"Conspiracism Is Like Creationism" : Poor Research Predicated On A Bogus Definition

                                                                           

The carelessness of so-called "conspiracism" researchers whereby they often conflate actual nuts (like Alex Jones- left) with serious analysts like Mark Lane, is self-defeating and counter productive.

"Fundamentally, the difference between a genuine and a specious conspiracy comes down to power. The genuine conspiracy,  however brief or limited, is able to project it and alter events for good or ill in clearly manifest ways." - Anonymous author, July 2016

According to a piece recently appearing in the magazine ZME Science,

"if you ask people why some phenomenon happens, two dominant and diametrically opposite schools of thought emerge: one is scientific reasoning, which uses a series of deductions and reasoning to reach a logical conclusion. The other is teleological thinking. A teleological thinker, for instance, makes propositions such as “the sun rises in order to give us light” or “the Earth was created for humans” — whereas a scientific thinker will go crazy at the mere thought."

This is true, of course, including the Aristotelian version of dynamics which insists heavier bodies must fall faster because well, they "want to".  I.e. they have a teleological or purposeful basis for moving more rapidly to Earth than lighter objects given they have a greater "affinity" for Earth.

The piece goes on, quoting  Sebastian Dieguez of the University of Fribourg:

“This type of thinking is anathema to scientific reasoning, and especially to evolutionary theory, and was famously mocked by Voltaire, whose character Pangloss believed that ‘noses were made to wear spectacles.’ Yet it is very resilient in human cognition, and we show that it is linked not only to creationism, but also to conspiracism,”

Whereby we are informed Dieguez and his colleagues have studied conspiracism,   which neologism (actually evidently been around since the 1980s)  is defined by the Oxford online English dictionary:

"The belief that major historical and political events are brought about as the result of a conspiracy between interested parties,"

Which boggles the mind because, truth be told, that is actually how many major global or national events actually transpire!  With every passing day and the new revelations to do with charges for corruption and financial crimes on Cohen, Manafort et al we are learning the extent to which Trump was catapulted into office by yes - a conspiracy!  As blogger- writer Joe Conason has noted: "In pleading guilty to felony violations of federal campaign finance statutes, Cohen has said that he paid off Stormy Daniels and another woman in a criminal conspiracy with Trump."  This conspiracy with the explicit purpose to influence the outcome of the 2016 by concealing the hush money payouts, including using the Trump Foundation as a conspiracy conduit. As we learned via a lawsuit brought by NY DA Barbara Underwood: 

"In 2016, the Board knowingly permitted the Foundation to be co-opted by Mr. Trump's presidential campaign. Mr. Trump's political committee extensively directed and coordinated the Foundation's activities. The Foundation ceded control over the grants to the campaign, making an improper, in-kind contribution of no less than $2.823 million. The contributions made the Foundation look charitable and increased the candidate's profile to primary voters. Mr. Trump's wrongful use of the Foundation to benefit his campaign was willful and knowing".

The preceding conspiracy - not "conspiracism" bunkum - can't get more in your face than that.  Not convinced? Then read Neal Kaytal's NY Times piece:

Opinion | This Conspiracy Theory Should Worry Trump - 

So why do so many - like WSJ columnist Kimberley Strassel -  skate over it?  A conspiracy not only between and among his homegrown gangster thugs and Russian cronies, but between them and GRU agents as well. Look at Mueller's indictments for cripes' sake!  

[Read the indictment here.]

The incredible ignorance of the preceding definition also appears oblivious to how effective the conspirators were in Iran-Contra. They succeeded in transferring an immense cache of weapons to the Iranians as well as eliciting illegal support for the Nicaraguan Contras. As summarized  (p. 338) in Lawrence E. Walsh's Iran-Contra Report:  "The Iran and Contra operations were merged when funds generated from the sale of weapons to Iran were diverted to support the Contra mission in Nicaragua. "

Adding:

"Using government resources, the conspirators conducted an unauthorized covert program in support of the contras.  North and Poindexter used their Government positions to create a hidden slush fund under the exclusive control of the conspirators”


The key point? To the extent it lasted, the Iran-Contra conspiracy succeeded. To the extent it lasted the BCCI banking conspiracy - based on a nest of dummy accounts in 73 countries - also succeeded. (Sadly, many ordinary citizens in Barbados paid the price, see e.g.

