Professor fired for sticking with Intelligent Design  

There are a lot of things which are plausible but we do not teach as science wild notions which have no scientific support!

The argument is only that there is no evidence for intelligent design hence there is no way to teach ID. Error we all teach and are taught but most do not knowingly teach our children wrong.

Technically, ANYTHING is "plausible." But "intelligent design" (in other words, creationism), is not science. Never was, never will be.

Therefore, it's perfectly normal to fire someone for incompetence alone if they reject one of the strongest pieces of science in all of human history, the literal bedrock of modern biology and modern medicine, in favor of something that isn't scientific at all.

Good comment marmelaide:

In my opinion parents do not have the right to teach children errors due to the fact that all people have the right to be taught truth. Furthermore no person has the right to corrupt the existence of another.

Gnosisquest - "Furthermore, no person has the right to corrupt the existence of another"!

For your information, my dear, a parent has the right to teach his or her child whatsoever "nonsense" he or she pleases! This, is a god-given responsibility of a parent! It is the responsibility of a parent to see to the well-being of his or her child! Now, when that child becomes of age, he or she may choose to believe otherwise. But until then, the parent is mainly responsible for the child's upbringing.

The notion that parents were to not teach their children lies and deceptions may have a lot of merit but is impractical. Rereading the Koran right now brings to mind all the nonsense the Muslims could not teach. These people kill those that do not take it seriously and yet none of what they teach have anything to do with knowledge.

It is more than that headhunter; a person that is so able to twist facts and information that he can support ID is a liability to the school system and children. A person has the right to believe as he/she desires but does not have the right to teach as fact ideas that have no support.

I don't know what your court says about ID. But if ID is banned from schools then the law must deal with the prof. but if the law has not banned I don't see why the school would go to that extent. My point is that there are lot of wrong ideology being taught in schools. And we expose students to different schools of thought so that they know which are good and which are bad. Anyway, it seems strange to me. But I don't know the about things happening in the US regarding this so I would give the last word to you.

"Darwinians?" Do you call everyone who accepts gravity a "Newtonian?" Darwin got a lot of stuff wrong, and to imply that the Theory of Evolution has remained completely unchanged since he first introduced the concept of natural selection is downright absurd. Like gravity, evolution has been refined over the years. The theory is not Darwin's anymore. It was the ignorant creationists who coined the term "Darwinism"; I strongly suggest you don't use that term or its variants if you want to be taken more seriously--using it implies that you see evolution as something of a 'doctrine' that has remained static and unchanged since Darwin's time.

Also, it's one thing to have an opinion, but if you're teaching science, you had damned well better not be espousing unscientific ideas in favor of scientific ones. ID is not science, never was, and for a professor to reject one of the strongest scientific theories in all of human history (keep in mind that evolution has withstood a CENTURY AND A HALF of rigorous, contentious testing, and has only gotten stronger as a result--that's the sign of some strong science) in favor of unscientific ideas, is a sign of clear incompetence.

Why shouldn't an incompetent worker be fired?

If he was incompetent why was he selected in the first place? I am sure he was competent then.

My point is how much of freedom of speech do we give a person? Whether it is this idea or other idea when should the authority fire someone? Well, I don't have easy answer for that. But I ask myself how we can learn to disagree with the idea yet give respect to the person.

I disagree with ID as much as you would disagree. And I also agree with evolution as much as you may agree. But I wonder if the authority should go to the extent of firing someone because the person espouses something which they disagree with. I don't know about the system there, but I think here in our country we may debate whether the idea is right or wrong. If it is wrong it will ultimately be shown to be wrong in due course of time.

headhunter: It depends on the context. If an accountant believes in ID instead of accepting evolution, that's no reason to fire him/her. But if a professor of science rejects science in favor of an anti-science movement, that's a different story.

Same deal with IRS employees with the goofy "income tax is illegal" stances. You wouldn't expect someone like that to do their job adequately, would you?

I got your point. Yes, ID is trying to 'smuggle in' religion into science, as much as people like Richard Dawkin is trying to 'smuggle in' atheism into science. ID cannot explain all the data available now nor have evolution been able to explain all. But that's the way we do science. We just go where the evidence leads us. ID proponents as well as evolution proponents have both 'metaphysical' agenda. That's the kind of direction I see the debaters heading... Both sides are not willing to do pure science. But I am not saying that all the scientists are like that. But it's worrying that in the West scientists are 'smuggling in' their philosophical agenda into science and boxing each other out from the lab. Tolerance seems to be almost absent!

Right; the point of good education is to teach people to think independently and objectively. How can intelligent design be taught? The material which underlies ID is no more substantial than the material which supported the flat earth theory.

There has to be evidence for something in order to have it taught in school; ID is without evidence!

When the idea was put forth that the earth was round people thought that it was ridiculous and had no merit and zero "scientific evidence" to support it. Mocking ideas you do not agree with does not advance science it holds it back as much as religious fanaticism. In fact by insinuating anyone who teaches ID deserves to be fired is just as fanatical as any religious nut out there.

The Greeks stated that the earth was round; the Christians were the one's that ridiculed this idea because the Books of Enoch told them that God had pillars which held the earth up. There was no ridiculing of these Greek ideas by anyone other than those who held erroneous preconceptions.

The Church attempts to ridicule each new advance of science so when they come with an unsupported idea of their own it is not to be compared with knowledge.

Myrrdin: Intellign design a.k.a. creationism is not even a valid scientific hypothesis. For it to be valid, it needs to be falsifiable. Since the result of any experiement could be 'explained away' with "God made it happen that way", the idea is not even in the ballpark of "science." What do you expect scientists to do with such a useless concept? At least with the divergence claim, there is merit to examining it because you can see if it's right or wrong. ID/creationism? Impossible to do the same.

Many things explained away by science are not and cannot be verified, it does not mean it doesn't exist. Dark Matter has never been observed directly, it is simply used to explain away inconsistencies in our existing model of the universe. How is this any different?

I just disagree when the entire Christians are clubbed together as unscientific or as opposed to scientific advancement. In fact,the Director of Human Genome Project, Francis Collins is himself a committed Christian. And he is very much contributing to scientific advancement.

The day parents no longer teach children nonsense may be the day a utopia comes to earth. I'm currently rereading the Koran and see how impossible it would be to get the adherents to Islam to teach instead of indoctrinate.

Well, the same could be said about Judaism and Christianity or of the US government which misinforms its people about world events, solicits support by fabricating evidences and uses daily shots of adrenaline to turn its agents into killing machines.

True; and the reason the US government supports lies from the pulpit and right wing religion is obvious. If people will accept lies and authority from the pulpit they will accept the authority from the government and not question the US Oligarchy!

True! And now I see why your stars are also down to four. (Laughs) You must know by now that Mylot and its sponsors do not appreciate anyone who tells the truth, especially about world events, on this forum. Hope you got on on Crash's "What would you like to know about myLot?" - http://www.mylot.com/w/discussions/1402356.aspx

Cheers!

No, truth is not appreciated among the sheep and the cowards. My star rating got one big jolt when I told the Muslims that their Prophet Muhammad was an insult and blasphemy to God. To say that when God was looking for a prophet he could not find anyone more qualified than an illiterate war monger who was also a pedophile was blasphemy.

All people want what is best for their offspring and friends; the problem is that so many people follow blindly anything they are told so they will never know what is best.

True, truth is never appreciated amongst cowards. However, Gnosisquest, we have a very, very big problem: There are humans being robbed of their humanness by the very systems that they are subjects of. No, no, no, this is not science fiction! The technology to manipulate the environment and humans for easy behavioral and societal control have been a reality for several years! I even believe that the untimely and brutal deaths of most of our scientists, especially the microbiologists, in the past 10 years, are linked with this discovery - of engineered "humans" amongst us! Please see:

Potentials of Hi-Tech - http://findcure.org/reviewofnanodrugs.html

About nanodrugs - http://findcure.org/reviewofnanodrugs.html

World chaos via Hi-Tech - http://www.haarp.net/

Human or Robot? - http://geocities.com/ulaf...

Thank you very much Netsbridge; things are much like suspected only worse.
As I have mentioned before; make sure the people follow religion, if they are used to following authority they are well prepared for us whether we need Guinea pigs, robots or automatons. I am going to have to look at this in more detail when time allows. It seems that there are people in high places that need a lesson.

All humans are not created equal but those that would manipulate others for their own personal ambitions are the second lowest group of all. Those that would risk the future of the planet because they are curious are the lowest.

Children in abusive homes become wards of the state. Who is to judge that brainwashing children with false concepts and ideas is not also such abuse? Instilling in children unreasonable fears due to a Stone Age fable is also mental abuse which may merit the same precautions?

How long shall the world be ruled by the ignorant before we adopt logic and intelligence as a guide?

Would you have children taken away from parents who allow their child to believe in Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, or the Easter Bunny? What about allowing children to have an imaginary friend?

What you are implying is discrimination against beliefs. More specifically, you're implying we discriminate against religious beliefs. This is impossible as well as deplorable. The highest laws in our country forbid it. Are you truly advocating thought control? Are we to bring ourselves back to the dark ages by discrimination, perhaps even outlawing certain beliefs because we don't agree with them?

You can't force people to stop believing in things. You have to bring them out of it gradually. By outlawing religious beliefs and teachings, we become no better than the religious dictators of the past who persecuted those that didn't believe the way they did. In short, we trade one evil for another. This, of course, is a recipe for disaster, and no one wants that.

Let's keep dogma where it belongs - in religion, not science. I'll be happy to tolerate the ignorance of others so long as they have the same right as me to believe what they want.

Parents do not teach their children that they will receive undue punishment if they do not believe in the tooth fairy or Easter bunny and while I couldn’t believe that children believed Santa was real when I came to Canada in 1963 it does little harm as their lives are not based on the existence of Santa.

I am completely against any form of oppression and repression which is why I believe that all children should be taught the fact about their favorite religious dogma and not just the “Church rendition”. There is no question about outlawing belief; there is only a question about teaching children facts instead of fiction. There are religious doctrines which are harmful to society, if certain facts are taught these cults lose their power over the innocent. Teach the fable’s but also the facts!

The religious right would currently outlaw the teaching of evolution and have attempted to do so in several instances. There should never be censorship of knowledge and what I am proposing is that nothing be taught as being factual which have no evidence of support and that incidentally includes the Bible.

People should believe as they want but when their beliefs impinge on the lives of others they need to be taught the opposing material.

Intelligent Design does not preach undo punishment either. The theory merely holds that perhaps there was intelligence behind the forces of nature. Some ID proponents force it to fit with the bible, but not all.

Myrrdin: The Dover case made it extremely obvious that "intelligent design" is just Biblical creationists' attempt to make creationism sound less religious (in a previous case, creationism itself was proven to be inherently religious). Here is an excerpt from the transcript from the NOVA documentary--the entire program can be watched online as well:

("Pandas" refers to "Of Pandas and People", the book chosen by the Intelligent Design advocates to stand as the "Intelligent Design textbook" in the Dover case)


====================

NICK MATZKE: When the court case was filed and Pandas was adopted in the policy, it became clear that Pandas was going to be the representative of intelligent design for the purposes of this case. And so the history of that book became important, the arguments it made became important. And we undertook to dissect these various aspects in preparation for the case.

NARRATOR: Matzke dug into Pandas, examining it page by page and scouring the Internet to see what he could unearth about its history.

Rummaging through the N.C.S.E. archives one day, Matzke came across a creationist student newspaper from 1981. At the bottom of the front page, he noticed a tiny article with a headline announcing, "Unbiased Biology Textbook Planned." And that article mentioned that a man named Charles Thaxton, now a fellow at the Discovery Institute, was working on a book that would present "both evolution and creation."

NICK MATZKE: The academic editor was Charles Thaxton, who was the editor of the Pandas book, so it was clear that that ad was referring to the Pandas project. What was interesting is that it talked about the book being about "creation and evolution" instead of the later terms, "intelligent design and evolution."

NARRATOR: If they could show Pandas started out as a creationist book, that would suggest intelligent design is simply creationism repackaged and therefore inherently religious.

Matzke emailed this information to Eric Rothschild, who immediately issued a subpoena to the publisher of Pandas for any drafts the book went through before printing. In a few months, they received two boxes of material. The lawyers sent them to Barbara Forrest. A philosophy professor and author who has been tracking intelligent design for years, she was scheduled to testify in the trial.

BARBARA FORREST: Oh, my goodness, those two boxes contained about 7,000 pieces of paper. I had to sit down with those documents and just start flipping through them, which is what I did day and night.

