There was a recent school shooting in Minneapolis, MN, so in this post, I’ll reflect on how to prevent more school shootings. People on the left say that we need to confiscate the weapons owned by law-abiding people, so that only the criminals and police will have guns. People on the right want to allow adults at the schools to train and carry weapons. But I have a different idea: let’s ban divorce.

First, how many of the shooters are from divorced homes? This new article from The Federalist is very popular, and it has a lot of data. It starts off by mentioning that the Minneapolis school shooter’s parents were divorced. But he’s not the only one!

It says:

A 2018 international academic study found a strong link between childhood separation from parents and an “elevated risk for later violent criminality.” (The study specifically excluded children with deceased parents.) A subsequent nationwide analysis bolstered these results, finding a strong association between two-parent households and cities with markedly less crime. Indeed, nearly every school shooting in 2013 involved young men with divorced or never married parents.

“The social scientific evidence about the connection between violence and broken homes could not be clearer,” says Brad Wilcox, Distinguished University Professor of Sociology at the University of Virginia and considered a leading authority on marriage and family.

Westman’s parents divorced in 2013. Westman would have been about 12, on the cusp of adolescence. After the split, Westman, a biological male who later identified as a woman, bounced from school to school. And dad remarried — the shooter’s manifesto mentions the step-mom.

So, when arguing social issues, it’s not good to argue from one case here and one case there. We need a study that covers all the cases. If you don’t use a study, then people will always say “well, I am special, I won’t end up like that one person”.

More data from the article:

Decades of research also demonstrate solid connections between divorce and single-parent households, on the one hand, and other serious child outcomes, on the other. For example, boys in single mother households have twice the rate of juvenile delinquency. Divorce increases the risk for depression, anxiety, substance abuse, and suicide, which can be particularly acute during adolescence. The evidence Westman left behind exhibited deep levels of stress, self-loathing, and hate. Westman alluded to school suspensions and smoked marijuana. Then, after killing two children, Westman committed suicide, just like the Sandy Hook and Colorado school shooters.

If you’ve ever spoken to a police officer or read a book by J. Warner Wallace, then you’ll know that a huge majority of men in prisons were raised fatherless.

The article says:

According to a central finding from a 2024 marriage report, “young men from non-intact families are more likely to land in prison or jail than they are to graduate from college.” Westman appears not to have even graduated from high school. Still, divorce rates remain high, marriage rates plummet, and innocent children die.

One of the things that people on the left like to do with studies is to say “well, this study is not applicable because it doesn’t look at a large enough sample size” or “this study is not applicable because it doesn’t look at a long enough time period”. That’s what they love to do with studies of fatherless kids. But some of the studies cited in that article are about over a million children, and over decades of time. So, you can’t dismiss these studies.

So, the next time that you get into a discussion about school shootings, ask the people on the secular left if they are willing to ban no-fault divorce. Typically, they will say no. Most divorces are initiated by women, and people want women to have divorce as an option. We don’t expect women to have to do the work to measure the man and then take responsibility for their choices. Society wants women to have a “get out of accountability free” card, just like they do with abortion. But as you can see, making divorce easy causes a lot of problems for children.

Now, some feminists will say “do you expect women to stay in unhappy marriages?” And the answer to that is, of course not. I think that the person who initiates the divorce should leave the marital home with the clothes on their back. Not one penny of family money, and no more access to kids, except if the remaining parent agrees to it. The parent who remains should keep everything. That would end divorce pretty quickly, and all the problems that arise from the fatherlessness that divorce causes. What do you think?

I keep a list of all of the scientific evidences that are incompatible with naturalism / materialism / atheism. After our podcast episode with Gunter Bechly, I learned a new argument that he called “the waiting time problem”. I’ve been asking around to see how respected this argument is from all sides, and I found out that even naturalists agree that the problem is a real problem for naturalism.

So, let me tell you what it is first, with this article from Science and Culture.

