Culture Darwinism Intellectual freedom Intelligent Design

Wokeness: Darwin wails but it hardly matters now

Spread the love

The world his followers have helped create is a critical part of the problem. Here’s Darwinian evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne keening at Why Evolution Is True:

Those of us who want our science free of ideology can only stand by helplessly as we watch physics, chemistry, and biology crumble from within as the termites of Wokeism nibble away. I once thought that scientists, whom I presumed would be less concerned than humanities professors with ideological pollution (after all, we do have some objective facts to argue about), would be largely immune to Wokeism.

I was wrong, of course. It turns out that scientists are human beings after all, and with that goes the desire for the approbation of one’s peers and of society. And you don’t get that if you’re deemed a racist. You can even be criticized from holding yourself away from the fray, preferring to do science than engage in social engineering. (Remember, Kendi-an doctrine says that if you’re not an actively working anti-racist, you’re a racist.)

Jerry Coyne, “Science “studies” helping bring down science” at Why Evolution Is True

Jerry … Can we talk? So you never suspected that anything was wrong when you yourself were persecuting people who had legitimate doubts about Darwinism? It’s really hard for the rest of us not to notice that stuff.

Larry Krauss is upset too and he outlines his grounds for concern.

I (O’Leary for News) had an accidental run-in with Krauss about a dozen years ago when I commented on something he had said at a conference I happened to be attending in northern Ontario (no, really).

I am reprinting it here from May 30, 2009:


In a recent post, “Science at the end of the world: Lawrence Krauss addresses the 2009 Sudbury, Ontario, meeting of the Canadian Science Writers’ Association”, I doubted his “particle physicist” prescriptions for science journalism.

Essentially, he thought a lot of problems would be cleared up if we started with the assumption that there is only one side to many science stories. Well yes, it would simplify matters, but …

He also thought it his duty to tell us his opinions on many issues in religion and politics.

I pointed out here that it is the duty of a journalist to seek a variety of perspectives on an issue. I followed that up by talking about the scientists who spoke at the conference who truly impressed me: He who knows something gains respect. He who knows everything …

Anyway, Dr. Krauss felt it worth his while to respond here at Salvo (where I had put up a stub leading to the post). He suggested that I should have been at a meeting of religious writers.

In fact, my complaint was precisely that there was too much about religion and politics in his address – to say nothing of altogether too much certainty about a universe where we only know about 5% of the total mass.

Here is what I said in reply:

As I pointed out in a recent post, it was Krauss who brought up a lot of dreck about religion in his talk Sunday night – after I had listened to real science all morning at Dynamic Earth!

When we went down to the mine, to SNOLAB and SNOLAB Plus the following Tuesday, no one talked about religion at all.

In fact, those scientists, unlike Krauss were humble in the face of the facts, and never claimed that they knew all that he claims to knows about the cosmos, as well as government, school systems, et cetera.

They certainly restored my faith in science.

Krauss isn’t fooling anyone. That’s why he grouses that Canada is beginning to fear science (= fear listening to people like him instead of people like the SNO Plus physicists).

He then went on to reply again, saying the same sorts of things:

I spent a fair amount of time trying to specifically discuss inherent tensions in science reporting, and then explain what he have been learning about the universe.. and even pointed out the key things we don’t understand.. I had not met ms o’leary before but she does a disservice to journalism by her reporting.

L. Krauss

He did spend a fair amount of time on science reporting (to no good effect, in my view) and on key things we don’t understand – but with a level of certainty and an admixture of religion and politics that seemed quite out of place to me. Especially because – as noted above – the whole thing had been done much better, earlier in the day, by a local physicist.

Well, I was not going to bother with this any more because if my In Tray were a work of nature, it would be formally classified as a natural disaster. However, Dr. Krauss also went to Uncommon Descent, where I am a community blogger, and posted similar comments. He complains of “inaccuracies and distortions”.

Again, I replied:

Dr. Krauss does not – in my view – clearly understand that journalism is the first draft of history.

No one who practises the craft should start out knowing exactly who is right and who is wrong. It is never as simple as that, and approaching it that way is a good way to be wrong.

And the more things one is absolutely certain of, the more likely one is to be wrong.

My sense is, Dr. Krauss probably isn’t used to people who analyze what he is saying seriously, especially when he is prescribing for fields other than his own.

In reality, a great many of the people at that conference were science communication bureaucrats on government salary. They do not need to think about the problems of news reporting in the way that I do.

Anyway, I am now going back to the ol’ In Tray, all the heavier for new stories from the Sudbury meet.

See also: Humanity killing the Universe? (More of Dr. Krauss’s views)


Some day, the Darwinians will discover freedom of religion. In the meantime, let them find out what no freedom feels like. It will sharpen their instincts.

3 Replies to “Wokeness: Darwin wails but it hardly matters now

  1. 1
    Silver Asiatic says:

    That was an eye-opening way to start the morning – especially including the link here at UD where Mr Krauss came on to insult Denyse’s integrity. He seems to have the emotional maturity of … Jerry Coyne? There’s a lot of pure gold here – almost too much to take in.

    Jerry says …

    Those of us who want our science free of ideology can only stand by helplessly as we watch physics, chemistry, and biology crumble from within as the termites of Wokeism nibble away.

    He wanted science free from everything but his own ideology. A persecutor of everyone else is now facing the tyrants. The truth does win out, sometimes in ugly ways. There is recompense and justice. So now Jerry has to stand by helplessly as his own leftist-atheistic-materialists just continue the auto-demolition work guys like Jerry Coyne unleashed. Let the narcissists loose to pursue their own fantasies – and now science becomes a weapon in the war for wokeness.

    I once thought that scientists, whom I presumed would be less concerned than humanities professors with ideological pollution (after all, we do have some objective facts to argue about), would be largely immune to Wokeism.

    He once thought scientists were the noble white knights, like himself. But sadly, they couldn’t live up to his lofty standards of atheistic-mindlessness. So, scientists decided that money and virtue-signalling and celebrity-status were desirable goals. Did they get those ideas from the celebrity-atheists?

    I was wrong, of course.

    There’s still time for Confession before Easter. Mea culpa. “I was wrong” … that’s a very good start – just keep going. You are still very, very wrong.

    It turns out that scientists are human beings after all,

    Really? I thought they were smarter and better than everyone else, just like we’ve been taught to believe. How sad – just plain old human beings, capable of lying and saying and doing very stupid and destructive things. I’ll be thankful for the many good scientists who have always known their limits and have respected God and neighbor in the process.

    and with that goes the desire for the approbation of one’s peers and of society.

    I’ll give him a nod of respect at least for that sentiment.

    You can even be criticized from holding yourself away from the fray, preferring to do science than engage in social engineering. (Remember, Kendi-an doctrine says that if you’re not an actively working anti-racist, you’re a racist.)

    I woudn’t call Jerry Coyne a guy who kept himself away from the fray. He’s always been an aggressive culture warrior. But when the target was just lowly creationists and religious believers, nobody cared. But a refusal to engage in woke politics means he has to pay a social-price for it among the glitterati.

    D O’Leary:

    So you never suspected that anything was wrong when you yourself were persecuting people who had legitimate doubts about Darwinism?

    Exactly. Completely blind to his own hostility and close-mindedness. But now he’s the victim, so it’s all different.

    I pointed out here that it is the duty of a journalist to seek a variety of perspectives on an issue. I followed that up by talking about the scientists who spoke at the conference who truly impressed me: He who knows something gains respect. He who knows everything …

    The true journalist has to question the powers-that-be and often that becomes uncomfortable. But there are hardly any science journalists now, they’re all just a part of the fan-club.
    Admiration and appreciation for you, Denyse – for journalistic standards and taking abuse from a guy like Krauss. That was totally unjustified and childish on his part.

    He suggested that I should have been at a meeting of religious writers.

    As you pointed out, you were indeed at a religious meeting. The religion of Krauss, Coyne, Dawkins, Dennett and the rest was on display and nobody is permitted to question it.
    The assault of the woke-termites can end up being a good thing, although a lot of damage ensues. Wokeness is simply a warped morality being imposed on society and that’s the kind of backlash that should be expected from anti-Christian amoral atheism. People will always gravitate to right versus wrong, even though evolution and atheism has been telling us that neither actually exist.

  2. 2
    jerry says:

    Elon Musk made an offer to buy all of Twitter yesterday.

    Elon Musk offers to buy Twitter for $41 billion

    https://nypost.com/2022/04/14/elon-musk-offers-to-buy-twitter-for-41-billion/

    An attempt to fight back against wokeism?

    The Deep State will then try to kill Twitter. It will not be allowed to stand.

    How the Deep State works. Article about Canadian doctor who would not succumb.

    The Doctor Who Exposed Fauci’s Fallacies and Got Harassed and Fired from HHS for Telling the Truth

    https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2022/04/the_doctor_who_exposed_faucis_fallacies_and_got_harassed_and_fired_from_hhs_for_telling_the_truth.html

    Again wokeism is not the product of Marxist academics. It is sanctioned by those wanting a world government. Wall Street is behind most of the woke efforts and they are apparently after a world government. The press are in their pay.

    Always follow the money!!!!!

  3. 3
    polistra says:

    Good story about Denyse vs “L Krauss”.

    I think Krauss knows what he’s doing and where he’s going. Coyne seems to lack self-awareness.

Leave a Reply