SBOE Candidate: Traci Jensen


Because of redistricting, all 15 seats on the Texas State Board of Education will be up for grabs in the November 2012 elections. The results of those elections will determine whether the religious right’s corrosive influence over public education will weaken or grow as the board considers what the next generation of public school students in Texas will learn about sex education, social studies, science and other subjects. We plan to publish on TFN Insider candidate announcements for a seat on the SBOE. We will publish announcements in no particular order, and their publication does not constitute any sort of endorsement by TFN. We will redact requests for contributions or mentions of fundraising events from the announcements, but we will provide links to the candidates’ websites (if available).

Traci Jensen, District 6, D-Houston
(Current District 6 Board Member: Terri Leo, R-Spring)

Traci Jensen is a former classroom teacher who has also taught at the University of Houston. Current District 6 board member Terri Leo is not seeking re-election to her seat. Jensen’s website is The following is from the “Platform” section of her website:

We have a unique opportunity this election to shift this board’s negative culture. I would listen to real scientists, true historians, and current educators. Parents and community leaders from all backgrounds understand the broader educational goals of public education and need to be heard. Texas needs a balanced board that understands the real world and the wonderfully diverse population it serves. I am an educator that understands the complexities of teaching. As we sit here 60% of our student population is considered economically disadvantaged. The research shows that although a good teacher is a piece of the puzzle, poverty, quality of home life, the influence of community and a strong relevant curriculum plays a vital role in the overall success of any student.

If elected, I would give more weight to the College and Career Readiness Standards so that all students are given the opportunity to develop critical thinking skills beginning in Kindergarten. In our urban and our rural schools the current flawed curriculum alone is simply not enough to compete in a global community.

If elected, I would put an end to the culture wars perpetuated by the current board. I would focus on what is best for all of Texas’ children by supporting our teachers and believing in our public schools. We need to put integrity back in the board and honor our promises. Vote the board into a new direction!

33 Responses to “SBOE Candidate: Traci Jensen”

  1. dbtexas Says:

    So, how do we get the word out? In this district (mine, by the way), an “R” by your name is usually a pre-requisite for election. Suggestions?

  2. Anonymous Says:

    In my opinion simply getting the word out can do more harm than good when Traci and others are unaware of the current scientific issues that now exist in the ever changing “culture wars” that now require understanding why this computer model and theory is doing well being accepted by those able to make sense of it:

    I wish all the best, but in this issue it’s not as simple as one side being totally right and the other being totally wrong. Have to know what you’re now scientifically up against, or the students will continue to suffer from being stuck in the middle of an ideological war that cannot end by trying to make a theory go away.

  3. Ben Says:

    Anonymous, did you really come here to promote intelligent design? With a straight face?

    “it’s not as simple as one side being totally right and the other being totally wrong.”

    Actually, when it comes to ID, it is exactly that simple. ID is a crock.

  4. JamesBreck Says:

    Actually Anonymous, as Ben said, is very simple. I would suggest you read the ruling handed down by a George W. Bush appointed federal judge in the Dover, PA intelligent design case several years ago. He didn’t say “wow this is complicated, ID definitely has some strong points but I’m going to rule against it being a scientific theory although it’s a very tough decision.” No, what he said is “This ID stuff is nothing other than creationism in sheeps clothing. Get this garbage out of my sight. Oh, and by the way Dover PA, you get to pay the millions of dollars attorney fees for the other side.” The poor people of Dover are likely still struggling to pay off those millions, all because of a few sicko school board members, whack-job slimeball theocrats with serious emotional problems who lead sick and perverted secret lives. Come to think of it they had much in common with the SBOE conservatives.

  5. Gary Gaulin (Anonymous) Says:

    I first have to mention that I’m Gary. I hoped that the comment software would retrieve my old WordPress account information but it instead automatically logged me in as Anonymous.

    I agree that the Discovery Institute’s theory that was presented to Judge Jones was not a scientific one. I expected things to go the way they did. So we all agree on that point. The problem is that I do not represent the ID policy of the school board(s) in question, only science.

