Tag: science

The Dark Empath

Well, there goes my psychological self-defense. Curse you, pseudoscience! Although this recent taxonomical definition does underline my point that I am not a sociopath.

Recent research has found that individuals who boast dark personality traits, such as narcissism, can still retain high levels of cognitive and affective empathy. The study, recently published in Personality and Individual Differences, identifies these types of people as “dark empaths.”

Empathy can be broken up into three categories: cognitive, which describes the intellectual understanding of someone else’s feelings without sensing them; affective, or feeling someone else’s emotions as your own; or compassionate, a combination of cognitive and emotional empathy.

Individuals are considered dark empaths when they possess cognitive and/or affective empathy as well as characteristics from the “dark triad” — a collective term for three dark personality traits: Machiavellianism, psychopathy and narcissism.

Traditionally, researchers have found that those with darker characteristics are often associated with a lack of empathy.

And while this new data, which the researchers gathered from a group of 1,000 individuals, certainly reinforces that assertion, it also indicates a strong presence for the dark empath group.

“As expected, we found a traditional dark triad group with low scores in empathy (about 13 percent of the sample). We also found a group with lower to average levels across all traits (about 34 percent were ‘typicals’) and a group with low dark traits and high levels of empathy (about 33 percent were empaths),” the study’s authors said.

“However, a fourth group of people, the ‘dark empaths,’ was clearly evident. They had higher scores on both dark traits and empathy (about 20 percent of our sample). Interestingly, this latter group scored higher on both cognitive and affective empathy than the ‘dark triad’ and ‘typical’ groups,” they added.

The team said they were not entirely surprised that the dark empaths scored as high as they did in the cognitive and affective empathy sections.

“This makes sense in a way, as to manipulate others for your own gain — or indeed enjoy the pain of others — you must have at least some capacity to understand them,” they explained.

The researchers also found that the dark empaths were more indirectly aggressive than typicals and empaths.

As it has been said, one is advised to most fear the torturer who sheds tears for the pain of his victims.

DISCUSS ON SG

High Verbal, Low Math

Steven Hsu explains why so many evolutionary biologists, and other would-be scientists, simply don’t understand the topics or implications of the topics they are attempting to discuss:

I sent the message below to a social scientist I know who (like many, perhaps understandably) is confused about Stephen J. Gould’s status as an evolutionary theorist. Many Gould readers are surprised to learn that his main expertise was the paleontology of snails and that he struggled with higher mathematics. When I first encountered Gould’s essays as a kid, I concluded that there was just no there there. He was all literary flourish and little depth.

Which brings me to an observation I’ve been meaning to write about. It is that high verbal ability (which Gould certainly had) is useful for appearing to be smart, or for winning arguments and impressing other people, but it’s really high math ability that is useful for discovering things about the world — that is, discovering truth or reasoning rigorously. The importance of math ability manifests in two distinct ways:

(1) Powerful (deep) models of Nature (e.g., electrodynamics or evolutionary theory) are themselves mathematical. Most of the incredible progress in our understanding of the universe is just not available to people who do not understand math. For example, we can talk until we are blue in the face about the Uncertainty Principle, but there is no precise understanding without actual equations.

(2) The statistical techniques used to analyze data obtained in a messy, complex world require mathematical ability to practice correctly. In almost all realistic circumstances hypothesis testing is intrinsically mathematical. It is quite easy to fool yourself statistically if you don’t have strong math ability, but rather are simply following cookbook recipes.

High verbal ability is useful for more than just impressing others — it typically implies a certain facility with concepts and relationships between ideas — but high V alone is a dangerous thing. The most confused people I meet in the academy tend to be high V, low (modest) M types.

We see this repeatedly in people like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Jordan Peterson, JF Gariepy, Ben Shapiro, Dennis Prager, Sargon of Akkad, and Curtis Doolittle, as well as most e-celebrities. They talk and talk and talk in circles in a manner that is superficially convincing to the average intelligence, but an analytical critique of their positions reliably reveals fundamental flaws that render them incorrect, if not nonsensical.

This is because most people don’t have what I think of as “a sense of math”. It doesn’t necessarily mean any higher math training, or even much knowledge of mathematics per se, so much as an instinctive grasp of statistics and mathematical relationships. You don’t actually need much math to understand the basics of statistics and percentages, but you do need a sense of math to immediately know that Ashkenazi Jews in the United States cannot possibly have an average IQ of 115 given the fact that their relatives in Israel do not have IQs nearly two standard deviations below them.

