Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

But the war IS actually on logic … and that’s the point

arroba Email

Some of us have had a really hard time getting across the fact that the war on math is in fact a war on adding up numbers. That’s what the warriors mean — and they do mean it.

Similarly, a war on logic means just that. An attempted takedown of ID (here linked to opposition to Critical Race Theory) illustrates the point:

“In form, the fight over critical race theory in schools resembles earlier panics over the teaching of intelligent design and its cousin creationism,” observes Sarah Jones in a recent article for New York Magazine’s online Intelligencer website.

I found myself doing a double-take after reading that sentence. Does Jones really mean to suggest that those creating a “panic” over critical race theory (CRT) are like the dogmatic Darwinists who tried to create a “panic” over the teaching of intelligent design?

Bear with Me as I Explain

In her article, Jones essentially argues that worries about critical race theory have been ginned up by conservative provocateurs who play fast and loose with the facts. In her view, critical race theory is simply an effort to teach historical reality, and those attacking it are unfairly manufacturing a crisis over it.

But if that’s what she believes about those who are creating “panic” over CRT, then the logic of her comparison would seem to require a similar view of those who opposed intelligent design: The intolerant defenders of Darwinian evolution who tried to instill “panic” over the teaching of intelligent design must also have been provocateurs who were ginning up a fake controversy, while in reality there was nothing wrong with teaching intelligent design.

Surely Jones couldn’t actually mean that, I thought.

A Proper Comparison

Sure enough, she didn’t. Reading the rest of her article I realized she simply didn’t know how to frame a proper comparison. She actually was attempting to malign those who support intelligent design, not those who tried to create panic over it. Apparently neither she nor her editor is particularly good with logic.

John West, “Critical Race Theory and Intelligent Design: The Mixed-Up Comparison of Sarah Jones” at Evolution News

But that’s the whole point. The whole enterprise is a war on logic. It’s like the war on math and the war on science. And there is a sophisticated public for that.

Dr. West is assuming that logic is wanted. No, this is the same sort of thing as the attack on non-Darwinists as “white supremacists” when, in fact, almost all the white supremacy stuff was on the Darwinian side… The revolutionary genius today, such as it is, is in throwing logic to the winds and making a straight-up appeal to mere vulgar prejudice in their reading public.

We can’t tell you whether it will work. We can safely warn that it won’t be pretty and that it will never do any good.

See also:

At Scientific American: “Denial of Evolution Is a Form of White Supremacy” Wow. Has the Darwin lobby hired itself a PR firm that recommended getting someone on board to accuse everyone who doubts Darwin of being a “white supremacist”? Quite simply, Charles Darwin’s Descent of Man is surely by far the most racist iconic document ever to be lauded by all the Right People! And getting someone to holler about “white supremacy” among Darwin doubters is, ahem, just a cheap shot, not a response to the stark raving racism in print of the actual document. Guys, try another one.


Darwinian biologist Jerry Coyne speaks out on a SciAm op-ed’s claims that denial of evolution stems from white supremacy. It seems obvious, on reflection, that Hopper’s piece is a disastrously clumsy effort on the part of Scientific American to get Woke. Darwinian evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne thinks the mag is not just circling the drain but “approaching the drainhole.” To the extent that the editors couldn’t find someone who at least gets basic facts right, he has a point.