    It is here vital to realize that the PA court order is against their school board’s policy (not a scientific theory) and worded as “Defendants’ ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and Art. I, § 3 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania” and even where you take it out of context to include the scientific computer models and theory I linked to above the order only applies to one school district in only one state.

    It’s easy to take a theory (or a premise of one) out of scientific context. Scientifically speaking it is the same as a court ruling against a Big Bang Theory that is taught from scripture instead of science textbook. The problem is not the scientific theory or its premise it’s how the theory is being presented.

    Science is not served by misinformation that claims that a US court can outlaw and forbid a scientific theory from ever being written. With one now getting around that takes science to a whole new challenge level, ideal for high school and above science talent, the proper scientific action is to prepare for it. All getting on the same page in science this way, is what scientific theory is for.

  6. Ben Says:

    Gary, when I Google your name, why does it make me want to both laugh and weep?

  7. Ben Says:

    Gary, you appear to be a glutton for punishment:

  8. abb3w Says:

    Ignoring the ID sideshow….

    Another Democrat looking solidly Sensible Party. Her website includes quotes by Foner, Piaget, Galileo and Spencer, which (though I loathe Spencer) I would term “cat whistles”. Her implication that if elected she can single handedly “put an end to the culture wars” of the board is a bit deluded, but probably harmless political posturing.

    I retain my opinion that a potted plant running as a democrat would seem preferable over Terri Leo. The question for democratic primary voters would seem to be who’s most likely to beat Donna Bahorich (or any other eventual Republican nominee); no idea, there.

  9. JamesBreck Says:

    Gary the crux of the ID argument in Dover was that some organisms are so complex there is no way they could possibly have come about through evolution. The intelligent design crew then presented such an organism. But scientists laid that claim to waste which, correctly, led the judge to rule the ID bunch were doing nothing other than trying to legislate their religious beliefs. If there are new and improved organisms that can’t be explained by evolution…..well bring ’em on.

    Since you mentioned the federal courts……….Newt Gingrich is out with 20 page manifesto that Rick Perry wishes he would have thought up (too stupid) on a committee he will create by executive order the day he assumes the presidency. (It brings to mind the Unibomber manifesto except the Unibomber was much smarter and more sane.) This “Freedom of Religion” committee will be dedicated to studying decisions by federal judges in First Amendment cases. If such decisions are deemed insufficiently American (Christian) in nature then the ruling judge will be removed from the bench or, in some cases, arrested and jailed. The courts have always been the bane of the religious right; they can always find whacks like true believer Michele Bachmann or pretenders like WhoreHouseBoy David Vitter to carry the water pail. And they can get complete fools like BoyGeorge Bush elected. But they just can’t do a thing about those damn liberal courts.

  10. Gary Gaulin (Anonymous) Says:

    JamesBreck: “Gary the crux of the ID argument in Dover was that some organisms are so complex there is no way they could possibly have come about through evolution.”

    Yes James, it was an argument against another theory, not a theory that has to explain the essence of intelligence and how said “intelligent cause” works (a mechanism). It’s one of the reasons why I knew Dover was going to go badly for the defendants.

    JamesBreck: “If there are new and improved organisms that can’t be explained by evolution…..well bring ‘em on.”

    Science requires I advocate the opposite. The theory never once even mentions “evolution” and I consider such tactics to be off limits, counterproductive. It’s best for both sides to not be allowed to make this a theory versus theory argument. I have more on it here:

    A complete list of software and other things for download including both long and short versions of the theory (in MS Word or Google Viewer format) can be listed by this URL:

    JamesBreck: “Since you mentioned the federal courts……….Newt Gingrich is out with 20 page manifesto that Rick Perry wishes he would have thought up….”

    I still agree with what Judge Jones found to be true of what was thought by some to have been a coherent scientific theory. Showing why arguments against an existing theory do not add up to a new theory, is necessary, or else the scientific controversy will only further divide the country. And since this theory presents a programming challenge like none other in science, it is a way to help make US a world leader in science again.

  11. JamesBreck Says:

    Gary it’s quite simple.

    Toss a quarter up in the air – if it comes down the theory of gravity hasn’t been disproven. If it stays up in the air then it has been disproven.

    God created Adam and Eve and put them in the garden of Eden – oops, that cannot be tested and disproven, therefore it does not qualify as a scientific theory.

    As far as the nation being divided by the controversy…… I had no idea. Can you point me to a few articles that examine this bitter division further?

  12. Gary Gaulin Says:

    James, if you really want to throw quarters in the air then make sure to include all the Theistic Evolutionists and similar religious denominations who will have to tell you that how one uses a scientific theory in their religion does not dismiss a scientific theory. Else when their quarters all come back down too, the theory they believe in must be thrown out of science for the same reason.

    Science does not allow dismissing of theory just because some find something religious about it. Especially when it’s now really only something included with a computer model that was (not to brag but) just honored with the Planet Source Code “Superior Coding Contest Winner” Award for Visual Basic. Programming what qualifies in science as an “intelligent cause” is such a novel idea ones who live for that kind of thing do not care about my pulling out all the stops from the last computer model the Intelligence Generator with included theory (not of ID then thought impossible) here:

    In a community where I’m already known for original software based intelligence theory how it was advanced to this level does not matter all can just appreciate it being there to experiment with. It also making the Theory of Intelligent Design real might be weird sounding at first but if it’s at the same time scientifically possible then all the better, as far as science is concerned too.

    Science allows what is in the theory that pertains to what the evidence eventually on its own lead to, including what must be colloquially named “Chromosomal Adam and Eve” therefore nothing about them is here left up to the imagination there either. This paragraph from the theory explains them:

    “With all considered, the human design had a definitive beginning which required a chromosome speciation event to separate our lineage from our 48 chromosome ancestors that were not a chimpanzee they would more specifically qualify as “humanlike”. Where “human” is defined as being the result of this chromosome fusion there is a man and a woman progenitor couple deserving the colloquial name Chromosomal Adam and Eve, who birthed descendants who would prefer to be with their own kind through time, all the way from them to us…”

    The above is very specific. And the made of speculative evidence Y-chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve fell apart in science and are now gone. It’s here just updating where they are to be colloquially found in the most modern scientific evidence. They are also at the same time and place together, not loosely named individuals who lived so far apart in time they could not even have known each other. The scientific community is already used to a colloquially named Adam and Eve anyway and with science here easily allowing such an association that part is not a real scientific controversy. If it helps everyone get on the same page in science, then so be it, sort of thing.

    Where all on all sides are by theory forced to play by the same rules the dynamics of the controversy over it change. Ones who fought hard and suffered more than you think on the ID and Creationism side only have to be more current in science and better than their opponent at following the rules that apply equally to both. You just have to get used to the old arguments not working for your side like they used to.

    In regards to how much damage and division there is plenty from your side too about court damages having drained a school district and classrooms wasting time arguing junk science. On a more historical level WW2 warped evolutionary theory real good and got atrocity. It is very important for all to be on the same page in science, for the sake of all humanity. But before I end up sounding like an amateurish campaign speech, I’ll just say that being on the same page in science is a heck of a lot better than not. I’ll also include more information on this in reply to Ben’s earlier discoveries that I have been putting some thought into to there explain more on bitter division primarily in the Kansas related ID issue that began with the fair-hearing for the Theory of Intelligent Design, that this one eventually emerged from, by at least genuinely trying to see how close is possible, without ever once going out of bounds of science.

  13. Ben Says:

    Gary, do you consider yourself to be a crank? Do you think you follow crank behavior, as described right here?:

  14. JamesBreck Says:

    Gary I know you are not suggesting the atrocities committed by Hitler against the Jewish people were a result of his belief in evolution. Because to do so would be completely absurd.

    If you read through the voluminous quantities of propaganda spewed by Hitler you will find a significant amount of Christian nationalist jargon. In that regard he was not much different than James Dobson and David Barton and the rest of American theocratic movement.