BCCI shock waves spread worldwide as outposts' operations 

Meanwhile, 73 Cubans paid the price when a conspiracy to blow up Cubana Airlines Flt. 455 and hatched by a Venezuelan terrorist Luis Posada Carriles 

succeeded, e.g.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uspkEV_fFzs

These facts are germane and important because they disclose the extent of the conspiracy as well as the people involved and - in some cases- the dire effects. .  But this is the essential nature of all real conspiracies in the political realm - to somehow leverage power to the advantage of those seeking to impose their own agenda. It was applicable in the Iran-Contra conspiracy as it was in the Kennedy assassination conspiracy - the objective in the latter to implement a much larger national security state and permanent war state.

Leave out the flatus inherent in "conspiracism", it is far more useful to treat conspiracy as a real concept, say as defined by Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary: 

A treacherous, surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons”

This definition is simple, as well as operational and also - to its credit- doesn't prejudge a conspiracy as non-existent or "teleologically based" (or flawed)  if its effects or plans are not manifested. All that is necessary is that a "plan is formulated" and it's done by "two or more people".   By contrast,  conspiracism is a bogus concept - as so defined- if it excludes real conspiracies and real conspiracy effects.  My point is that one must be crystal clear on the definitions of objects of inquiry else one ends up investigating or examining pure rubbish

Author Michael Parenti ('Dirty Truths')  offers an insight (p. 174) into the sort of phobic mind that engenders this type of useless rubbish:

" Those who suffer from conspiracy phobia are fond of saying: 'Do you actually think there's a group of people sitting around in a room, plotting things?' For some reason that image is assumed to be so patently absurd as to invite only disclaimers.  But where else would people of power get together - on park benches or carousels?"

Parenti averred that conspiracy "is clearly a way to get things done", mainly at the political level for which the media was often an accomplice in impeding disclosure of full information, or invoking the usual "tin foil hat" mockery. Parenti's further salient point was that even if conspiracies failed, as in the case of the Watergate conspiracy, BCCI, and Iran-Contra, that doesn't mean a conspiracy never existed. Even Operation Northwoods which never even came to partial manifestation (thank goodness!) was still a conspiracy. Plus, we have the documents to verify the fell plan existed and the carnage and chaos it sought to inflict on Cubans, e.g.

The question arising from examples like these is how to square them with the authors' perspective, i.e. of a similarity of conspiracy to creationism. So that one has:  "a related but not identical belief: the idea that some events in the world are actively and purposely fabricated — that some things are meant to be, driven by an external force. Sounds familiar? That’s also the core of religious thinking."

Here the authors wade a tad too far when they conflate the "purposely fabricated" with "some things are meant to be."  If we exclude the latter as typical of religious ideation, i.e. "souls are meant to be saved or damned" then we can get on firmer cognitive ground.   We then can grasp that because an event can be purposely and actively fabricated toward an objective, that doesn't ALSO mean "some things are meant to be".  The point? The conflation is what leads to mixing up creationism and conspiracism.


A related serious mistake I've referenced in previous posts  is critics' invocation of "Ockham' Razor" (the simplest hypothesis is usually the correct one). The mistake too many make is assuming simplicity along the same theoretic lines as for physical theories. Thus, the widespread presumption that any viable conspiracy theory - like a physical theory -  needs to be a hallmark of simplicity,  not complexity. 

But let's be realistic here: human beings are not inanimate, unconscious objects like planets and moons in defined orbits.  Nor are they like billiard balls - say that collide according to Newton's 2nd and 3rd laws of motion- making their future paths predictable. Humans by their nature possess the capacity for duplicity, formulation of self-determined agendas and concealed motives as well as the ability to misdirect others toward their (hidden) agendas. In any conspiracy of any magnitude (say like assassinating a President), therefore, one fully expects such devious capacities to overwhelm straight line logic - given the conspirators already know any would-be investigators would start off with that form of approach.

For clarity and to fix ideas, recall it was Barbadian psychologist Dr. Pat Bannister who invoked the idea of  a "conspiracy research community"  to distinguish it from base conspiracy ideation or what Dieguez and co-authors call "conspiracism" .    The latter encompasses the whole gamut of mnot only whackdoodle drivel (such as Jones' Sandy Hook false flag idiocy) but also quasi- paranoid  conjectures  which didn't  advance adequate evidence or documents to  support them. Or, if such were advanced, they didn't meet elementary scientific standards for acceptance, including consistent data selection. For example, the nincompoops who claimed no men actually landed on the Moon and it was all filmed on a Hollywood lot. 

By contrast the conspiracy research community was comprised of educated, rational adults who brought their scientific, quantitative and other aptitudes to bear on real, fact-based conspiracies.  These people put in real man hours as well as intellectual "sweat equity" - whether applied to the BCCI banking conspiracy or the JFK assassination conspiracy,  The discrimination was crucial and led Prof. Bannister to the following classification system:

1- Conspiracy analysts

2- Conspiracy theorists

3- Conspiracy crackpots or cultists


At the top of the hierarchy were conspiracy analysts, such as Mark Lane, Peter Dale Scott, Harold Weisberg, Richard Charnin and others (like yours truly).  These were serious people possessing some measure of intellect who brought their scientific, mathematical and other aptitudes to the investigation of multiple aspects of a putative real conspiracies like Iran-Contra and the JFK assassination.  These people put in real man hours and actually published their work in authoritative media (e.g. BOOKS - real books!) and respected forums as opposed to spreading bunkum through half-assed posts in the lowest dreg regions of the net, like 4chan and 8chan.

By contrast, the "conspiracy theorist" puts forward conspiracy conjectures - some highly elaborate -  but often didn't  advance adequate evidence, quantitative reasoning or documents to  support them. Or, if such were advanced, they didn't meet rigorous scientific standards for acceptance, including consistent data selection.  The 9/11 truthers are an example of this lot.  They have generated compendiums of work but none of it fully taking into consideration the physics of force balance and progressive collapse. See e.g. this excellent physics explanation which the "truther theorists" need to address:

https://www.counterpunch.org/2006/11/28/the-physics-of-9-11/

Pay attention to the force balance and progressive collapse computations!  The 9/11 truther would do well to show similar computations that instead supports their case. (If any truther has such, I will happily publish his or her work as a guest post on this blog.)


Sadly,what Dieguez and his co-authors have done by their sloppy work is to paint so wide a brush in their criticism of anything smacking of conspiracy ("conspiracism")  that actual conspiracies (e.g. BCCI, Iran-Contra etc.) become conflated with Bannister's bottom rung (category 3) conspiracy crackpots - say like the QAnon rubbish.  

In order to test their hypothesis, they recruited 150 college students in Switzerland, and then an additional 700 people online. The participants were asked to complete a questionnaire which included teleological claims and "conspiracist" statements, as well as measures of analytical thinking, esoteric and magical beliefs, and a randomness perception task.

They found a strong correlation between creationism and conspiracism. They also found that the relationship was mostly independent of other variables such as gender, age, analytical thinking, political orientation, education, and agency detection. 

According to Dieguez, quoted in the ZML Science piece:

"By drawing attention to the analogy between creationism and conspiracism, we hope to highlight one of the major flaws of conspiracy theories and therefore help people detect it, namely that they rely on teleological reasoning by ascribing a final cause and overriding purpose to world events.  We think the message that conspiracism is a type of creationism that deals with the social world can help clarify some of the most baffling features of our so-called ‘post-truth era.'” 

That's fine and dandy except the authors have proven no such link, not at all.  We read, for example, a summary of the work in Science Daily:

"It's not uncommon to hear someone espouse the idea that "everything happens for a reason" or that something that happened was "meant to be." Now, researchers reporting in Current Biology on August 20 have found that this kind of teleological thinking is linked to two seemingly unrelated beliefs: creationism, the belief that life on Earth was purposely created by a supernatural agent, and conspiracism, the tendency to explain historical or current events in terms of secret conspiracies or conspiracy theories."

But Dieguez et al seem not to grasp the enormous chasm separating the two.  Belief in a supernatural agent to originate the cosmos is not at all similar to explaining historical events in terms of "secret" conspiracies - IF said conspiracies are verified by documents or actual events. I already went through a number of verified conspiracies earlier.  Note again, no one is insisting or claiming a la the ubiquity of teleology peculiar to creationism that ALL historical events are driven by conspiracies.  BUT - a fraction of them are-   such as those specific examples I already described.  

Is Dieguez then going to argue that Operation Northwoods wasn't real, despite the fact the planning documents, files exist? (Such as I showed)?  Is he going to claim it wasn't real because it didn't manifest? This commits the logical error Parenti referred to.  What about Iran- Contra? Is he prepared to argue that conspiracy wasn't real because it was eventually found out? (Despite the fact over 1,000 TOW missiles were delivered to Iran and arms dispatched to the Contras in violation of the Boland Amendment)  

What about the conspiracy by Luis Posada et al to detonate a bomb and blow up Cubana Airlines Flight 455 off the southwest coast of Barbados?   Is he going to claim that conspiracy wasn't real - a mere case of "conspiracism"  - despite 73 people losing their lives in the biggest airline terror of the 20th century?

You get my point.  The problem inheres in the too broad definition. i.e. of "conspiracism",  which essentially tosses out "baby with bathwater" and ends up getting us nowhere in terms of discriminating the different expressions which are often carelessly referred to as "conspiracy theories" by the media.  The use of this too general definition also by its nature undermines the research done, and discourages others doing further work, including efforts at confirmation. Who, after all, wishes to be hamstrung by a vacuous definition in the pursuit of differentiating the objectively real from the unreal?

See also:

Trump's Criminal Conspiracies: Vivid, Overwhelming, and Lethal

Science Education Hamstrung By Dubious Laws & Flawed Intuitive Ideas

Let's face it, learning even basic concepts for physics and astronomy does not come naturally for most people. Even teachers!  I discovered this while giving the first teacher workshops in the teaching of astronomy for the Caribbean, back in 1978.   Among the beliefs I encountered among these teachers who were to devote themselves to the first ever serious secondary school astronomy syllabus :

- The stars were merely pinprick size holes in a vast dome called the night sky

-  The Sun was not a star but totally different, real stars were tiny bright points

-   The Sun went around the Earth not the other way

-   The Moon had to be the same size as the Sun to cause solar eclipses

Each of these, in fact, can be traced to the person's intuition or what the cognitive scientist Andrew Shtulman calls "intuitive theories". In other words, misbegotten notions of how the world or universe works based on internalizing goofy ideas that seem right but aren't.

Of course, it's no different with physics. Millions still accept or believe that heavier objects must fall to the Earth faster than lighter ones. This despite the fact that it's been experimentally demonstrated since the time of Galileo that all object fall at the exact same rate, once air resistance is corrected for.

Others believe firmly in an "impetus" kind of motion originating with some kind of imaginary force that fades over time, despite the fact that Newtonian physics allows no such "force.

Then there are those who are certain that linear transfer of momentum is a myth, so that when they see Jackie Kennedy in the Zapruder film moving back over the limo trunk to try to retrieve a dislodged occipital bone from JFK's head, e.g.

They still are unable to process the shot had to have come from the front. A bullet fired from the rear hitting the back of Kennedy's head could not possibly drive it back toward the rear shooter because the linear momentum imparted is not in that direction.  A rear shot instead would drive the head forward and its content out front. Basic stuff, but it still boggles minds.

To demonstrate the principle of linear momentum transfer in a lab setting is fairly straightforward, making use of an air track, of the type used to measure accelerations, e.g.

In the case of momentum transfer we ensure the track is level so there is no extraneous acceleration from gravity and place a stationary trolley on one side while sending the other in motion from the opposite side. The student who performs the lab will see the moving trolley strike the stationary one (we assume both of the same mass) and then both move off in the same direction, i.e. the direction of the moving trolley. (N.B. there is no 'rubber' bumper on the stationary trolley).

Millions more are equally befuddled by the idea that forces always occur in pairs, so a book (A) resting on the table (B) - exerting the force of its weight F(AB), must have the table also exerting a force on it (F(BA).

This is an application of Newton’s 3^rd law which states that “for every action (force) there is an equal but opposite reaction (counter force).

All of which informs us that it isn't sufficient to rely on our intuition of a physical system to understand what is going on.  That intuitive picture, alas, is generally flawed.  The success of science education, then, lies in eliminating as many flawed intuitive ideas as possible and replacing them with correct scientific principles.

In physics, at least, this is relatively straightforward to do by way of experiments, i.e. dropping objects from a set up such as shown below - connected to an electronic timer which imparts dots on tape that can then be compared with the accelerations computed..


One can then check to see that a 5 g mass and 20 g mass fall at the same rate, hence have the same accelerations subject to  the Earth's gravity.

With the proper equipment other experiments can also be devised, say to test the principle of linear momentum transfer, or that heat is transferred from hotter to cooler bodies. 