It would be nice if everyone were to do their family trees going back 400 years or so. A lot of flaws in the various Christian religions of that time, but record keeping was not one of them. I have mostly European, but also Angolan, I'm one of millions of descendants from John Gowan, who was about the first ship to arrive. He became an indentured servant and first Angolan to free himself using his own money. while an indentured servant, he had relations with a woman from the Pamunky tribe, which is the line I'm from. I'm also among the millions descended from Pocahontas, which is from the Powhatan tribe. I also have a bit of Dakota and Cherokee. As far as Europeans go, it starts in Russia and moves west to the ocean, including the island nations. A mixture of classes in both the economic and royal sense. There are indentured servants and those who owned indentured servants. A few slave lines that I've been unable to identify a country of origin, after the laws were changed to allow for the practice of slavery. Religiously, Christian with some Jewish forced conversions. I come from the persecuted and persecutors. I have some of the earliest settlers of the English colonies and New York prior to becoming an English colony. Jamestown had my ancestors on the second ship there. 3 different families from the Mayflower. My family has a long history of killing each other over religious grounds and loyalty to some royal or another. This includes being on both sides of the Mormon-Missouri Conflict. Being descended from unpopular religions meant a lot of movement in Europe and North America. I had family on the first wagon train to California who chose to leave the south due to being abolitionists. Southern abolitionists prior to the Southern rebellion were not treated kindly. That may all be part of my genetic makeup, but has not bearing on who I am today other than interesting facts of history. There is also the interesting part of seeing just how quickly wealth can be lost over the course of a few generations. There was no wealth left to me by anyone, since both my parents were poor. My father was enlisted in the Navy, which did not pay all that much considering my mother had four children. BobRyan
News, incredible! So now, which part of me is declaring supremacy over which part? The Scottish-Irish (with some Belgian roots) The Ashanti? The Bengal? The possible Jewish? Ludicrous and a strong sign of what happens when ideology, here, marxism in cultural form parasiting off issues of race, slavery and colonialism, is pushed to dominate over rationality. Not too many years from now, we will look back to this knot in time and wonder at the march of folly and why so many were blind to the consequences, even as we now do about the run-up to 1914 and the 1930's. KF kairosfocus
has logic been declared racist yet? zweston
From Michelet's lyrical 1904 essay on the witch hunters: https://books.google.com/books?id=RBfXAAAAMAAJ "Here lies Sprenger's real merit, which is beyond dispute. He is a fool, but an intrepid fool; boldly and unflinchingly he lays down the least acceptable doctrines. Another man would have tried to elude, attenuate, soften objections, —but this is not his way. Beginning on the first page, he sets down openly and displays one by one the natural, self-evident reasons there are for disbelieving the satanic miracles. This done, he adds coldly, "Merely so many heretic mistakes." And never pausing to refute the reasons given, he copies out the texts on the other side, St. Thomas Aquinas, the Bible, legends, canonists, and commentators. First he shows you what common sense has to say, then pulverises it by weight of authority. The method is everywhere identical. Good common sense first of all, followed by a direct frontal attack, a downright, unhesitating negation of common sense. " polistra
Well, nobody cares about logic, also not intelligent design theorists. Case in point is, the definition of choice. Google defines it as; choose (verb) = pick out (someone or something) as being the best or most appropriate of two or more alternatives But then in the dictionary to "pick out" is defined as to choose, so that it all becomes an error of circular logic. choose = choose (someone or something) as being the best or most appropriate of two or more alternatives But then people insist that this is not an error of circular logic. Choosing is the central mechanism in intelligent design theory. So to make a logic error in the central mechanism of your theory, means you don't have a theory. And there are lots of other words, where when I have a dispute as to how to define them, then people just disregard logic, and instead rely on authority and the status quo. mohammadnursyamsu
It's the combination of going to war against logic, racism, real history, along with a whole other things. CRT teaches, not that children are taught to be racist, but are born that way. In 1619, shortly after the first laws of VA were written by a representative body, Angolans arrived via an English Privateer, one of which was John Graweere, who changed his last name to Gowan. He became an indentured servant, since slavery was not allowed under the law. After his freedom was purchased by himself, making him the first of the Angolans to finish their contracts, he eventually became an officer of the Virginia Court, after marrying a white woman. It was his job to punish people, regardless of color, for breaking the law with no distinction between anything other than the law that was broken. https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/205116049/john-graweere If slavery existed in 1619, which they want to teach, and all the white people were blatantly racist right from the start, then how did an Angolan, among the first to arrive at Jamestown, become free, marry a white woman and become officer of the court? The truth is, that first generation at Jamestown didn't care about race. BobRyan

Leave a Reply