#1745: Doretta Holyfield-Vega

Another very minor but ridiculous figure, Doretta Holyfield-Vega is an “Independent Minister” and concerned resident of Alabama who filed suit against the government for “the removal of prayer” from schools and other public places, claiming that such “removal” was a violation of her religious freedom. The district court dismissed the case and the appeals court upheld that dismissal. Of course the courts dismissed the case because of Holyfield-Vega’s lack of standing rather than bothering to engage with the ridiculous, crazy persecution conspiracies that were fueling the complaint and similar complaints about persecution from figures on the religious right. One fun detail about the suit is that Roy Moore was named as a defendant.

Diagnosis: Raging fundie with a raging fundie’s trademark martyr complex. A minor figure mostly good for laughs, but her delusional view of the world is scarily widespread.

#1744: Mark Holmberg

A minor one, but still instructive for its illustration of how some (many?) people think, stunning ignorance and breathtaking stupidity. Mark Holmberg is apparently an investigative reporter and commentator for WTVR, Channel 6, the CBS affiliate in Richmond, Virginia. Holmberg qualifies for an entry because of his stunningly idiotic piece “Theory of evolution should be challenged – scientifically”. How stupid is it? Well, here’s the framing: “Why does the apple fall from the tree to the ground? The 325 year old law of gravity explains it. In science, a law is a theory that has been proven, without a shadow of a doubt.” That stupid. And just in case: No, that’s not the relationship between a scientific theory and a law, and you have to be audaciously ignorant of science to think it is. But you can probably predict the reasoning trainwreck that is going to follow from Holmberg’s framing. Oh, yes: “A century and a half after Charles Darwin published his theory of evolution, it remains a theory. It hasn’t been proven.” And it follows with: “Even Darwin himself, 155 years ago, wondered why there are no transitional fossils – missing links – between not only man and ape but between dog and cats, fish and amphibian. In fact, all the animals alive today can be found in the most distant fossil records [trilobites and rabbits, all cuddling up together], although many have slowly changed over time to adapt to changing environments. But nothing showing one species turning into another.” In other words, Holmberg has apparently been perusing creationist literature and failed to even understand the positions those creationist authors arrived at by misunderstanding evolution.

And for the final flourish: “Me, I have a bachelor of science in biology, and have a lifelong fascination with this study of life. I am constantly amazed at the absolute certainty of peole [sic] who, armed with maybe one high school biology class, believe so completely and passionatey [sic] in the theory that man evolved from apes.” We haven’t double-checked his claims, but Holmberg may have grounds for claiming a refund; of course, given that this is Virginia, perhaps the institution that gave him his “education” was a particularly glitzy and expensive diploma mill.

Holmberg wrote the piece in support of one of the creationism bills submitted by Virginia House Delegate Richard Bell. The problem Holmberg, uh, identifies is of course that “this theory of evolution is considered a law by many. It’s often taught in schools as a law. It is widely believed as a law. Typically, anyone who doesn’t believe it is branded as a religious kook or an idiot.” Indeed.

Diagnosis: Religious kook and idiot. Minor figure, but his facepalm-inducing powers are impressive.

#1743: Kelly Hollowell

Kelly Hollowell is an MD and hardcore creationist. Since she has a real education (not related to evolution, of course) she is a mainstay on lists of creation scientists, including Answer In Genesis’s list of creation scientists, Creation Ministries International’s list of scientists alive today who accept the Biblical account of creation and the Institute of Creation Research’s list of creationist scientists (that these institutions feel the need to make these lists is of course telling; that creationists can be listed on short lists containing primarily scientists (often by a stretch) working in completely unrelated fields is telling as well). Of course, the extent to which Hollowell herself is a “scientist” is a matter of debate; she certainly lists herself as one. She also lists herself as a “patent attorney and adjunct law professor of bioethics.” Moreover, she’s a senior strategist for something called the Center for Reclaiming America, a conference speaker and founder of ScienceMinistries Inc. (We haven’t bothered to check those out; we have an idea about what we would find, and we’ve seen enough of that.) Her rants have also been picked up by the WND, which to any minimally reasonable person would be ample reason to rethink one’s whole world view. Hollowell, however, is not a reasonable person, unless she and her Science Ministries are, as some people seem to think, an elaborate hoax.

