Culture Darwinism Intelligent Design Naturalism

Rob Sheldon on Darwinian Jerry Coyne’s difficulty in swallowing the new Woke science

Spread the love

Recently, we noted that Darwinian biologist Jerry Coyne had taken the risk of protesting, at his blog Why Evolution Is True, a recent claim in a mainstream medium that “I am of Indian origin. My parents [were] born in India. But if I were to randomly pick a South Asian person on the street and randomly pick a white, Canadian person on the street and test their genomes, it’s perfectly statistically possible for my genome to have more in common with a white person than with the Indian person. That’s how almost complete that overlap is. So we are incredibly similar as a species, and the vast majority of difference that we see is accounted for by individual difference.” That didn’t sound like it could possible be correct to him and he took the risk of saying so.

Our physics color commentator Rob Sheldon offers some thoughts:


“Woke” science is bad science and heavily biassed toward PC answers while abusing the data. What perhaps Coyne doesn’t appreciate, is that the same methods used by woke science are used by Darwinist science, and indeed by any science captured by an ideology. Therefore the danger is not that they arrive at the wrong conclusion, but rather that this infectious method so permeates academia, that when the goals change, say, as in Germany in 1933, the method quickly adapts to producing the “correct” output. Coyne doesn’t know it, but his own ideological preferences are ruining the methodology of his own field of study.

The Long Ascent, Volume 2: Genesis 1–11 in Science & Myth by [Robert Sheldon, David Mackie]

Second, Lewontin himself has been taken to task for arguing against the notion of race. A fascinating white paper on the late Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza calls him “a bird in a gilded cage”, because his pioneering research into human genetics caused him to be an outcast of the genetics field, since it supported Darwin’s idea of racial differences (when everyone was trying to whitewash Darwin). Meanwhile, Lewontin’s (erroneous) work denying race caused him to rise to a full professorship at Harvard.

Coyne was a graduate student of Lewontin, and surprised me by calling out his advisor for bad logic, despite that fact Lewontin was a 1980’s version of “woke” genetics!

Third, somebody, somewhere is smart enough to figure out that the way to take over a field of study is to pervert its methodology. In the case of “woke” genetics, it is the effort to whitewash Darwin’s racism that leads to these bad papers. Coyne’s message is clear—the cure can be worse than the disease. We could cure Covid, as some cartoonists suggest, the way Kim Jong Un cures Covid and rebellious thoughts. But once we allow this type of methodology, it can be easily turned on its owners later on. Coyne needs to be made aware that, like Lewontin, he is being used by nefarious powers. He only thinks he’s in control, when in fact, he is a tool of the state.

Fourth, if, as Coyne suggests, everyone knows that Lewontin is wrong, then why isn’t Cavalli-Sforza being rehabilitated?

Rob Sheldon is the author of The Long Ascent, Vol. 1 and The Long Ascent, Vol. 2

See also: Jerry Coyne on genetics and race. If Saini is Woke and Correct, her output doesn’t need to make sense. That’s what the last twenty years of higher education have largely been about. Jerry’s attempt to correct the errors is creditable but he is facing a tsunami. You can’t correct a tsunami. One hopes this kind of thing doesn’t end badly for him. He doesn’t deserve that.

4 Replies to “Rob Sheldon on Darwinian Jerry Coyne’s difficulty in swallowing the new Woke science

  1. 1
    BobRyan says:

    The schools in the United States, at all levels, have become indoctrination factories to produce good socialists. Being a good socialist has nothing to do with being good in any other area. China has to steal everything as a result of believing in ideology over ability. It is better to be a good socialist, than to be a good engineer. Woke anything is no different.

  2. 2
    Seversky says:

    “Woke” science is bad science and heavily biassed toward PC answers while abusing the data. What perhaps Coyne doesn’t appreciate, is that the same methods used by woke science are used by Darwinist science, and indeed by any science captured by an ideology.

    A tad ironic coming from a defender of the Paleyist science of “cdesign proponentsists”.

    In fact, the focus on the tiny genetic differences between human ethnic groups is a distraction. Even if there are measurable differences, say, between average IQs – for whatever that is worth – it says nothing about the respect and equal treatment all deserve regardless of color or creed.

    The real – and dangerous – difference is between those who prize their membership of their own particular ingroup over their membership of the human race as a whole.

