Evolution: the conspiracy of creationism's favorite son, Hovind., page 1

Bell�s whisky more Estragon�s field, dear Toltec, but even here in the steaming jungle, we are not unfamiliar with John S. Bell, locality and spin correlation.
However, one must make the immediate observation that, as in so much else, it is called a �theorem� because that is just what it is: no more and no less, just as most of what it is based upon: e.g. Dirac�s original postulates concerning spin are simply postulates. Certainly some experimental confirmation has come later, but nothing that is conclusive or does not require further work.
And, and this again is very often the case, Bell�s work illustrates the problems that arise when gifted mathematicians attempt to verbalise their work: moving into another field where they are not particularly gifted. The usual counter to Bell, for example, focuses upon the looseness of his notion of �simultaneity�
The theorem proceeds from a linear combination of spin correlation functions, each of which has a differing pair of arguments. The meaning of �simultaneous� when we talk of the presence of these different arguments in the same equation is not clear: either it applies only to a single pair or it applies, and is measured as such, for each of the different pairs. Bell appears to take only the former into account and therefore, not unexpectedly, shows
a discrepancy between local realistic and quantum mechanical positions. Yet this may only be because Bell has unjustifiably applied the single-pair postulations to multiple sets of pairs. We cannot say with strong objective clarity that �simultaneous� applies across multiple sets of pairs � we can only assume it mathematically or postulate it explicitly. Thus we have a possibly meaningless comparison between a local realistic inequality (1 pair) and quantum mechanical predictions (more than 1 pair).
In short, the mathematical sophistication may be entirely vitiated by a sudden linguistic lapse in something as obviously dubious as �at the same time�.
I am well aware that Bell�s theorem is backed up by limited experimental data and that the consensus is that only non-local hidden variable theory is still a strong counter-argument.
The point is that the theorem remains simply a possible account of problems within any attempt at specifying a physical system and should not therefore be treated as a sound foundation for anything more than speculation. And this is no doubt why one so often encounters Bell�s work in pseudo-science, �psi� science, articles on telepathy and the rest. Bell is taken to �prove� strange and mysterious possibilities whereas it is no more than a mathematically powerful case against certain arguably more prosaic models of interpretation that, if adhered to, would give rise to Bell�s inequality. It is about what probably isn�t, much more than it is about what really is.
Hence the need to eschew the practice of presenting such bits of science as a philosopher�s stone that will somehow turn mere fancy into holy writ.
Whatever we may think of it: "local"; "simultaneous" "hidden" and the rest will always have (or at least for the foreseeable future) meanings that do not coincide with the mathematical applications of these terms. What is more or less mathematically coherent will tehrefore very often appear linguistically nonsensical: it is this clash that charlatans can exploit.
When the physicist says : "X is almost certainly in New York; but there's a statistical probabity that he's somewhere else." this can all too easily be made into mumbo jumbo about "reality" "out of body experiences" and whatnot when in fact it simply illustrates the curent level of mathematical reasoning: what makes the equations work that is also consistent with the limited experimental data.
And that is where the conspiracy comes in: how do the likes of Hovind manipulate the current state of science in order to manipulate the unscientific man in the street.