In terms of the astronomy misconceptions already cited, while it is not possible to perform actual experiments, it is feasible to use models to high light false thinking. For example, using two balls of very different size - say one a 1 cm marble, the other a softball of 9.65 cm diameter, to represent the Sun and Moon. Then by placing the former much nearer to the observer's eyes and the latter much further away, it can be shown how the marble (representing the Moon) can exactly block out the larger (Sun).  All that's needed is getting the right distance to the observer for each to produce the "block out" effect (similar to what happens in a total eclipse. Most importantly the Moon needn't ne the same size as the Sun - only the same angular size (e.g.1/2 degree or 30 arcmin) when the eclipse occurs.

Similar techniques using light sources can be used to show - in a model situation - that the Sun is a star, and only appears much different (and brighter) because it is so much closer to Earth than other stars.  Place a bright torch or flashlight within 1 meter of an observer - say to show the "Sun" from Earth, then change the distance to 100 m (needing a large field - preferably at night) to see just a tiny point of light. The light source is the same, it's just observed from radically differing distances. The same applies to the Sun and other stars, they only appear to be different entities because the Sun is observed much closer than the other stars.

While the challenge of dismissing false ideas is significant, the science educator also faces spurious "first amendment" arguments by state legislators, trying to dignify pseudo science in evolution and climate science. For example,  in South Dakota, supporters of SB 55 claimed the bill was necessary to "protect the academic freedom and free speech rights of teachers". A challenge by the National Committee Against Censorship (NCAC) pointed out that while teachers have the right to their own opinions they do not have any First Amendment right "to deviate from and possibly contradict professionally developed science standards adopted by state educators".   The argument led to the defeat of the bill.

Similarly, in Oklahoma, an anti-evolution legislator proposed a bill that would allow teachers to present alternatives to evolution such as creationism. Of course, creationism is not science in any manner, shape or form it is religious doctrine.  It is simply gussied up with scientific seeming terms. Creationists don't even provide their own tests for falsifying their own alleged theories! For example, the evolutionist provides a falsification test for his theory of common descent (i.e. that both Man and apes are descended from the same common ancestor) by using the cytochrome-c sequence, say as disclosed in chimps and humans, and asserting that beyond a certain (probability)  threshold the test fails.

This OK bill is now also under challenge by the NCAC.  Because of these contentious legal issues and states unwilling to accept standard science, Andrew Shtulman, in his book SceinceBlind, suggest evolutionary concepts need to be taught before high school using graspable charts.  E.g.













Diagram showing the putative evolution of late Devonian fish.


















Let's agree it is by no means easy to dispel flawed notions of science based on intuition or religious belief, not to mention those interjected via misplaced state laws. The educator needs to realize it's a ceaseless struggle.  Research shows that even general lessons in critical thinking do not measurably improve performance on science tests. (Mostly because too many such tests are still based on content).  But never mind, they are still useful for engendering a citizenry capable of applying skepticism  to pseudo-scientific claims - especially the type that bombard us each and every day.

Another Mockumentary: Holocaust Denial Blends With Creationist Codswallop

The news on salon.com that physicist Lawrence Krausse and former Star Trek actress Kate Mulgrew were integrated into an asinine  pseudo-science documentary, entitled ‘The Principle’ (what I call a mockumentary)  caught many people by surprise. Surprise that idiots are still peddling this geocentric bunkum – that the Sun revolves around the Earth and not vice versa, and also that a prominent Holocaust denier named Robert Sungenis was behind it.

 

Anyway , it has been reported to be narrated by “Star Trek” alum Kate Mulgrew. Now the actress, who played “Star Trek’s” Capt. Kathryn Janeway, has come out publicly on her Facebook  page to distance herself from the film. Ms. Mulgrew’s FB post stated:

 

“I understand there has been some controversy about my participation in a documentary called THE PRINCIPLE. Let me assure everyone that I completely agree with the eminent physicist Lawrence Krauss, who was himself misrepresented in the film, and who has written a succinct rebuttal in SLATE. I am not a geocentrist, nor am I in any way a proponent of geocentrism.

 

More importantly, I do not subscribe to anything Robert Sungenis has written regarding science and history and, had I known of his involvement, would most certainly have avoided this documentary. I was a voice for hire, and a misinformed one, at that. I apologize for any confusion that my voice on this trailer may have caused. Kate Mulgrew”

Her reference to Prof. Lawrence Krausse refers to the fact he also had somehow  been snagged into a pseudo-appearance on this travesty, along with several other scientists to appear in the trailer. Since being alerted of this perfidy Prof. Krauss wrote a response piece in Slate in which he lambasted geocentrism and stated that he did not know how the clips of him were obtained.  He wrote:

“Even after being inured to such things, I was surprised to learn of the premise of the film, until I learned that its producer also apparently questions the Holocaust. It is tempting to say that both claims are obscene nonsense, but I believe that does a disservice to the word nonsense.”

