They blinded me with scienz

The dudes that demonstrated that the earth is a couple thousand years old have apparently moved on.

Their latest project is an attempt to demonstrate that everyone is equal across various traits and thereby to prove creationism.  After all, could evolution possibly lead to precisely identical outcomes across groups that have clearly evolved different traits?  Of course not.  Therefore, creationism.  QED.

Here’s their first attempt, which relates to IQ.

They “find extremely small racial differences in mental functioning of children age 8 to 12 months.”

Although I’m skeptical of their findings, honesty compels me to admit that I’ve spent a lot of time with kids between 8-12 months old over the last couple years and I’ve also been unable to detect significant differences in intellectual ability.  The question is why they didn’t go back even further.  At 2 months, there’s probably even less difference.  At -2 months, less.  And so on.

Is there no end to what statistical analysis science can demonstrate in service to the Cathedral Church?

20 Responses to They blinded me with scienz

  1. Tarl says:

    Do I even want to ask how it would prove creationism if “everyone is equal across various traits”. There’s nothing in the Bible to suggest that is true – in fact, just the opposite.

    • Foseti says:

      Don’t be so defensive. What besides a god could have created such precisely equal outcomes?

      No slight to religion is intended (or, I think, possible) to read into this post.

      • thrasymachus33308 says:

        William Jennings Bryant was the original liberal creationist. Poor fellow is now remembered only for the “creationist” part, when he was one of the most prominent founders of American liberalism.

      • Samson J. says:

        William Jennings Bryant was the original liberal creationist. Poor fellow is now remembered only for the “creationist” part, when he was one of the most prominent founders of American liberalism.

        Really? In what way? That’s too bad. I had the idea that he was a true American hero.

  2. Picking on creationists is like picking on a retarded kid.

    At least the fundie nutjobs are more consistent than the liberals, who seem to think that evolution stops at the neck.

  3. anon me says:

    Look on the bright side, at least the futile and expensive interventions don’t need to start until 1 year old. Otherwise we’d have head start for head start beginning at birth. We may get it anyway.

  4. VXXC says:

    They are expanding de facto Head Start to 4 year olds…as child care to relieve parents of the burden of feeding, caring. Honestly when the child is no longer a govt check I think we’ll be overrun with foundlings.

    • Handle says:

      They have head-start at the elementary school near my house, and there is talk of the school being a “pilot” for this program (not just the one year of “pre-K” at 5, but the “pre-pre-K at 4. Once upon a time, most schools didn’t even have the K.)

      This school also has a “before and after care” from 7am to 6pm run by the country recreational service for working parents, so they can drop their children off at school before work, and pick them up after. The Head-Start program works on similar hours to be convenient for those parents with multiple children.

      I have a neighbor with two children, one in first grade who is in before in after care, and one not yet in Kindergarten. He tried to get his younger child into the school’s head start (which is free), and even offered to pay “whatever”, but the school refused, because “head start is a federal program, and it is only for poor families.”

      He was upset at first. Having to get an alternative provider for his younger child was inconvenient, time-consuming for everyone, and expensive. But then he thought about the implications at what “only poor families and no one else, even if they wanted” meant at a “good school”, and took a peek inside the class. It looked just like, and was just as unruly and chaotic, even at that tender age, as it would have in any “bad school.” He decided that he should have been thankful instead of bitter for his child’s exclusion, as an act of grace and a blessing in disguise.

  5. Handle says:

    Bleg to help me make a list of the discipline-warpings. I could say “cynical” but I prefer “opportunistic”.

    1. Opportunistic Law
    2. Opportunistic History
    3. Opportunistic Science

    I’m sure there are plenty more. The point is, in each of these cases, there is a “discipline” that is a social institution trusted (naively, naturally) to be fair, objective, accurate, impartial, and authoritative in terms of telling us something important that is an input to what are, in the end, political decisions.

    Progressives spend a lot of time bolstering the social respectability and infallible credibility of these institutions “trusted repeaters”, and ostracizing and slandering anyone who would suggest some healthy skepticism towards their results.

    Then then proceed to use them with selectivity to support what is convenient to their world view and crush what is inconvenient.

    The only strange thing is that, as true believers, they are often almost totally unaware of their cynicism. They enjoy belittling their adversaries by accusing them of doing the same thing.

    • Foseti says:

      Agreed. This case is especially interesting. No doubt, the authors think they’re doing something other than propagandizing for progressivism. And yet, it’s fairly obvious that as kids get younger differences in IQ become . . . more difficult to measure.

      Getting smart people to propagandize for you without knowing it is a rather impressive feat.

      • asdf says:

        I disagree. The purpose of smarts is basically to make you better a rationalizing things.

      • Handle says:

        @asdf: I don’t know. The older I get, and the more well-established I become in my career, the more I’m exposed to, and am called-upon to contend within, the political and social aspects of the profession, many of which effect matters on a very long time horizon. There are issues of influence, gaming, framing, coalitions, maintenance of relationships, caution about making enemies, etc.

        I’ve carefully observed those that are competitive in this arena, and I judge that there are several orthogonal dimensions to how effective and successful people are. There are charismatic naturals. There are students of the art. There are those are are neither of the above, but clever and adaptive enough to make their way. The best are good at all three. The similarities to Game or Sales are obvious. Some analogies to Chess or Sports are also possible.

        But at the top of this hierarchy of skill (which is independent of rank, though probably predictive of future rank), are exclusively those of high cognitive ability. People (mostly men, interestingly) of low to middling cognitive ability often complain that they find it annoyingly, and frustratingly, mentally taxing to try to manage all these relationships and act the courtier even with their peers. My own job is often intellectually demanding, but I get that “my brain is working very hard” (like playing a challenging game) feeling when I’m engaging in political activities.

        Anyway, from a natural-selection in a wild-state-of-nature point of view, I think that there was a quick ratchet for higher intelligence because of its advantage in exactly these kinds of political-social competitive pressures.

        If nothing else, if two individuals are in competition and trying to form coalition alliances, the one with a higher “Dunbar Number” has a particular advantage is being able to hold together a larger number of interrelationships in his mind.

      • asdf says:


        What is your point?

        Foseti claims that getting smart people to believe something false, progressivism, is an impressive feat.

        In my experience the smarter you are the more easily you can lie to yourself (rationalize) if it means increasing your own status/resources. This seems to play out in real life, where its the lower classes that are the most aware of progressivism being false and the highest classes that most buy into progressive doctrines that have been proven wrong (the smartest get jobs whose purpose is the constantly defend progressivism in the face of evidence). Thus, it is not impressive that progressivism can convert high IQ people to advocate false doctrines in exchange for personal benefits without creating untenable guilt.

        I’m not entirely sure what your disagreeing with here?

      • Foseti says:

        But of course it’s impressive. That’s why progressivism is so effective. Alas, if the feat were as simple as you suggest, progressivism would be much more vulnerable.

  6. alcestiseshtemoa says:

    I disagree with this post. Creationists aren’t egalitarians, much less individualists. And even the crazy ones are consistent. They don’t pretend to be all so scientific, unlike the ones (the evolutionists) who don’t believe in HBD.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: