PSA: You Are Not a Cat

 

There is a phenomenon that has been well-documented on the internet, the place where people document things happening to cats: when you place a cucumber behind an unsuspecting cat, it will lose its ever-loving little furry shit. Multiple gifs and YouTube videos of this phenomenon exist. Cat + cucumber= YIPES!

For most people (not Mike Johnson or Ken Hamm or assorted creationists) this can be explained by evolution. Cats only have so much bandwidth in their little brains and some snakes are DANGEROUS. They aren't hardwired to leisurely inspect long green things to figure out whether they are snakes or inoffensive vegetables. They are hardwired to get away from the weird thing sort of shaped like a snake that seems to have just slithered up to them. 

That's cats. They don't do a whole lot of thinking. If you've ever pulled one out of blinds, or a Christmas tree, or unhooked their claws from your pants leg, you are aware that despite their occasional grace and agility, they can be weird little clowny guys. They literally bite the hand that feeds them. They try to fit their whole behinds in a Kleenex box. They evolved to be a better mousetrap, not to build one. 

There is a phenomenon that has been documented on the internet, and all of recorded history, of human beings making a categorical error of confusing identities with morality. Individual humans make decisions and take actions that may be morally sound or not. Whole groups of people do not become suspect because of the individual behaviors of other people based on their identities: not their ethnicity, their nationality, their religion, their gender-identification, their sexuality, their political affiliation (for the most part) or what hand they use to eat with. (Is that last thing still a thing?) 

Everything is Teaching the Controversy, Now

 

I was recently reminded, now that we're in the age of "alternative facts" regarding Covid-19 and the 2020 election and climate change and who knows what else, of some of the strategies of disinfo I first encountered when intrigued by the creationism movement.  It still strikes me as interesting that creationism still exists even after we've got oodles of examples of transitional types (as are we all) from the fossil record, and that nothing will ever persuade people who have made it their mission to not be persuaded. 

A book is a mirror: if an ape looks into it an apostle is hardly likely to look out. 

    Georg C. Lichtenberg

One of  the things to understand about humans is we are political animals--we do tribalism. We have a need for belonging, we are not islands to ourselves but members of societies. We tend to consider our "goodness" according to the ideas of our immediate culture.  We identify and signify. And when we see our opposite number, we attack.  People who have found a disinfo tribe will defend their territory. They are defending their very identity. They see defending a thing that might even not be true as being existential for them,

 For many people, it might be necessary to profess untruths to continue in their identity. I don't think that it's a coincidence that the main group of folks who support Trump, creationism, are climate change denialists, and now antivaxxers, are evangelicals. They are basically who the old news media covenant of "both sides" was made for--the habit of mainstream journalism to also include minority views no matter how batshit or miniscule. So as to satisfy a vocal and activist minority.

They are "teaching the controversy" and so long as some kind of controversy exists, even if it is just some ignoramus sticking their tongue out and saying "Nyah!"--that's enough controversy for some to hang a movement or at least, a meaningful sense of tribal belonging on to. You could say that the existence of UFO-enthusiasts is proof aliens are among us, if you don't actually require proof of the aforementioned aliens and only need proof that people are asking questions and looking into it. And that also stands for any other "controversy". 

So, Andrew Wakefield was debunked, but persists. because having existed, one could also say there is a controversy. Just like any tobacco farmer could claim they don't think there's a really for real link between smoking and cancer, and any oil company can deny climate change. Transport ballots hither and yon under the auspices of being contracted by a GOP State Senate and count them and count them and fiddle with machines a bit and stow some ballots in a cabin somewhere and invalidate future use of those election machines and also be really dodgy, and you've got some kind of...election controversy, I guess (Although a goddamn stupid one, because who believes anything this stupid? --Oh yeah! Tribalism!) 

I'd love to believe that as a species we could be better than this especially since recent weather events show the climate crisis foretold by science is really upon our asses, but I also get that for many, tribalism is a form of survival. They depend upon signifiers to tell other people of the tribe they are fit to endure. They need to tell the kind of lies that make their lives worth living. Their belonging is their infrastructure, even if their roads and bridges and potable water and electric grid and other stuff that government should manage, goes to pot. As long as they represent their team, they suppose they have a means to a necessary social end. 

