Montana is right next to North Dakota

The disease is spreading. Montana legislators have introduced a new law.

4 A BILL FOR AN ACT ENTITLED: “AN ACT ESTABLISHING REQUIREMENTS FOR SCIENCE INSTRUCTION IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS; DEFINING “SCIENTIFIC FACT”; AND PROVIDING AN IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVE DATE.”

WHEREAS, the purpose of K-12 education is to educate children in the facts of our world to better prepare them for their future and further education in their chosen field of study, and to that end children must know the difference between scientific fact and scientific theory; and
WHEREAS, a scientific fact is observable and repeatable, and if it does not meet these criteria, it is a theory that is defined as speculation and is for higher education to explore, debate, and test to ultimately reach a scientific conclusion of fact or fiction.

That isn’t how it works! That isn’t how anything works! The legislators clearly don’t know the difference between scientific fact and scientific theory, and it sounds like their understanding is straight from the Answers in Genesis school of ignorance.

If I were to dig up a trilobite fossil in my backyard, a location that makes finding 350 million year old fossils highly improbable, it is still a fact; it is a demonstrable phenomenon, even if I can’t repeat it and find more of them. I would then have to formulate an explanation for how the fossil got there, that’s the theory part, and it’s often the more interesting scientific question that requires further investigation and hypothesis testing.

There isn’t a progressive scale from theory to fact. Theories are explanatory frameworks to integrate a body of facts. They don’t ‘become’ facts, although they can be so well supported that you’d have to be a fool to reject them.

It’s clear that this is a bill targeting evolutionary theory, composed by ignoramuses who know nothing of science. Evolution is a fact and a theory. There is a body of facts that creationists would like to disappear, such as it is a fact that the Earth is billions of years old, it is a fact that life exhibits a pattern of constant change on a geological time scale, it is a fact that there was no global flood, but that there have been many cataclysmic geological and geochemical changes, it is a fact that organisms share genetic properties that reveal common descent. Then there are theories to explain those facts: evolution is a good one that robustly accounts for the phenomena we observe, and creationism is a bad one that fails multiple tests and does not explain the facts we have.

Trying to associate scientific theory with the colloquial interpretation of “theory” with unsupported guesswork is a tired old stratagem that creationists have been playing with for decades and it doesn’t work, it just flags them as idiots and fools and liars.

Creepypastor

Who are these people?

  • David Lloyd Walther
  • Timothy Jason Jeltema
  • Chad Michael Rider
  • David Pettigrew
  • William C. Robinson
  • Brian Pounds
  • Lawrence Hopkins
  • Conner Jesse Penny
  • Jonathan Ryan Ensey
  • Aaron Duane Shipman
  • Conrad Estrada Valdez
  • Rob Shiflet

Hint: they’re all Texans.

Not enough? Another hint: they’re all church leaders.

Now you can probably guess what significant fact unites them: they’re all people who have been charged with child porn, sexual assault on a minor, or child sex trafficking in just the past year. I have to wonder how many atheists have been similarly arrested.

That’s just scratching the surface!

In May, a document released by the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) revealed the case of more than 700 Baptist leaders—including pastors, teachers, ministers and volunteers—accused or found guilty of sexual abuse of children.

The 205-page document, which looks at cases dating back to a period between 2000 and 2009, details the arrests and—sometimes—sentencing of Baptist leaders found guilty of sexual assaults, soliciting children, child pornography and more.

I wonder what it is that draws pedophiles and groomers to religion.

You know what’s worse than a faceful of spiders?

Anti-vaxxers.

Harriet Hall, a well-known doctor who had been prominent on the skeptic circuit, died last week of heart disease. This was unfortunate, but one thing she didn’t die of was COVID…not that that would stop the ghouls from announcing that she died of a COVID vaccination. They wedged her into their “died suddenly” meme.

