Jerry Coyne tells us: Anticreationist book author Twittermobbed, may be de-Wikipedia’d

_{Denyse O'Leary

August 21, 2022

Academic Freedom, Creationism, Darwinism, Intelligent Design, Racism}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

First, here’s the book.

Creationists had nothing to do with her plight. The Woke pounced. And don’t expect their accusations to necessarily make any sense. They wouldn’t have to. One of Coyne’s readers provides links:

”I’d like to bring your attention to what’s been happening over the past couple of days to the paleoartist and behavioral geneticist Emily Willoughby. Emily is the co-author and illustrator of the anti-creationism book that you covered here: https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2018/03/26/a-relatively-new-anti-creationist-book/
The main Twitter thread attacking her is this one: https://twitter.com/Prehistorica_CM/status/1557819532722552835
And Emily posted this thread in response: https://twitter.com/eawilloughby/status/1557890456176005120
What is clear is that mob sentiment is now trying to get her page erased because a few yahoos falsely accused of her engaging in racist work on IQ. Nobody cares about the facts; an accusation is sufficient.”
The people trying to hurt her career are reprehensible; humans lacking a crumb of empathy and wallowing in their own ignorance about the person they’re trying to cancel. And if Wikipedia erases her article, it will be shameful.
Jerry Coyne, “The imminent cancellation of Emily Willoughby: a fight to remove her from Wikipedia” at Why Evolution Is True (August 21, 2022)

Willoughby might as well be Gunter Bechly.

Get this: “Nobody cares about the facts; an accusation is sufficient.” Oh, for heaven’s sakes, look on the bright side!: At least we know it’s the authentic Twitter mob and not some second-rate substitute like a starving wolf pack…

The thing is, Darwinians themselves (like Darwinian evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne) perfected the art of deplatforming when they used it on Darwin skeptics. The Woke adopted it — but the Woke, as it happens, eat their benefactors. So, of course, now the Woke are coming after the Darwinians…

It’s hard to know how to help because none of these people believe in intellectual freedom. So where do we start?

Jerry Coyne is also trying to do something about Scientific American going Woke. It’s likely hard for him to accept that Woke is slowly becoming all that Scientific American has got now. Woke devours institutions the way cancer devours a body, as long as there is anything to sustain it.

Comments

@8 it’s okay science is going to be taken from one group of idiots to there other so nothing really will have changedAaronS1978_{August 22, 2022
August
08
Aug
22
22
2022
08:55 AM
8
08
55
AM
PDT}

No need to mock anybody. Whoever the "woke" promoters are, they only seek to distort or destroy. Their weapon is accusation. It's all they have. Since the world is not perfect and people are not perfect, they can select any target and accuse it of - a lack of PERFECTION. Of course this assumes that the Woke regard themselves as perfect. Which, apparently, they do. Regarding Scientific American, it's a classic example of infiltrate and destroy. I recall early issues being too difficult to understand for the layperson. As time passed, the magazine became easier to read. So, the whole woke thing must control science and manipulate it, obscuring the truth. Sad. Very sad. We must be on our guard against this and cultivate more reliable sources that provide documented facts and information.relatd_{August 22, 2022
August
08
Aug
22
22
2022
08:12 AM
8
08
12
AM
PDT}

Sarcasm Chuck sarcasm I know how IQ is measured it’s a clever little test filled with neat questions Honestly I think IQ tests don’t fully measure intelligence accurately and they measure a specific kind of intelligence Secondly cranial size and intelligence between races has been a long debated, idiotic, falsified, bogus practice which had its roots in science since 1884 I think Lastly thank you for pointing out the 5pt correction on my sarcasm for average IQAaronS1978_{August 22, 2022
August
08
Aug
22
22
2022
07:30 AM
7
07
30
AM
PDT}

not phrenology or craniology
I believe AronS1978 was mocking what science supposedly once told us which you left out. The take home is that maybe we should be mocking a lot of what scientists are telling us today. Certainly anything science says on OOL and macro evolution should be mocked. And probably a lot of everything else they espouse too. Is a lot of what science supports, really fake news. Sad but probably true. Viruses, medicine, diets and climate are areas that come to mind besides Evolution and OOL and cosmology. Follow the money! Scientists obviously do.
but the Woke, as it happens, eat their benefactors. So, of course, now the Woke are coming after the Darwinians…
When will the anti truth people ever learn? The Montagnards always destroy the Girondists. And then Robespierre was gone in less than 48 hours too. From sentencing people to the guillotine to the guillotine himself. Aside: because the left lives on lies, we associate this behavior with the left. But it will affect all who live on lies no matter what part of the political spectrum they come from.jerry_{August 22, 2022
August
08
Aug
22
22
2022
07:11 AM
7
07
11
AM
PDT}