So I view with rank skepticism the idea that vaccine deniers just need someone to talk pretty to them, for example, or that rational arguments will debunk election denialists. I sometimes find myself thinking they just need shunning and gross disapprobation, to understand that neighboring tribes won't harbor their asses. That there is some activity beyond the social pale. This seems far more commensurate with primate psychology. 

Let Us Prey

Right-wing pastor Rodney Howard-Browne is not about to cancel church or prevent congregants from shaking hands because they are not a bunch of "pansies." pic.twitter.com/C36kBIEWqF

— Right Wing Watch (@RightWingWatch) March 15, 2020

I'm not sure if this bravado is more like snake handling, poison-gargling, or just a bit of fire-walking, but I'm also thinking that the pastor doesn't entirely know what it's more like, himself, he just knows it feels good, so he's doing it.

There's comfort, after all, in believing one's community and faith is bigger than something like germ theory, or the advice that "liberal media" gives:

“One pastor said half of his church is ready to lick the floor, to prove there’s no actual virus,” an Arkansas pastor told me. “In your more politically conservative regions, closing is not interpreted as caring for you. It’s interpreted as liberalism.”

Liberalism, science, being a "pansy"--it's all the same thing.

Climate Sunday: Ted Cruz, Climate Blasphemer Edition

Via Right Wing Watch, here's a clip of Ted Cruz (I'm sorry I'm on his case as of late) explaining that climate change alarmists are actually in a religion because they "never" argue from facts, and that being called a denialist proves it, because he thinks he's really a "skeptic". Bless his heart.

He's precious. I think it's kind of weird to hear a flat-out statement that people persuaded by climate change theory don't have facts, because it seems to me like I'm stuffing all sorts of observable data into my Climate Sunday posts. I think it's also adorable that he defines the business of a skeptic as being the business of science, which in effect is correct--but he isn't a skeptic, because he himself isn't engaging with the business of disproving squat, he's just ignoring whatever evidence does exist while providing disproved anecdata about an 18 year gap which is cherry-picked nonsense. That there isn't scientific--that's just political Lysenkoism.

In keeping with his idea that being a climate change evangelist makes me a religious adherent, then, I dub Cruz a climate blasphemer. The spit should dry up in his mouth like the Texas drought, and then the sweat should pour from his face like the Texas floods. This is my malocchio against him.

Fascinating Sea Stuff!

I hide it pretty well, but I am a big old animal lover and sometime-science freak. I find the ocean especially fascinating because there is so much to be explored, and because of the extremes of temperature and pressure at which we find sea life. (I also find there to be a kind of race-against-time aspect in oceanic zoology in that we are in the midst of a great anthropogenic extinction--but the realization that creatures can and have adapted to conditions we would consider bizarre is somewhat heartening.)

So bear with my geeking out over a handful of stories I came across this week--like, what on earth is up with the octopus genome? Some scientists have declared that the octopus is like an alien, having great genetic complexity (something like 10K more genes than your humble homo sapiens has), a fairly clever brain and remarkable camouflage skills. I remember Paul the octopus, who predicted soccer games, which is not even something you'd think an octopus would be especially informed about. Frankly, it makes me feel a little guilty about how much I like eating the buggers. (I'm also a fan of calamari fritti, although I don't think a plate of architeuthis would go down well, even with breading and marinara!)

Sort of speaking of my Italian accented eating habits--a flying (swimming?) spaghetti monster has been spotted. A bundle of rhyzophysid siphoniphores (say that five times real fast, I dare you!) might look like an organized pot of vermicelli, but I don't think I'm eating them--once again, not even with marinara and bread crumbs. These guys were found at 4K feet under the ocean. They don't seem like a likely pasta-substitute for paleo peeps anyway. I'm reasonably sure cavemen never, uh, fathomed they existed.

Here's another sea-science tidbit--it seems like some marine animals might be adapting to ocean acidification by taking more time to nurture their young. This is kind of fascinating, because we actually have a changing environment and it gives us ample opportunity to view how species do adapt, or don't and might die. But there is an interesting turn here--as mammals ourselves, we take nurturing of young for granted, but it is the basis for transmission of a kind of culture. Imagine how it might work out for clever animals like octopi to transmit acquired knowledge from generation to generation. One thing we have seen over time is that some animals respond evolutionarily by breeding larger, with an understood increase in brain weight and complexity.