It makes no sense to me. This is no “died suddenly” event: a 77 year old woman with a history of heart problems and several years of declining health dying of congestive heart failure is not “sudden”, nor is it in any way correlated with vaccination. But then, facts don’t matter in the anti-vax crowd: if a critic of their fallacious doom-squealing did die suddenly by being hit with a bus, even then I’d expect them to claim it was vaccine-related.

David Gorski talks about the dishonesty of quacks at length, you might want to give that a read.

This “died suddenly” phenomenon is not unique to vaccines and antivaxxers. It is, rather, a subset of a more general phenomenon in which those who deny science-based medicine blame deaths on the intervention or preventative, rather than the disease itself. Long before the pandemic, I was writing about how quacks and cranks would seize on the deaths of celebrities of cancer to blame chemotherapy, rather than their cancers, for having killed them. Examples are numerous (some catalogued here) and include David Bowie, Alan Rickman, Tony Snow, Farrah Fawcett, Elizabeth Edwards, Patrick Swayze (with a particularly despicable use of a photo showing how emaciated he was). Alternatively, they “lament” how a celebrity with cancer might have lived if only he had chosen (or stuck with) alternative medicine, such as Steve Jobs. The ghoulishness is a feature, not a bug, of the denial of medical science.

It is a denial that Harriet dedicated her post-Air Force life to combatting and that we here at SBM will continue to do. Antivaxxers can try to claim that vaccines killed Harriet all they want, but we know the truth, that unfortunately there are things medicine can’t always fix or prevent and that none of us gets out of here alive. All we can do is to use what time we have to do as much good as we can while we are still breathing, which is what Harriet tried to do. Ironically, by trying to add Harriet to their “died suddenly” conspiracy theory, antivaxxers gave her one last chance to help push back against quackery. I hope, but can never know, that she approves.

Plumbing the depths of gullibility

I was reading some of Elon Musk’s claims from July, and marveling at how much he gets away with.

“Mars may be a fixer upper of a planet, but it has great potential!” the billionaire wrote.

User @PPathole responded, asking Musk what he believes is the “timeframe for creating a self-sustaining civilization” there.

“20 years? Self-sustaining meaning not relying/[dependent] on Earth for supplies,” he said.

“20 to 30 years from first human landing if launch rate growth is exponential,” the Tesla co-founder replied. “Assumes transferring ~100k each rendezvous and ~1M total people needed.”

I goggled at that exchange. Such blithe confidence! Where were those numbers coming from? He seems to believe plopping one million people (as if he could) onto the surface of Mars will trigger some miraculous auto-catalysis that will solve all the biological and engineering problems that he can’t even imagine. Throw enough people at this hostile world and they’ll figure everything out for him.

I don’t know that he actually believes in that. He seems to be an autonomous hype machine.

But then I wondered, are there actually people out there who listen to Musk and don’t constantly think, “that’s bullshit”? Are you one of them? I’ve never met a Musk true-believer, but if they exist at all, they’d be fascinating to have a conversation with…until it got too frustrating. Speak up! Explain in the comments how MuskMath works.

And finally, I wondered how a credible journalist could quote that claim without instantly raising objections (I know, it’s a Fox News link, so it’s a purely hypothetical credibility.) The commenters on that article, with a few exceptions, certainly are gung-ho, and amusingly, many are complaining that they are so old that 20 years is unattainable. Again, if you’re out there, explain here how you would support the claim. I know, it’s a bit like jumping into a shark tank, but hey, you’re the one who’d provide the math and engineering background.

As a starting point, let’s begin with a simpler example. You’ve been granted a large chunk of Antarctica as a gift (and a generous exception to international law), and have been able to lease a fleet of cruise ships, with a capacity of 5000 people each. You load them up, and make 200 trips from ports around the world, dropping them off on a rocky beach in Antarctica, along with tents and prefab buildings. How long until you have a self-sustaining colony that is sending profits back to you? How long until the distress calls go out and you have to rescue the survivors?

I’ve often wondered how, if erecting self-sustaining colonies is so easy, we haven’t been eagerly plundering our southern-most continent, which, while possibly a bit inhospitable, does have the little amenities of air and water, both lacking on Mars.

Shouldn’t we also consider the possibility that this is all an improbable fantasy of total civilian control by a breed of ignorant oligarchs, anyway?

It’s a brain! Don’t trust it

Well, ain’t this a kick in the pants. Here’s a compilation of failed concepts in psychology, for example, the oft-mentioned Stanford Prison Experiment is a badly done botch, the Pygmalion effect is small and inconsistent, the Milgram experiment is full of experimental errors, etc., etc., etc. It’s rather depressing.

As someone who spends a lot of time online, though, I was relieved to learn that’s not responsible for feeling low.

Lots of screen-time is not strongly associated with low wellbeing; it explains about as much of teen sadness as eating potatoes, 0.35%.

So you’re saying I should cut potatoes out of my diet, then?

The impression I get is that a lot of the popular ideas that have emerged out of psychology arise not because the experimenter is rigorous and cautious, but because they either conform to conventional wisdom or are surprisingly contrary. There’s also something analogous to the TED Talk effect, where people are convinced more by the certainty of the presentation of the story than by the data. I’m beginning to develop my own rubric for assessing psychological claims: if it’s so simple that it gets condensed down to just the investigator’s name, it’s probably shoddy work with questionable validity. I’m calling it the Myers Rule.

The author of the list says something I think is worth keeping in mind, though. They’re talking about the concept of Ego Depletion, which has a substantial wiki page.

It’s 3500 words, not including the Criticism section. It is rich with talk of moderators, physiological mechanisms, and practical upshots for the layman. And it is quite possible that the whole lot of it is a phantom, a giant mistake. For small effect sizes, we can’t tell the difference. Even people quite a bit smarter than us can’t.

If I wander around an old bookshop, I can run my fingers over sophisticated theories of ectoplasm, kundalini, past lives, numerology, clairvoyance, alchemy. Some were written by brilliant people who also discovered real things, whose minds worked, damnit.

We are so good at explaining that we can explain things which aren’t there. We have made many whole libraries and entire fields without the slightest correspondence to anything. Except our deadly ingenuity.

Human brains are so easily diddled by grand simplifications (religion, for instance) that they’ll then turn phantasms into sweeping, detailed rules for existence. It’s all superstitious behavior in the psychological sense — we’re all searching for patterns so obsessively that if they aren’t there, our minds start imposing them on the world.

I’m so glad I’m not working in psychology. Evolution and developmental biology would never cultivate popular errors. Wait — but those sciences are studied by human minds, which are clearly kind of squirrely.

Follow-up on ID at conferences

The other day, I posted about the Discovery Institute’s end of year wrap-up. One of the things that bugged me about it was that while Brian Miller said, In 2022, I participated in several conferences and private events in which I interacted with prominent scientists, he failed to mention any of these conferences or the names of these prominent scientists. That’s a striking omission! Waving vaguely in the direction of unspecified conferences and scientists is the opposite of persuasive. So I browsed through the archives of the Disco Institute to see if he mentioned any of them at the time they occurred.

This is not definitive at all — these are just the conferences he mentioned on Evolution News & Views. Maybe he was jet-setting around the world attending an international conference every week, but then it’s peculiar, given the braggadacio of his year end post, that he never brought them up before. Here is just the 2022 conferences he mentioned. There weren’t many of them.

  • In November, he attended a Catholic conference on creation.

    I’m back now from a conference this past week at Notre Dame, titled “‘And It Was Very Good’: On Creation,” hosted by the de Nicola Center for Ethics and Culture. The Center described the conference as follows:
    In the created world, Pope Francis writes, we are able to perceive “a grammar written by the hand of God” (Lumen Fidei). If creation is a language, what can we discern regarding the creator? The de Nicola Center’s 22nd annual Fall Conference will explore the many facets of the created world and the act of creation, including questions of cosmology, teleology, natural ends, natural law, the Imago Dei, creaturely status, ecology, stewardship, cocreation, recreation, redemption, and more.
    The organizers accepted my abstract for a talk titled “The Return of Teleology to the Natural Sciences.” I presented the talk as part of a panel with two other scholars, and it seemed well received.