Hollowell is even a fan of Kent Hovind, no less, whose rants are too idiotic even for Answers in Genesis, and has for instance posted Hovind’s “Questions for Evolutionists” on her webpage, prefaced with the following twaddle: “The test of any theory is whether it provides answers to basic questions? Some well-meaning but misguided people think evolution is a reasonable theory to explain man’s questions about the universe. Evolution is not a good theory – it is just a pagan religion masquerading as science.” I don’t think she knows what a scientific theory is or what a “test” is. Or an “explanation”, for that matter.

According to Hollowell “Darwin’s theory of evolution is now hotly contested by arguments of intelligent design” (no, she doesn’t seem particularly aware of the fact that biology has, well, evolved since Darwin), though Hollowell at least admits that Intelligent Design has some shortcomings as a scientific theory (it sort of lacks a precisely described mechanism, one that has predictive power; appeals to miracles do not have predictive power), but to Hollowell that’s just a reason to return to a literal reading of the Bible, not to accept “evolution’s bogus explanation of diversity through macro-mutation.” (Yeah, read that again; she has no idea, does she?)

As denialists in general, Hollowell has a tendency to accept any piece of alleged evidence that supports her own view regardless of the quality of that “evidence”, up to and including spam from anonymous “former, university professor[s]” who claim to have discovered the theory of everything: “In the Bible, we are told that God created the universe out of nothing by using light. This is confirmed by modern cosmologists. They acknowledge physical existence had a beginning from complete nothingness (no time, no space and no matter). Then from a single focal point of light the physical world came into existence initially in the form of sub-atomic particles, i.e., the Big Bang theory […] Both the Big Bang event and subsequent arrangement of sub-atomic particles, therefore, provide our first opportunity to see light as the interface between the non-physical (spiritual) world and physical existence. Think about it. From light came matter.” Yes, that kind of ranting – Hollowell admits the claims exhibit all the hallmarks of a hoax, but seems to endorse it nonetheless. Just like she in 2005 got really excited (in a WND column, of course) about the imminent discovery of the Ark of the Covenant by one “Dr. Vendyl Jones. He is a modern-day explorer and teacher and the true inspiration for the Indiana Jones series. Startling the world, he announced last week on Israel National Radio that he actually knows the location of the Ark.” Hollowell must hence be unaware that Ron Wyatt already found it? We never saw a follow-up to that column.

Hollowell has a beef not only with evolution but with relativity as well. Like evolution, the theory of relativity corrupts the youth and turn them into godless moral relativists (Conservapedia also struggles with the distinction between relativity and moral relativism). Nor does Hollowell like plate tectonics (she doesn’t understand plate tectonics either, of course – “Continents and oceans ride on top of these plates” is not a phrase you would find in a geology paper), but promotes instead something she calls “catastrophic plate tectonics” (that would be John Baumgardner’s idea) – i.e. flood geology. As evidence she cites the Mid-Oceanic Ridge: “Imagine, if you can, a massive earthquake and the flooding splash made when this mountain range fell into the waters of the deep. It would be like a fat man jumping into a bathtub of water. The displacement would be so great, it could easily cause worldwide tidal waves and flooding.” Yes, imagine that.

Like so many whacky fundies Hollowell has also tried to argue that the US was founded as a Christian Nation, that the founding fathers were really religious fundamentalists and that the Constitution is really based directly on the Bible. As evidence, she cites the separation of powers, which is apparently taken directly from Isaiah 33:22 (rather than, you know, John Locke and Montesquieu). Isaiah 33:22 says “For the Lord [is] our judge, the Lord [is] our lawgiver, the Lord [is] our king; he will save us.” Critics may note that there are some steps from the idea expressed in that verse to the separation of powers most of us think is enshrined in the Constitution (one possible difference, for instance, is that the verse suggests the exact opposite of the separation of powers).

Diagnosis: Not only does she try to out-Hovind Hovind; she arguably succeeds. Hollowell must be one of the craziest and most deluded fundies out there, and that’s quite something.

#1742: Roy Den Hollander

Roy Den Hollander is a men’s rights activist most known for a range of lawsuits that challenge Orly Taitz for frivolous lunacy.

In 2008, for instance, Den Hollander filed a suit contending that Columbia university could not use government money, such as federal financial aid, to fund its Institute for Research on Women and Gender. (He had by then already made a name for himself for suing Manhattan nightclubs because they offered free or discounted Ladies’ Night drinks to women). Women’s studies courses (“or as I affectionately call them ‘Witches’ Studies’”), argued Den Hollander, discriminate against men and therefore violate the Fifth and 14th amendments. Apparently Women’s studies departments offer networking opportunities from which females benefit more than males, said Den Hollander, apparently not quite realizing that men are allowed to take the courses. Nor did he have a particularly clear idea about what, precisely, were being taught in the courses: “The courses pretty much treat guys as if they’re sources of evil in the world and the women are victims,” said Den Hollander, alleging that Columbia has accordingly become a “bastion of bigotry against men . . . [that has] thrown its influence and prestige into violating the rights of men by offering a women’s studies program, but no men’s studies program.” Oh, yes: “When a university receives government funding, they have to provide equal opportunities for men and women. If there’s no men’s studies, women’s studies is unconstitutional.” (Just think for a moment about how abysmally idiotic that claim is.)

Den Hollander’s real problem is, of course, with the way women’s studies spreads what he calls the “religion” of feminism. And women’s studies do so with the help of federal money, thereby violating the establishment clause; in fact, it would somehow “violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.” “Sounds dumb,” admitted Den Hollander, “but it’s not.” The courts, apparently, didn’t pay much heed to his reassurance that the suit really wasn’t as dumb as it sounded. (You might wonder on what grounds Den Hollander would have standing in such a suit; apparently he would, as a Columbia alumnus whose “direct contact with the offensive religion” of feminism makes him “very uncomfortable” and interferes with his “use and enjoyment of Columbia as [a] member […] of the Columbia community.”

Apparently he has also tried to sue comedian Jim Norton over his treatment of Den Hollander during a phone interview on the Opie & Anthony Show, but apparently agreed to drop his suit if Norton would also drop his motion to have Hollander sanctioned for filing a baseless claim, as well as being forced to pay Norton’s legal fees. An illuminating exchange.

Diagnosis: Good grief.

#1741: Nancy Hokkanen

Nancy Hokkanen is an anti-vaccine activist and contributing editor to the anti-vaccine and quackery site Age of Autism as well as contact person for the Vaccine Safety Council of Minnesota (not a scientific body). Hokkanen is apparently convinced that autism is mercury poisoning and has compared the use of mercury to genocide; details such as the difference between methyl-mercury and ethyl-mercury don’t bother her that much, nor does the evidence that thimerosal doesn’t cause neurological damage – once you’ve gone down the rabbit hole of conspiracy theories, everything just fits and any inconvenient data easily be explained away by questioning the integrity of those who identified those inconvenient data.

Hat-tip: Destroyed by Science

Naturally, Hokkanen doesn’t like critics who prefer science and evidence to anecdotes and conspiracy mongering: “They reveal much about their narcissistic personalities via a chilling lack of compassion for vaccine-injured children and their families,” says Hokkanen, because anyone who disagrees with her about facts is likely a narcissist (just think about it). Steve Novella, for instance, is one critic not worth taking seriously, according to Hokkanen; Novella “buries his nose in literature, but he fails to recognize the political backstories that skewed the studies” – in other words, he follows the evidence and doesn’t fall for the ad hominem fallacy of trying to dismiss the evidence with conspiracy theories instead of actually engaging with it – and “he hasn’t had face time – or G.I. time – with any kids on the autism spectrum.” Hokkanen, on the other hand, has a son with autism, and that gives her – by the magic of the mommy instinct, apparently – insight into the causes of autism. Not that Hokkanen has the medical or scientific background to engage with the actual research (she has a BA in communications).

Hokkanen has also been involved in promoting dental amalgam crankery. Apparently, after “learning about the variety of health damage caused by mercury toxicity in medical products [from various conspiracy and crackpot sites], [she] had her amalgam tooth fillings removed; subsequently her health improved.” She also promotes raw milk because she grew up with it and (arguably) turned out fine.

Diagnosis: Lizard-people-level conspiracy theorist. The anti-vaccine movement has devolved into a fringe conspiracy group, and fortunately reasonable people have started to realize that this is what the movement is, but they are still numerous enough to pose a genuine threat to public health.