I'm not exactly saying "Hail our new giant octopus overlords!", but I'm not exactly not saying it. If this goes as I'm modeling, I just want to say I am all the sorry emotionally possible about enjoying my niece-in-law's tuna and octopus salad so much that I ate three plates of it. If I do get to Italy this year, I probably will still eat all the damn fish (there may be a hiccup in my intended travel plans--which I trust means at least I don't have an undue hiatus in my bloggery), but I guess I'll do it mindfully? Our life aquatic could also be sentient-adjacent. Which is wild and troubling to contemplate.

Giving it up for Judge Jones--He's a Hero

Another really interesting thing happened here in PA today--there was a ruling that threw out our ban against gay marriage.  And the justice presiding is the same guy who ruled against intelligent design in Kitzmiller v Dover.  It's Judge John E. Jones III. I like him, you guys.

See, I tend to really be an empiricist. Facts speak for themselves to me. I like the idea of impartiality, I like people who just read what's there. Just like the Kitzmiller case involved obvious science vs some religious proselytizing dressing up in a labcoat, the case against marriage equality in PA basically had to do with the evidence that gay couples are not treated equally to straight couples under the law vs the trumped up idea that there were meaningful reasons why they should not be treated equally. Once again, there was an ipse dixit tilt o' the cap to SCOTUS Justice Scalia.

Just like the Utah or Oregon or Idaho cases, I don't know if this one will get bumped up onto the SCOTUS docket for us to see whether we can get something a little better than "why not?" But for the time being, I am happy for all my LGBT friends in PA who have this opportunity to have their union recognized just like mine is. Best of luck to you.

Skeptical About Evolution, You Say?

It's kind of hard not to write about the Pew Research Center survey that noted that "belief in" evolution has dramatically dropped among GOP-identified people without some degree of snark. I think there are a couple of factors at work there, and I don't really find them that snark-worthy.

I do think that responders are revealing their biases a bit. Evolution as a concept as opposed to just a scientific theory has been used as a politically-loaded issue specifically in how it relates to ideas about education vs. maintaining religious beliefs, so "belief in" evolution is part of a culture war package that I think has been bought into somewhat as a bulwark against secularism and liberalism in general. My experience regarding evolution as science is that a lot of people get a very basic education that they just don't think about. It isn't an intellectual question for them at all. When you get into the "Well, then, how do you think it happened?"question, the whole conversation turns useless. It's not that there's some great revelation that turned evolution on its head and it could be true. They just don't like, you know, the idea.  Something, something, but God did...

Why the shift in numbers? I couldn't get anything that solidifies this, but it seems I recall from 2009 on, both major parties started leaking membership as more people identified as "Independent". It strikes me that just as the GOP became more white and Christian, it's really a question of retention--the people who were more skeptical of evolution would be the people more likely to have remained affiliated with the party. But I also wonder about the rise of Christian Dominionism and the homeschooling movement--that possibly has an impact as well.

Oh For the Love of Science...

What the--? I can't even with these people anymore.

Via Mother Jones:

Late last month, Rick Brattin, a Republican state representative in Missouri, introduced a bill that would require that intelligent design and "destiny" get the same educational treatment and textbook space in Missouri schools as the theory of evolution. Brattin insists that his bill has nothing to do with religion—it's all in the name of science. 

"I'm a science enthusiast...I'm a huge science buff," Brattin tells The Riverfront Times. "This [bill] is about testable data in today's world." But Eric Meikle, education project director at theNational Center for Science Education, disagrees. "This bill is very idiosyncratic and strange," he tells Mother Jones. "And there is simply not scientific evidence for intelligence design."

A "huge science buff".  What is it they say--"You always hurt the ones you love"?

But no, that actually gets worse--

Rick Warren--Witchfinder

This Tweet blames acts of mass murder on evolution. Because.... Because he can? This isn't a critique of evolution, so much as a demonizing of it.  He's saying: Students learn this witchcraft science of evolution and proceed to do horrible things (so avoid it). It seems very likely that James Holmes was mentally ill and didn't become so because of his acquaintance with the theory of natural selection.  It seems Warren is taking an opportunistic stab at evolution because Holmes was studying science (Warren finds a witch!)

For what it's worth, evolutionary biologists aren't regularly shooting up schools and malls and movie theaters.

Animals also didn't invent guns and don't commit acts of mass murder against their own kind. Only human beings do that, and they have been doing it for a long time. You can find acts of mass violence of man against man, such as war, throughout history.  You can even read about it in the Bible.

I'm putting this under the label of "disasters" because it's the same kind of religious doomsaying where the horrible example of the moment is said to have occurred as a result of disobedience to God--it's nice to know we'll still have this tradition around when the old ghouls like Pat Robertson shuffle off their mortal coil (not).

Because God, is why! Or Santorum's Prebuttal.

While reading Paul Krugman's Op-Ed piece, Republicans Against Science, I couldn't help but think of some comments made a few days ago by former Senator Rick Santorum:

We are going through this debate right now by somebody who’s in the Republican field talking about people who believe in certain scientific theories, whether it’s global warming or evolution. And somehow or another if you believe that we are creatures of a loving God, that that is somehow anti-science,” Santorum said. “It’s not anti-science. It’s an affirmation of what we view in the world. Which is, we see God." (Emphasis mine.)

Most creationists seem to make a point of using the word "theory" in a way quite different from what is meant when one says "scientific theory". "Theory", the way they use it, is just an idea that one might believe in, the way one might believe the CIA killed JFK, or that the moon landing was faked.  Scientific is much more authoritative--such as the germ theory of disease, or the theory of gravity.  A theory in science is not an affirmation of belief, but the most coherent explanation of observable facts not yet disproved. Understanding and accepting a theory isn't an exercise in belief, but Santorum's  comments show a reaction to the claim of being "anti-science" as if the charge was an attack on his and other Republican's beliefs for not accepting (or understanding) the scientific theories.

Bill Maher throws another one out of the plane:

Okay, my natural reaction is "cringe". Not just because someone might get into the Senate who has a really bizarre idea about evolution being a "myth." Actually, a part of my "cringe" reaction has to do with people who even sort of do buy into evolution not really understanding what it's about. I'm reposting my reaction to seeing this vid at DU because I'm fundamentally lazy and I think I got in most of my problems with the whole thing:

The endpoint of evolution for primates is not "human". Humans are, just like any other life form in existence right now, one pretty successful DNA spin-off. But even if we were to identify evidence of "microevolution" amongst our fellow primates, there's no saying that it would be toward a more human-like phenotype, if that wasn't beneficial to that species in their given habitat. Whale evolves from an earlier species that was more adapted to land. The motto of evolution isn't "goal-directed". It's more like "Shit happens."

The best retort I can think of to the "Well, if people evolved from apes, why are there still apes?" would be something along the lines of: "If you are your grandmother's grandkid--why would you have cousins?" It's about the same, not that we exactly evolved from apes, per se, or that they are as near to us as "cousins". Although modern DNA testing can give a good idea of just how related we actually are.


"It takes a long time"--the retort to what she said in the above clip, is generally true for evolution. It normally takes a long time before we can observe that a given population is significantly changed from some other, apparently static iteration of that gene pool. But we can observe microevolution for some species occurring over mere decades. However, the predictive model of evolution of modern apes doesn't necessarily have to be humaniform, at all. First of all, it presupposes that the environment is uniquely favorable, currently, to species similar to humans, and it also implies that as an adaptation, humans are "all that". Neither of which may be true, regardless of the relative success and ubiquity of humans on this planet.

(Just a small grouse of mine; I'm fairly pro-science and like to see it factually represented. As to the larger question of accepting evolution as the correct, scientifically-verified model describing the diversity of life on this planet being a pre-requisite for office--yes. Unlike religious litmus tests, which have to do with opinions about stuff you can't easily quantify or test, actual data exists for the theory of evolution. It is tested. And calling it a "myth" or alleging that as much evidence exists for creation is, frankly, nonsense.)

So, Brad Byrne is a total Bible-believing whatever.

From TPM, a little disappointment for me:

In Alabama, a state PAC recently went on the air with an ad attacking one of the Republican gubernatorial candidates for supporting the teaching of evolution in schools and for saying that parts of the Bible aren't true.

The candidate, Bradley Byrne, responded with a lengthy press release vehemently defending his belief in creationism and the infallible truth of the Bible.