    It doesn’t matter whether you’re capitalist, communist, Nazi, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, liberal, centrist, conservative, Republican, isolationist, nationalist, globalist, whatever. We are all stuck on this planet with no prospect of getting off and going somewhere else in the foreseeable future. So we had better find a way of getting along or eventually things will get really bloody for a third time.

  3. 3
    BobRyan says:

    Seversky @ 2

    There have always been wars, some more bloody than others, but they have always existed and will continue to exist. If you truly want fewer wars, then you should desire more democracy in the world. No democratic nation has ever gone to war against another democratic nation. Democracy is a reference to real democratic processes, rather than something like the CCP in China, or Iran’s religious council.

  4. 4
    bornagain77 says:

    Seversky at 2, in response to this comment from Rob Sheldon,

    “Woke” science is bad science and heavily biassed toward PC answers while abusing the data. What perhaps Coyne doesn’t appreciate, is that the same methods used by woke science are used by Darwinist science, and indeed by any science captured by an ideology.

    In response to that, Seversky states,

    A tad ironic coming from a defender of the Paleyist science of “cdesign proponentsists”.

    Implicit in Seversky’s claim is that Intelligent Design is guilty of the same ‘scientific sin’ as Darwinian evolution is. Namely, ignoring falsifying evidence if it disagrees with one’s preferred presupposition. In the case of Darwinian evolution in general, and Seversky in particular, that preferred presupposition is atheistic materialism.

    Yet, Seversky’s preferred presupposition, i.e. atheistic materialism , commits epistemological suicide in that it undermines science itself.

    In atheistic materialism it is held that there is no rhyme or reason, or purpose, for why the universe exists of why we ourselves exist. Unguided chaos, randomness and/or chance, is held to be THE primary presupposition, i,e THE ultimate creator of all things, within atheistic materialism. In short, Atheistic materialism denies that any purpose and/or teleology whatsoever exists for the universe or for ourselves.

    teleology
    2: the fact or character attributed to nature or natural processes of being directed toward an end or shaped by a purpose

    Yet science is impossible without presupposing teleology, i.e. without presupposing that there is a rhyme or reason, or purpose, for why the universe exists of why we ourselves exist.

    As Einstein himself stated, if atheistic materialism were true then “a priori one should expect a chaotic world which cannot be grasped by the mind in any way.”

    “You find it strange that I consider the comprehensibility of the world (to the extent that we are authorized to speak of such a comprehensibility) as a miracle or as an eternal mystery. Well, a priori one should expect a chaotic world which cannot be grasped by the mind in any way. One could (yes one should) expect the world to be subjected to law only to the extent that we order it through our intelligence. Ordering of this kind would be like the alphabetical ordering of the words of a language. By contrast, the kind of order created by Newton’s theory of gravitation, for instance, is wholly different. Even if the axioms of the theory are proposed by man, the success of such a project presupposes a high degree of ordering of the objective world, and this could not be expected a priori. That is the “miracle” which is being constantly reinforced as our knowledge expands.
    There lies the weakness of positivists and professional atheists who are elated because they feel that they have not only successfully rid the world of gods but “bared the miracles”.
    – Albert Einstein – On the Rational Order of the World: a Letter to Maurice Solovine – 1952

    And as the following article states, “the remarkable success of science in modern times is a remarkable confirmation of the truth of theism,,, Without the faith in the rational intelligibility of the world and the divine vocation of human beings to master it, modern science would never have been possible”

    Science and Theism: Concord, not Conflict* – Robert C. Koons
    IV. The Dependency of Science Upon Theism (Page 21)
    Excerpt: Far from undermining the credibility of theism, the remarkable success of science in modern times is a remarkable confirmation of the truth of theism. It was from the perspective of Judeo-Christian theism—and from the perspective alone—that it was predictable that science would have succeeded as it has. Without the faith in the rational intelligibility of the world and the divine vocation of human beings to master it, modern science would never have been possible, and, even today, the continued rationality of the enterprise of science depends on convictions that can be reasonably grounded only in theistic metaphysics.
    http://www.robkoons.net/media/.....ffd524.pdf

    Yet, although the presupposition of teleology is necessary for us to even to be able do science in the first place, Darwinists are resolute in denying that teleology even exists.

    As Michael Egnor succinctly put it, “It is purpose that must be denied in order to deny design in nature. So the mind, as well as teleology, must be denied. Eliminative materialism is just Darwinian metaphysics carried to its logical end and applied to man. If there is no teleology, there is no intentionality, and there is no purpose in nature nor in man’s thoughts.

    Teleology and the Mind – Michael Egnor – August 16, 2016
    Excerpt: From the hylemorphic perspective, there is an intimate link between the mind and teleology. The 19th-century philosopher Franz Brentano pointed out that the hallmark of the mind is that it is directed to something other than itself. That is, the mind has intentionality, which is the ability of a mental process to be about something, rather than to just be itself. Physical processes alone (understood without teleology) are not inherently about things. The mind is always about things. Stated another way, physical processes (understood without teleology) have no purpose. Mental processes always have purpose. In fact, purpose (aboutness-intentionality-teleology) is what defines the mind. And we see the same purpose (aboutness-intentionality-teleology) in nature.
    Intentionality is a form of teleology. Both intentionality and teleology are goal-directedness — intentionality is directedness in thought, and teleology is directedness in nature. Mind and teleology are both manifestations of purpose in nature. The mind is, within nature, the same kind of process that directs nature.
    In this sense, eliminative materialism is necessary if a materialist is to maintain a non-teleological Darwinian metaphysical perspective. It is purpose that must be denied in order to deny design in nature. So the mind, as well as teleology, must be denied. Eliminative materialism is just Darwinian metaphysics carried to its logical end and applied to man. If there is no teleology, there is no intentionality, and there is no purpose in nature nor in man’s thoughts.
    The link between intentionality and teleology, and the undeniability of teleology, is even more clear if we consider our inescapable belief that other people have minds. The inference that other people have minds based on their purposeful (intentional-teleological) behavior, which is obviously correct and is essential to living a sane life, can be applied to our understanding of nature as well. Just as we know that other people have purposes (intentionality), we know just as certainly that nature has purposes (teleology). In a sense, intelligent design is the recognition of the same purpose-teleology-intentionality in nature that we recognize in ourselves and others.
    Teleology and intentionality are certainly the inferences to be drawn from the obvious purposeful arrangement of parts in nature, but I (as a loyal Thomist!) believe that teleology and intentionality are manifest in an even more fundamental way in nature. Any goal-directed natural change is teleological, even if purpose and arrangement of parts is not clearly manifest. The behavior of a single electron orbiting a proton is teleological, because the motion of the electron hews to specific ends (according to quantum mechanics). A pencil falling to the floor behaves teleologically (it does not fall up, or burst into flame, etc.). Purposeful arrangement of parts is teleology on an even more sophisticated scale, but teleology exists in even the most basic processes in nature. Physics is no less teleological than biology.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2016/08/teleology_and_t/

    So again, as far as science in concerned, Seversky’s preferred worldview of atheistic materialism commits epistemological suicide in that it presupposes, as a primary presupposition, that there is no rhyme or reason, no teleology, behind why the universe exists, or behind why we ourselves exist.

    Although Seversky, (and many other Atheists), are fond of insisting that the presupposition of atheistic materialism and/or ‘methodological naturalism’ is a required presupposition for properly doing science, nothing could be further from the truth.

    Contrary to what many people have been falsely led to believe by Darwinian atheists, about Intelligent Design supposedly being a pseudo-science and Darwinian evolution being science, the fact of the matter is that all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on the presupposition of intelligent design and is certainly not based on the presupposition of atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism.
    From the essential Christian presuppositions that undergird the founding of modern science itself, (namely that the universe is rational and that the minds of men, being made in the ‘image of God’, can dare understand that rationality), to the intelligent design of the scientific instruments and experiments themselves, to the logical and mathematical analysis of experimental results themselves, from top to bottom, science itself is certainly not to be considered a ‘natural’ endeavor of man.
    Not one scientific instrument would ever exist if men did not first intelligently design that scientific instrument. Not one test tube, microscope, telescope, spectroscope, or etc.. etc.., was ever found just laying around on a beach somewhere which was ‘naturally’ constructed by nature. Not one experimental result would ever be rationally analyzed since there would be no immaterial minds to rationally analyze the immaterial logic and immaterial mathematics that lay behind the intelligently designed experiments in the first place.
    Again, all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on the presupposition of intelligent design and is certainly not based on the presupposition of methodological naturalism.

    1 Thessalonians 5:21
    but test everything; hold fast what is good.

Leave a Reply