 

‘The Principle’ follows along  the typical moronic lines of approach displayed in piffle such as the work of Young Sun- Young Earth aficionado, Jason Lisle.  That is, ignore all the scientifically discounting  evidence in favor of ancient tracts – scribbled by semi-literate peasants and sheep herders.

Both the ‘Young Sun- Young Earth’ and geocentric perspectives are those of firm pseudo-scientific knuckle draggers in the creationist mold. Both are made up nonsense extracted from Genesis. However,  the geocentric bilge probably beats the former by a hair in terms of having the most bull pockey.  The reason is that anyone who’s been exposed to the most basic Newtonian mechanics (usually taken in high school physics – at least it used to be) would know that the primary and more massive object always  attracts the less massive with a greater force of attraction, according to Newton's law of gravitation.

 The force of attraction of a  large mass M for a less massive orbiting object, m , is equal to the centripetal force:

 
GMm/R² = m v²/R

Here m is the mass of the planet and R its distance, while M is the mass of the Sun.

 

Now the Earth’s mass is 6 x 10 ²⁴ kg and Sun’s mass M = 2 x 10 ³⁰ kg.

 The centripetal acceleration with which the Earth ‘falls’ toward the Sun’s center is then found by solving for a = v²/R  or:

a =   GM/R² =  

  (6.7 x 10 ^-11 Nm²/ kg ²) (2 x 10 ³⁰ kg )/  (1.5 x  10 ¹¹ m) ²  =

 

5.9 x  10 ^{- 3} ms^{- 2} 

Thus the unbalanced attractive force is on the side of the vastly more massive (by 330,000 times) Sun. Hence, like a massive (200 lb.) human swinging a much lighter child (50 lb.) around at the end of a rope, the Sun exerts the dominant central force. 

 Sungenis’ bunkum, then,  makes about as much sense as claiming that a fifty pound child can swing  a 200 pound adult around at the end of a rope and dictate the adult’s  circular motion. It is total irredeemable idiocy that only confirmed  idiots  and semi-educated fools could believe.

 It is unclear how much Ms. Mulgrew knew before she signed up, but it is possible she could have been told any old lies or story to get her onboard, including that it would be a “scientifically educational presentation like ‘Cosmos’” These sort of degenerates – like Holocaust deniers- will say anything to push their  crap onto the unsuspecting or enlist their support. As for Prof. Krauss and the other scientists, we know the copy and paste motif exists in video as well as in still images, so that Sungenis could have grabbed pieces of other presentations from anywhere (say PBS series) then spliced them into his grab bag of bollocks.

 

The cautionary tale in all of this is that we need people - especially celebrities and scientists-  to be wary and suspicious before they accept a role for any claimed "scientific" documentary. The knuckle draggers will stop at nothing to push their lies or recruit whoever they can to help push them.

Bill Nye Wipes the Floor with Ken Ham in Debate

"for a scientist to engage in a formal, on -stage debate with a creationist is to legitimize the creationist position" - Statement from National Center for Science Education

"Please! You don't want to raise a generation of science students who don't know our place in the cosmos, and who don't understand natural law.  We need to innovate to keep the United States where it is in the world". - Statement of Bill Nye in his debate yesterday

While I might normally agree with the NCSE position (and by extension that it doesn't make any sense- for the same reason -  to debate online creationist idiots who don't know basic biology or physics),  Nye's case is decidedly different. This is based on the news released this morning (CBS Early Show) that FOUR states already have laws against evolution and four more are considering them. The four moron, backward states are: Mississippi, Louisiana, Tennessee, Kentucky. No surprise there- the usual suspects, including TN, the venue for the Scopes trial which ought to have settled the issue once and for all in favor of evolution.

The four moron-states to be are: Oklahoma, South Dakota, Missouri, and Virginia (incredibly the home state of Thomas Jefferson, founder of the University of Virginia who ought to be turning over in his grave at the prospect).  The bill in Missouri, incredibly, would allow parents to pull their kids from classes that teach evolution. This is freakin' NUTS! Without evolution integrated into biology, it is impossible to study the subject other than as a memorizing gauntlet. The student will never be able to understand the principles or interconnections so will be forced to memorize everything. Not a good way to learn!