Let me explain what the waiting time problem is first. The waiting time problem is a challenge to Darwinian evolution based on  paleontology and population genetics. Population genetics explains microevolution, like germs building up resistance to drugs. But the same calculations that support microevolution reveal that geological timeframes from paleontology are too short for the genetic changes needed for major evolutionary transitions.

How many mutations are needed for an advantageous adaptation that natural selection can select for? Complex adaptations require “coordinated mutations”. Coordinated mutations are when two or more genetic changes happen together, each harmless on its own, but together they create a useful trait that natural selection can pass on to future generations. Many adaptations need these mutations, as shown by research and the fact that many traits are controlled by multiple genes.

So the article, which is written by Bechly explains the argument:

So here is how the waiting time problem is derived:

• Evolution is supposed to proceed by random mutation and natural/sexual selection.

• Selection can only work on mutations with a positive or negative adaptive value.

• At least some adaptive advantages require two or more coordinated mutations.

• Any evolutionary adaptation requires mutations that have to arise and spread in a population. Thus, all mutations have two time constraints that mainly depend on mutation rate, population size, and generation time: the waiting time for a mutation to occur and the waiting time for the fixation of this mutation.

• Question: Does the history of life provide sufficient resources for evolution to accommodate these waiting times? The answer can be shown to be negative!

• Conclusion: Neo-Darwinism is mathematically refuted as a viable theory of macroevolution.

Now, what I care about is this. First, what does paleontology say is the window of time available for a complex adaptation? And second, what does population genetics say is a reasonable time to get a coordinate mutation that can get you a complex adaptation?

Now, putting on my Darwinist hat, the first thing I thought of is that the time might be short, but the coordinated mutations would be easier to get with a very very large population. But, since I’m not a biologist, I was wrong – a large population has its own problem. Larger populations have a longer “fixation time”. The fixation time is the time it takes for a new mutation to spread and become permanent in an entire population, so every individual has it.

Bechly explains:

Indeed the waiting time problem is not just a simple problem but rather an inextricable dilemma, because however you change the crucial parameter of population size, it will always increase one of the two waiting times. With large population sizes the waiting time for a mutation to occur decreases, but fixation time increases (the same is true for neutral evolution). With small population sizes the waiting time for a mutation to occur increases, but fixation time decreases. Thus, there is no easy way for evolution to work around the waiting time problem, e.g. by means of genetic drift and the founder effect.

Why is this argument so wonderful? Because unlike many arguments that philosophers make, we can actually do math to prove this argument. This is the equivalent of me writing a unit test with the given, when, then structure. Given a known window of time from the fossil record, when evolving a coordinated mutation, then the time taken must be less than the window of time available.

Bechly says:

The amazing power of the argument from the waiting time problem is that it does not rely on fuzzy concepts but actually allows you to do the math, based on the well-established mathematical apparatus of mainstream population genetics. All required parameters are either known empirically or their range can be reasonably estimated by comparisons with recent relatives (e.g., mutation rates, effective population sizes, generation turnover times, length of binding sites, etc). The fossil record and radiometric dating provide the data for the available windows of time.

So that’s everything in the argument. Now we have to decide whether to add it to my awesome list of atheist-defeating evidence. How to decide? Well, we have to get people on the other side to agree with us that the window of time is too small, and the waiting time for coordinated mutations is too large. And they do! Let’s take a look at the domain of human evolution, to see an example of a change that requires many, many coordinated mutations (if not done directly by an intelligent designer).

Bechly explains:

Michael Behe (2007) in his book The Edge of Evolution made the argument that the waiting time for two coordinated mutations is prohibitive for the Neo-Darwinian mechanism of evolution to work. Behe used empirical data about an actual waiting time for a coordinated mutation that conveyed chloroquine drug resistance in malaria. Applying these empirical data on human evolution, by simply correcting for the much lower population size and much longer generation time, predicted a waiting time of 10^15 years, which is many orders of magnitude longer than the existence of our universe! The mainstream population geneticists Durrett & Schmidt (2008) criticized Behe’s argument with a mathematical model and claimed that his calculated waiting time of 1015 years is unrealistic. However, their own calculations also resulted in a prohibitive waiting time of 216 million years for a single coordinated mutation in human evolution, which vastly exceeds the available window of time of only about 6 million years since the split of the human lineage and the chimp lineage from a common ancestor.

Of course, when results from a theoretical model differ so greatly from experimental real world data, we should rather trust the real world data, because every model necessarily has to make certain simplifications that can introduce errors. Consequently, Behe’s numbers are certainly closer to the true limits of the Darwinian mechanism than those of Durrett and Schmidt. Anyway, both numbers are prohibitive and refute the feasibility of a Darwinian mechanism of macroevolution.

So, even the naturalists agree that evolution doesn’t work, because the 216 million years they calculated is still bigger than the 6 million years that are available for the macroevolution they want to explain.

But, and this is interesting, there is an application here to the recent post I wrote about the chimp – human DNA difference. Often thought to be 1%, the new evidence shows that it is closer to 15%. But the main thing is, Bechly says that you need MILLIONS of coordinated mutations to make all the changes to go from chimp to human:

Using a different model, Sanford et al. (2015) applied a computer simulation to calculate the waiting times in human evolution based on reasonable estimates for an ancestral hominin population of 10,000 individuals and a generation turnover time of 20 years. They arrived at fixation times of 85 million years for a single codependent mutation, and 1.5-15.9 million years for a single specific point mutation. This is very remarkable and prohibitive, considering the fact that the assumed 5% difference in the human vs chimp genome translates to millions of mutations that had to arise and become fixed within 6 million years since the assumed separation of their respective lineages. This comes [in addition to] the waiting time problem for coordinated mutations but is a separate argument (see below).

Sanford, by the way is a brilliant scientist who also happens to be a young Earth creationist. But his paper appears in a mainstream scientific journal.

So, I think it’s reasonable for me to add this argument to my list of scientific arguments against naturalism, and for a Creator / Designer.

Here is the updated list:

1. origin of the universe
2. cosmic fine-tuning
3. origin of life (specified complexity)
4. Cambrian explosion (and other explosions)
5. galactic, stellar and planetary habitability
6. molecular machines
7. non-material mind, e.g. – split brain surgery
8. the waiting time problem

Of course, there are philosophical arguments like “the moral argument” and “St. Thomas Augustine says” and “do you want fries with that?”, but who cares about philosophy, when you can have SCIENCE! Scientific arguments are the best kind of arguments!

Do you know any more evidences that are solid enough to go on my list of evidences?

I was having a conversation about trust in the medical industry with my doctor, and he told me that his patients were just being tricked by “social media”, whereas doctors like him are “evidence-based”. First of all, the people I follow on social media are now running the NIH, FDA and CDC. So now I am the science. Second of all, the public’s distrust of doctors is based on evidence.

Let’s take a look at an article from the Manhattan Institute‘s City Journal by Leon Sapir about the American Medical Association:

The American Medical Association (AMA) is the largest and most powerful doctors’ organization in the United States. It has also consistently supported pediatric medical transition, or “gender-affirming care,” which includes puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries administered to minors. The AMA has passed a resolution promising to protect these procedures, joined an amicus brief in a lawsuit challenging a state age-restriction law, and written a letter urging state governors to veto similar legislation.

So, I think what consumers of medical services are seeing what the professional body of doctors says about transing kids, and they are thinking “gender dysphoria is a mental illness, and you cannot treat it with hormone replacement, and sex mutilation surgeries”. We are not just thinking about long-term consequences like infertility and continuous expensive treatments. Many of these doctors aren’t citing the studies at all, just asking parents “would you rather have a dead girl or a live boy?” That not evidence-based.

More:

The AMA has done all this despite the findings from systematic reviews—the gold standard of evidence-based medicine (EBM)—of weak evidence for these treatments’ mental health benefits, and despite the corresponding health risks.

[…]Skeptics of the AMA’s position have wondered how a professional medical organization could have ignored systematic reviews. New videos published by the Daily Wire provide a possible answer. The videos reveal the AMA’s president, the Michigan-based otolaryngologist Bobby Mukkamala, making false claims about pediatric gender medicine and demonstrating ignorance of basic concepts in EBM.

[…]In accordance with his belief about expertise, Mukkamala recommended that a legislator consult with one gender doctor in particular, fellow Michigander Jesse Krikorian. The Daily Wire videos also reveal that Krikorian, like Mukkamala, is unfamiliar with basic principles of EBM and with existing research on pediatric gender medicine.

Now, my doctor would probably have a very negative view of parents ability to form opinions about health care policy. But actually, ordinary people like me are following the studies closely, and ordinary people like you are reading about the studies, too.

The AMA’s stance contradicts years of research I’ve covered, including:

• New study: Risks associated with pediatric “gender-affirming” care
• New study: Transgender surgeries linked to suicidal ideation, depression
• New study: gender-affirming surgery associated with suicide attempts
• Pre-ban study: 53% of mothers with gender-confused boys have mental illness
• New study: Significant parallels found between anorexia and gender dysphoria
• New study: most children suffering from gender confusion grow out of it
• New study: Mental health issues persist after receiving “gender-affirming” treatment
• Study: “social contagion” is a major factor in teen and young adult gender dysphoria
• New study: psychotherapy improves mental health of autistic teens with gender dysphoria
• Controversial study on Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria and transgenderism re-published

The UK’s Cass Review, which I discussed in my May 2025 post linked above, is a gold-standard analysis. It found no consistent mental health benefits from puberty blockers or hormones, yet the AMA pushes these treatments regardless. I’m blogging about the gold standard studies, but AMA people think that ordinary people are not following the science. We are. Christians and conservatives bound our worldviews off of what science tells us. We are not being swayed by Big Medicine and Big LGBT to suppress the science. The AMA argues gender-affirming care reduces distress, but the Cass Review and other studies show no consistent mental health benefits.

The rest of that City Journal article talks about some of the myths that are believed by senior people at the AMA. (Either they are deliberately lying because transing kids is “a big money-maker“, or they are just ignorant of the research)

Here’s one example:

The AMA president… asserted that the suicide rate— not suicidal ideation or attempts, but deaths by suicide—among people who identify as transgender is between “50 and 70 percent.” He was clearly implying that gender-transition procedures for minors are necessary to prevent these tragic outcomes.

This claim is baseless. Indeed, even the most outspoken advocates of pediatric transition refrain from saying that suicide—as opposed to suicidal ideation or attempts—is this high among trans-identifying youth… Last December, ACLU lawyer and LGBTQ & HIV Project co-director Chase Strangio admitted in a Supreme Court hearing that “suicide, thankfully and admittedly, is rare” among trans-identifying youth.

[…]No credible evidence shows that medical transition resolves or lowers the rate of suicidal behavior, and some evidence suggests that suicide risk remains significantly elevated—though still nowhere near the figures cited by Mukkamala—following medical transition.

I think my doctor is probably thinking that rank-and-file Americans are not following these issues closely. We interviewed Dr. Jay Richards on our podcast, who is one of the experts on this issue at the Heritage Foundation think tank. I follow Jay Richards on Twitter, and he tweets out all the studies that he expects ordinary Americans to read them – at least the abstracts!

Heritage is a think tank that influences legislation and policy in the federal government. I read everything that Jay tweets, and that’s how I find all these studies. So, maybe social media is not such a bad thing, if it leads to the studies. It’s certainly a lot better than listening to NPR and reading the New York Times and the Washington Post and expecting to have accurate views about these topics.