Culture Intelligent Design Naturalism science education

Journal Nature: Stuck with a battle it dare not fight, even for the soul of science

Spread the love

From Sarah Chaffee at ENV:

Two Days After Warning Against “Anti-Science” Label, Nature Calls Academic Freedom “Anti-Science”

From the headline of the piece you might think you were reading some online tabloid. But guess again. Published in Nature on May 12 and republished by Scientific American, Erin Ross’s article declares, “Revamped ‘anti-science’ education bills in United States find success.” The headline is describing legislation in Florida and academic freedom resolutions in Alabama and Indiana.

The term “anti-science” is ironic. As we noted at Evolution News the other day, Nature itself published a May 10 editorial, “Beware the anti-science label.” It warned against using the term lightly and urged that “Presenting science as a battle for truth against ignorance is an unhelpful exaggeration.”

Now here is Nature, just two days later, labeling academic freedom resolutions as “anti-science.” More.

Excuse me guys but, as in so many looming strategic disasters, the guns are facing the wrong way.

True, lots of teachers are just plain tired of fronting Darwin’s zombie science to students.*

That said, surely no creationist or ID theorist—or any type of non-Darwinist—has ever told Nature that objectivity is sexist or that “Western” math is a dehumanizing tool or that engineering is socially unjust. The plea has been to just let evidence matter again, in relation to theory.

So what do the Nature editors do? They distract themselves and others from the growing influence of post-modernism by pretending that the real issue is people who doubt Darwin.

In media lingo, that is called “See! A squirrel!”

One hopes they will come to care enough for science to risk confronting the post-modern pussyhats before doing so becomes truly risky. The problem is, the pussyhats have nowhere to go and so can’t stop. Pretty soon, we will be hearing that penises are a social construct. Yes, that one was a hoax, but many post-moderns believed it. The next such claim might be the latest rage in science righteousness. And they are camped not far away now …

Shoutin’, shoutin’ for or against the marchin’, marchin’ masses is hardly what is needed now

* I (O’Leary for News) have been reading Jonathan Wells’s book, Zombie Science, and was rattled by the continued prevalence of information in textbooks that was generally agreed to be out of date ages ago. More later.

See also: From Nature: US “Academic freedom” bills are “anti-science”

and

No, really!! We found the zombies! They were on welfare in Texas! But they are apparently heading back to California, where their talents are said to be urgently needed.

6 Replies to “Journal Nature: Stuck with a battle it dare not fight, even for the soul of science

  1. 1
    goodusername says:

    That said, surely no creationist or ID theorist—or any type of non-Darwinist—has ever told Nature that objectivity is sexist or that “Western” math is a dehumanizing tool or that engineering is socially unjust. The plea has been to just let evidence matter again, in relation to theory.

    So what do the Nature editors do? They distract themselves and others from the growing influence of post-modernism by pretending that the real issue is people who doubt Darwin.

    Actually, they probably do hear stuff like that from non-Darwinists, as postmodernists tend to not be Darwinists.

  2. 2
    News says:

    goodusername at 1, could you source that? Post-modernists tend not to have any mental discipline whatever; indeed, they despise it. It would be valuable to know if they usually happened to fall on the anti-Darwinian side.

  3. 3
    rvb8 says:

    “goodusername at 1, could you source that?”

    Why?

    The post above is a deliberate obfuscation. It is the intention of the author to take articles from one of the most respectable scientific journals in the world, and dicredit them.

    That’s fine on a rostrum as tiny as this, but it does speak to a certain ammount of dishonesty.

    The May 10th article was about being aware of silly assertions being made by organizatons such as Trump’s administration.

    The article concerning the knuckle draggers of Alabami etc, was simply pointing out, science has no problem with science (Darwinism), only creationists do.

    NEWS for O’Leary, or O’Leary for News, also points to regressive leftism and its silly attacks on science as some kind of ally for creationism.

    It’s not, regressive leftism, is just nasty, barren, and doomed; kind of like ID.

  4. 4
    goodusername says:

    News,

    It’s difficult to find any single authoritative source as to what “postmodernists” believe, but certainly the type of postmodernists you’re referring to – the anti-Western science, objectivity is sexist, etc, kind -aren’t very fond of the theories of bearded Victorian males.

    It’s one of the reasons Richard Dawkins regularly complains of post-modernism. (Every leading Darwinist I know of has complained of them.)

    If someone believes that the penis is a social construct, I’m not sure how they’d accept Darwinist theories of how it evolved.

    https://www.edge.org/conversation/helena_cronin-getting-human-nature-right :
    “one thing on which most schools of feminism agree is that they’re anti-Darwinian.”

    “Post-modernism and its stable-mates — they’re obviously all complete balderdash, not to be taken seriously intellectually… One of the reasons why so much logic-free, fact-free, statistics-free criticism of Darwinism has been able to find an audience is this attitude that science is just another view so I’m free to adopt my view, any view.”

  5. 5
    News says:

    goodusername at 4: You write “It’s difficult to find any single authoritative source as to what “postmodernists” believe, but certainly the type of postmodernists you’re referring to – the anti-Western science, objectivity is sexist, etc, kind -aren’t very fond of the theories of bearded Victorian males.”

    No, but when it is rebranded as Cool, the po-mos forget the beards. Evolutionary psychology is the perfect post-modern discipline. All social drama; no subject.

    Anyway, post-modernism is invading the sciences and one might well spare a thought for Bret Weinstein.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/01/opinion/when-the-left-turns-on-its-own.html?_r=0

  6. 6
    tribune7 says:

    Things I wonder about are:

    How much of this is premeditated i.e. How can we screw up society.

    How much of this is done out of boredom i.e. What crazy thing can I say to get attention followed by holy toledo they believe me I’ll try again.

    How much of this is “evolutionary” i.e. The old tenets that the previous generation knew to keep else suffering and death would quickly follow no longer seem to cause suffering and death when not kept hence I don’t have to follow them as they are not fun. At least until The Gods of The Copybook Headings return.

    Regardless, thinkers will always recognize that truth is real.

Leave a Reply