"but the Woke, as it happens, eat their benefactors" Evolution in action. Soon they'll be a different species. Cannibals to Kings. Andrewasauber_{August 22, 2022
August
08
Aug
22
22
2022
07:07 AM
7
07
07
AM
PDT}

AronS1978
[White} IQs are on average 20 points higher then (sic) black people based on a super accurate SCIENCE experiment that measured head size in helmets.
The average group difference, as measured by IQ testing, not phrenology or craniology, is 15 points or one standard deviation.chuckdarwin_{August 22, 2022
August
08
Aug
22
22
2022
06:49 AM
6
06
49
AM
PDT}

I finally gave up on Sci-Am last year and let my subscription expire (yeah, what took me so long!) after reading it faithfully for more than 50 years. The Jerry Coyne link above regarding Sci-Am's woke biases is interesting if you can ignore his anti-creationist parts. He also links to a detailed post by Michael Shermer who was let go by Sci-Am for not following their woke editorial policies. Both of these two are pro-Darwin, left-leaning atheists, so even if the details of their complaints about Sci-Am are different from mine, they all point to the same problem. I wonder what Sci-Am's subscriber numbers have been doing these past several years? Surely going extreme-left politically is not a good strategy for attracting new readers to a science magazine!Fasteddious_{August 22, 2022
August
08
Aug
22
22
2022
06:41 AM
6
06
41
AM
PDT}

