Jerry Coyne is an ardent evolutionist, and wrote “Why evolution is true”. He should be very happy to hear that at least 75% of American biology teachers believe in evolution, much more than the general public. What should excite Coyne even more, is that the views of teachers imply that future generations will be taught this view.
But Jerry Coyne is not happy about this. Is he ranting about the 16% of teachers who are creationists, or the 9% who failed to answer? No. His problem is that the 75% divides into 28% who believe evolution was unguided, and 47% who personally think God had a hand in it. That 47% irks him.
Because, you see, it is no good to Coyne if people believe in the whole theory of evolution by natural selection, but reject his doctrine on religion and God. According to Coyne:
Can we count those 48% of “guided-by-Godders” on our side? I agree with P. Z.: the answer is NO. Yes, they do accept that our species changed genetically over time, but they see God as having pulled the strings. That’s not the way evolution works…
To count them as allies means we make company with those who accept evolution in a superficial sense but reject it in the deepest sense. After all, the big revolution in thought wrought by Darwin was the recognition that the appearance of design—thought for centuries to be proof of God—could stem from purely natural processes. When we cede human evolution to God, then, we abandon that revolution. That’s why I see selective creationists like Kenneth Miller, Karl Giberson and Francis Collins as parting company with modern biological thought.
Here is the rub: Even if common descent -the relation between every living thing from crickets to corals, from youngberries to yourself- was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, it would still not mean that said events happened unguided. There is no evidence that evolution happened “from purely natural processes.” Anyone who talks of unguided evolution, is pushing his religious view, not science.
Darwin’s big revolution in thought, according to Coyne, was “the recognition that the appearance of design—thought for centuries to be proof of God—could stem from purely natural processes.” That may be so, but it is very sloppy thinking to go from “could stem” to “did stem”. And if this is “modern biological thought,” then modern biological thought is not science.
Notice to commenters: The topic of this thread is evolution as an atheistic cult doctrine, not evolution as biological fact/ fiction. Off-topic comments will be deleted at the blog owner’s discretion.