Magical Narrative Thinking

Before I begin, this focuses on a very specific example – so, if you have time, have a think about how it generalises. There are countless examples out there, in fiction especially, but where it bleeds over into real life we can run into serious problems.

Yes, it’s a post dedicated to Ken Ham, the dumbest person on the planet not named Ray Comfort, who recently said this in “celebration” of the same-sex marriage ruling in the United States:


Specifically, I want to look the part that says “Well, the president did not invent the rainbow; God invented it.” (emphasis added)

I’m sure many Christians out there think God is the de facto inventor of the rainbow by virtue of being the creator of the universe, but I’m not talking about that. That’s actually fairly self-consistent, and I can’t really fault it much. This is different. Remember: Ken Ham is a literal Biblical creationist.

He genuinely, literally believes the Bible is the historical book of record for all of history. And by extension, all of physics, too.

He honestly, really, genuinely doesn’t believe in any science that contradicts the Bible, never mind any historical fact that contradicts it.

He literally, actually, genuinely, really believes that the Book of Genesis is correct that the atmospheric phenomenon we call a “rainbow” is a sign from God, an apology for taking his anger management issues out on the entire population of the world in the single biggest act of genocide in “recorded” history.

Ken Ham literally, really, honestly, actually, literally, genuinely, properly, really, actually thinks that the rainbow was invented by God after the flood.

It didn’t, therefore, exist before the flood.

This is what Ken Ham actually believes – otherwise his entire world collapses in on itself faster than the rectal prolapse suffered by a homophobic televangelist after too much anal sex with gay hookers on speed.(That’s quite enough of that, Ed.)

Now to cut a long-winded pseudo-intellectual story short; we simply cannot build a universe where a rainbow cannot exist.

Well, we can, but we have to understand its wider effects. I’m perfectly okay with God Almightly clicking his non-corporeal fingers and altering physics in such a way that one moment there was no optical phenomenon in the sky and then suddenly there was… but we have to follow those changes to their logical conclusion. In stories, with their narratives, you can get away with changing one thing, but in real life you can’t.

There are three things you can change in order to stop a rainbow from being physically possible: the light, the principles of optics, and the source (I suppose one could call it the “material cause”?) of the refraction. Remove one of those components, and no rainbow is physically possible.

The details makes a fun and entertaining thought-experiment: what would happen if we stopped a rainbow from happening?

  1. Remove the light – No light, no rainbow. But then we can no longer see, either. Our vision requires light, so any antediluvian civilisation would be blind and incapable of sight. It doesn’t stop there, though. Without photons, chemical reactions that are sensitised by photons or that emit photons wouldn’t happen. Energy level changes at the quantum level would all have to take place non-radiatively. There would be no mechanism to masslessly transfer energy about the universe. Quantum mechanics breaks at the seams as it can’t shed energy around as photons. At the very least, the Earth would freeze solid as the sun was no longer capable of warming it from across the void of space with a massive influx of solar radiation.
  2. Remove the optical effects –  Now we’re cooking! We can keep the light, but let’s kill the concept of refraction. Okay… now we can’t see either, since our (allegedly “intelligently” designed) eyes have to bend light twice in order to focus. Once through the main cornea and then through our squishier lens. Antediluvian civilisation is still blind. Light now travels at the same speed through all media, not slowing down or altering. Light is no longer interacting with matter in the way it should. Quantum mechanics as we know it again shatters into a thousand pieces, the universe dies of entropic heat death before it is even born.
  3. Remove the water – Okay… let’s keep all the physics behind the rainbow! The universe exists, light interacts with matter, let’s just kill the rainbow at its source – the condensed water droplets in the atmosphere. Immediately we all die of thirst and starvation as there’s no water, so let’s put the water back. Oh, wait, the hydrogen bonding between water molecules, as well as the mass of two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom give bulk water very specific properties such as its vapour pressure, and its melting/boiling points – that means if we put the water back we’ll have water vapour, and it’ll condense around any particulate matter in the atmosphere… back to the drawing board, let’s alter conditions so that water vapour can’t condense! Aha! Let’s lower the pressure of the atmosphere, that should keep it in the gas phase… oh, wait, now people can’t breathe because the partial pressure of oxygen is too low for haemoglobin to work properly. Let’s up the molar proportion of oxygen in the atmosphere so the partial pressure is still ca.0.2 atm as it is now…. oh great, now not enough nitrogen for nitrogen-fixing bacteria to work with and we all die of starvation and let’s not even start with what the lower pressure does to the boiling point of the oceans and the gases dissolved in them… okay, so let’s boost the temperature above the dew point of water… bah, we’re all dead again… quantum mechanics remains in tact, but chemistry explodes in fireball of icy self-contradicting death and destruction that renders the planet inhospitable to everything that isn’t a self-contained abstract concept.

That’s consistency for you. There isn’t a world where you can’t have a rainbow yet let it still work exactly as it does today. You can’t pick it apart from the rest of the universe and treat it as a narrative block, a piece of magic with its own separate rules. If you change one rule, it changes for everything.

Anti-feminists vs Creationists: A Brief Side-by-side Comparison

1. Drawing strange analogies and unusual comparisons out of left field is a useful tactic.

Particularly if they make no sense. Noetics? What the hell is that? Fish-bicycles… ficycles? Who knows.


2. Big convoluted philosophical terms like “critical thinking” and “objective meaning” make you seem deep.

Doesn’t matter if you don’t know what they mean, just use them. Underline them or put them in caps. Make sure you draw attention to the fact you’re using the terms. Just use them – that’s all that matters.


3. Complicated and lengthy statements can mask your lack of experience with the topic you’re talking about.

Well fuck me if information theory, levels-of-analysis, undirected evolution, the fallacy of relative privation, gene expression and the relativity of social privileges are all just too damn complicated to explain in a single pithy one-sentence reply.


4. Ask closed leading questions.

You know the immediate answer is going to favour your cause, and you can shut up the other side before they get to the “but!” part.


5. Simplify everything down to a single factor.

Preferably a factor that has everything to do with your own ego.


6. When stating what you believe, make short pithy and easy-to-understand statements.

Details? Ignore the details. Details are for losers – and might lead to you realising that what you believe in isn’t always the same as what you say you believe in.


7. If in doubt, be white, pretty and have a vacant expression.

It helps us translate what you write into an appropriately mocking voice.


8. The total non-sequitur is also your friend.



9. Make no attempt to understand what you’re opposed to.

Let’s face it – this is exactly the problem for all these examples.





Institute for Creation Research on water’s… erm, uniqueness.

The ICR has a very… interesting section on chemistry. Most of the time, it’s correct, and fairly unobjectionable – if a bit scatter-shot in its approach, jumping wildly between transition metal chemistry and ribose, and phosphates and finally water (which we’ll get onto in a moment). It’s chemistry, it’s fascinating and not that complicated.[citation needed]

After the page takes its time to cover some of the rules of chemistry, I fail to see the logical leap where this suddenly proves design. After all, it’s established the atoms bind a certain way, have particular properties, and then they form molecules. It’s all very deterministic. It’s almost as if the ICR trying the usual creationist trick of “I don’t understand this shit, therefore God”. Oh, wait, scratch the “almost as if” there, that’s exactly what it’s doing

But factually (in terms of the chemistry described), it’s still pretty much on the money and correct.

Or so I thought until I read this bit:


Now, I am tempted to give them the benefit of the doubt that this is just really badly worded. Like epically badly worded on par with most of the incoherent description found within 50 Shades of Grey. There’s a difference between being wrong, and not explaining yourself properly – so perhaps, just perhaps, the ICR is doing the latter here and I’m about to quibble over nothing. Of course, I’m no expert in the English language – as anyone who has proof-read my blog posts will attest to – but I’m sure that when you make a declarative statement with one sentence, then the next sentence should explain that declaration and not go onto a tangent.

So if you’re going to say that “water is a unique substance” then you should really follow it with some of its actual unique properties. Properties like it’s staggeringly high heat capacity – a property that is largely responsible for our climate being the way it is because water can transport energy around so easily (*cough* this is a big hint for Question 5 *cough*). That’s quite unique to water – at least it’s unique for such a common substance. I wouldn’t go on to imply the hydrogen bonding is unique to water as the ICR seems to imply in their lazy-assed way of explaining things. Anywhere where you have something to donate electrons (like oxygen, which has two sets of two electrons to reach out with) and something small and positively charged (like hydrogen, which readily loses the electron density around it to neighbouring atoms because it’s a pussy) this positive-attracts-negative interaction will occur. Boom, hydrogen bonding. It’s a common-as-muck interaction, in fact.

Hydrogen bonding

It’s true that hydrogen bonding plays a part in how water’s structure works, but that’s not unique to water. It’s not even particularly special in water itself – it’s just hydrogen bonding like in any other material that has that interaction. H-bonding is not even unique to simple interactions between molecules – it’s even the reason many larger ones hold the shape they do (DNA, secondary protein structures, and so on). I’ve even heard one good argument that they should be referred to as “NOF bonds” because in organic chemistry the lone pairs of nitrogen (N), oxygen (O) and fluorine (F) are significantly more important than the hydrogen part – though I’m not particularly taken with that designation as it’s not quite right either:

Yeah, that’s a hydrogen bond with hydrogen itself acting as the electron donor. Which is pretty damn cool.[citation needed]

But that doesn’t prove design. That proves electrostatic forces happen. That proves that the 1s orbital around hydrogen can contribute a very varied electron density around that atom – ranging from a positively charged protic hydrogen atom to a negatively charged hydride. A feat which in itself is entirely due to the fact that there’s only a weedly little (but unshielded) +1 charge binding those electrons in place. Something that itself is controlled by rules within quantum chromodynamics and electrodynamics at a much more fundamental level than I care to describe right now. That all comes together to allow hydrogen atoms polarise very readily, to become positive or negative determined by what they’re next to, not because some magic entity declared it to be so with a few settings and dials. And then they attract, because opposing that force requires energy, which the universe simply doesn’t like doing because it’s a lazy bitch.

Once you truly understand the laws of chemistry, you realise that there really is no other way that these atoms could arrange themselves plausibly – and you can see that there is no way “design” played a part in all of this.

Chemistry by Chance – How Even Qualified Chemists Cease to Understand Chemistry Once They Come Out as Creationists (part 2)

See Part 1 and Part 3

Time to continue slogging through this… so…

4. The Problem of Reactivity

In this 4th section, McComb’s gradually tries to get into a little bit of abiogenesis and evolutionary biology. And again, he seems to mix the two up entirely, applying the conditions and pre-requisites for one to the other. So, let’s get this clear: abiogenesis is how life gets started, evolutionary biology is what happens once it has and natural selection can get involved. Importantly, abiogenesis has no requirement that an amino acid chain that has formed from a hypothetical “primordial soup” has a purpose. Purpose and function is something that comes later, once selection criteria have been able to refine the process. This is why evolutionary biologists that have to defend themselves against creationists and design advocates say that abiogenesis and evolution are different things, and that evolution has no need to explain abiogenesis. One works on refining information (information that exists as an abstract isomorphism with a chemical compound) and the other simply gets us to that chemical compound, and any variant of it that it likes.

So, the core claim of this section can be summed up in this sentence:

The product of natural or random reactions could never provide the precise sequences found in proteins and DNA/RNA.

But, as I said, they don’t have to. At this stage, what we’re calling “life” doesn’t serve a particular function. Now, I could go into how McComb’s is ballsing up reactivity and rates of reaction again, but I actually want to blow my word count on this very important revelation. I will put it in large, centred, capital letters and bold text just to make it clear:


This means that there is no magic sudden spark that generates life. No one studying or theorising the early stages of life (studying it seriously, that is) has ever proposed differently. Life is a continuum, working its way up slowly from simple chemicals to complex chemicals – from disorder to order, from less organised information to more organised information (this is in an “information theory” sense, I direct anyone with a problem with this to this article). There is no sudden barrier that delineates life from non-life, and there certainly isn’t one in abiogensis. This is an important subtly that few really get, and creationists actively exploit this lack of understanding when trying to sell their wares to an unsuspecting population. In fact, “life”, as a thing, is an illusion (yes, this is an extreme over-interpretation of a very subtle point, but it makes headlines). “Life” is really just a mental (and linguistic) short-cut that differentiates between things that we can eat or could eat us, and things that can’t. A rock? Can’t eat us, we can’t eat it; not alive. That deer over there? We can eat it or it could eat us; alive. It serves us well because if we had to apply too much thinking to it, we would die pretty quickly. When it comes to edge cases, our intuitive of what is “alive” breaks down – and we think it’s a problem with reality, when really it’s a problem with our perception.

No more is this evident when it comes to viruses, prions, bacteria, fungus and other edge cases where our simple, intuitive definition of life fails almost completely. We simply cannot define it well enough. So, are self-replicating DNA fragments “alive”? Are organised peptide chains “alive”? Perhaps, perhaps not. The question is, in fact, meaningless. We’re going from a gradual scale of “not alive” at one end and “alive” at the other, with no sudden jump between them.

Forming amino acid chains or RNA chains in a solution has no requirement that they form a particular order. The order is refined later as life increases in complexity and begins to be acted upon by natural selection – and indeed, natural selection can refine things from random noise as a starting point. An argument against amino acids forming at all (as shown in the first three points) would be relevant to abiogenesis, but arguing that they couldn’t magically form a particular sequence is not. Besides, any chain would be a probability defying event, just as any combination of cards in a deck is a trillion-to-one-against order, yet still happens. Once that chain has formed – under the control of chemistry – that’s where we need to look at how it obtains, or at least refines, its information content.

5. The Problem of Selectivity

This is just re-wording no.4. Let’s not bother with it in too much detail. Suffice to say, the most correct bit of chemistry in it is the following quote:

Chemical selectivity concerns where components react.

Yeah, that’s about right.

Overall, this is trying to say that because a peptide chain can grow from both ends, the odds of it generating a “meaningful” sequence is small. Except, I need to just reiterate this, the concept of a meaningful sequence does not exist in the abiogenesis framework. It does for us today because we have an established system for translating DNA sequences to protein chains, and enzyme catalysts to run the show. In a hypothetical primordial soup where our main aim is simply to produce a polypeptide, the exact sequence does not matter.

Though I want to finish this with a curious observation. Throughout numbers 1, 2 and 3 (covered in part 1 of this piece), McCombs focuses on how unreactive amino acids apparently are. He goes to great lengths to say they won’t form chains. Yet here, in point 5, he is talking about the countless hundreds of isomers that should be formed. Surely, if he was under the impression the amide bonds didn’t form at all from a reaction of two amino acids, then the “problem of selectivity” shouldn’t matter at all, right? Such is the nature of a Gish Gallop – creationists are so desperate to pad out their over-bloated lists of arguments they don’t notice when their points actually start to contradict each other.

6. The Problem of Solubility

Again, an apparent Ph.D chemist seems to be displaying a sub-middle-school level understanding of polymer science. While it’s vaguely true that macromolecules have a tendency to be less water-soluble (and less soluble in general) this isn’t purely because of their length. After all – and I’m starting to sound like a broken record here – they are soluble in our cells. Protein chains and DNA chains don’t magically hit a certain length and precipitate out of our bodies and, subsequently, kill us. If solubility was a problem for abiogenesis, it would be a problem for our mere current existence. So, obviously, peptide chains and proteins definitely are water soluble.

But how does nature manage to do this? It’s simple, really, because it’s the same way synthetic chemists get around the problem; by attaching a few water soluble functional groups to the chain. But for this, I need to explain what solubility actually is.

Solubility is the ability for a substance to be broken down into just a single molecule and effectively surrounded by a liquid so that it can move freely inside it. That’s it. This is the solution phase. It’s not a particularly special thing, but it is useful for chemical reactivity because it means every molecule is spread out and open to reaction (i.e., it’s not a solid) but at the same time it’s a nice controlled environment (i.e., it’s not a gas phase). For this to happen you need sites on your molecule where the solvent can bind, so that it can be carried around in solution. In really small molecules this is comparatively trivial – a metal ion like Co(II), for instance, will just coordinate water octahedrally in its inner sovlation sphere and it will dangle around in water quite nicely. For larger macromolecules, however, we can be more specific with sites where a solvent will bind to help bring it into solution. So we need groups that are compatible with the solvent. For water, charge and polarity is important – hence why it can solubilise cobalt with a 2+ charge very easily. Individual amino acids also do this well because of the individual acidic and basic groups on them which hold a high polarity and a potential charge. As a chain increases – as McCombs points out – the number of acidic and basic sites relative to the size of the chain reduce, and eventually the solubility becomes poor. However, and this is the however that McCombs conveniently forgets to add to his list, not all amino acids are common, boring,  aprotic alanine and glycine. Many have sites that will water-solubilise the protein. In fact, in protein folding these are essential as they are what drive proteins to fold up a certain way.

This interesting graphic shows the wide variety of naturally occurring amino acids. What is interesting are the wide variety of ones with charged side chains or uncharged polar side chains. There are those words again, “polar” and “charge”, which happen to be very water soluble. Bung a few of those in your peptide chain and insolubility ceases to be a problem regardless of length. In fact it really doesn’t take many of these groups to solubilise a chain, and that’s a fact abused by polymer chemists and catalytic chemists to get their stuff to be water soluble without much trouble.

And again, I’m going to leave it there and come on to 7 and 8 later, they seem to change track to a different set of chemical principles.

Chemistry by Chance – How Even Qualified Chemists Cease to Understand Chemistry Once They Come Out as Creationists (part 1)

Part 2 and Part 3

I’m going back on a chemistry and creationism kick. You know, because I can. And in this case, I’m going to look at this article* by Charles McCombs, Ph.D – apparently a Ph.D in organic chemistry from UCLA, though you wouldn’t know that from him talking about the basic fucking organic chemistry that I’m about to go through.

Like most creationist listicles,** it’s less like 10 separate points and more 10 vaguely similar points re-worded differently – and all have the same problem; namely, that McCombs doesn’t know what he’s talking about. The second most generic comment I can give on this subject is that all these chemical objections would suggest life doesn’t exist. They don’t say that life couldn’t arise naturally, they say that – if true – life simply couldn’t exist. Life does exist, and we are the giant walking chemical factories that prove it, so there is clearly something up with these objections. This is a recurring theme, remember it.

*“Cite this article: McCombs, C. A. 2009. Chemistry by Chance: A Formula for Non-Life. Acts & Facts. 38 (2): 30.” – No. I won’t cite your ‘article’ this way. Posh-sounding citations are for real actual factual science and academic work, not blog posts from the Institute for Creation Research.

**A portmanteau of “list” and “article”. It unfortunately never looks as good written down as it sounds.

1. The Problem of Unreactivity

In this first section, McCombs attests that amino acids cannot form peptide chains in a watery environment – these reactions must exclude water (and this is basically what his other 9 points say more or less).

But if amino acids can’t react to form peptides in water, one needs to ask: how the hell do they react to form in our cells? The average human, by mass, is about 60% water. Our cells are rammed full of the stuff. Our cells even form because of water, as hydrophobic and hydrophilic sections of the phospholipids that form cell membranes arrange the way they do precisely because we are aqueous creatures. Biological reactions take place entirely in H2O, and entire fields of medicinal chemistry and bio-active chemistry all have to face the fact that their chemistry is water-based. If water was such a problem to the formation of these essential chemicals, we wouldn’t exist. We would fall over and die as the chemical reactions that sustain us refused to take place in the watery environment of our cells. So, no matter how good (or bad, and it is bad) this theory is, the simple fact is that water cannot be a barrier to reaction. In fact, actual factual existent condensation reactions, that form actual factual existent peptides, happen in water every day. Where McCombs declares that the process must be completely water-free, since the activated compounds would react with water”, he either doesn’t understand the chemistry he supposedly has a Ph.D in or is outright lying to the flock to prove creationism true. I cannot comprehend a third option there.

The main assertion in this first part, however, is that these chemicals – amino acids – are naturally un-reactive and that you need to activate them to generate a reaction. Outside the cellular environment where enzymatic catalysis drives peptide formation, these chemicals will sit tight and do nothing. However, this itself isn’t a barrier to the start of life. Evolutionary biology and modern geology postulates we had billions of years for peptides to form, slow reactivity is not a problem here. What would be a problem is if the peptide bond between amino acids was massively unstable – but it isn’t, it’s the opposite in fact, and we’re literally living proof of that. Slightly acidic or basic conditions speed up the condensation reactions required to build a peptide bond, and mineral catalysts or autocatalytic reactions in a hypothetical “primordial soup” also reduce the reaction barrier so that polymerisation can occur. It’s not really a problem except in the creationist imagination.

But once formed, the peptide bond is kinetically stable meaning it will only break down slowly – and honestly, it would help if McCombs actually phrased things in proper chemical terms such as stability, equilibrium and kinetics so I didn’t have to try and second-guess what he was on about and try and translate it for him. It takes a long time to break an amide bond unless you have a strong catalyst in there. The nitrogen in the bond de-localises its electrons and stabilises the bond against acid/base attack far more than in the comparable ester bond – and in fact the breakdown of proteins over thousands of years in nature is a remarkably useful dating technique. So, once formed, even if that formation is slow, the products are similarly inert and stable enough to take part in further reactions (even if these other reactions are slow – but speed is not a problem for evolutionary biology), and McCombs very slyly ignores this fact when he declares amino acids to be unreactive but implies their polymeric products are not.

2. The Problem of Ionization

I’m going to be frank with this section – it makes no sense. McCombs first off conflates “ionisation” with “acid base equilibrium”. In the first case, we’d use that term to describe the mechanical – or perhaps electrochemical – action of stripping electrons away from a neutral molecules. This happens in a mass spectrometer where we use an electric current to start giving these molecules positive charges, or it happens at high temperatures where we form a plasma. This takes a lot of energy because you’re disrupting a strong electrostatic bond between a positively charged atomic nucleus and its surrounding negatively charged electrons.

But this article seems to mix this up with what is really just charge separation, which occurs when an acid and base exchange a proton to form a charged conjugate base and conjugate acid. It’s best demonstrated by example:

HCl +H2O → H3O+ + Cl

Here, hydrochloric acid (HCl) acts as an acid, water (H2O) is acting as a base. H3O+ and Cl are the resulting conjugate acid and conjugate base respectively. These hold formal charges – i.e., they have one too few and one excess electron respectively to balance out the positive charges of the atomic nuclei – but they still balance out with a positive (+1) and negative (-1) on the right hand side of that equation, so overall the chemical system remains neutral. However, I have never, ever, ever, heard this sort of reaction being referred to as “ionisation” – except, perhaps, in an abstract sense where you might use a Hess Cycle to break it down into individual steps; for instance, you’d have a step where you’d “ionise” gaseous Cl to gaseous Cl prior to solvating it, but this isn’t to say the real Cl atom in reality actually goes magically into the gas phase and ionises itself out of nowhere, a Hess Cycle is just a bean-counting exercise in energy conservation. No, what is really happening is that our molecules combine together into an intermediate or transition state, and when they separate again one side takes an extra electron with it because it happens to be more stable that way. The charges are then successfully separated because water, being a polar solvent, binds electrostatically to these ions to keep them apart. And this just happens to be a nice, stable situation. Again, I have never heard of this being called “ionisation” just in case anyone confuses it with something like the formation of a plasma.

But what is his point? To use McCombs’s words:

The amine group is basic and will react quickly with the acid group also present. This acid-base reaction of amino acids is instantaneous in water, and the components necessary for protein formation are not present in a form in which they can react.

So, what he’s referring to is the acid-base equilibrium of a basic amine group and an acidic carboxylic acid group. He seems to be suggesting that because of this reaction, the acid and base groups will protonate/deprotonate and can no longer react (just as in the HCl reaction above).

R-COOH + R’-NH2 → R-COO + R’-NH3+

Actually, the above is slightly more complicated because if it’s in water there will be H2O + H2O → H3O+ + OH playing about in there, too.

BUT, and this is fucking GCSE-level chemistry here, amines and carboxylic acids are not a strong acid/base combination. They do not all protonate/deprotonate in solution. In fact, the pKa value* for the average carboxylic acid is between 2 and 5. McCombs seems to think that this acid dissociation is a problem to the formation of peptide chains – but, and this is a recurring theme, if it was then protein chains wouldn’t form at all. In fact, this protonation is probably quite helpful for formation of peptide bonds because such a reaction is acid (and base) catalysed. These protonated/deprotonated forms that are charged are actually highly reactive – and because they are a weak acid/base combination, have plenty of uncharged and unchanged molecules around them to react with. This sort of thing is, far from a barrier, an essential property of the molecules doing what we need them to do.

*This is a measure of acidity based on the equilibrium constant between the acidic proton being attached and detached. It’s a logarithmic scale, and the fact that these pKa values aren’t negative-infinity suggests that not all – not by a long shot – amino acids are going to be formal ions in solution.

3. The Problem of Mass Action

Here is my favourite one (and this is getting long so I might stop here for now), because McComb’s manages to mess up the explanation of, and then completely misapply, Le Chatelier’s principle. Let’s just quote his conclusion verbatim for now:

This means that any reaction that produces water cannot be performed in the presence of water.

Now, I could give him the benefit of the doubt that he’s not explaining himself well, but let’s not and just take this sentence literally. Think about this for a moment. Suppose we have a completely dry solvent (say, dry benzene that’s been distilled and refluxed over sodium and then cannula transferred to a flame-dried reactant flask that has been flushed with nitrogen – as you do) and we perform an organic reaction in it that condenses out water – peptide/amide/ester bond formation, for instance. As soon as the first molecule – of trillions – reacts, the reaction is now in the presence of water. If you were to take the above sentence literally, then no chemical reaction would ever occur at all. The first reaction would take place, it would then be in the presence of its product, the reaction would stop. But of course, reactions do proceed, so this principle that McCombs is alluding to could not possibly say what he’s trying to claim. So, let me try to explain it.

Le Chatelier’s principle states that a chemical system at equilibrium will adapt to oppose any change imposed on it.

Okay, that’s probably not very nice and pop-sciencey, so let’s break it down further. A chemical equilibrium is where a chemical reaction, say “A + B → C” can reverse so that “C → A + B” happens too. At equilibrium, or in “equilibrium conditions”, the rate of both reactions is the same. It should then be obvious that that relative concentrations of A, B and C will remain the same – C is produced in the first reaction at the same speed it’s consumed in the second reaction and likewise for A and B. Le Chatelier’s principle says that if we change those conditions by, for example, adding a spoonful of C to the system, then the chemical system will oppose that addition and go back to “equilibrium conditions” by consuming C at a faster rate.  This is simply because rate is proportional to concentration, and if you boost the concentration of C, that backwards reaction (C → A + B) will speed up until enough C has been consumed that the rate is the same as the forward reaction again. Aka, equilibrium has been achieved again.

Where McCombs has catastrophically fucked up this explanation and applied it ass-backwards is to assume this is an absolute statement, and that you can tell just by looking at a reaction on paper whether it will go ahead or not in the presence of A, B or C. No. Just no. This is not how it works. A chemical equilibrium is driven by energy and the energy difference between the products and reactants; specifically a little formula that reads “ΔG = -RTln(K)”. If the product is more stable, the equilibrium will lie to the right, if the reactant is more stable it will lie to the left. Concentration does not come into this except when you are talking about changing the conditions at equilibrium.

A + B → C

For instance, an equilibrium concentration might be a 10:1 ratio of A:C at a particular temperature. Le Chatelier’s principle refers only to a change made against those conditions – if we make a system were it’s a 1:1 ratio of A:C by spooning in some C the system will oppose this change and get itself back to equilibrium by consuming C until 10:1 is reached again. This emphatically does not mean that reactions that generate water as a by-product cannot occur in a water solvent. In fact they can, and they do. And there are many where you don’t need to bother drying your solvents or glassware in the lab precisely because the reaction generates water.

Seriously, where the fuck did this guy learn chemistry?

Messages from Creationists

Before I start, a question. Seriously, what the fuck is with this trendy shit where you write on a piece of paper and take a photograph of it? Shitting bullfuck it’s just so fucking lame. Anyway… Here are some images of creationists from the Nye/Ham debate ripped from Buzzfeed and elsewhere. I thought I’d answer them. I’ll try and be nice. Some of the time.

“Influencing” is a long word. Who the hell thinks they could possibly fit “influencing” in that gap and so willingly chooses to break up a word with a hyphen when handwriting? No, really. Who the hell does that? If Bill Nye can influence anyone in a positive way, it should be to avoid being this short-sighted and stupid.


Still no lightning bolts. I guess that answers that one.

Short answer: Yes.

Long answer: Yes. Absolutely yes.

Short answer: No.

Long answer: Once you understand that 1) the Earth is not a closed system and so the Second Law won’t rigorously apply 2) that the complexity of the chemical reactions that form life in fact are driven by entropy increases in the wider system and 3) that “does not…” at the beginning of a question introduces ambiguity and is as stylistically appalling as combining that hair with that beard – one or t’other, please. Then no.

The heliocentric model of the solar system demonstrates that the sun is in a (relatively) fixed position while the Earth orbits around it, during that time the Earth also rotates so that from a (relatively) fixed position on Earth, the sun appears to orbit around the Earth. Sections of the Earth that face away from the sun are in darkness, an alternatively switch between facing towards and away from the sun. Hence the sun comes up and down from our frame of reference.