As to the title of Willoughby's book, "God’s Word or Human Reason?" So, according to the title of the book she co-authored, either you can believe in God's Word or you can believe in Human Reason, but you can't believe in both? Really??? Interesting claim coming from someone whose own Darwinian worldview undermines the very possibility of reasoning in the first place. The main 'reason' that Darwinism cannot ground our ability to reason is that Darwinian materialism denies the reality of free will. Jerry Coyne himself gives a shining example of how denying free will undermines our capacity to reason in a coherent fashion. Jerry Coyne himself stated, "Free will is an illusion so convincing that people simply refuse to believe that we don’t have it.,,,"
The Illusion of Free Will - Sam Harris - 2012 Excerpt: "Free will is an illusion so convincing that people simply refuse to believe that we don’t have it.,,," - Jerry Coyne https://samharris.org/the-illusion-of-free-will/
That statement by Coyne should literally be the number one example of a self-refuting statement that is given in philosophy/logic 101 classes. As Martin Cothran explains, “The claim that free will is an illusion requires the possibility that minds have the freedom to assent to a logical argument, a freedom denied by the claim itself. It is an assent that must, in order to remain logical and not physiological, presume a perspective outside the physical order.”
Sam Harris's Free Will: The Medial Pre-Frontal Cortex Did It - Martin Cothran - November 9, 2012 Excerpt: There is something ironic about the position of thinkers like Harris on issues like this: they claim that their position is the result of the irresistible necessity of logic (in fact, they pride themselves on their logic). Their belief is the consequent, in a ground/consequent relation between their evidence and their conclusion. But their very stated position is that any mental state -- including their position on this issue -- is the effect of a physical, not logical cause.?By their own logic, it isn't logic that demands their assent to the claim that free will is an illusion, but the prior chemical state of their brains. The only condition under which we could possibly find their argument convincing is if they are not true. The claim that free will is an illusion requires the possibility that minds have the freedom to assent to a logical argument, a freedom denied by the claim itself. It is an assent that must, in order to remain logical and not physiological, presume a perspective outside the physical order. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/11/sam_harriss_fre066221.html Of note: Martin Cothran is author of Several textbooks on traditional logic https://www.amazon.com/Martin-Cothran/e/B00J249LUA/ref=dp_byline_cont_pop_book_1
In short, the claim from Atheistic Naturalists that they have no free will completely undermines any claim that they are making, or that they are even capable of making, a logically, and/or rationally, coherent argument in the first place:
(1) rationality implies a thinker in control of thoughts. (2) under materialism a thinker is an effect caused by processes in the brain (determinism). (3) in order for materialism to ground rationality a thinker (an effect) must control processes in the brain (a cause). (1)&(2) (4) no effect can control its cause. Therefore materialism cannot ground rationality. - per Box UD
So, the title of the book is severely misleading in that it directly implies that you can either believe in God's Word, or you can believe in Human Reasoning, but you can't believe in both. That is simply a patently false dichotomy that they are presenting in the title of their book. The truth is that without God we have no basis to trust human reasoning in the first place. As Nancy Pearcey explained, "Of course, the atheist pursuing his research has no choice but to rely on rationality, just as everyone else does. The point is that he has no philosophical basis for doing so. Only those who affirm a rational Creator have a basis for trusting human rationality."
Why Evolutionary Theory Cannot Survive Itself Nancy Pearcey - March 8, 2015 Excerpt: To make the dilemma even more puzzling, evolutionists tell us that natural selection has produced all sorts of false concepts in the human mind. Many evolutionary materialists maintain that free will is an illusion, consciousness is an illusion, even our sense of self is an illusion — and that all these false ideas were selected for their survival value. So how can we know whether the theory of evolution itself is one of those false ideas? The theory undercuts itself.,,, Of course, the atheist pursuing his research has no choice but to rely on rationality, just as everyone else does. The point is that he has no philosophical basis for doing so. Only those who affirm a rational Creator have a basis for trusting human rationality. The reason so few atheists and materialists seem to recognize the problem is that, like Darwin, they apply their skepticism selectively. They apply it to undercut only ideas they reject, especially ideas about God. They make a tacit exception for their own worldview commitments. https://evolutionnews.org/2015/03/why_evolutionar/
Of supplemental note:
Naturalism and Self-Refutation - Michael Egnor - January 31, 2018 Excerpt: Furthermore, the very framework of Clark’s argument — logic — is neither material nor natural. Logic, after all, doesn’t exist “in the space-time continuum” and isn’t described by physics. What is the location of modus ponens? How much does Gödel’s incompleteness theorem weigh? What is the physics of non-contradiction? How many millimeters long is Clark’s argument for naturalism? Ironically the very logic that Clark employs to argue for naturalism is outside of any naturalistic frame. The strength of Clark’s defense of naturalism is that it is an attempt to present naturalism’s tenets clearly and logically. That is its weakness as well, because it exposes naturalism to scrutiny, and naturalism cannot withstand even minimal scrutiny. Even to define naturalism is to refute it. https://evolutionnews.org/2018/01/naturalism-and-self-refutation/
Verse and quotes,
John 1:1 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” ‘the Word’ in John1:1 is translated from ‘Logos’ in Greek. Logos is also the root word from which we derive our modern word logic http://etymonline.com/?term=logic What is the Logos? Logos is a Greek word literally translated as “word, speech, or utterance.” However, in Greek philosophy, Logos refers to divine reason or the power that puts sense into the world making order instead of chaos.,,, In the Gospel of John, John writes “In the beginning was the Word (Logos), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1). John appealed to his readers by saying in essence, “You’ve been thinking, talking, and writing about the Word (divine reason) for centuries and now I will tell you who He is.” https://www.compellingtruth.org/what-is-the-Logos.html
bornagain77_{August 22, 2022
August
08
Aug
22
22
2022
03:10 AM
3
03
10
AM
PDT}

I was taught to only trust in science based in human reasoning which evolved, but don’t trust religion because it’s based in human reasoning which is flawed because it evolved….. And remember people, white people are more evolved then black people, and our IQs are on average 20 points higher then black people based on a super accurate SCIENCE experiment that measured head size in helmets. Thanks science, Darwin, and evolution! (Please read with an intense amount of sarcasm)AaronS1978_{August 21, 2022
August
08
Aug
21
21
2022
10:07 PM
10
10
07
PM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply