Ouija board, useful information from?

You can never ever ascertain the actual accuracy of a predictive tool by only looking for its successes.You are setting yourself up for confirmation bias by asking for peoples' personal, anecdotal testimony regarding useful gleanings of information from a ouija board. This means that you are asking to only hear about the successes without any sort of statistical context. If I give you a broken clock and a working clock and ask you to tell me stories about when each clock was useful, we would expect results from both clocks to be positive, with a 100% accuracy rate - even a broken clock is right twice per day, and if I only ask you to report successful incidents, that 100% accuracy rate will never diminish.You cannot determine accuracy unless you actively seek falsification of your hypothesis. If you think that ouija boards are actually privy to some outside information not already present in teh minds of the participants, you need to perform tests like what Granny Magda proposed - blindfold everyone using the board, and use a video camera to record the results of the blind participants. If an unobserved source is actually moving the (cup? lens? whatever) around the board, you would anticipate finding readable messages on the video. If instead the messages are the result of unconscious or semi-conscious movements by the participants, then you would expect gibberish to be recorded.In any case, you would need to ask the same set of verifiable questions to many groups of ouija board users in a controlled environment and record the results. Analyze the statistical distribution of correct vs. incorrect answers and compare them to a group of people who are asked to randomly guess answers to the same questions. If the correct/incorrect ratios are similar, you can conclude that it is likely that the ouija board is no more "useful" than random guessing - it might be right now and again, but why bother with the board if you could just make up a random guess on the spot with the same probability of accurate results?Only if the board demonstrates a repeatable and clear statistical increase in the accuracy of responses over random guesses can you conclude that the board is useful in some way. Obviously, you aren't going to get that by asking people for success stories on a web forum. Natural selection doesn;t require anything to be "in charge," and in fact it bears every possible appearance of having no intellect in charge.After all, what intelligent designer would ever create or guide to be created the platypus?Joking aside, natural selection is an inevitability given finite resources. So long as living things need to compete for food, space, etc to survive, it is utterly inevitable that those individuals within a population that are better adapted to their current environment will survive more frequently and thus produce more offspring than those with less effective adaptations to their current environment; the passing of traits from parent to offspring means that those more beneficial traits will inevitably take an ever-increasing statistical hold over the population as a whole over many generations. It's a self-perpetuating system that simply results from the conditions of life, where resource are limited, limited spontaneous changes happen during reproduction (what we call mutations), and traits are inherited from parents.