has mixed up a commonplace understanding of the word “theory” with the more rigorous scientific use of that term, without even realizing it. No wonder he was “let go.”
YEAGLEY — “St. Paul quotes Moses ... The reason for different nations (races and cultures) is to keep man separated, so ‘that they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him and find him.’ ... But race does have a divine purpose. We should seek to fulfill that. To toy with race like we do, seems ominous to me ... so why make such desperate efforts to bring together that which God has declared separate, like race?” (2003).

Above, we finally see the crux of Yeagley’s imagination regarding race, that it is a theological and biblical “religious” category, not a biological or evolutionary consideration as in scientific inquiry. What Yeagley asserts is almost entirely bad science and unsupported religious proselytizing. No wonder his blog is suffering from inactivity, infighting and political marginalization. Yeagley has simply made his already mythical identity into something even more irrelevant. So long Bad Eagle.