NARRATOR: After much digging, she hit pay dirt. Buried in these documents were two drafts of Pandas straddling the 1987 case of Edwards versus Aguillard, in which the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional to teach creationism in public school science class. One draft was written before the case and the other revised just after.

BARBARA FORREST: In the first 1987 draft, which is the pre-Edwards draft, the definition of creation reads this way "Creation means that various forms of life began abruptly, through the agency of an intelligent creator, with their distinctive features already intact: fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks and wings, et cetera." The same definition in this draft, after the Edwards decision, reads this way: "Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact: fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, et cetera." Same definition, just one is worded in terms of creationism, the other one worded in terms of intelligent design.

NICK MATZKE: Everyone said intelligent design is creationism re-labeled. Never in our wildest dreams, though, did we think that this would actually be recorded in paper in a way that could be documented in a court case.

ERIC ROTHSCHILD: And that became probably our best single piece of evidence at trial.

NARRATOR: Barbara Forrest's testimony would make a strong case that the Dover school board was thrusting religion into the classroom. And in comparing the Of Pandas and People drafts, Forrest discovered that the authors had apparently made their revisions in haste.

BARBARA FORREST: In cleansing this manuscript, they failed to replace every word properly. I found the word "creationists." And instead of replacing the entire word, they just kind of did this, and got "design proponents" with the "c" in front and the "ists" in the back from the original word.

NICK MATZKE: So the correct term for this transitional form is "Cdesign proponentsists." And everyone now refers to this as the "missing link" between creationism and intelligent design. You've got the direct physical evidence there of a transitional fossil.

NARRATOR: Barbara Forrest's testimony not only traced the creationist lineage of Pandas. Citing a Christian magazine's interview, Forrest let one of the intelligent design movement's own leaders, Paul Nelson, speak for himself.

ClarusVisum you deride someone for using an ad hominem attack, and yet you do that very thing in this post. You criticize Intelligent Design proponents simply because they are creationists rather then attack the science behind it. Sure ID is specious at best, but what's your point. Attacking someone on their beliefs and not proving your case and you are as bad as any over zealous Christian out there. Why not allow ID to be taught, but counter it with scientific proof, thus teaching people to use the evidence to determine the facts.

Freedom of speech was and is very important in our country (U.S.A.), but it is slowly being choked out. I have heard several accountable stories where a respectable professor (and some scientists) at a college mentions ID to his, or her, class as one of the many ideas in the scientific community, and then are fired for it. I do not believe that a professor or a scientist should be fired for just exploring the many aspects or ideas of how the world came to pass.
Also a good scientist would look at the evidence provided and decide whether this hypothesis is possible, instead of the many scientists today who completely disregard the evidence put before them and somehow twist it so that it will help them prove their choice hypothesis (I am referring to what many scientists do with Evolution). If all scientists would just examine the evidence and follow where ever it led I believe that this country would be a lot further along (scientifically) then it is right now.

But the point is that there is nothing to teach. A theory that some intelligence created something in order to answer unknowns is not a teachable subject. The only intelligence which we can demonstrate is human intelligence so we would then have to teach that humans could have created the universe but we do not know where the awareness of being aware which we are originated so that is fruitless.

So you can't postulate anything you do not have direct experience with? How incredibly sad that you have no imagination. Once again, don't get me wrong, I think most ID proponents are peddling crazy bible thumping theories, but no theory should be banned simply because you disagree with them.

It is not banned my friend; it only awaits any evidence of support at which stage it can be taught!

So called professors that desire to teach something which has nothing to back it up are not qualified to teach.

Many things are taught before they are proved conclusively. And while you claim it is not banned you are preaching that no one be allowed to teach ID, which in the end is the same thing. ID should not be taught alone, nor should any single theory, all sides should be shown.

ID can not be taught as there is nothing to teach since no material exists which support the notion. We may as well teach that the universe was created by the holy spaghetti monster; there is just as much evidence to support it and the flying teapot!

If subjects pertaining to religion are taught and all sides are taught as you propose you would then also agree to teach what I wrote at the link below which proves that the God as Christians understand God could not possibly exist?

http://www.mylot.com/w/discussions/680988.aspx

I have read your threads on the proof that god does not exist, in fact I participated it. I do happen to think that those point of views are perfectly acceptable to teach. I did say all points of view are valid. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I am a Christian, I am not.