  15. Gary Gaulin Says:

    And yes again James, I studied Hitler’s book, speeches and science teacher guidebook and can agree with you by saying that all together not even the theory that Charles Darwin explained. It was half creationist where there was a master race that was created in present form by “God” while all others not like them changed over time back into nonhumans that had to be taken care of or else their suffering of all was supposed to get even worse. Clergy was for the most part able to rationalize the genocide campaign, because of faulty science too. Average soldier saw themselves as protect themselves and their homeland even though really only wrecking themselves. Very vicious cycle, that only seemed like progress.

    We really don’t want to now or in the future try that all over again. Just be glad for new chromosome related theory to help show why that makes no sense to begin with, so that thinking does not ever have to return.

  16. Gary Gaulin Says:

    Ben Said: “Gary, you appear to be a glutton for punishment:”

    I had to get used to it. Became a scientific method that moves the most controversial theory in all of science from place to place while assimilating useful knowledge (being hurled at it) is an excellent way to improve a scientific theory over time. But some forums more like need to be conquered. That’s when the theory without compromising science or promoting one religion over another achieves the anti-bullying objectives suggested in the Wedge Strategy as it relates to the problem of an uneven playing field with a different set of rules for each side.

    Ben Said: “Gary, when I Google your name, why does it make me want to both laugh and weep?”

    Although in serious forums for discussing math or science it’s not always needed, I can rely on my radio and broadcasting school background when the going gets tough, like it’s then media programming where I’m a science shock-jock that broadcasts from forums that makes it tough going for them. All who are tuned into it going from place to place it’s just one more candid visit to somewhere, sometimes the most brutal challenge I can find.

    Since it’s already Christmas Eve it didn’t seem right to get into the bad part of the ID controversy, because where science is working there is also a good side that can more or less inspires new invention. Were the theory not controversial it would not be shocking for one to exist. Moving it from place to place would just receive a lot of yawns, not get well motivated who to line up to attack every weakness they can find until there are none left to strengthen but grammar. At this point in time though the theory is strong enough to make it in science on its own and the computer model it explains even won an award so it’s already being useful where most needed. Have to work from where we are for this Christmas, towards the next thing, but I’m not yet sure what.

    Can just be glad that I start with something tangible like computer model and theory that’s already there being used not something left up to the imagination as to what it is and is useful for. Because of that I don’t have to worry much about your peer-review of it but am glad you seem to know I’m being sensible and not making excuses for any side for faulty science. All can agree that is not good. So without bashing religion or Modern Synthesis the theory that was supposed to be impossible, goes on. And hope that the thought of my kidding about that will help make this a more fun and memorably Merry Christmas for you and all here! At least it’s not looking forward to another year arguing of the same old things all over again like it’s 2004.

  17. Charles Says:

    Ben and James. I am glad that you abandoned this discussion. This guy is an obvious crank—-one that just happens to need a serious writing course. I have read all of the posts above, and whatever he is saying sounds like some sort of weird notational gibberish to me.

    In my field of study, we sometimes receive journal articles that require reading a paragraph 10 times to figure out what the author is saying. One such author, who lived in New York City, opined that her thought processes were on such a high plane and at such an elevated level of complexity that mere words were inadequate to convey their beauty and elegance in a journal article.

    Personally, I think that is a crock of “you know what.” Gibberish like hers (and Gary’s) says three things to me:

    1) The person’s thought processes are just as messy and incoherent as their writing—assuming they are a good writer properly conveying the mess in their head.

    2) The person has something valid and coherent to say—but their writing is so poor that they cannot convey their message in an intelligible way—so one might as well have never even conceived the thoughts.

    3) The person in question has messy thoughts and has combined them with equally messy writing—resulting in a comprehensive flop.

    One Christian to another Gary. I think you are just another whacko Christian fundamentalist pursuing a pattern of pseudoscientific deception in a desperate attempt to prop up the notion that Genesis 1 is a combined history and science chapter in a textbook.

  18. Gary Gaulin Says:

    Charles, I made fun of my own grammar in that one. Figured you would know that I didn’t care about there being obvious mistakes in it. Lighten up a little! 🙄

    As you know there are those in science with worse grammar than mine, which is why science journals have editors. I just have a good sense of humor, but have serious original work published at the National Science Teacher Association journal level and other original things online pertaining to the origin of life/intelligence that are popular with teachers. Here, to help prove it:

    [4] G. Gaulin, Demonstrating the Self-Assembly of the Cell Membrane, NSTA -The Science teacher, 10/1/2007
    Prior version, open access:

    The Theory of Intelligent Design is just one of a number of educational innovations. In as far as the controversy work can already read back in time from when even mentioning the theory in the Dover, PA area especially their local schools and education forum would lead to a number of heated debates. Now, this theory is not even an issue there anymore. And to help prove that is this I just finished spent time composing you might also find interesting to read related to public education of all kinds, and a major science journal article that is now the next goal that is well presented here:

    Regardless of the theory at first sounding like I have to be a crank to be talking like I do, science allows it, even though its grammar is sometimes against the rules of grammar. But if you would like to give the newly condensed theory an edit then you are most welcomed to help fix it up! Here’s the url for latest version needing an editing before can be used in Supplementary Information (SI) for a top science journal and if it looks good love to give you credit in Acknowledgements:

    It might sound like I’m kidding about making the theory real, but I’m honestly not. Just happen to be someone that figures out what science education is missing like this to make it easy to explain the way living things work. And you’re seeing what this Intelligent Design looks like where the logical rules of science are kept the same for all sides, and empowers others even you who seem to an English Teacher type or at least like it in school (I sure didn’t). I can admit my imperfect grammar and empower you (or anyone else) who want the fame of being the savior editor of the most controversial scientific theory in history by just being a grammar perfectionist. Can for real have an easy honor that gets your name in it as a big help. Might even look good on your resume someday, prove you know how to find and get a piece of the most happening science action there is, anywhere. 😀

    And stereotyping me as a Christian fundamentalist really does not work where science only not being against religion, is standing on its own among my most immediate peers who like to computer model things never modeled before. I did grow up in training to be Methodist leader, as opposed to follower that that does not want to be the church leader just want one to go to for leadership. Some of the things they had were more fun than being at home with parents so I’m OK with the Methodist Youth Fellowship and scouting, choir, alter, and other things that got me out of the house with others of my age. Even though the Biblical religious part was not for me, I would still rather see that survive the science age than have it not be there anymore for future generations who in some way benefit from the community service part without getting waywardly Biblically literal. As long as all still makes sense in a religious sense the modern church including Islam and others still survive by adapting to science reason like this, helps stay current without losing the purpose they serve and core beliefs.

    From an unbiased perspective Genesis can be seen as one of the first creation theories ever. And now science has a chromosomal Adam and Eve in it and not because I said-so it’s because of the evidence leading there, for anyone to follow the trail of too. It’s also theoretically possible there is enough feedback to our neurological level of intelligence some know there is such a thing in our lineage, from the relative trauma the genome that experienced a chromosome fusion that leads back to such a couple. In any event, it just does not bother me that the way science went Genesis ended up making more sense in scientific context. I just followed it where it led from the premise of the theory that requires the explaining of an “intelligent cause” without needing to invoke “natural selection” of another theoretical framework.

    This is clinching the theory that was supposed to be impossible, and with my most immediate peers with me on the idea. Is not at all crank science it’s just what’s getting around these days that sounds impossible at first but isn’t, and it’s already there so what you think of it is in addition to what others already indicate as well. This is coming from the experimenters most able to make use of a great theory who are now empowered what the main attraction under the big-tent that was not making much progress anyway. Strategy might sound crazy to someone like you but in science where something can for the first time be experimented with there are some who right away want to know how that works.