  • In September, he mentioned a conference, but it’s not clear that he attended.

    As an engineering professor at Bristol University and Cambridge, Stuart Burgess has researched biomechanics for nearly thirty years. He is one of the leading engineers in the UK. Earlier this year, he presented a talk at the Westminster Conference on Science and Faith titled, “Why Human Skeletal Joints Are Masterpieces of Human Engineering: And a Rebuttal to the ‘Bad Design’ Arguments.”

  • In May, he was at a conference on science and faith.

    At the recent Dallas Conference on Science and Faith, Discovery Institute physicist Brian Miller gave a great talk on the convergence of biology and engineering. It’s up now on YouTube and eminently worthy of being shared. Miller’s theme is that “you see the same engineering principles in human engineering as you see in life.”

    (Yes, he wrote the article, and is referring to himself and the great talk in the third person. Weird.)

  • I don’t know that this one should count, but in March he was promoting a Disco Institute summer seminar. He doesn’t say, but I assume he participated in this yearly event in 2021? Maybe?

    In 2016, I attended the Center for Science & Culture’s annual Summer Seminars on Intelligent Design, and that fateful week pulled me into the epicenter of the design debate. For years, I had studied and lectured on the evidence for design in nature.

I’m being generous in noting the conferences he talked about, but note: none of these are professional conferences, and they all have a religious agenda. It’s not that religious people can’t be excellent scientists, but these are not events that would attract a diverse group of scientists — all the attendees would have had a certain bent towards favoring creationist explanations to varying degrees. It makes his implication that he was reasonably representing the views of many prominent people in the sciences a bit suspect. Talk to creationists, you tend to find they like creationism…news at 11.

He may have also attended real, secular, professional conferences as well that he didn’t tout, but I have reservations about that, too. He has a Ph.D. in physics. Not to demean physicists, but few of them have the kind of knowledge of biology to be able to appropriately assess the evidence for evolution, and I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that some brilliant minds in physics are part of the crackpot fringe in biology.

I suspect that a creationist who wanted to present his theorizing on gods and design at a physics conference would get the same response Paul Nelson got at a biology conference — uninterested neglect. Lonely indifference.He sure wouldn’t have cause to brag about his reception.

It’s all hilarious until it isn’t

The central character on the internet for the last few days has been Andrew Tate, macho posturing kickboxer and sleaze merchant, previously banned on Twitter but allowed back on by Elon Musk (of course). He was recently mocked by, of all persons, Greta Thunberg, who teased his “small-dick energy”, followed by Tate making a video bragging about all his expensive cars, thereby proving her point. This was quickly followed by the Romanian police busting in and arresting Tate, purportedly tipped off by the box for a local pizza delivery site letting them know where he was (I don’t really believe this — the police knew where he was, and already had a case against him.)

Funny stuff. Bragging idiot gets his comeuppance, perfect Twitter fodder, right?

Until you read what the Romanian police charged him with.

Following the communique no. 1 of 12.04.2022 and the interest shown by media representatives, the Information and Public Relations Office within the Organized Crime and Terrorism Investigation Directorate is empowered to bring the following to public attention:

On 29.12.2022, the prosecutors of the Directorate for the Investigation of Organized Crime and Terrorism – Central Structure together with police officers from the Bucharest Organized Crime Brigade implemented 5 home search warrants in a case in which investigations under the aspect of committing the crimes of constituting an organized criminal group, human trafficking and rape.
In the case it was noted that, at the beginning of 2021, 4 suspects (two British citizens and two Romanian citizens) constituted a criminal group organized in order to commit crimes on the territory of Romania, but also of other countries, such as the United States of America and Great Britain, of the crime of human trafficking.
Victims were recruited by British citizens by misrepresenting their intention to enter into a marriage/cohabitation relationship and the existence of genuine feelings of love (the loverboy method). They were later transported and housed in buildings in Ilfov county where, by exercising acts of physical violence and mental coercion (through intimidation, constant surveillance, control and invoking alleged debts), they were sexually exploited by group members by forcing them to perform demonstrations pornographic for the purpose of producing and disseminating through social media platforms material having such a character and by submitting to the execution of a forced labor,
So far, 6 injured persons have been identified who were sexually exploited by the organized criminal group.
With regard to the crime of rape, it was noted that, in March 2022, an injured person was forced, on two different occasions, by a suspect through the exercise of physical violence and psychological pressure to have sexual relations.
At the headquarters of the Directorate for the Investigation of Organized Crime and Terrorism – Central Structure, 4 people who are reasonably suspected of being involved in criminal activity were taken for questioning. Following the hearings, the prosecutors of the Directorate for the Investigation of Organized Crime and Terrorism – Central Structure ordered the 4 persons to be detained for a period of 24 hours.
The activities were also attended by police officers from the Ilfov Organized Crime Service and the Service for Combating Human Trafficking, as well as gendarmes from the Special Intervention Brigade of the Gendarmerie.
We make it clear that during the entire criminal process, the investigated persons benefit from the procedural rights and guarantees provided by the Code of Criminal Procedure, as well as the presumption of innocence.

[translated from the original Romanian]

Jesus fucking christ. Not funny at all. Tate and his brother were luring women into their grasp, imprisoning them, using them to make internet pornography, and raping them. And people have been idolizing him? If convicted, I hope they spend many years in a Romanian prison; if not convicted, please let this be the end of Tate’s reputation as a man to emulate. He’s a cowardly abuser of women and a rapist.

The enduring futility of Intelligent Design creationism

It’s almost sad how pathetic the Discovery Institute has become. Every year they have a little roundup of their “accomplishments” of the year. This year, they got some guy named Brian Miller (sorry, I’ve lost track of the shifting roster of employees at the Fail Institute) to write up the grand summary. Let’s see if you notice what’s missing from this account.

So let’s review. In 2022, I participated in several conferences and private events in which I interacted with prominent scientists. Several acknowledged the strength of our arguments critiquing the current scientific orthodoxy and defending the evidence for design in life. At a recent conference, I spoke with one of the most recognized and admired evolutionary biologists. In a private conversation, he accepted that the arguments for design based on engineering analyses of living systems were substantive. And during a public lecture, he even tacitly conceded that the information central to life points to design. He stated that he wished to wait for future research to potentially explain the origin of biological information through natural processes. But his tone of voice suggested that he doubted whether such an explanation would ever materialize.

At another meeting, I sat on a panel with one of the leading evolutionary theorists. He stated that standard evolutionary analyses addressing nontrivial transformations typically are severely deficient in their mathematical cogency. He also thanked scholars in the ID network for addressing with rigor and nuance such questions as the rarity of functional protein sequences and the required timescales for generating coordinated mutations. At another conference, top-level biologists affirmed the strength of my arguments for the challenge of evolving new proteins that perform complex tasks. Many still wished to wait for natural explanations for the origin of novel protein structures, but they now much better appreciate the severity of the challenge.

I think he deserves a participation trophy! That’s all he did. He interacted with prominent scientists at conferences — all unnamed. He spoke to one of the most recognized and admired evolutionary biologists who tacitly conceded some ID talking points. They aren’t named, so we can’t assess the relevance of their discipline or their prominence. Then he was on a panel with a leading evolutionary theorist, again unnamed. Then he went to another conference with “TOP MEN” who affirmed ID … their names are a mystery.

Is it name-dropping if you fail to actually name any of them?

In addition to that hopelessly vague summary, they have an annual countdown of the top ten ID news stories. Shall I go through them all? No. Too boring. Too trivial. For instance, #6 is Megalodon, written by the most tediously pedantic nitwit in their stable, Günter Bechly. After a couple of paragraphs about the majestic size of Meg and it’s tremendous teeth, and noting that they are definitely entirely completely extinct, we get the dramatic exciting reason their contribution to intelligent design is being acknowledged here.