Something else just bugs be about this one, but I can’t quite put my finger on it…

I’m going to have to go through my thermodynamics lecture notes and find the part where ΔG = ΔHTΔactually does this…


Okay, serious answer time. Put a coffee on. An “objective meaning” in life is not, in fact, objectively required. That much is self-evident from the mere fact that someone can even ask this question. We need to remember what “objective” refers to – it’s something that exists independently of the self and of our opinion. In short, it’s something that remains true regardless of our belief in it, anything else is subjective and dependent on our thoughts and opinions. As a corollary to this, we can easily show that any claim of objective meaning is, in fact, subjective. Saying, for example, that “God has a plan for us” does not give me, in a subjective sense, any meaning, or comfort, and indeed interests me not. If this sort of statement was objective by the definitions of “objective” I’ve just given, this wouldn’t be the case at all. The easiest way to respond to such a question, therefore, is to ask where you get your objective meaning in life. That’s properly objective (see, online I can bold, italic and underline!) and not “subjective but I totally don’t think it is”.

[Insert every paper ever written on chemical biology, abiogenesis, autocatalysis, chemical selection, biochemistry, science…]


Books. Don’t mess with them, kids.

Because aliens are comparatively plausible. And considering most serious people think panspermia and directed panspermia are totally batshit implausibly stupid and only gullible idiots who watch too much SyFy believe in it, what does that say about Young Earth Creationism, Mr I’m Only Going To Show My Hands Rather Than My Gurning Face?

The only thing where there is no in between, is between your ears where the rest of us have squishy grey stuff.

I’m going to go ahead and assume you don’t know what any of those words mean.

You’re a fucking idiot.

Because you’re also a fucking idiot.


Nah, fuck it. Dawkins already did the hard work for me here. Warning, it’s long. It’ll blow your tiny little creationist brain just trying to comprehend that many words in one place.

I believe my purpose is to praise Allah and glorify his prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him. Prove me wrong, bitches.

Only one Australopithecus specimen?!? Holy crap, someone better tell the President of Paleontology fast! They think there’s nearly a dozen!!

Now here’s  a definitional linguistic clusterfuck I’m not diving into…

Easily, actually. Because I’m smart. Well, perhaps not “smart” in the grand scheme of things. But next to people who think the entire human population was created through incest, twice, I’m a fucking 1-in-a-trillion genius.


Because when given the choice, some of the monkeys preferred to stay the same.

No, Disco Tute, Chemistry is Not Wrong.

Thanks to a previous post, it’s been pointed out to me that creationist do, albeit on fairly rare occasions, go after the chemical sciences. And what was sent my way was an article almost intelligently designed to piss me off titled ‘If Chemistry Can Be Wrong, How Much More Evolutionary Theory?‘ from the Disco ‘Tute’s media wing, Evolution News and Views (ENAV). The Sensuous Curmudgeon already covered this one a little closer to the time it was published, but that was mostly just a “let’s laugh at the crazies” piece – and rightfully so, as the underlying logic is just that terrible. But I thought I’d cover a little more about the chemistry cited in the ENAV derp-fest.

Violating chemical “rules”

The basic outline is that Artem R. Oganov and team, working out of Stoney Brook University, have discovered some unusual chemical compounds, or more specifically some unusual elemental ratios, of sodium and chlorine that apparently violate chemical intuition but are stable at high pressure. Proving that they never read much further than the press release bumped up to Science Daily, ENAV’s contributors thus concluded that all chemistry was wrong and played the persecution complex card of “therefore evolutionary biology is wrong but they don’t believe us”. So I sat down in the office and got in the mood, I went through Oganov’s work – the paper and press release. As usual, it’s fine enough work and certainly worthy of publication in Science. But, like so much work that gets to that stage, it’s the unfortunate victim of some university press office demanding the academic oversell it for headlines; hence “challenge the foundation of a science” being trumpeted in the first sentence. Let’s be clear as early as possible; it does no such thing. ENAV’s description of it as an “unexpected foundation-shaking paradigm shift” is, in all honesty, hilariously wrong.

Here, hidden about halfway down the press release, is one human-readable explanation why this certainly doesn’t (at least, not really) violate all these rules and laws the press release and all the popular reports claim in their headlines – and therefore this creationist claim of “ZOMG, chemistry is wrong!!!1” is bullshit:

“One of these materials—Na3Cl—has a fascinating structure… it is comprised of layers of NaCl and layers of pure sodium…”

Since we’re dealing with pure inorganic chemistry here, the idea of a discrete molecule is less rigid than it is in organic and organometallic chemistry. An Na3Cl molecule, or a NaCl7 molecule, or any of the others, won’t exist as a lone entity. These formulae represent ratios of elements (stoichiometry) found on a much larger scale than merely a four atoms, and this alone says nothing about the structure. It’s this structure at the atomic level where “rules” tend to hold. In this case, Oganov’s structures still obey known crystal packing rules, and their arrangements aren’t uncommon. So far, so straightforward.

Consider the octet rule; this states that most main group elements want to have 8 electrons in their outer shell. Although based on fundamental electronic structure, this isn’t necessarily some core rule. It’s a “chunked” idea that happens to be useful. It is a nice, simple explanation as to why NaCl exists; sodium has one too many electrons to satisfy the octet rule and chlorine has one too few, making it a match made in chemical heaven. The two transfer an electron to form  Na+ and Cl  and they attract by electronic charge to form ionic bonds. In elemental sodium, however, each individual atom wouldn’t satisfy this rule. Each atom would, formally, still have one too many electrons, which is why it’s metallic and conducts electricity as the spare electron can jump around more freely. If one was to take the octet rule absolutely literally as a precursor to forming a solid state compound, then elemental sodium shouldn’t exist. Indeed, this is why we use different rules for solid state chemistry, and things like band structure to describe electron distributions (Zhang and Oganov go into this aspect of their materials in a fair level of detail in their actual Science article).

What is certainly less shocking about Organov’s results is the detection of NaCl3. As Paul Braterman pointed out in the comments of the Sensuous Curmudgeon blog, KIalready exists (as does NI3, which is a remarkably fun piece of classical chemistry to play with, though it’s only tangentially related to KI3). This is part of a series of compounds involving the triiodide ion (I3) and is (read; should be) isoelectronic with NaCl3 in the solid state. The existence of NaCl3 therefore is not actually precluded by known chemical behaviour. Further adding to the lack of actual surprise that such structures would exist, or be stable, is the fact that Oganov and Zhang et. al. added pure sodium or pure chlorine to NaCl before applying pressure. This means that the charges still balance out. They’re dealing with neutral atoms fitting into a crystal lattice structure without much of a problem – again, see the existence of elemental sodium, each atom is neutral, it forms a crystal structure, nothing special to see here. It’s not like Oganov and Zhang magically formed these structures out of Na+ and Cl with one in excess. Although, in fact, even if they did it wouldn’t be overturning anything we know as charged metal clusters are known. Again, they go into this in the Science paper and analyse the overall partial and formal charges of each atom in the structure. 

Unusual structure of sodium chloride

Crystal structure of Na2Cl. Credit to Oganov, Zhang, – I can crib this under Fair Use, right?

We can actually violate a lot of chemical “rules” all the time. Someone with a cursory knowledge of organic chemistry will remember that “hydrogen only forms one bond”, such as in methane (CH4); but change that context into an organometallic hydride (hydrogen with a formally negative charge) and we can make effectively two bonds to hydrogen quite easily, making the hydride a “bridging” group. These compounds aren’t particularly uncommon, and I lose track of how many of those I’ve seen. Does that mean a fundamental chemical law has been violated? No. It just means that this particular “rule” has a limited scope where it’s true and other areas where it is not (aka, “science, bitches”). So, just as how bridging hydride ligands within organometallic chemistry does not quite overturn the “rules” of organic chemistry, these sodium chloride results within a field of high pressure inorganic solid-state structures aren’t a massive overturn of all known chemistry, nor are they even threatening to shatter the foundations of it.

At this point I want to reiterate again that I’m not attacking Oganov’s work nor his group, just that this doesn’t really say “all of chemistry is wrong”, and therefore the piece-of-shit ENAV article is, well, a piece of shit. The results are just unusual, and in their way every scientific paper is somewhat usual, or unexpected, or challenging the boundaries of some previously held rule; isn’t that the point?

Impossibility, stability, and finding the right conditions

Anyway, to quote Oganov (as he’s massively quotable):

“You just need to find conditions…”

Which is, dare I humbly suggest, the shortest and greatest description of synthetic chemistry I’ve ever seen. Atoms will just do their thing no matter what, all we need to do is get the conditions right so that what they want to do happily coincides with what we want to do. The trick is whether such products are stable or not, not whether they’re possible – and stability is relative. To quote Oganov again, because ENAV clearly didn’t get this far down the press release:

“For a long time, this idea was haunting me—when a chemistry textbook says that a certain compound is impossible, what does it really mean, impossible? Because I can, on the computer, place atoms in certain positions and in certain proportions. Then I can compute the energy. ‘Impossible’ really means that the energy is going to be high. So how high is it going to be? And is there any way to bring that energy down, and make these compounds stable?”

He’s being a bit of a cheeky git saying chemistry textbooks declare this to be “impossible” – I’m not aware of any that declare such things to be impossible – but overall this is a good description of the interface between experimental chemistry and theoretical chemistry. The question is stability. And sometimes stability can surprise you, but there’s always a good reason for it when you look. Sometimes those conditions are high pressures, sometimes those conditions are a particular solvent, or sometimes you need to bung on a few extra groups to de-localise your charges, but stability is the key and it’s stability that we’re really talking about when we say “impossible”. Carbonium, for example, would be “impossible” by rigid standards; but it’s simply that it’s not particularly stable unless you have the right conditions.

I want to finish by quoting this part of the Science paper itself, because I think this ties it up quite nicely with the creationist mumbo-jumbo that brought it to my attention;

“…we used the ab initio evolutionary algorithm [to] find stable stoichiometries and the corresponding structures in multicomponent systems”.

I.e., they used evolution and natural selection in a theoretical environment. Similar to how Boxcar2D works but with chemicals rather than model race cars. The method uses theoretical calculations on a particular chemical structure to determine a molecule’s “fitness”, and then manipulates the structures with a genetic algorithm to converge on to the “best” structures based on this fitness. It’s a novel idea, and a fascinating approach if you’re into that sort of thing – in this case Oganov’s group have applied it to crystal structures rather than just a molecule, and in this particular case they happened to have been right, too, having theoretically located a predicted structure and found it experimentally (which is probably a far more spectacular result than “finding structures that violate the laws of chemistry” and why it’s in Science).

You don’t see ENAV reporting on that bit. Not least because it’s patently obvious that they didn’t even read much further than the headline.

Why Do Creationists Not Go After Chemistry?

I’m going to do something somewhat unusual for this blog; I’m going to talk about work. Work work. The stuff I actually do. The stuff I’ve been reared from birth (it seems) to actually do with my life. (the title I’ve given this should become clear later, skip to the bottom if chemistry and occasional sexual analogy doesn’t interest you)

I have a problem. It’s a problem I’ve been hitting with a hammer for about 5 years now. While it’s a little complicated to get into it, I’ll try and distil it down to something readable without any prior knowledge.

One of the core aims in chemistry is to understand the mechanism of a chemical reaction; that is, when you go from A to B, to not just understand what A and B are, but to describe in as much detail as possible how you get there and through what steps, and which intermediates.

So I have A and B, and I have two potential pathways, 1 and 2. Please forgive the shittier-than-usual-ness of these diagrams, I am stuck without a functioning PC and graphics tablet, and have resorted to MS Paint and a mouse – still, it’s more effort than a Buzzfeed article.

chem_fig1Actually, this is a little abstract, so I’ll go into a little more detail because I  damn-well can and people seem to think chemistry is all blowing shit up and poisoning people (that’s only 60% of the time). Not too much detail, however, since this is a) unpublished work and b) potentially industrially sensitive.

I’m looking at how a particular metal (and associated ligands), let’s call her “M“, activates a particular substrate, let’s call her “S“, while under the influence of light. “Activate” here, just means “turn into a more reactive substance”. You can sit Ms. S and Ms. M together as long as you like, but they’ll do nothing – but shine some light on it, and BOOM, some kinky chemical lesbianism occurs! (that’s a technical term, by the way) Add in another chemical at this point and you can readily convert Ms. S into something else – something that wouldn’t happen without Ms. M and some light. All disturbingly erotic, I know. And no, this is not allegorical.

But how?

In pathway 1 we have M losing a carbonyl (CO, carbon monoxide, the same stuff that kills you in your sleep if you don’t check your boiler once a year) group in the presence of ultraviolet light to form an higher energy intermediate that lacks this CO. Now, chemistry is a game; get to the lowest energy and you win the game. So if you increase the energy of, say, M by using light (which is a sort of “cheat” in the game) then the higher energy intermediate is unstable; it will stabilise itself by latching on to whatever you give it that lowers the energy. It lowers in energy to win the game, and just so happens to produce something you want in the process rather than turning to black gunk (the usual end-product of organometallic chemistry). In pathway 2, much the same happens except no loss of CO; the entire thing, Ms. M, with all her sex toys ligands attached, just goes into an excited electronic state. “Excited state” in this case means that only the  electrons, rather than the whole atoms themselves, have rearranged into a higher energy state. But the principle is the same; this highly excited M lowers the energy by activating the substrate, S.

chem_fig2And evidence for either pathway 1 or pathway 2 is contradictory. I can’t figure it out. The odds are it will take someone way smarter than me and with far more time to figure it out (and funding, of course, as Ms. M is an expensive little madam and not some cheap slut like copper or nickel). And that’s if it’s even possible to really sift through the hellish amount of conflicting data on this one single reaction.

In favour of pathway 1 we have the fact that the reaction is slowed down when there is excess CO about, in accordance with Le Chatelier’s principle (oh, just Google it, not that you will). Yet in favour of pathway 2 we have some good kinetic evidence. In favour of 1 we have some fast spectroscopy measurements showing CO loss under light. But in favour of 2, the isomer distribution in the final products isn’t what we’d expect from CO extrusion and recombination. Although some energy calculations suggests this is expected because the isomers we don’t see disappear too quickly to be seen – although I think those calculations are bullshit because, and no offence to the authors of this one, if you’re using B3LYP/6-31G calculations on organometallic complexes by evaluating only hybrid density functionals against a few different relativistic core pseudopotentials without calibrating your transition state free energies to known empirical data you’re a fucking…


Then there’s how the evidence conflicts depending on whether you do it with this or that or at what temperature – oh, and my own computational calculations that suggest that, for reasons I don’t want to go into, that it’s both (one after each other).

Although in a fairly narrow field, this is still a significant scientific disagreement. There’s been head-scratching, there have been arguments, there’s been betting and mind-changing – right now I’m not even going to call it. It’s up in the air. We literally have no fucking idea about what the answer to this little problem is and the evidence is all over the place.

So… what?

So, why don’t we see people declaring that chemistry is bullshit?

Where are the cranks wanting to throw out atoms (okay, Dewey Larson and Archimedes Plutonium excepted…) and saying that it’s all folly?

Why don’t creationists latch onto this as proof that chemistry is flawed ergo the Earth is 6,000 years old?

You might think that this is because chemistry has nothing to say about the origins of the earth nor evolution. But you’d be wrong. Chemistry underpins the laws that governs genetics – how the genome functions at a biochemical level is all about this. Chemistry is what stops Jesus turning water into wine – and a little bit of nuclear physics suggests such a change would produce a catastrophic amount of energy that would have turned Cana into a crater. Chemistry governs the rates and qualities of rock and mineral formation that preclude even the notion that a flood 4,000 years ago covered the entire world in water. The mere properties of water – which are chemical – can prove such an event didn’t happen.

In short, far from being irrelevant, it would be very much in the interests of creationists to debunk chemistry. In fact, it would be very much within the interests of any crank to debunk all of chemistry. Homeopaths, climate change deniers, anti-vaccine twats; the lot of them.

And since a major modus operandi of the crank is to latch onto minor disagreements in science in order to declare the entire discipline to be false, why wouldn’t they take the one I just handed them above? Why wouldn’t any particular crank jump upon that disagreement and extremely difficult problem (I’ve barely scratched the surface of it there, and that’s only one problem I’ve had) to say chemistry is bullshit? Hey, after all, those silly little scientists can’t agree on a single simple detail like that, they mustn’t be very trustworthy or very clever!

I doubt anyone would declare chemistry to be false because of the above. Psychics, mediums, climate change deniers, moon landing hoaxers, grassy knoll enthusiasts, homeopaths, creationists, Scientologists, faith healers, intelligent design proponents, exorcists, bitcoin miners (okay, perhaps not) and Thor knows who else, will all remain very happy with the idea of atoms, molecules, bonds, thermodynamics, kinetics, electrons, photochemistry and so on and so forth until I’ve written out a contents page from an undergraduate textbook. They won’t see it as something for them. They’ll be ‘meh’ at most – never mind that their ideologies, philosophies and crank hypotheses often require that chemistry be overturned and their usual method is to jump on tiny little flaws.

But why? Why isn’t chemistry something they want to discredit? It’s no more different to the disagreements in evolutionary biology, genetics, palaeontology and geology used by creationists to self-justify their position. Or the disagreements in climatology used by denialists. Or the disagreements and open problems in epidemiology used to justify anti-vaccine twats. Hey, biology gets a ton of attention; why not its basis?

I imagine people will think it’s because they’re not qualified to discuss the chemical conundrum above because of a lack of knowledge or the lack of qualification.

Which would lead us to a very important question; why the hell is it okay for Ken Ham to debate Bill Nye on evolution?

Beginners Guide to Creationism

Found this hanging around my drafts section. This was originally published on the official RationalWiki blog. It is reproduced here for, well, just for the sake of it. Minor stylistic changes added.

What is it?

Creationism most generally means the belief that the entire universe was created by a deity in a supernatural incident. Most commonly it refers to the Christian one but almost all religions in the world have some sort of creation myth that explains the origins of the universe. What we’re most interested in, however, is the branch known as “young earth creationism” (YEC). Not all creationists are YECs, and there are a few alternative forms, but 99% of the time skeptics will use “creationism” and YEC interchangeably – mostly because other forms are less interesting to skeptics and de-bunkers.

YEC specifically proposes that the world was created literally as described in the Bible, only 6,000 years ago according to the chronology deduced by Archbshop James Ussher in the 17th century – with the creation occurring October 23rd, 4004 BC, in fact. Yes, this is after some recorded written history and milestones such as the domestication of the dog.

It’s primarily a Christian doctrine (fundamentalist Islam, for instance, opposes evolution but doesn’t insist on a “young” Earth) and in its modern form is common to North America, where as much as 45% of the adult population believes it.

Erm… why?

Put simply, people believe this because it’s exactly what the Bible tells them. No one is quite sure why it persists as a belief, but it seems to be due to the fact that if you can challenge the literal Genesis creation story, you can accidentally invalidate the rest of the religion with it. Hence why attacks on young earth creationism, which is a falsifiable (and falsified) hypothesis, is continually conflated with an attack on religion, or an attack on Christianity in any and all forms.

(For instance, here, which is a protracted rant against YEC and anti-evolutionists that doesn’t at any point really talk about God or Christianity – but nevertheless is attacked in many comments as something to do with an anti-God atheist that hates Christians.)

It’s worth remembering at this point that in most of Europe and in other, non-literalist forms of Christianity, the idea of an old earth and of evolution is not assumed to be in conflict with the basic tenets of the religion. The Catholic Church, for instance, has “officially” accepted evolution since 1950 and human evolution since 1996 and makes no demands that Ussher’s chronology is correct. Back on the other side of the pond, organisations such as Ken Ham’s Answers in Genesis refer to such things as “compromise” – as in “compromised“, as if such acceptance of modern evolutionary theory and geology is somehow an infection in the purity of the true church.

What’s the evidence?

In the last 50 years or so, the Creationist movement in the US has branched out into “scientific creationism“. Skeptics often lambaste this as an oxymoron, but it does mean that they’ve been increasingly using “evidence” to support their claims. Here’s a brief run-down of a few of the common ones.

  • The ordering of fossils is due to Noah’s flood. The animals found near the top of sedimentary strata escaped the rising waters, the “primitive” ones at the bottom did not.
  • The Bible. Yes, this is actually used as evidence.
  • The Grand Canyon is evidence of a drainage channel caused by Noah’s global flood.

This list is actually difficult to populate because the thing that is most common to YEC “evidence” isn’t evidence for a young earth, but usually a list of (mostly imagined) grievances against evolution and deep time geology. In fact, one of the approaches put forward by skeptics for dealing with creationists is to hypothetically grant them all their grievances and ask “so what positive evidence do you propose?”

This is particularly important because the evidence for the planet being formed billions of years ago is far more extensive than positive creationist evidence.

And the evidence against evolution?

A list of grievances against evolution is easier to generate. Some basic ones are listed here without refutation because they are mostly PRATTs (Points Refuted A Thousand Times) or Not Even Wrong.

  • “Micro” evolution, which is small changes in varieties of animals, has been observed – while “macro” evolution, which is the change of animals into completely different ones, has not.
  • Radiometric dating is flawed because it is calibrated circularly with fossils.
  • There are no “transitional” fossils found between organisms.
  • DNA contains complex information that “cannot” have evolved because evolution cannot increase information.
  • Thermodynamic laws don’t allow life to become complex and ordered.
  • Science can’t explain the origin of life – also known as “molecules to man” evolution.
  • Science can’t prove that things evolved because it wasn’t there.

This is just a random sample of points, the lists often go into the hundreds.

Who are the main players?

The same names do crop up repeatedly in the YEC world, here is a brief list.

  • Kent Hovind – founder of ‘Creation Science Evangelism’, got a ‘PhD’ from a diploma mill. Currently serving 10 years for tax fraud and evasion. (as an update on this, has recently as of 2014/15 been attempting to sue anyone who calls his crime “fraud” or “evasion”, even though it is. He’s attempted to sue RationalWiki over it, but can’t seem to get his act together enough to properly serve the papers to the RMF. Most people attribute this to him getting some spectacularly bad advice from someone in prison who is as mentally ill as he is.)
  • Eric Hovind – the fairly charismatic but immature son of the above, now runs Kent’s ministries and hosts the “Creation Today” and “Creation Minute” webcasts.
  • Ken Ham – current head of Answers in Genesis. Tends to evangelise to children in order to capture them young, most famous for his “were you there?” argument. (further update, you will know him from his debate with Bill Nye the Science Guy where both parties were famously asked “what would change your mind?” – Nye replied “evidence”, Ham replied “nothing”. There you go.)
  • Ray Comfort – the infamous bananaman. Mostly concerned with (terrible) Christian apologetics but uses anti-evolution tropes to further this.
  • Duane Gish – now deceased vice president of the Institute for Creation Research. Notable for having the Gish Gallop named after him.
  • Jason Lisle – notable for having an actual legitimate PhD in astrophysics. Has a tendency to use very circular logic in his religious apologetics, and has attempted to solve the starlight problem.
  • Jonathan Sarfati – like Lisle, has a legitimate PhD and knows it. Also known for being a bit of an obnoxious one.
Creationism is certainly associated with some weird shit...

Creationism is certainly associated with some weird shit…

William Dembski and Michael Behe are also names that repeatedly crop up, but these two are most commonly associated with Intelligent Design, rather than YEC. Which brings us to…

What about Intelligent Design?

Intelligent Design (ID) is an offshoot from creationism that, nominally, has nothing to do with it – technically, it is just an anti-evolution position, and therefore distinct from YEC beliefs as it does not mandate a young earth. However, it’s often associated with creationists and overlaps significantly (see cdesign proponentists and the Wedge Strategy), leading to the very justified accusation that it’s used to make creationism “respectable”, and tries to hide the “God” aspects in order to sneak it into schools in the US – where separation of Church and State is legally enshrined. ID is often called “creationism in a cheap suit” because of this.

And so what?

Creationism forms the bedrock of the anti-science movement in the US. It’s almost political suicide to speak against it, as such a thing is perceived as an attack on religion, which is absolutely sacred. As a result, it infiltrates a lot of the political sphere – which, importantly, controls funding for science programs. Creationism is also heavily associated with the Religious Right, and their attempts to get it taught in schools are readily associated with attempts to establish Biblical teachings in schools (along with their other depressing aspects including homophobia, misogyny and racism). In short, while it is a fundamentally silly and easily refuted, the way it’s played as a “freedom of religion” issue or as part of a persecution complex against Christianity, should be very worrying.

Spectacular Quote Mining

I was digging through a few of my older bits of crap from the internet, and found a side-by-side article I wrote in early 2012. To be honest, it’s a bit long and cruddy, but the inanity of the article being critiqued – especially towards the end – doesn’t fill me with the impetus to have another shot at it.

Anyway, I rediscovered this quote from the original, written by Philip Vander Elst:

Richard Dawkins, for instance, describes the idea of God as “a very naive, childish concept,” and has explicitly expressed his relief that Darwinism enables him to be “an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” Earlier Darwinists made similar comments. In 1943, for example, Professor D.M.S. Watson wrote: “Evolution itself is accepted by zoologists not because it has been observed to occur or…can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.” (Quoted in “Science and the BBC”, Nineteenth Century, April 1943). But if Darwinism is being embraced because of an unexamined philosophical (or emotional) prejudice against God and the idea of creation, why should it be accorded any respect as a scientific theory?

Elst’s point here is that evolution has been almost invented entirely to get rid of God – even where the data clearly doesn’t fit. Evolutionists are out to disprove God, and that’s their one and only motive. And look, he has the quotes to prove it! Right there! Look!

You know what I call it? Shameless. Truly shameless. Truly fucking shameless. It’s a quote mine that is so common, so mundane, and so over-used by creationist asshats, that it even has a Wikipedia section dedicated to it – not that I’m accusing Philip Vander Elst of being a literal, Ussher-chronology young earth creationist, but his work does fall into the black pit of the worst apologetics I’ve read. Actually, that could be misleading because calling it “worst” implies that I’ve found apologetics that are reasonable.

It takes little-to-no effort to track down the source, as I did in the original side-by-side of Elst’s oversized derp-wagon. For instance, you can find the original sourced to a 1929 article in Nature, while Elst had clearly only gotten as far as taking C.S. Lewis’ word for it when he wrote that bullshit above – it’s almost word-for-word how Lewis quoted and described Watson’s position. Indeed, how apt for someone who is somewhat of a scholar of C.S. Lewis (if such a thing can be a genuine academic occupation) and for a post that is mostly a quasi-plagiarised rehash of C.S. Lewis’ own apologetics.

This is Watson’s original quote from his article (Lewis/Elst’s extract is highlighted in douche-y green):

Evolution itself is accepted by zoologists not because it has been observed to occur or is supported by logically coherent arguments, but because it does fit all the facts of taxonomy, of paleontology, and of geographical distribution, and because no alternative explanation is credible.

Look carefully at the quote-mined version, you’ll spot an ellipsis – as clearly Watson’s paragraph there only looks a little like the Elst/Lewis’ extract. In fact, most of the sentence is removed. This isn’t just clearing up some extraneous detail for brevity – this is actually hiding things. The second part of the quote mine comes a page or so later, and combined with the above clearly makes the point that “incredible” is being used in a literal sense (meaning “not credible”). It is presented as so:

The extreme difficulty of obtaining the necessary data for any quantitative estimation of the efficiency of natural selection makes it seem probable that this theory will be re-established, if it be so, by the collapse of alternative explanations which are more easily attacked by observation and experiment. If so, it will present a parallel to the theory of evolution itself, a theory universally accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.

It’s pretty clear putting all of Watson’s comments together that he’s simply heading off the usual anti-evolutionist objections that evolution cannot be observed. Indeed, how can it, per se? We live, at best, 100 years; can a single person observe the evolution of a shrew-like creature into a primate? Of course not. But we have much more evidence for it than that – and such “direct” evidence isn’t required. Further, the alternative anti-evolutionary views suffer from a complete lack of evidence or any logical founding that makes them plausible. Of course D. M. S. Watson would say this, and not offer some tacit admission that he thinks evolution is wrong but likes how it destroys God – the man had expertise on the subject and amassed a list of accolades I doubt I’ll ever achieve. Why would anyone think for a moment that such a person would say “evolution is wrong”? It’s this sort of behaviour that really makes some apologists the lowest of the low in terms of honesty, intelligence and general credibility both scientific and academic. They are, literally, incredible.

C.S. Lewis, the originator of the quote-mine, put it as so – and, in doing so, shamelessly invented the page-long ellipsis to go with it.

More disquieting still is Professor D. M. S. Watson’s defense. “Evolution itself,” he wrote, “is accepted by zoologists not because it has been observed to occur or… can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.” Has it come to that? Does the whole vast structure of modern naturalism depend not on positive evidence but simply on an a priori metaphysical prejudice. Was it devised not to get in facts but to keep out God?

So, what did Elst want to achieve in 2003 by citing a quote originally made in 1929, using a quote-mine first published in 1941? Back when I wrote that original side-by-side, I described this as “intellectually vacuous”. I still can’t think of a better term to sum it all up.