I was under the impression that you felt certain things should be kept from the public regarding the flaws in religious dogma.

There could be a separate course in school which discussed the flaws in religion, looked at the evidence which has come to light and balanced it with the lies told by the religious community. This could also look and compare the evidence for ID and evolution but the religious community would never allow an objective look at their superstitions and an exposure of the evidence they are liars.

Well my friend Gnosisquest it seems you jumped to conclusions. I did say in a post that all theories should be able to be presented. The problem with extremists views is they always discount everything that does not fit into their dogma as heresy, be they Muslim Extremists, Christian Extremists, or Atheist Extremists.

That I agree with and while you may not know this I do not consider myself an atheist. I know that what we are is that which is aware of being aware and we exist apart from time/space.

Christians inherited the flat earth concept from their Judaic forefathers. The book which these two cults employed to tell them what the Heaven was like and what was in store for them there was "The Books of Enoch". Today's vision of Paradise and God's realm is still out of its pages even though the book was absurd after people discovered that the earth was round as the Greeks had said and not held up by the supports which God provided.

Intelligent Design is the same nonsense, there is no support, no evidence so there is nothing to discuss. ID is something which certain social classes employ to explain their unknowns. These aspects are known by science yet rejected by those that desire to see a maker in order to hold on to their beliefs.

There are two groups of "Scientists" that support the ID nonsense; the one's who fell for the financial rewards offered by the religious community and those that couldn't make the grade and are now employed. This is much like the religious archeology where researchers loose their credibility after supporting some idea just to reap the financial rewards.

Your notion that I have not read anything from these pseudo-scientists is also just your idea so that you can support your story and does not reflect reality. Sorry to see your dismal opinion about scientists. There are those of faith that think they are better, I still rely on science when I fly or design the structural integrity of a building. Vision is the ability to perceive what is; when it comes to knowledge all people are different, mainly due to the preconceptions they view reality through. Due to the impediment afforded all Christian/Muslim followers they argue points from a preconception which to us others make them look absurd!

Mcrowl, how exactly do you think that evolution is being undermined when evolution is quite apparent all around us. It is statements like that that make people think that ID people are just religious nuts who ignore scientific evidence.

mcrowl, where is your evidence that the ToE is "being more and more undermined, the more science advances."? I've been seeing the OPPOSITE occur--the Theory is becoming stronger and stronger every day.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA110.html

"It sounds to me as though you're pronouncing ID as a dud without having much idea of it."

I know it's unfalsifiable, and therefore not only useless in a scientific context even if it was correct, but impossible to verify scientifically (so there would be no way of evidencing it as BEING correct in the first place).

"The problem with science is that we have come to think it's always right, and that it always works from a logical standpoint"

Nonsense. If everyone thought that, science would be as static and unchanging as religious dogma. It gets revised and strengthened constantly, and anyone really working in such a field would SURELY not take such a silly stance.

Science represents the best conclusion we can reach given the evidence. I'd like you to find a major scientific organization that claims any sort of infallibility of science; this sounds like a straw man.

"scientists are no more wise than the average human being, and that some of them have been downright venal and stupid."

This is nothing but ad hominem--attacking the people instead of the science. Someone could have an IQ of 75, and be a racist serial murderer, but if that person says 2 + 2 = 4, guess what? S/he's still correct about that. Don't try and change the subject--the science stands on its own, and is NOT defined by the opinions or whims of the scientISTS. It is defined ONLY by the evidence.

i don't have any problem with relying on science when it's true science. Unfortunately there is a lot of pseudo-science around as well, a large number of theories that aren't proven, yet given more credence than their worth. Be that as it may, the tone of your original discussion and the response to my post indicates that your issue isn't with ID but with creationism, and below that, with Christians. Either make this a thoroughly scientific discussion and leave Christianity out of it, or focus on the religious side and leave science out of it. You can't slip and slide between the two.

mcrowl its hard to to leave religion out of a debate about ID when ID is about religion, and generally adhering to the teachings of Christ, and thus Christians.

Clarus, the link you added doesn't tell us anything. There's nothing there to back up its claims. It's basically another religious site disguised as a scientific one.

It is only the religious community which desire to add ID. The notion of a creator is only developed in order to support religion. If science could not explain the universe without the added ID one would have been added. Since all things can be explained without a creator adding one is only so some people can cling to their preconceptions.

All things can be explained without a creator? My goodness, you must have even more faith in science than I thought you had. It strikes me this isn't a discussion about science but about your dislike of religious people and their views. I'd be more impressed if you discussed science only, and left the religious side out of it, but it seems that you can't do this.

It is impossible to discuss science only when discussing intelligent design for intelligent design has nothing to do with science. ID is an imagined argument some people think justifies religion and nothing more.
All things can easily be explained without a creator and this is old news. No person that is up to date on scientific publications or progress would be surprised by this statement. Your surprise only indicates your lack of scientific knowledge. Since you exhibit such lack of knowledge I would suggest you read the below publication by the National Academy of Sciences. It is written for the layman in easy to understand terms and once you educate yourself you can come with better arguments.
http://nationalacademies.org/evolution/

Thank you:

They should but very few of them will. I have just read the Koran again and it is so full of nonsense that it takes brainwashing of children from the time they are infants to make anyone take it seriously that have not been subject to an equally absurd cult.

Christianity to anyone that has been spared the childhood indoctrination makes no sense either but for those who follow it they have not the guts to question their indoctrination.

People have the capacity for intelligence but it is not often employed. The religionists will not take much notice of this action other than accuse the faculty of injustice; they know their cult is correct so anything which does not support the nonsense is wrong.

Evolution is being undermined. Check out this site:
http://www.evanwiggs.com/...
Yes, the writer is a Christian, but the science he's discussing isn't taken from a ID viewpoint, or any religious stance. Furthermore he quotes plenty of scientists who themselves see the theory as being undermined.

Go Gnosisquest and islander!

Thank you for providing the evidence regarding how the religious community distort information and blatantly lie in order to prove a point which doesn't even exist!

One of the pieces to disprove evolution is: "For instance sugar beets in the early 1800’s had a 6% sugar content, by selective breeding that sugar content had risen to 17% by 1878. That was as far as the breeders were able to stretch the genome and they certainly didn’t create a potato from the sugar beet."

People with the knowledge of the 1800 were able to raise the sugar content from 6% to 17% in only 78 years. To state that this proves evolution does not occur is not only a lie but it defines the person who wrote the article as a pseudo-scientist.

Evolution does not occur on demand from us in order to prove anything. Evolution is proven by looking at what is and what was!

So how do we look at what was when there is so little evidence? Much of the 'evidence' relating to what was is pure speculation, not science at all. Science is supposed to be about proving theories by observation and experiment, yet many of the assumptions in the field of evolution are nothing but assumptions and guesses. There is very little scientific work going on. Perhaps if you'd read more of the page I referred to previously, you'd have seen that.

All that you indicate by your statement is that you know very little about science and what is really going on. I venture to wager that this is due to propaganda and falsehoods promoted by the religious community for lies and deceptions are all they peddle these days. Science does observe experiment and prove aspects of theories. In science no knowledge goes beyond a theory and while this may all be Greek to you I suggest you take a look at the publication below which is made by the National Academies of Science. It is on the net; it is free and will educate those with an inquiring mind who wants to know!

http://nationalacademies.org/evolution/

ID is introduced again and supported by mega corporations, not the religious community.

The religious community has avid support from the business community for it is believed that people should not be permitted to question authority. If people can be made to not question authority the corporate sector feel they will be safe. The corporations can then keep running the country according to the will of the wealthy. People who submit will know not to question authority such as government or church.

For the sake of freedom all of us have the right to question for otherwise we become enslaved.

Would you also say that people have the right to question evolution, ID etc and allow them to speak up their mind?

Of course people have the right to question evolution; scientists do it all the time.

Read some real scientific material on evolution, I get tired of arguing with people who get all their information from the unscrupulous religious sector desiring only a plentiful supply to their coffers!
http://nationalacademies.org/evolution/

The right to question is fundamental to being a human. It is also the basis of science! People should learn to question a lot of things. I'm not saying we should dismiss everything as a matter of course but when evidence is there, accept it, amalgamate it modify your theory accordingly.
Another big mistake people seem to make is that they think questioning someone is the same as calling them a liar. Everyone has built up their own, usually selective, database of evidence in their life so far.
Anyone heard of knowledge for knowledge's sake?