Idiots demanding special status for being idiots

Let’s just down all the prestigious institutions of American science, shall we?

The White House signaled interest early this month in investigating whether the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine should be suspended or debarred from federal funding, in response to a letter from 11 Republican lawmakers criticizing NASEM, particularly the climate science chapter of its Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence.

Former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows posted an article about the letter on X, adding, “The National Academies have weaponized tax dollars against President Trump for far too long. It’s time to end their contracts.” Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought responded, “On it.”

Russ Vought ranks up there with Stephen Miller as one of the greatest villains of this era, a ranting ideologue with no qualifications who has been given power and influence well above his capacity. His reason for shutting down climate science?

The letter argues that the climate science chapter of the reference manual “violates Gold Standard Science” because the peer review process did not include scientists with differing views on climate science and because its authors and funders had conflicts of interest. It heavily echoes letters sent in January and March by 27 Republican state attorneys general who successfully campaigned to remove the chapter from an online version of the manual.

There are some conclusions of science that are inarguable. The only people who argue against global climate change are crackpots, and the rules have been rigged to give irrational denialists a seat at the table. Do we also have to include flat-earthers and creationists in the ranks of the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine? Membership in that institution is an acknowledgement of a long career and an investment in research that has earned the appreciation of the community. People who reflexively deny central aspects of science do not belong.

No, Ken, molecular biology does not support Biblical dogma

Ken Ham takes the opportunity of Craig Venter’s to misunderstand everything he studied, condemning atheism and making the weird argument that the scientific evidence supports his version of Bible interpretation.

We can skip past the familiar preamble where Ken Ham deplores the fact that Venter was an atheist who will be separated from God for eternity, and jump ahead to the point where Ham agrees with the science.

1:32 Scientists at the National Institutes of Health recently announced that they had put together a draft of the entire sequence of the human genome and the researchers had unanimously declared there is only one race, the human race. Wow. only one. You know what? They were confirming the Bible’s history. Now, they didn’t say that. Of course, I’m saying that, but that’s what they were really doing. This was observational science. They obtained DNA from people groups all over the world, and they sequenced the human genome.
…
You know what should have happened at that stage? I’ll tell you what should have happened back then. Christian leaders all over the world and Christians should have jumped up and said, “Told you so.” See, if you believe the Bible, if pastors had have taught Genesis as history, Genesis 1:11, we would all know that we all go back to one man, one woman. That’s that’s the biblical history and it’s real history. And so therefore, there’s only one race biologically, which would mean from a perspective of biology, there’s no such thing as interracial marriage and no such thing either as biracial children or anything like that.

It’s very strange that all those Southern Baptists who fervently studied the Bible somehow came to a very different conclusion, that black people were a different and inferior race, and that miscegenation was a terrible evil. I guess the Bible wasn’t as clear as he thinks it is. The Southern Baptists have long lobbied for segregation, and they now tie that belief in the separation of races to their positions on transgender and gay issues. A few years ago, Republicans voted against the Respect for Marriage Act, a bill that would have protected same-sex and interracial marriage. I guess they hadn’t read their Bibles.

I agree that everyone, whether they are Christian or not, should jump up and state their support for the science that shows all humans come from a common ancestor. But they should also realize that this very same science, the science that agrees with their biblical perspective, also says that all life on Earth is descended from a common ancestor — that humans are related to chimpanzees and iguanas and blobfish and insects and bacteria. It’s real history! It was determined by observational science, his imaginary category, therefore it must be true.

He will never accept that. His version of science is one that only allows confirmation of his prior beliefs, i.e. it isn’t science at all.

Then he launches into some dogmatic garbage straight from the Discovery Institute.

3:11 Here was his team sequencing DNA. And DNA is not just a molecule. It’s not just chemistry. We now know that DNA is the most complex information system, language system in the entire universe. Zillions of bits of information in the DNA of living things on this planet. And DNA has the information to make the code system to read the DNA. DNA is the software of life. There’s no question about it. Codes only come from an intelligence. Information can only come from information from an intelligence. DNA cries out in the beginning, God. But he was an atheist doing good science, observational science, sequencing the human genome, and that’s observational science. They admitted there’s only one race which confirms the Bible’s history.

DNA may be the software of life, but we have no cause to believe codes only come from an intelligence. Mice make baby mice without an advanced degree in bioinformatics; biology is a mindless exercise in chemistry and physics. And mice have roughly the same amount of information in their genomes as do human beings. DNA doesn’t cry out anything.

Recovery update

That strange pink blob is my right knee, adorned with the fading signatures of myself and the surgeon. It’s lumpy and a bit swollen, still recovering from the stabbings, marked by a pair of white tags. I’m now beginning to feel somewhat normal, 4 days after the operation.

At first, it was painful and sensitive — I couldn’t really walk on it. That’s been changing fast, though, and now I can stand on that leg without grimacing and saying obscenities, and I can get about with the aid of a walker fairly well. Getting up from a sitting position is terribly painful, so I’ve avoided sitting much, lounging about in bed, mostly. Today that avoidance ends, and I just have to work on sitting down and standing up and shuffling slowly about the house.

I have yet to master stairs. There are two steps to get into the house from outside, and I have to work on conquering them so that I then have full freedom to explore the universe, gingerly.

I am also signed up for several weeks of physical therapy, and after that, I expect to be hiking through the cobwebby wilderness once again.

Still alive

I’m back from my knee surgery, and I only look half-dead.

All went well, I’m on hydrocodone for a couple of days, but the doctor did minimal hacking and my knee can bear my weight even now. We’ll have to see how I feel once the drugs wear off, but I anticipate a rapid recovery.

Wow, it’s hard to type while on narcotics…

What politics can do, other than enriching the rich

What the hell were all the previous New York mayors doing?

I’ve been to New York several times, and found it wonderful. Has Mamdami made it even better?

The message that hits hardest is the conclusion.

Mayor Mamdani is proof that if your political representatives don’t fix stuff, strengthen your community and make people’s lives better it is simply and only because
THEY DO NOT WANT TO

Look at Mamdami. Look at Trump. Look at Mamdami. Look at Trump again. You ought to wonder what the President is doing.

Today is DreadDay, tomorrow is KnifeDay

Bright and early tomorrow morning, I’m getting arthroscopic surgery on my knee. This morning I was off at the physical therapy place, getting mentally prepared for what is to come.

We went over my post-op exercises. I practiced using crutches. I got coached on the warning signs — if I see yellow pus leaking out of the incision, or red streaks emanating from the knee, go to the emergency room immediately. Uh, duh. I also got instructed on the pre-op routine for today, which mainly involves not eating or drinking tonight, and washing the surgical area with a special soap.

I was also getting prepared for the worst. Best case: I get a simple debridement, and face about two weeks of recovery. Worst case: if there is a lot of repair work done, I’m looking at 6 to 12 weeks of recovery. There is no option to look forward to.

After that depressing experience, I went to the lab and fed all the spiders to cheer myself up. Then I grabbed my laptop and set it up near my bed, since I’ll be spending at least the next couple of days there. I may be glued to the computer for a while.

Am I smug?

Commenter Ted Lawry pointed me at this Discovery Institute article, in which they accuse scientists of smugness. Their authoritative source is Andrew Klavan.

Klavan noticed something interesting about the speakers: the scientific atheist “spokesmen” share, almost to a man, what Meyer calls an “element of smugness in the way they communicate.” Klavan mentions Neil deGrasse Tyson, Richard Dawkins, Carl Sagan. Oh, there’s Lawrence Krauss, and many others. Dr. Meyer recounts a memorable debate he had with Krauss that illustrates the point.

It occurred me as I was watching this conversation… I bet you could turn the sound off on a video of any of the well-known scientific atheists and they would likely be identifiable by the smugness that radiates from them, by the manner of speaking not by the words. Again, this is without any sound. You could try the experiment yourself sometime. Meanwhile, watch and enjoy Klavan and Meyer:

First, in case you’ve never heard of Klavan, he’s an obscure conservative babbler on the dying Daily Wire The only time I’ve heard of him was on a video where a bunch of these Daily Wire writers were huddled up smoking cigars and bragging about how they never do the dishes or laundry because their wives do them for them. Inspiring.

Secondly, his accusation is more appropriately directed at the creationists. The scientists he is complaining about are confident, because they come equipped with a battery of evidence. The creationists are the cocky, arrogant ones: they’re the people making extravagant claims without an iota of evidence. So sure, watch one of the videos from our side, and you’ll notice that we’re all forthright and bold where it is warranted; the creationists are even more arrogant, and their sole source is their interpretation of the Bible.

I do wonder why anyone should give a damn about Klavan’s opinion of science, since he has no qualifications other than being a pompous loudmouth.