Sharks possess many remarkable biological features, of which some clearly point to intelligent design, such as their complex olfactory and electromagnetic sense organs. The latter are situated on and around their snouts and are called ampullae of Lorenzini (Bellono et al. 2017, Weiler 2017). The discovery of this electromagnetic sense by Adrianus Kalmjin is a fascinating story (Shiffman 2022). A recent study revealed further secrets, such as the fact that sharks only use these organs to find prey, while the related skates and rays also use them for electric communication (Weiler 2018). For more information on evidence for intelligent design in marine organisms like sharks and whales, I highly recommend the Illustra Media documentary Living Waters (Evolution News 2016).

That’s it! That’s all he’s got! Nothing new at all, some old news that sharks have a sophisticated sensory system, and none of the cited papers so much as mention Megalodon or discuss problems in evolutionary theory. I’m sure David Shiffman would be surprised to learn he’s being cited as a creationist authority.

So, for their great grand end of the year summary of the majestic progress of their agenda, all they have to show are vague assertions that the lurkers support them at conferences and that non-creationists have learned things that they can distort into some imaginary support for design theory. Mediocre.

Remember, they codified their plans back in 1998, in the Wedge document. Here’s what they were supposed to have done by 1993.

Five Year Goals

  • To see intelligent design theory as an accepted alternative in the sciences and scientific research being done from the perspective of design theory.
  • To see the beginning of the influence of design theory in spheres other than natural science.
  • To see major new debates in education, life issues, legal and personal responsibility pushed to the front of the national agenda.

Those all flopped. What about their goals for 2018?

Twenty Year Goals

  • To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science.
  • To see design theory application in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its influence in the fine arts.
  • To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.

2023 is time for their twenty five year goals, which they didn’t specify in the original document. Here, I’ll help them out:

Twenty Five Year Goals

  • To have a few anonymous scientists whisper tentative support off the record that they might support us.
  • To appropriate random discoveries by legitimate scientists as, in fact, intelligent design discoveries.
  • To employ an array of no-name wankers to write puff-pieces on our website.

Finally, mission accomplished!

Wheel out the persecution complex

I mentioned before that Ken Ham and Ray Comfort were going to flood London with Bible tracts for the upcoming coronation. The Panda’s Thumb also noted the silliness of this effort. Here’s the complete text of their comment.

Ken Ham and his fellow creationist grifters plan to disrupt King Charles’s Coronation by handing out religious tracts disguised as money.

This is hilarious. They are raising money to print and distribute 3 million counterfeit “1 Million Pound” notes that will display fundamentalist/creationist tracts on the reverse side. They are shamelessly raising money to do this. I wonder if the British Secret Service will also be amused.

That’s it! That’s all they said. It was enough to fuel Ray Comfort’s outrage, though. He thinks that’s a serious threat to call the police on them, so he’s made a video in which he intercuts clips of people getting handcuffed, of gangster firing machine guns, and then delivers a po-faced explanation of all the ways their Bible tracts differ from genuine UK pound notes. Yeah, Ray, we know. You’re more likely to get arrested for littering than for seriously trying to undermine the British economy with fake money. Your greater crime will be inducing eye-strain in all the people who will be rolling their eyes.

That doesn’t trigger their persecution complex, though…gotta inflate the concerns even more.

So ridiculous. They’re trying so hard to pretend the world sees them as fierce and dangerous, rather than a joke.

Speaking of jokes, if you bother to watch the video, it starts out with breathless outraged innocence, but One-Trick-Pony Ray can’t keep it up for long, and it abruptly switches to another of his man-in-the-street interviews where he confronts a stranger with the question and accusation, “Have you ever told a lie? Then you’re a liar and are going to hell.” It’s a good thing for Ray that the Bible doesn’t condemn people for being a repetitive bore, because he’d be damned for all time. I turn off any of his videos when he starts on that tired schtick, which means I can never sit through any of them.