You don’t need to know much about math or DNA to immediately know that the number of genes that are fixed in any given species cannot have been fixed in the time allotted for them to have done so given the fact that we cannot observe species literally morphing before our eyes in real time. You don’t need anything beyond a basic sense of math to immediately understand that religion is not, and has never been, a significant cause of war, much less the primary one.

And you certainly don’t need much math, although a little knowledge of military history is useful, to immediately recognize that claims of 1,000 dead Russians per day in an invasion that has conquered territory at a historically rapid pace are absurd.

The High V Low M scientists tend to be popularizers rather than original thinkers, which is why Steven Gould was always going to be a fraud once he decided to try to make a name for himself as “a very original and great evolutionary theorist.”

DISCUSS ON SG

Speed Up Those Mutations

Biologists can’t do the math, but apparently they are beginning to understand that the mathematical critique of their evolutionary mutational model is posing a genuine threat to the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis and the theory of evolution by natural selection.

New study suggests for the first time that genetic mutations are NOT always random and may evolve to respond to environmental pressures. Researchers tracked the appearance of a malaria fighting mutation in genomes. They tracked these mutations throughout populations in Africa and in Europe. The team found the genetic mutation was much more prevalent within Africa. It also evolved much faster than would be expected in individuals and groups.

Darwin’s theory that genetic mutations are always random is wrong, suggests a new study which found evidence that mutations can be a response to environmental pressures.

For more than a century, scientists have held to Charles Darwin’s theory that all genetic mutations are random and accidental, with the most beneficial traits being passed on through the generations of breeding.

Researchers from the University of Haifa in Israel say that isn’t the case, finding that the generation of the human hemoglobin S (HbS) mutation is not random… The findings challenge a core assumption at the heart of Darwin’s theory of evolution, showing that a long-term directional mutation response to environmental pressures is possible, and that mutations are not just random phenomena. 

Translation: the Prometheans who direct what presently passes for “science” are now prepared to throw out Darwin and natural selection in order to preserve whatever will permit them to deny the logic of a Creator God who designed humanity.

He hasn’t claimed their discovery discredits the theory of evolution, and both studies suggest randomness still plays a big role in mutations, however, it isn’t the only mechanism at play in evolution.

This is late-stage epicycle construction, as they’re trying to add additional mechanisms that will permit a faster rate of mutation, and therefore a faster rate of gene fixation, in order to account for the obvious, and undeniable, impossibility of random mutations being naturally selected prior to being fixated in the population. But these attempts to retroactively salvage the Neo-Darwinian model of evolution is an obvious confession of what I’ve been pointing out for years now, which is that the model simply does not work.

DISCUSS ON SG

Killshot is Cancer Shot

Further to last night’s Darkstream, more and more evidence is coming in that indicates the mRNA vaccines are triggering existing cancers in the bodies of the vaccinated.

Item 1: Anecdotal evidence and the DMED database show “cancer coming back with a vengeance”.

The DMED database shows the rate of cancer is up by 3X after the COVID vaccines rolled out. See ACT OF WAR: Thanks to COVID “vaccines,” the military’s cancer rate has more than TRIPLED

In talking with Ryan Cole about this, he believes this is primarily due to accelerating existing cancers (ones people already know they have or recent cancers that people never realized were there) rather than creating new cases of cancer.

The bottom line is that don’t be surprised when after the jab, you suddenly have a relapse or a new cancer.

Item 2: No one who was infected with Covid should have ever gotten vaccinated against it. Natural immunity remains as strong as it was at the start even 20 months later, while the vaxxes only offered limited protection for 3-6 months.

The screamfest has been that “oh, if you had Covid, you’ll get it again so you need the jab.”

There was never any evidence for this claim. Now, we have duration data out 20 months, basically the entire pandemic, and… I’ll just quote it:

Among 295 reported COVID-confirmed participants, 293 (99%) tested positive for anti-RBD antibodies (≥250 U/mL, 44%; ≥500 U/mL, 27%; ≥1000 U/mL, 15%). A median of 8.7 (IQR, 1.9-12.9; range, 0-20) months passed since reported COVID-19 diagnosis. The median anti-RBD level among those who tested positive was 205 (IQR, 61-535) U/mL. There was no evidence of association between time after infection and antibody titer (0.8% increase [95% CI, –2.4% to 4.2%] per month, P = .62)

There was no evidence of deterioration of protection, such as it is. Yet we know, factually, that when you get jabbed the titers disintegrate over the space of just a few months. There was never evidence this would happen in people who got the virus and recovered.

Item 3: The mRNA and the spike proteins migrate to and persist in the lymph nodes. This may explain the connection between the vaxxes and cancer.

This study asserts that the mRNA and the spike protein produced persists for weeks in lymph node germinal centers in human patients. Having worked with mRNA for decades, I can attest that this is highly unusual.

Remember that mRNA is not new technology. Moderna has been trying to commercialize it for about a decade now for various indications, including cancer. Cancer, of course, is a disease where very high risks are tolerated because the alternative is basically always death, and any sort of bad thing is better than death.

But they’ve never made it work. The reason is that every time they had enough dose to get the results they also got toxicity; the injected stuff got broken down too fast otherwise, and if you raised the dose the toxicity went up enough that you couldn’t get an effect without screwing the patient.

This is the history of mRNA — until now. It’s why it has never been deployed in human disease before; it’s not for lack of trying.

Malone hypothesizes that what changed was the substitution of pseudouridine (a synthetic that does not exist in nature) for uridine is the reason the mRNA jabs are able to produce the spike without being destroyed first. Well, that solves one problem but produces another; the body is incapable of clearing it because it doesn’t recognize it as foreign.

So now what is injected migrates through the body and is taken up instead of staying at the injection site, doing its thing and being rapidly degraded and cleared. That the latter happens is known because we have the Japanese data, which they demanded Pfizer produce, that show wildly-elevated presence in the ovaries, among other tissues. This should not have happened, but it does.

We knew this early last year and yet did nothing with that information. Now we know why, and its much, much worse than my base working hypothesis — that it was simply a function of the very high vascularization found in muscle tissue. Nope.

It was only a matter of time before the long-term adverse effects of the vaxxes began to show themselves. The fact that the Fake Biden Administration has declared a new war on cancer is a pretty solid indication of what those long-term adverse effects are anticipated to be.

DISCUSS ON SG

The Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing

Covid has revealed the fake leaders in the evangelical Christian community:

The list of Christian leaders who passed the NIH director their mics to preach messages about getting jabs, wearing masks, and accepting the official line on Covid is as long as it is esteemed.
One of the most noteworthy was the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC), an organization funded by churches in the Southern Baptist Convention, the largest Protestant denomination in the U.S.
While a webinar featuring Collins and then-ERLC-head Russell Moore largely centered, again, on the importance of pastors convincing church members to get vaccinated, the discussion also moved on to the topic of masks. With Moore nodding along, Collins held up a basic, over-the-counter cloth square, “This is not a political statement,” he asserted. “This is not an invasion of your personal freedom…This is a life-saving medical device.”
And the list of pastors who were willing to take a bureaucrat’s word that matters that could have been left to Christian liberty were instead tests of one’s love for Jesus goes on.
Former megachurch pastor Tim Keller’s joint interview with Collins included a digression where the pair agreed that churches like John MacArthur’s, which continued to meet in-person despite Covid lockdowns, represented the “bad and ugly” of good, bad, and ugly Christian responses to the virus.
During Saddleback Pastor Rick Warren’s special broadcast with Collins on behalf of Health and Human Services, he mentioned that he and Collins first met when both were speakers for the billionaires and heads of state who gather annually in Davos, Switzerland for the World Economic Forum. They reconnected recently, Warren revealed, at an “off-the-record” meeting between Collins and “key faith leaders.” Warren did not say, but one can make an educated guess as to who convened that meeting and for what purpose, given the striking similarity of Collins’ appearances alongside all these leading Christian lights.
Once again, Warren and Collins spent their interview jointly lamenting the unlovingness of Christians who question the efficacy of masks, specifically framing it as a matter of obedience to Jesus. “Wearing a mask is the great commandment: love your neighbor as yourself,” the best-selling author of “The Purpose-Driven Life” declared, before going on to specifically argue that religious leaders have an obligation to convince religious people to accept the government’s narratives about Covid.
“Let me just say a word to the priests and pastors and rabbis and other faith leaders,” he said. “This is our job, to deal with these conspiracy issues and things like that…One of the responsibilities of faith leaders is to tell people to…trust the science. They’re not going to put out a vaccine that’s going to hurt people.”

