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.

Ultracold Cells on Titan – Yay or Nay?

Listen up pop-science fans, I might be just about to pop one of your bubbles (or maybe not). This one, in fact. The original paper can be found here – it’s open access, and therefore extra awesome. I thought I’d do this before the Discovery Institute get their grubby mitts on it.

The regurgitation of the press release begins as follows:

Ultracold-Resistant Chemical on Titan Could Allow It to Harbor Life

Astrobiologists and planetary scientists have a fairly good idea of which chemicals might indicate the presence of oxygen-breathing, water-based life—that is if it is like us. When it comes to worlds such as Saturn’s moon Titan, however, where temperatures are too cold for aqueous biochemistry, it’s much harder to know which chemicals could signal the existence of hydrocarbon-based life.

Oh, I love pop-science headlines. They always go at least ten steps ahead of the research they’re actually reporting. In their defence, Scientific American do a decent job and don’t oversell it once they hit the third or forth paragraph, but I want to go a little deeper into the theory because I’m kind of a nerd. I’ll cover some of the core strengths and disadvantages of what they’re doing in this research.

In brief – What the f**k are they doing?

Life on Earth requires some sort of membrane to contain it. We call these cells. You may have heard of them. These are made – as high school biology graduates will know – by phospholipid bi-layers that create a fully encased supramolecular structure. These layers form because the phospholipid molecules have parts that attract to water, and parts that move away from water. Obviously, we pretty much live in water, so there aren’t many options for the parts of the molecule that dislike water – these long hydrocarbon chains – and so they form small globules called micelles, where the long chains face inward, protected from water by a shell made of the parts of the molecule that actually like to bind to water. In higher concentrations these start forming membranes, where there are two layers – the hydrophobic, water-hating, parts of the molecule all turned in and the hydrophilic, water-loving, parts turned out. Eventually, with the right concentration, they form bi-layered cells.

This is exactly how it happens.

This is exactly how it happens.

Of course, this all means we need liquid water. The chemistry of these membranes and bi-layers doesn’t work in other solvents particularly well, and certainly not at low temperatures where water and lipid molecules freeze solid. So the question is this: can we do the same thing that forms in other solvents, using other molecules, and at temperatures outside the “habitable zone” of the solar system. More specifically, can this be done for the conditions on Titan, where liquid methane acts as the moon’s “water”, and simpler organic molecules act as the phospholipids.

The response seems to be that, in principle, the answer is yes.

So it means life is possible?

Yes and no. The theory proposes a way to build the membranes and cells required to contain life – these keep the active metabolic chemicals in high concentration (the original paper mentions this as part of the introduction, it’s all part of the “RNA World” hypothesis for abiogenesis), allowing life to form and evolve. But this is far from the greatest barrier to self-organised and self-replicating life. Even if these hypothetical cells form, they would have to contain some high concentration chemistry – something that would have to be more complex and active than we currently have solid evidence for. The chemical “soup” trapped in there would also have to reach a complexity to start replicating with modification – where evolution can take over and make “life”, as we know it, Jim, almost inevitable. This is a much bigger “if” than the mere formation of membranes, and to be fair even that is still a big “if”.

Even a theoretical proposal would have to import essential chemical properties to a low temperature system with an alkane solvent. This is not impossible, but it is not staggeringly likely either.

“Computational” = “Proceed with caution”

It’s important to keep in mind this current “cells on Titan” research is theoretical – in fact, “hypothetical” might be a closer qualitative description, as it’s a big “if” rather than a solid, well-backed theory. This sort of caveat is often the first to go missing as papers get compressed into press releases, and press releases get compressed into pop-science articles, and articles get compressed to Facebook posts and tweets and meme images and Daily Mail comments. Be under no illusions: this work has been done entirely in a computer, and is just a proposition for now.

It gets lost in translation quite a bit.

It gets lost in translation quite a bit.

I can’t and won’t trash work for being purely computational. I’ve done plenty of my own calculationsthat have interfaced between real-world chemical observations and their theoretical replication, and I’ve mentioned before the successful results of using a genetic algorithm to predict the existence of usual chemical structures. However, the work I discussed there by Oganov et. al. went a step beyond their computational hypothesis – they put their experimental clout where their mouth was and actually made the substances they predicted. Score one solid goal for science, even if it didn’t “completely overturn all of chemistry” as the press release claimed.

So far with respect to cell membranes forming on Titan, there’s no empirical data forthcoming. Is this because someone has tried, failed, and neglected to publish? Is it because conclusively demonstrating that cells don’t form in liquid methane would mean proving a negative? The experiment might not be so straightforward to do, there may always be the right conditions to make it happen if the hypothesis is solid. But I expect it will come eventually, particularly if they’ve piqued the interest of parties capable of doing the experimental work. This hypothesis will either sink or swim (in liquid methane, of course) on the basis of that.

Fuck the Disco 'Tute getting hold of the story, it's IFLS you need to worry about.

Fuck the Disco ‘Tute getting hold of the story, it’s IFLS messing it up that you need to worry about.

Molecular Dynamics simulations

Computing the properties of molecules is difficult. Computing the properties accurately is even more difficult-er.

Think of it this way – for every atom (if you want to treat every atom individually) has to be described by three coordinates of position. And then three coordinates of momentum to give it a direction. And three coordinates of force acting on it computed from everything else that will change its momentum and position. It’s clear that as your system grows, you’ll need more data just to describe it. But then there are the interactions that lead up to the force that will alter its position and momentum. Two points gives you one interaction – and this is the only case you can solve perfectly. Three points gives you three interactions (consider a triangle). Four points gives you six interactions and five points requires modelling ten interactions (draw these out if you don’t believe me) and it increases from there. Some theoretical models increase their computational costs even more rapidly than that.

If you want to describe a very large system, say, a protein, or a layered membrane formed from dozens or hundreds of molecules, you will have thousands upon thousands of interactions to take into account. It stands to reason, then, that the more interactions you have the less complicated your calculations for each one must be. Otherwise you’re talking “age of the universe” time scales for making your calculation. This is where molecular mechanics and molecular dynamics come into play – you take your molecules and you simplify down the possible interactions to the most basic level, then run the simulation that way using assumptions and less intensive calculations.

In general, this is alright. You can get the basics of what a large number of molecules will try to do just from running such simple calculations, and the OPLS model used in this work is accepted as good enough for the task at hand. So the method is what we’d call “robust” – that is, it’s one of those things where 60% of the time it works 100% of the time.

If you download a neat bit of freeware called Argus Lab (warning: it’s not under active development at the moment and tends to run into trouble on 64-bit machines) you can start playing with your own things in a matter of minutes and do things like show DNA bases binding to each other using molecular mechanics calculations. The exact values you get for the strength of that interaction are dubious-as-all-hell, but hey, from fundamentally simple equations you can predict that DNA works. That’s just cool, right?

Errr.... I'll assume this point will skip you by, that's fine.

Errr…. I’ll assume this point will skip you by, that’s fine.

But the simple methods are not perfect and foolproof. Often you need to fudge a few of the simulations with real-world data. These methods are known as “semi-empirical” (you can work out the etymology of that at home) and the garbage-in-garbage-out principle holds true for them. Sometimes, even if you do try to fudge it with decent empirical data you still can’t get a good result. Even trying to work out the properties of water – something you’d think is the most well-studied molecule in existence – is insanely difficult and requires, actually, modelling a lot of water molecules because the interactions are that disperse. You can’t calculate something like a hydrogen bond strength of H2O just by considering two H2O molecules interacting. So you need to validate the simple model to make sure you aren’t falling foul of this sort of physics trickery.

The main bit of data used to validate the OPLS model in this work is the binding energy between two of their target molecules. The authors compared their predicted energies from the model that made the self-organised layers to an energy taken from a more robust and reliable (a “higher level”) calculation. And this is the part where I need to say “proceed with caution” again, because this data they’re comparing to still isn’t empirical, but also established from a calculation.

Ab initio Calculations

If you scroll down the original open access paper you’ll find the frightening combination of numbers and letters “M062X/aug-cc-pVDZ”. To explain this as quickly as possible, everything before the “/” is the “functional” – this is the theory, as laid out by clever computational people and physicists with a lot of spare time on their hands, that you will use to spit out an energy from your calculation. Everything after is the “basis set”, which are the basic building blocks of the atoms (more specifically, the electrons) that you’ll use to help derive it. There are an astounding number of each, and they are all completely interchangeable (although some combinations are more sensible than others). And each combination will spit out different energies for even the same molecule.

Calculating the binding energy between two molecules is almost comically simple. You set up your molecule and the theory and basis set you want to use to model it and the calculation spits out an energy value. You then set up two molecules next to each other and the same calculations spit out another energy value. If the latter is less than two lots of the former, the molecules prefer to sit next to each other by that amount of energy.

There are a few caveats to this, such as basis-set superposition error (BSSE), which is basically the error associated with assuming the “comically simple” approach I just described, but you can correct for that easy enough. Since you didn’t ask, you do this by taking the molecules individually as described above, but give them access to the atomic orbitals, aka the basis functions, of the other molecule but without actually putting the molecule or the electrons there – you then do some mathematical jiggery-pokery with the resulting combination of energies and you arrive at your correction. This is another thing you need to do or your TAP-IPM will chase you around with a chair.

Now, the major trouble with ab initio (from base principles) calculations is that they need to be calibrated. You do this by picking a method that produces reliable results for the work at hand.

And that’s the trick, you have to find the right combination that works. If the theory and basis-set combination you choose replicates an energy that you’ve actually measured (a known quantity) within a few percent, it’s a good bet that it will successfully predict the energy of an unknown if you’re looking at a similar-enough system. A lot of simple organic reactions can be predicted well by the combination labelled “B3LYP/6-31G”, which is about as close as you can get to a “standard” or “default” combination. But B3LYP/6-31G fails miserably for a lot of transition metals and organometallic compounds, which is where you need to start getting creative. If the process you are studying is intra-molecular – i.e., bits are just rearranging, rather than falling off or coming on – then most combinations tend to be much of a muchness. But when you’re talking inter-molecular interactions, particularly the van der Waals or electrostatic interactions between molecules, the right combination is essential. Again, garbage-in-garbage-out.

But you must measure it against something known, otherwise you are shooting in the dark. I once read a paper that proposed a very interesting new twist to a particular catalytic mechanism, something that they claimed had a much lower – and therefore more plausible – energy profile. It looked great. But it turned out they hadn’t actually calibrated/validated it well. If you could even call what they did “validation”. Their supplementary information showed that they had just changed the electron core psuedopotential (an assumption that allows you to ignore all the core electrons around an atom and replace them with just a single charge) a few times and concluded “well, we get similar enough answers each time so it must be right”. You can’t do this, or your TAP-IPM will chase you around with a chair. Again. Your chosen method has to be calibrated against empirical data or the garbage-in-garbage-out principle applies. So, when I replicated this catalytic system with a completely different level of theory and a different basis set (one that was calibrated against empirical energy values derived from some painstaking kinetic experiments) the claimed effect in this paper effectively disappeared.

And this is where I get a little dubious about the reality of micelles forming in liquid methane in reality. The molecular dynamics, and particularly the more detailed conclusions of the paper rely on an accurate binding energy between two molecules. Without this, you could get any old result. You could stick in a random number for the binding energy, and see molecular self assembly from the simplified molecular dynamics calculations that is wholly unrealistic. The energies associated with that self-assembly may well be off my a huge margin, and when you start plugging that into thermodynamic equations that are raised to the power of these numbers, your errors become far more staggering. I am also dubious about taking a binding energy from just two molecules alone. If you’re talking about large structures such as micelles, I really would like to see some ab initio stuff done on larger clusters including tetramers to see how they start interacting using this higher and more precise level of theory, BSSE-corrected or not. As I touched upon above, in water you need to get to several layers of interacting water molecules to approach experimental accuracy. Is this level of detail needed in this case? It might hurt the hypothesis, but it can’t hurt its reliability.

I also have to question the use of implicit solvation in their quantum mechanical model – that is, not making the calculation in the presence of actual solvent molecules (almost essential if you’re going to imply that solvent drives this reaction!) but in just polarisable continuum that, let’s be brutally honest about this method, only vaguely represents the idea that there’s a solvent if you squint a bit and squish it about. The binding energy that they calculate to configure and validate the model is, of course, more than against molecules verses molecules separated by infinite distance, it competes against the ability for the molecules to bind to the solvent explicitly. This isn’t always trivial. The ability for solvent molecules to make very specific interactions with molecules means that solvent getting in there are breaking up the self-assembled layers and altering their stability needs to be accounted for much more explicitly than they have done to make the results more robust.

Is all that required for acrylamide and other similar molecules working in methane? Possibly, possibly not. Hopefully the authors have done their background reading to figure that out, and I’m willing to give them the benefit of the doubt given that they’re refererring fairly robust procedures and methods – although these methods are compared against reasonable standards (M062X) rather than a “gold standard” like CCSD(T). It’s reassuring that the OPLS model’s binding energies were within 4 kJ/mol of the ab initio results, suggesting the model has merit, but as I’ve pointed out above, theoretical self-consistency should take a backseat to consistency with experiment because the former can be fudged so very easily.


Life or not, it'll almost certainly have some interesting chemistry

Life or not, it’ll almost certainly have some interesting chemistry

Overall, I think this is a pretty cool and promising result. The work by Oganov on sodium chloride stoichiometry that I’ve discussed previously on this blog demonstrates the predictive power of computational chemistry, and this could well do the same. The authors here have demonstrated some excellent potential chemistry that could be going on in liquid methane oceans. However, save the champagne for now. Without comparing their results and values to experimentally derived ones, and finally experimental verification that self-assembly of these molecules actually happens in liquid methane there is no hard evidence, yet, that this theory is realistic. Hopefully these experiments are coming soon, so we can see if this holds up. Because if we can build them in the lab, and then figure out a reliable way to detect them in the wild on Titan, the question about whether it lowers the barrier to life and its application to exobiology is irrelevant, it will be some really interesting chemistry we’ve found.

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?