Discovery Institute ♥ Joe Rogan & Bret Weinstein

The Discovery Institute is thrilled by Rogan and Weinstein, entirely because these conspiracy theorists criticize “Darwinism”. It’s laughable. Rogan is an ignorant meathead, and Weinstein is a weird outsider who profits from babbling nonsense about science. It’s no surprise that the garbage out crowd is in alignment with religious propagandists.

Here’s the bit the DI adores:

Weinstein says he is “sympathetic” to ID but rejects it, which we knew. He says the current version of Darwinism, however, is “broken” and the evolutionary mainstream “lies” to itself, and to us. He alludes to another Darwinian mechanism operating on top of the standard one of random mutation and natural selection:

I believe there’s a kind of information stored in genomes that is not in triplet codon form, that is much more of a type that would be familiar to a designer, either of machines or a programmer. [I believe] that what we did was, we took the random mutation model and we recognized that it was Darwinian, which it is, and we therefore assumed that it would explain anything that we could see that was clearly the product of Darwinian forces, on the basis of those random mutations. And we skipped the layer in between, in which selection has a different kind of information stored in the genome that is not triplet-codon in nature. [Emphasis added.]

In another words, I think he’s saying, the other information is in a “meta” relationship to the familiar material genome, the genetic information instantiated in DNA and other known physical epigenetic features in the cell.

Dr. Weinstein is a deep thinker, and I hope I’m not misrepresenting him. But this other information, in his view, is also material in nature, not spiritual — which might be the difference between Weinstein’s thinking and, say, that of Platonist ID scientists like Richard Sternberg and Günter Bechly who posit an “immaterial genome,” occupying that meta role.

Weinstein is not a deep thinker. He’s a disgraced ex-biologist and intellectual charlatan who now pals around with Douglas Murray and Andy Ngo and various other far right wing creeps, promoting ridiculous ideas about vaccines, race, and is an AIDS denialist, while promoting ivermectin during the COVID epidemic. He’s a fringe kook, but the DI is so stupid they can’t tell.

I have no idea what this “kind of information stored in genomes that is not in triplet codon form” that he is referring to is, and I don’t think he knows either. He’s making up strings of words. The DI is right about one thing: it is on a par with “immaterial genome”. It’s all nonspecific nonsense that dumb ol’ Joe Rogan will nod along to.

Weinstein has another tell that exposes his irrelevance.

[In my opinion,] the mainstream Darwinists are telling a kind of lie about how much we know and what remains to be understood. So by reporting that yes, Darwinism is true, and we know how it works, and people who aren’t compelled by the story are illiterate or ignorant or whatever, they are pretending to know more than they do. So all that being said, let me say, I think modern Darwinism is broken. Yes, I do think I know more or less how to fix it.
…
There are several different things that are wrong with [Darwinism]. The key one that I think is causing folks in intelligent design circles to begin to catch up is that the story we tell, about how it is that mutation results in morphological change, is incorrect.
…
I am sympathetic to the intelligent design folks, though I do not believe they’re on the right track. I’m open to a universe with intelligence behind it, but I’ve seen no evidence of that universe myself. I’m open to it. If it happens, I will look at it.

Darwinism. Darwinism, Darwinism, Darwinism. Yes, there are things wrong with Darwinism: it’s a 19th century hypothesis composed by a guy who knew nothing about DNA, genes, molecules, or mutation. Show me anyone who proudly announces that he has discovered problems with Darwinism, and I’ll show you a popinjay whose understanding of science ended in 1900.

What is the story we tell about how mutation results in morphological change? I would love to hear it.

And then…

You’ve had Stephen Meyer on. He’s a scientist who’s quite good, and he’s spotted that the mechanism in question [the standard Darwinian one] isn’t powerful enough to explain the phenomena that we swear it explains. And so he’s catching up, but that’s really on the Darwinists for not admitting what they can’t yet explain and pursuing it, which is what they should be doing.

Holy crap. Stephen Meyer is not a scientist. He got an undergrad degree in physics and earth science, decided he knew everything there is to know about biology, and went on to get a master’s and Ph.D. in philosophy. He held jobs in a couple of private Christian colleges before becoming a professional propagandist at the Discovery Institute. And now Weinstein thinks he’s a “quite good” scientist? That tells you all you need to know about Weinstein.

Well, that and vague, handwavey glop about mysterious sources of genetic information, vaccine quackery, racist apologetics, and ill-informed complaints about “Darwinism”. This is a guy whose whole career now is bent on getting on the Joe Rogan show to foment non-controversies.

Heckle government stooges at every opportunity

This drunken sot and serial sexual harasser, Pete Hegseth, was appointed Secretary of Defense by a president who doesn’t give a damn about competence. Hegseth recently banned transgender people from serving in the military, and is starting to make noises against any non-heterosexual people, and is now going on a triumphal tour of military bases around the world.

It’s not going well.

Military families protesting the Defense Department’s anti-DEI push heckled Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth on his arrival at United States European Command headquarters in Germany on Tuesday.

On a visit to the U.S. military’s key European military hub in Stuttgart, Hegseth was booed by around two dozen people who live at the base in an apparent demonstration against the policies currently being implemented by the Trump administration.

The demonstrators at the short protest repeatedly chanted “DEI,” apparently in a reference to the recent ban Hegseth has placed on some books in defense department schools. Hegseth last week ordered the restriction of learning materials covering subjects that included psychology and immigration in DOD schools.

Is anyone else ironically amused by the fact that all these regressive people have been whining that DEI is weakening the country and corrupting governing agencies and universities, but now it turns out that the anti-DEI fanaticism is the force tearing everything apart? All you had to do was accept that some women have penises and some men can get pregnant, and there was absolutely no problem and we could all get along, but now that they’ve acquired a taste of power the heterosexual purity brigade is using their obsession to do harm. They need to realize that they’ll get the tolerance they’re willing to give.

How bad is it?

The situation is dire. Here’s a good overview.

Zach is not being hysterical. Everything he said is objective fact and an accurate prediction.

It’s hitting me personally now. I was benefitting from an HHMI grant written with the hard work of two of my colleagues. It wasn’t big money, I was mainly part of an effort to improve teaching in the university, in a project that paired me with another faculty member for an exercise in peer evaluation.

It was part of a category titled “Inclusive Excellence“. Oops. Forbidden word.

I used the past tense there, because I learned just today that the funding had been pulled, thanks to Trump’s anti-DEI nonsense.

I also have a student trying to get into a graduate program for next year. I’m hoping she gets accepted somewhere — she’s an excellent student with a lot of promise for a research career — but so far, we’re waiting for something. In a normal year, I’d expect grad schools to jump at her, she’s that good. But either nobody has any money, or they’re waiting to hear if their funding has been annihilated, so who knows what will happen? Maybe I should encourage her to apply to Mexican or Canadian schools.

All it took was one election to demolish the American scientific enterprise.

Is your state on this list?

These are the states suing HHS and the NIH over their disastrous policy on indirect costs.

COMMONWEALTH OF
MASSACHUSETTS, ATTORNEY
GENERAL DANA NESSEL ON BEHALF
OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
MICHIGAN, STATE OF ILLINOIS,
STATE OF ARIZONA, STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, STATE OF
CONNECTICUT, STATE OF
COLORADO, STATE OF DELAWARE,
STATE OF HAWAI’I, STATE OF
MAINE, STATE OF MARYLAND,
STATE OF MINNESOTA, STATE OF
NEW JERSEY, STATE OF NEW YORK,
STATE OF NEVADA, STATE OF NEW
MEXICO, STATE OF NORTH
CAROLINA, STATE OF OREGON,
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND, STATE OF
VERMONT, STATE OF WASHINGTON,
and STATE OF WISCONSIN

I’m looking sideways at the states not on the list. I can understand the fascist states of Florida and Texas not joining in, and all the bible belt states, but what’s wrong with you, Pennsylvania?

Good for you if you live in the listed states, otherwise, get to work and vote the rascals out.

Another memo from the UM president

At least we’re getting words of encouragement from the administration.

Dear Colleagues,

Since our founding in 1851, the University of Minnesota has distinguished itself as a global leader in research, scholarship and creative practice.

From pioneering the first open heart surgery to unlocking the secrets of DNA repair, our students, faculty and staff have always maintained an unwavering commitment to serving the world through discovery and innovation.

Thank you for everything you do.

The federal government’s recent notice calling for a 15 percent indirect cost rate on all new awards from the National Institutes of Health is a direct attack on our ability to advance the University’s public service mission, and it has created fear and uncertainty across our community. This decision would cut reimbursements for research facilities and administrative costs, which cover critical, lifesaving research activities ranging from patient safety to research security. It would no doubt have serious consequences for patients across the state, as well as our students, faculty and staff.

According to Mark Becker, President of the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities, “NIH slashing the reimbursement of research costs will slow and limit medical breakthroughs that cure cancer and address chronic diseases such as diabetes and heart disease. Let there be no mistake: this is a direct and massive cut to lifesaving medical research.”

As a principal investigator on numerous NIH grants throughout my career, I understand how devastating this announcement must be for many members of our community.

University leaders convened over the weekend to chart a path forward, and we are actively partnering with higher education associations and peer institutions across the country to identify ways in which we can effectively address this rapidly evolving situation head on. With guidance and support from our Government and Community Relations Team, we have implemented a broad outreach strategy to ensure that members of our federal and state delegation fully appreciate the profound implications of this notice.

We are also supporting national efforts led by higher education associations to address the legality of this directive, and the University will stand in firm opposition to such drastic cuts that impede on our ability to advance research discoveries and innovations.

My leadership team and I will remain fully engaged on this issue, as well as other federal policy changes that affect our community and impact our operations. I recognize that news of this notice creates a significant level of fear, uncertainty and concern.

Please know that I am committed to ensuring our University’s primary missions of teaching, research and outreach thrive. And I will continue to advocate on your behalf, as the University explores every avenue to aggressively address the challenges posed by this notice.

We are one of America’s leading public research universities, and I will loudly champion the work of our students, faculty and staff so they can continue to advance research, scholarship and creative practice for the betterment of our society.

If you have any questions or concerns regarding the latest announcement from NIH, please contact our Research and Innovation Office at rio@umn.edu, or connect with a research administrator in your school, college or unit. I also would encourage you to visit z.umn.edu/fed-impacts for research-related updates and FAQs.

Sincerely,

Rebecca Cunningham
President

Also, note that the University of Minnesota Morris will keep on celebrating Black History Month no matter how nasty the White House gets.

Microbiologists, hang your head in shame (or fight back!)

Shame on the American Society for Microbiology.

A prominent US scientific society altered its website to remove references to diversity and equity ― terms targeted by the administration of US President Donald Trump. Articles about scientists who are members of under-represented groups also temporarily vanished from the site, although they have since reappeared.

The editing sparked an outcry among some of the more than 37,000 members of the organization, the American Society for Microbiology (ASM) in Washington DC. Some ASM members note that other scientific societies have posted statements in support of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI), rather than deleting terms targeted by White House orders.

Their excuse? They were just following the orders of their lawyers.

That sounds familiar, for some reason.

Read about Chemistry in Nazi Germany. The major scientific societies in Nazi Germany were quick to pander to Hitler, and they had the same kinds of arguments: they were patriots supporting their country, they had to fire all those Jewish professors to keep government support, etc., etc., all while they were looting conquered nations and doing secret work on nerve gasses and sieg heiling their way to bigger grants.

“It is one of the most notable phenomena in academia in 1933 that the severest measures of National Socialist policies against science were carried out under a high degree of silence and with the frequent consensus of scientists,” writes Deichmann in a review of chemistry during the Nazi era (Angew. Chem. Int. Ed.2002,41, 1310). She has found only a single instance in which a German scientist refused to accept a new position created through the dismissal of a Jewish scientist.

This silence regarding the unfair dismissal of Jewish colleagues was common across most fields of science, and it stemmed from some combination of anti-Semitism, nationalism, cowardice, obedience, or opportunism, Deichmann says. The vacant positions were often taken by young scientists who may not have had comparable academic career opportunities had anti-Jewish policies not cleared the way. Perhaps for this reason, Deichmann notes, 63% of young scientists joined the Nazi Party, a larger percentage than the 53% of chemists and biochemists of all ages who joined.

The article is specifically about chemistry, but to be fair, all the disciplines were doing it. Hans Spemann, the Nobel-prize winning development biologist, was busy coordinating the purge of Jewish scientists from German universities.

What chemists did was mirrored in the rest of Germany’s scientific community. “Chemists received a lot of support for their research” from the Nazi regime, Deichmann says. “But I am not sure we can say they were more opportunistic than other” scientists. Comparable percentages of biologists, psychologists, and chemists joined the Nazi Party, she says. The German Biological Society, for example, had a journal called Der Biologe (The Biologist) that was entirely full of Nazi ideology, and psychologists and biologists participated in terrible human experiments, she adds.

After the war, these same scientists were quick to say “I knew nothing!” and pretend to have been oppressed by the Nazis.

After the war ended and international scientists began asking pointed questions about the activities of their German colleagues, Maier says, German researchers increasingly adopted a false narrative that they had suffered under Hitler, despite their flush funding under the Third Reich. “They would say the Nazis were anti-intellectual, antiscientific, and anti-basic research,” he says. “This is absolutely false.” The Third Reich “was a paradise for these scientists, compared to the situation up to 1933, when there were many cutbacks” because of financial constraints imposed by the terms of the Treaty of Versailles, which ended World War I.

Many chemists claimed they didn’t know what had been happening at Ausch­witz’ Monowitz-Buna factory and at other concentration camps. “But how can you get such a large chemical factory established and running smoothly without any chemists present?” Maier asks. Kuhn, for instance, may not have personally visited any concentration camps, but as director of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Medical Research and president of DChG throughout the war, he was certainly privy to some aspects of Hitler’s human experimentation, Deichmann notes.

I wish I could say that Richard Kuhn received his comeuppance after the war, but no. He had been an active supporter of the Nazis, ratting out his Jewish colleagues and promoting Nazi dogma.

From the beginning of the Third Reich, Kuhn also began to pepper his speeches at home and abroad with “Sieg Heil,” even at non-Nazi functions. When he won the Nobel Prize in 1938 for his natural product research, Kuhn rejected the prize with a letter punctuated with his handwritten addendum: “The Führer’s will is our belief.” During the war, Kuhn also did extensive research on the toxic nerve gases tabun and sarin and invented a poison gas called soman.

Once the war was over, he happily accepted his deferred Nobel prize (I guess the Füher’s will was inoperative after he blew out his brains) and got a bland, boring writeup on the Nobel foundation site. Perhaps the only recognition of his heinous behavior was that a scientific prize in his name, the Richard Kuhn Medal, was discontinued in 2005, long after his death in 1967.

In 2005, the Society of German Chemists (Gesellschaft Deutscher Chemiker, GDCh) declared their intention to no longer award the Richard Kuhn Medal: “The board of the GDCh intends to discontinue awarding the Medal named after the organic chemist, Nobel Prize laureate of the year 1938 and President of the GDCh in 1964–65, Richard Kuhn. The board thereby draws the consequences out of research on Richard Kuhn’s behaviour during National Socialism. Even though the question of whether Kuhn was a convinced National Socialist or just a career-oriented camp follower is not fully answered, he undisputably supported the Nazi-regime in administrative and organizational ways, especially by his scientific work. Despite his scientific achievements, Kuhn is not suitable to serve as a role model, and eponym for an important award, mainly due to his unreflected research on poison gas, but also due to his conduct towards Jewish colleagues.”

We can’t even threaten the chickenshit administrators at ASM with posthumous ignominy, I guess. Even Richard Kuhn gets the benefit of the doubt about whether he was actually a Nazi, so I guess even minor functionaries who bow down before Trump are safe from public shaming.

All we can do is suggest that maybe they should consider doing what is right.

Like the Minnesota State High School League, which has shown more courage than the well-educated chickenshits at the ASM.

The Minnesota State High School League will continue its policy of letting student-athletes “participate consistent with their gender identity,” according to a memo sent to MSHSL member schools on Thursday.

The MSHSL’s message came a day after President Donald Trump signed an executive order seeking to ban transgender athletes from participating in women’s and girls’ sports.

“The Minnesota State High School League, similar to other youth sports organizations, is subject to state anti-discrimination laws, which prohibit discrimination based on gender identity,” the MSHSL said. “Therefore, students in Minnesota are allowed to participate consistent with their gender identity.”

In 2023, the state Legislature amended the Minnesota Human Rights Act to include gender identity as a protected class shielded from discrimination in areas such as employment, housing and education.

Resist in every little way you can.