These are very, very bad men. They are liars and they are lying about Jesus Christ as they serve the prince of the world and his worldly servants. None of them, regardless of their denomination, should ever be trusted again.

As far as I can tell, all of the organized churches, both Protestant and Catholic, have been converged. Which is why it is important to recall the Word of God.

“For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.”

DISCUSS ON SG

Darwin was an Anti-Christian Psyop

Not only is the Darwinian – and the Neo-Darwinian – theory of evolution by natural selection completely impossible due to the number of genetic transformations required in limited amounts of time, but it is becoming increasingly obvious that Charles Darwin was nothing more than a fraud, a plagiarist, and the front man for a previously published theory that was popularized in order to cast doubt on Christianity and the Christian worldview:

Dr Mike Sutton, whose book Science Fraud: Darwin’s Plagiarism Of Patrick Matthew’s Theory is published by Curtis next Saturday, said: ‘This is the biggest science fraud in history.’

He highlights similarities between key phrases and explanations and cites letters apparently showing Darwin knew Matthew’s work and covered up his debt to his rival.

In one, Darwin’s wife admitted to Matthew that evolution was his ‘original child’, but her husband had nurtured it ‘like his own’.

Dr Sutton said: ‘In 1859 Darwin replicated the theory of evolution by natural selection in Patrick Matthew’s 1831 prior publication. ‘Matthew was the first to coin that phrase to explain the theory, which he called the Natural Process of Selection. Darwin realised he had no choice but to use the same words so he called it the Process of Natural Selection. He shuffled the words and hoped nobody would notice.’

A grain merchant and landowner from Perthshire, Matthew had travelled widely in Europe studying agriculture and forestry.

While claims that Darwin borrowed from Matthew have been aired before, the book contains new evidence, including that when Matthew confronted him, Darwin claimed no one had heard of Matthew or his theory. In fact, according to Dr Sutton, Matthew’s book had been cited and reviewed by Darwin’s friends, colleagues and even his mentors in 30 leading publications. In his own journals, Darwin admits to having read at least five publications in which Matthew’s work featured.

Perhaps most damning is a letter from Darwin’s wife, Emma, written on behalf of her husband.

Dr Sutton said: ‘She wrote claiming Darwin was too ill to write, with a telling line to Matthew. She says, “Darwin is more loyal to your own original child than you were yourself.” If you want an admission, there it is – “Your own original child”.’

Dr Sutton, a winner of the British Journal of Criminality prize as well as chief editor of the Internet Journal Of Criminology, added: ‘All the top Darwinists admit Matthew got there first, but claim nobody read it. Actually, they did.

‘We’ve got Darwin’s lies, replications of text and ideas, independent verifiable facts which, I think, come down in favour of deliberate, knowing fraud.’

Although I knew about the other scientist whose work arguably preceded Darwin’s, Alfred Russell Wallace, the idea that the concept of natural selection had been articulated more than 30 years prior to Darwin’s first publication on the subject struck me as incredible. However, after reviewing a copy of Matthew’s book, On Naval Timber and Arboriculture, it’s clear that Charles Darwin was the harbinger of the subsequent scientific fraud that was Albert Einstein.

The consequences are now being developed of our deplorable ignorance of, or inattention to, one of the most evident traits of natural history, that vegetables as well as animals are generally liable to an almost unlimited diversification, regulated by climate, soil, nourishment, and new commixture of already formed varieties. In those with which man is most intimate, and where his agency in throwing them from their natural locality and dispositions has brought out this power of diversification in stronger shades, it has been forced upon his notice, as in man himself, in the dog, horse, cow, sheep, poultry,—in the apple, pear, plum, gooseberry, potato, pea, which sport in infinite varieties, differing considerably in size, colour, taste, firmness of texture, period of growth, almost in every recognisable quality. In all these kinds man is influencial in preventing deterioration, by careful selection of the largest or most valuable as breeders; but in timber trees the opposite course has been pursued….

The use of the infinite seedling varieties in the families of plants, even in those in a state of nature, differing in luxuriance of growth and local adaptation, seems to be to give one individual (the strongest best circumstance-suited) superiority over others of its kind around, that it may, by overtopping and smothering them, procure room for full extension, and thus affording, at the same time, a continual selection of the strongest, best circumstance-suited, for reproduction. Man’s interference, by preventing this natural process of selection among plants, independent of the wider range of circumstances to which he introduces them, has increased the difference in varieties, particularly in the more domesticated kinds; and even in man himself, the greater uniformity, and more general vigour among savage tribes, is referrible to nearly similar selecting law—the weaker individual sinking under the ill treatment of the stronger, or under the common hardship.

Patrick Matthew, On Naval Timber and Arboriculture, 1831

At this point, it’s observably far more reasonable to say “science is fraud” than to seriously propose it as a potential arbiter of truth.

DISCUSS ON SG

Natural Immunity is the Only Immunity

The Covid vaccines are unsafe, ineffective, and literally worse than useless:

A new report in the Journal of the American Medical Association finds more good news for unvaccinated people who have already had and recovered from Covid.

Anti-spike protein antibodies following Covid infection and recovery seem to persist indefinitely in unvaccinated people, researchers found. People tested 20 months after coronavirus infection had slightly higher levels of antibodies on average than those just after infection.

The authors also found that 99 percent of the 295 unvaccinated people they tested who had a confirmed Covid infection had measurable anti-spike proteins. Nearly all of them also had antibodies to another part of the Sars-Cov-2 virus, the nucleocapsid. People who are vaccinated do not have those nucleocapsid antibodies.

One of the worst things about the vaxxes, besides the adverse effects, is the way in which they destroy natural immunity in those who already had Covid, but were foolish enough to get subsequently, and completely unnecessarily, vaccinated.

DISCUSS ON SG

Ivermectin vs the Vaxx

The conclusive verdict is in courtesy of a very large and peer-reviewed Brazilian study: Ivermectin is, and always was, a much safer and effective approach to combating Covid-19 than the various vaxxines.

Researchers in Brazil found that regular use of ivermectin as a prophylactic agent was associated with significantly reduced COVID-19 infection, hospitalization and mortality rates.

The study was conducted in Itajaí, a port city in the state of Santa Catarina, between July and December 2020. Study authors include FLCCC physicians Dr. Flavio Cadegiani and Dr. Pierre Kory. Lead author Dr. Lucy Kerr was approached by the mayor of Itajaí, after the city began to experience a severe outbreak of COVID.

The entire population of Itajaí was invited to participate in the program, which involved a medical visit to compile baseline, personal, demographic, and medical information. In the absence of contraindications, ivermectin was offered as a preventative treatment, to be taken for two consecutive days every 15 days at a dose of 0.2 mg/kg/day.

Of the 223,128 citizens of Itajaí considered for the study, a total of 159,561 subjects elected to participate: over 70% opted to take ivermectin, and 23% chose not to.

The study found a 44% reduction in COVID-19 infection rate in favor of the group that took ivermectin (3.5% versus 8.2%).

In cases where a participating citizen of Itajaí became ill with COVID-19, they were recommended not to use ivermectin or any other medication in early outpatient treatment. Of those who did become infected, two equal-sized, highly matched groups (one that used ivermectin as a prophylaxis and one that did not) were compared. The regular use of preventative ivermectin led to a 68% reduction in COVID-19 mortality (0.8% versus 2.6%), and a 56% reduction in hospitalization rate (1.6% versus 3.3%).

Meanwhile, a small, non-peer reviewed, but nevertheless informative survey of two high school coaches reveals some remarkable negative consequences for young athletes who are vaccinated:

The two coaches, who spoke to us on condition of anonymity for all involved, retrospectively observed the following of the COVID-vaccinated student athletes, and we report their findings in this retrospective study.

1) None of the vaccinated student athletes are competing up to their own previous level; all are performing worse than in 2020, in the assessments of the two coaches.

2) None of the vaccinated student athletes can endure the same exercise drills for the same amount of time that they used to tolerate prior to vaccination.

3) Recovery from exertion took longer in the vaccinated student athletes than before vaccination and took longer than in the unvaccinated.

4) After the injections, most or all of the vaccinated student athletes talked about one or more of the following reactions after vaccination:

a) chest pain;

b) dizziness;

c) seeing stars;

d) feeling as if they would faint;

e) shortness of breath.

The student athletes talked freely and spontaneously about the above symptoms without anyone taking notes at the time. There was no prompting from coaches about reporting of symptoms.

5) The unvaccinated girls are now beating vaccinated boys in competition, whom they could not do well against last year. This change was unexpected and was considered unusual by the coaches.

So, whatever happened to “trusting the science”?

DISCUSS ON SG

Only Fools Trust Science

Science doesn’t even rise to the level of accuracy attained by gamers playing games:

Apart from a minority of professional gamers, speedrunning is a hobby, and the community is moderated by volunteers. Science is, well, science: a crucially important endeavor that we need to get right, a prestige industry employing hundreds of thousands of paid, dedicated, smart people, submitting their research to journals run by enormously profitable publishing companies.

Perhaps the very status of science is what makes its practitioners reluctant to pursue fraudsters: Not only do scientists find it difficult to imagine that their peers or colleagues could be making up the data, but questioning a suspect data set could result in anything from extended frustration and social awkwardness to the destruction of someone’s career. You can see why so many scientists, who hope for a quiet life where they can pursue their own research, aren’t motivated to grasp the nettle.

But the consequences of ignoring fraud can be drastic too, and whole evidence bases, sometimes for medical treatments, can be polluted by fraudulent studies. The entire purpose of the scientific endeavor is brought into question if its gatekeepers—the reviewers and editors and others who are supposed to be the custodians of scientific probity—are so often presented with evidence of fraud and so often fail to take action.

If unpaid Minecraft mods can produce a 29-page mathematical analysis of Dream’s contested run, then scientists and editors can find the time to treat plausible fraud allegations with the seriousness they deserve. If the maintenance of integrity can become such a crucial interest for a community of gaming hobbyists, then it can be the same for a community of professional researchers. And if the speedrunning world can learn lessons from so many cases of cheating, there’s no excuse for scientists who fail to do the same.

Not only is scientistry – the profession of science – entirely corrupt, but the massive extent of its corruption has rendered a) the knowledge base unreliable and b) cast every claim of an application of scientody – the scientific method – into intrinsic doubt.

The corollary to this is that anyone demanding that one “trust the science” is not only engaging in rhetoric, but is either doing so in ignorance or for the purposes of deceit.

Scientists don’t catch fraud because they don’t want to. It’s not in their interest and it has not been for decades. Never trust science. There is a word for the kind of science you can trust, and it is a distinct subset of science, being comprised of a hypothesis that has not only been tested, but applied in practice.

Trust God and engineering.

DISCUSS ON SG

Evil Always Eats Its Own

Those who have taken the ticket or are celebrated for their utility in building the false case against God had better enjoy their public adulation while it lasts. Even the most famous and well-respected scientists, who were lauded for their brilliance and whose work was absolutely integral in constructing the false scientific edifice of evolution by natural selection, are discovering that they and their work will be discredited and dishonored once the satanic narrative moves beyond them, as demonstrated by this article in Scientific American denigrating the legacy of evolutionary biologist E.O. Wilson:

With the death of biologist E. O. Wilson on Sunday, I find myself again reflecting on the complicated legacies of scientists whose works are built on racist ideas and how these ideas came to define our understanding of the world.

After a long clinical career as a registered nurse, I became a laboratory-trained scientist as researchers mapped the first draft of the human genome. It was during this time that I intimately familiarized myself with Wilson’s work and his dangerous ideas on what factors influence human behavior.

His influential text Sociobiology: The New Synthesis contributed to the false dichotomy of nature versus nurture and spawned an entire field of behavioral psychology grounded in the notion that differences among humans could be explained by genetics, inheritance and other biological mechanisms. Finding out that Wilson thought this way was a huge disappointment, because I had enjoyed his novel Anthill, which was published much later and written for the public.

Wilson was hardly alone in his problematic beliefs. His predecessors—mathematician Karl Pearson, anthropologist Francis Galton, Charles Darwin, Gregor Mendel and others—also published works and spoke of theories fraught with racist ideas about distributions of health and illness in populations without any attention to the context in which these distributions occur.

Even modern geneticists and genome scientists struggle with inherent racism in the way they gather and analyze data. In his memoir A Life Decoded: My Genome: My Life, geneticist J. Craig Venter writes, “The complex provenance of ideas means their origin is often open to interpretation.”

To put the legacy of their work in the proper perspective, a more nuanced understanding of problematic scientists is necessary. It is true that work can be both important and problematic—they can coexist. Therefore it is necessary to evaluate and critique these scientists, considering, specifically the value of their work and, at the same time, their contributions to scientific racism.

Those who reject Truth will eventually find their work deemed worthless, especially by those who reject the truth even more vehemently. Don’t ever curry the world’s favor. It simply isn’t worth it.

Jesus Christ stands by his followers even when they fail. Satan abandons his servants even when they succeed.

DISCUSS ON SG