Thus, Nye's engagement with a creationist- having been viewed on social media (it ought to have been televised on national media) may at least partly stem the tide to more nutso laws from our more backward states.

The most incredible stat that shows our nation harbors too many morons: one third of Americans reject evolution (that's nearly 100 million) in favor of the nonsense that 'humans existed in their present form since the beginning'.

How did Ken Ham get blown out so badly? A few examples, as when he opined:

"No one is ever going to convince me that the word of God is not true".

But (a) he hasn't proven a God even exists! Further, (b), even if one might exist, he hasn't proven its nature. Is it the Deist God, believed in by Jefferson and Madison? Is it the Catholic God in the form of the Trinity? Is it the Fundie God that relishes in genocide (e.g. wiping out the Canaanites) and child murder (obliging a prophet calling on him to rip some kids apart using 'She bears' after they taunted him for his bald head.)

Apart from that, this interjection is a red herring in the context of the debate which is supposedly based on the SCIENCE of the claims for creationism. Interjecting "God" is not science, but an appeal to religion, also a logical fallacy known as "argument from authority".

Ham's red herring formula for debate was also evident in his statement:

"We do see the collapse of Christian morality because generations of kids are being taught that the Bible can't be trusted. "

But again, this has not one iota to do with the topic at hand. The Bible is not trusted for many reasons. Consider the question: How did Simon Peter find out that Jesus was the Christ?

According to Matthew 16:17, it was by a “revelation from heaven”. However, if reference is made to John 1:41, Simon’s brother told him. This isn’t the only example! Consider the Easter narrative of the resurrection, putatively the most important event in Christianity. According to one version of the story (Matthew 28:2) the stone was rolled away after the women arrived at the tomb, in their presence. However, Mark's Gospel says it happened before the women arrived. Which version is the true one, or is there even a single version which meets the criterion of material adequacy? 

Of course, there are just as many contradictions in the Old Testament, as well as illogical, unphysical claims, such as in Genesis,  with the Earth being formed before the Sun - which is an impossibility.  In effect, there are multifold reasons to distrust the Bible and that's the very basis of critical thinking. What Ham would have is all our kids turn into instant dummies, no critical thinking allowed!

 

This may be the main reason Nye (on one level) probably wasted his time, because those like Ham are ham-headed and impervious to the light of reason.

 Let's confine attention here to the segment of the debate where Nye and Ham argued whether Noah could have realistically built the Ark, as described in the Bible. Nye at one point observed:

"It's  very reasonable perhaps to you that Noah had super powers but to me it's just not reasonable."

Ham responded something along the lines of: "Why would you say Noah was unskilled? I didn't meet Noah and neither did you.'"

Again, a deflection from the core issue. Nye never said Noah was "unskilled" only that the construction of such a vehicle to transport all the pairs of critters then on Earth (including dinosaurs - according to the creationists) is bat shit crazy and violates the laws of physics!

Let's examine this in more detail. After translating the Biblical units of cubits, one arrives at the following dimensions of Noah's claimed Ark:  550 feet long, 91.7 feet wide and 55 feet high. To make units more compatible for calculations, we convert all these to meters, then we will calculate the total effective volume . We know that 1 meter = 3.3 ft. so:

550' = 166.7 m

91.7' = 27.8 m

55' = 16.7 m

Then the total effective volume is:

V = (166.7m) x (27.8m) x (16.7m) = 77, 392 cubic meters

We now introduce a basic principle of physics by which we are able to ascertain if a given ship or object is able to float, or not.  This is Archimedes' Principle, which stated in modern terms is:

"A fluid acts on a body immersed in it with a net force that is vertically upward and equal in magnitude to the fluid displaced by the body".

The diagram below will prove useful to understand what follows:

The net force vertically upward (F- W) as shown (and equal to the weight of fluid displaced), is computed using the difference between the upthrust (F) and the weight (W). The vessel in the medium will always float provided that the upthrust exceeds the weight. Or, in more detailed terms: A body will sink if its own average density (total mass divided by total volume) exceeds the density of the liquid. In the case of salt water, this density is 1,100 kilograms per cubic meter. Thus, if the total density of a vessel (which includes all its ballast, added weight- divided by its volume) is greater than the density of the fluid on which it rests, it must sink. There are NO ifs, ands, or buts....since basic physics can't be violated.

Thus, the maximum average density allowed would be (assuming salt water medium of the density above):

1,100 kg/ m³

which again, is the density of the liquid in which the vessel (Ark) is immersed.

Now, factoring in the mass of all animals collected. We ab initio do not know this, but reasonable estimates on the basis of a Fermi-type problem, can provide a ball park answer that also exposes the final truth. Thereby we establish a mean weight per species, then multiply that by the appropriate number of species. For the case of mammals, we'll need a mass between the maximum (for giant African elephants) and the minimum (common mice) with many in between (hyenas, jackals, leopards, snow leopards, Bengal tigers, Siberian tigers, Lions, Black bears, Brown (Grizzly) Bears, giant tree sloths, anteaters, Capybaras, Zebras, Horses, Donkeys, etc.). Surveying the distribution of mammal species a fair average per pair mass would be 20.0 kg. The total mass for mammals alone then comes to M = (20.0 kg)(250,000) = 5,000,000 kg . Now, one metric ton = 1,000 kg, so this yields a total of 5,000 metric tons (1 metric ton or tonne, equals 2,200 lbs.)

Allow that 1/10 that mass (again on average) is feces removed and we add an additional 500 tons which will accumulate per day. Say the craft is going for 100 days then that is 50 thousand tons of just excrement which- added to the actual total mammal mass - yields: 55,000 tons - assuming no pair of mammals dies. Let half this (excrement) amount (e.g. 25,000 tons)be equal to the amount of food needed for the duration and one gets a total effective mass associated with the mammals of : 55,000 tons + 25,000 tons = 80,000 tons

Repeating this for reptiles, and using an average per pair mass of 10.0 kg each, we get:
M'(av) = (10.0 kg)(200,000) = 2,000,000 kg

or 2,000 metric tons. Most reptiles consume at least their own body mass in food each day and evacuate the same, so for a 100 day estimated journey:

(Mass of reptiles + aggregate expelled waste + food) = 2,000 + 2,000 + 2,000 = 6,000 metric tons, and for 100 days this translates to: 2,000 + (4,000)(100) = 402,000 metric tons.  That is, 402,000,000 kg.

Thus, the average density obtained for our calculation is (and note we haven't even included the Ark's own mass, which as we shall see becomes irrelevant in the scheme of things):

D = M/V = (482,000,000 kg) / 77, 392 m³ = 6, 228 kg/ m³

which clearly exceeds the density of sea water (at 1,100 kg/m³) by a factor:

6, 228 kg/ m³/ 1,100 kg/m³ = 5.66

Thus, this vessel (Ark) must sink!

(And we aren't even including the mass of 14,000 humans purportedly on the Ark as well!)

Again, Ham's dodge in the debate concerning "Noah's skills" is irrelevant. It is a matter of flouting physics - not a matter of skill - and this is why Nye was spot on in his take that Noah would "require super powers."

Bill Nye's plaintive demand to Ham to "show me one piece of evidence and I will change my mind immediately" was misplaced. Ham has NO evidence, none! Zippo, nada. All he has is recycled auto-responses that bear no relation to science, only to his political ideology. It's like debating a wall, or a Pastor Mike. From this point of view the debate was a waste of effort. From the perspective of providing science a stage to challenge nincompoops,  their drivel and false ideology it was a dramatic success.

See also:
http://www.salon.com/2014/02/05/ken_hams_radical_quackery_why_his_debate_with_bill_nye_on_evolution_was_so_maddening/

-------
There's a neat experiment readers can do on their own to show these principles. You will need only salt, a plastic soap dish and some lead shot (buck shot can also suffice).

Fill the sink or a large bowl with water and put the soap dish on it. Notice the flotation. Now, gradually add pieces of lead shot to the soap dish and note how it gradually sinks lower and lower - and (at some point) sinks, then too much shot is added. When does this happen? When the average density, e.g. mass of soap dish + lead shot, divided by the volume of the soap dish, exceeds the density of the fresh water (1 g/cm^3 or 1000 kg/ m³).

The experiment can be repeated for salt water, and it will be found the initial float position of the soap dish is slightly higher, since salt water is more dense and confers a larger upthrust. You will also note that it takes a bit more shot to sink the dish - but like ALL vessels- at some point it must sink!

Archimedes' principle cannot be disobeyed!