"As a Christian and as a public servant, I have never wavered in my belief that this world and everything in it is a masterpiece created by the hands of God," Byrne wrote. "As a member of the Alabama Board of Education, the record clearly shows that I fought to ensure the teaching of creationism in our school text books. Those who attack me have distorted, twisted and misrepresented my comments and are spewing utter lies to the people of this state."


He went on: "I believe the Bible is the Word of God and that every single word of it is true ... My faith is at the center of my life and my belief in Jesus Christ as my personal savior and Lord guides my every action."

Every single word--even the contradictory ones. Even the ones that are totally not based in science or even history.

So--is it because you have to be a science-denialist to be a Republican in Alabama? This sucks. I so very wanted to see someone push back against full-on religious stupidity, but apparently it has to be embraced in some markets.

US too squeamish for a Victorian-Age historical film?

The movie is called Creation. Does it sound scary, yet? So it's about Charles Darwin. Big deal. It's a movie. People will be wearing period costumes and I am given to believe there may even be acting and scenes with angst and questions of faith and um....

Sigh. I've heard the reviews are quite good. But this is what the article says:

The film has sparked fierce debate on US Christian websites, with a typical comment dismissing evolution as "a silly theory with a serious lack of evidence to support it despite over a century of trying".

Jeremy Thomas, the Oscar-winning producer of Creation, said he was astonished that such attitudes exist 150 years after On The Origin of Species was published.

"That's what we're up against. In 2009. It's amazing," he said.

"The film has no distributor in America. It has got a deal everywhere else in the world but in the US, and it's because of what the film is about. People have been saying this is the best film they've seen all year, yet nobody in the US has picked it up...."

Somehow, this country has weathered Inherit the Wind, The Last Temptation of Christ, and two, count'em, two cinematic works based on the novels of that blasphemous popular author, Dan Brown. I really don't see why what looks like a well-made and balanced treatment of a scientist whose theory, explained over a hundred years ago, is taught in schools today and whose work is considered to be mainstream science, should cause anyone any agita.

Unless, of course, there are some religious leaders who are afraid of their flock being taught the controversy? (But that must be laughable, surely! Isn't their faith stronger stuff than that?) And naturally, they aren't worried that a fictionalized account would rehabilitate and humanize for creationists, the image of someone they've done their damnedest to portray as a godless, pseudo scientific cult leader? Pish, and tosh, even, for that matter--

It wouldn't be a problem at all for them, unless it was plausible, sympathetic, and true.

Oh yeah. That problem.

I think this problem, in practice, in this country, was best summed up by something I read today on HuffPo, by Frank Schaeffer (whose posts I pretty much read religiously--small pun, and whose Crazy For God I'm just now reading since it came out in paperback--very interesting read and I may get to a review of it). He wrote, appropos of the 9/12 marchers:

The fact of the matter is we now know what the experiment in raising children outside of the American mainstream means. It means that there's a whole subculture within American culture that mistrusts facts precisely because they are facts. They glory an alternative view of not just politics but of reality.

They frequent the creationist museum and look at dioramas of dinosaurs cavorting with humans. They believe that gay people choose to be gay just stick it to the rest of us and could change if they invite Jesus into their hearts. They believe that before you run for governor of Alaska, for instance, you should get a preacher specializing in "casting out the spirit of witchcraft" to anoint you so you can win against the demonic forces of secularism -- as was the case with Sarah Palin when she first ran for governor. They believe that the NRA was telling the truth when they claimed that Obama would "take away your guns" and so have loaded up with more guns and ammunition. They think the time has come to rise up and overthrow the government. And yes, most of them also believe that black people are inferior to whites, so to have a black man in the White House is itself "proof" of American's fall from grace.

We have a vocal minority of people in this country who are like this--maybe some of the creationists aren't racist and some of the racists aren't creationist, and maybe we could flesh out a Venn diagram to show where global warming denialism and New World Order-ism fall in. But there is an anti-intellectualism, and even an anti-factualism, which can be daunting. Addressing topics that set this group off can be a headache. Truly.

And yet, just because something can be headache doesn't mean it shouldn't be done, and yes, they are a minority--well, yeah, I know there have been polls that say something like half of the US is some kind of creationist, but no matter--

Controversy can sell tickets, and if a movie is good, word of mouth does a lot.

I'm totally getting it on Netflix, anyway.