    By the time you get something from me to publish it’s too good to refuse. I pride myself on first having that, not rushing into things and be easy on editors. Just not on the last reply, I agree that was a mess. Sorry about having gone to the extreme of where I even I cringed at after I later realized all I let go. But at least not caring about grammar errors worked to get you to respond in disgust, so that I could respond back with proper excuse, which is a good thing. Helps explain it to Ben and James too, so they like I can be glad you joined the discussion Charles.

  19. Ben Says:

    Oh, man.




  20. Ben Says:

    Have you ever taken a big chunk of foreign text and run it through an online translator to convert it into English? And the text ends up with all sorts of strange errors and odd phrasings? That’s what Gary’s prose sounds like.

  21. Charles Says:

    That’s what I was thinking Ben, but not at the electronic level. It sounds to me like a native Russian speaker trying to communicate in English. Gary? Are you a native Russian speaker?

    Something tells me I am going to regret asking that question.

  22. Gary Gaulin Says:

    No Charles I am not a Russian born speaker, only listened to Radio Moscow a lot while young during the Cold War. There was no Internet but the propaganda war made short wave radio the place to go for figuring out what’s really up in the world. Good experience to have in a culture war like this one where it’s much the same thing but at another social level.

    And now Ben is picking on my “odd” grammar! I did notice that it’s best not to be fighting off sleep to get something online. The next morning all the grammar errors become obvious, like this morning when I found a few small bugs in the latest. But it was a relatively long write. Some of what seems odd might be bad grammar habits I’m picking up on the Internet and more art/music phrasings that play in my mind while writing.

    Some oddness may be from your not being used to the required intelligence science terminology that I have to use in order for the science part to fully make sense together. What was most important here though is like as presented at Planet Source Code, it’s something that is programmed towards that doesn’t need rules of grammar to exist. In that international community where some can barely speak any English at all the imperfect grammar is more the rule than the exception. What most matters is the code all being there, with hopefully commenting and some form of documentation where you hope they at least try to form an understandable sentences to figure out. Better that than not having anything else to work from.

    In my model related scientific mode of thinking I’m thinking in computer language logic that either works when tested by being programmed or it doesn’t. It’s here getting all of the logic of the problem all sorted out so that it all comes to self-learning intelligent virtual life in the computer when you start the program. After having that all figured out, anything readable at all to go with it is just a bonus. Please excuse my being a little in the habit of that grammatical expectation, and way I write.

  23. Ben Says:

    “Some oddness may be from your not being used to the required intelligence science terminology that I have to use in order for the science part to fully make sense together.”

    Yeah, that must be it. What else could possibly explain it?

  24. Charles Says:

    I’m outa here. Too weird for me.

  25. Gary Gaulin Says:

    Oh, I was hoping to talk Charles into giving the theory an edit, so we all know what it should look like. At least I only gave them a 1% chance of being that helpful, but was still hopeful. Maybe they’ll for some reason come back?

    And from what Ben just said, we can say that after my going over this Theory of Intelligent Design in all this detail, the only evidence of incoherence that can be shown is some odd grammar. In thinking about that, the only thing I can think of now is how much of a compliment that still is to its most mattering scientific content!

    Anyway, when grammar and writing style is all there really is to argue against I guess it is best for Charles to bow out like they won, for all who will still find that a witty way out of this one. With my already having committed them to helping fix all the grammar in the theory, it’s hard for me to even blame them for getting out of that quick!

  26. Ben Says:

    Gary, let me assure you that this describes you:

    Of course, you don’t think it does. If you did, then you wouldn’t be a crank.

    I honestly wish I could help you out of your delusions, but cranks worldwide demonstrate on a daily basis that they can’t be helped. But at least your entertaining, in a drunk-guy-vomiting-at-a-dinner-party sort of way.

  27. Ben Says:

    your = you’re

  28. Gary Gaulin Says:

    Ben, it’s great to see you here torturing yourself with your own overpowering grammar perfectionism! Looks to me like that can become a mean vice, so I’m glad not to have that problem either. 😀

    You’ll be glad though to know that after reading the paragraph below from the link you gave I think I can see what you are saying:

    “It is critical that your wacky idea must be something pretty extraordinary. A good crank shoots for the stars. You don’t defend to the death some simple opinion, like Coke is better than Pepsi. You’ve got to think big! You’ve got to do something like deny HIV causes AIDS, or relativity, or reject an entire field of biology, or deny the earth is older than 6000 years. If you can’t think of anything, try reading the Bible for claims that are now obviously ludicrous – like the possibility of climbing into heaven using a ladder. Insist on its literal truth.”

    I guess that to someone like you, my claiming to have a coherent Theory of Intelligent Design does sound like a crank. Of course my idea is not denying anything, it’s something new for mad-scientist types like me who need a simple way to create virtual intelligent life. And you at least know that I would at least first made sure that a ladder actually reaches into heaven before claiming that one does. 🙄

    And even though they might just look even more crank I’m currently experimenting with smileys to indicate when I’m purposely adding some humor, and will consider any suggestions for solving that problem quicker. Someone now young in public school with little or no knowledge of all the religious arguments for or against the theory just sees awesome source code for experimenting with intelligence. But someone like you with a mind full of controversy hoopla will first assume it has to be a crank.

    The good thing in my favor is that after someone first objectively studies and understands the theory, someone else later claiming that it is a crank is then the crank. All of the usual religion based arguments against it only help show they’re not even talking science. In the real scientific arenas time is very much on my side, even though I sometimes have to endure being seen as a crank. Just have to accept that it goes with the territory.

    And to elaborate on how science and religion work together is this below that I just wrote (with you in mind too) for the earlier linked to York/Dover Exchange. It’s in response to a fun teasing there so it starts off a little crank by saying something that to you must sound impossible, but it then keeps making sense all the way to a bit of appropriate humor at the end to help lighten it up a little. What the following explains is not off the top of my head, this is what I now know about it:

    Even though the theory is not at all supernatural, its religious implications still make us like the chosen for a most sacred mission to more or less deliver scientific revelation, which does happen. But there is no opening up of the sky with singing angels flying around it’s scientific knowledge that helps explain how we were created, our Creator, and makes sense in context of Genesis and similar accounts. Clergy of all kind are thankful. This is even the kind of thing that makes saints/ prophets, so you never know.

    You can say it’s now just source code with a Theory of Intelligent Design inside at a place that does not get much respect from academia, but it’s initial change from the usual thought process that makes the theory seem scientifically impossible. Can through the theory that comes with it eventually further explain creation through intelligence on into consciousness to where the big-questions are. Is not limiting the through science search for our Creator, shows how to keep it going. We might never that way know all there is to know about creation and the universe (like you were eluding to not really being possible) but this search is an inherent part of the way our intelligence works. Even Atheists love it too but they just think that the Creator will be no big deal to behold once we follow the scientific evidence far enough to maybe somehow see the Creator waving back wondering what took us so long to get there, or something.

  29. Ben Says:

    Now the drunk guy at the dinner party is making clumsy advances toward the married hostess.

  30. Gary Gaulin Says:

    I gave up drinking around half my life ago Ben, have no idea where the guy in your overactive imagination came from. But if you see a coffee overdosed Beavis rambling on about needing more TP for our bungholes, then I’ll switch to decaf for you. 😀

  31. Ben Says:

    Anyone remember Larry Fafarman?

  32. Charles Says:


    Before even opening the comments door and before i read your last post, I was going to warn you that a new Larry Fafarman may have arrived. Sadly, it was possible to read and understand Fafarman’s posts. The blessing this time is that no one needs to read Gary’s posts because they are so obscured by lingual fog that no one can understand them. No offense intended Gary—just being honest with you.

  33. Ben Says:

    He’s a genius. We’re not smart enough to understand. He dares to challenge the status quo. He has evidence–that he can present on a blog. He’s persecuted. Ad hominem attacks prove that he’s right. Other scientists are just jealous of him. Did I mention that he’s a genius?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: