Jerry Coyne: Promoting his religious views, not science

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. 


About Retha Faurie

Attempting to question everything, reject the bad and hold fast to the good.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Jerry Coyne: Promoting his religious views, not science

  1. carl botha says:

    This is problably the ONLY post in the world which contains DELETED comments only!

  2. Retha says:

    Actually Carl, yours is the first comment I’ve got here. There are no deleted comments on this post. So, if you have an opinion of the smuggling of godlessness into a topic that (IMO) does not require it, you are welcome.
    Edit: After looking in my trash, I found one other comment, but that is spam, not a comment on evolution. So yours was technically the second comment on this post.

  3. carl botha says:

    “it would still not mean that said events happened unguided.”

    If you admit to guided — then everything must be guided.

    Good and bad things that people do.

    Now will you claim that you are guided by G0d/J3sus and I am guided by Satan (another religious invention)?

  4. Retha says:

    No. Admitting to guided certainly does not neccesitate admitting that everything is guided. And my religious views or yours (which I know nothing of) is not the topic here.

  5. diamondnell says:

    Yes, Coyne seems more concerned with religion than science. Which is why he is right that the 47-48% are not on his side.

    The atheistic cult doctrine is “naturalism,” not “evolution.” This is why evolution is not antithetical to Christianity at all. In fact, evolution stands a much better chance of taking place if there is a God to help it over the rough patches.

    It takes religious fervor to simply ignore the rough patches.

What is your opinion? (Your first comment ever on this blog will need approval before it appears to the public, do not be surprised if that happens.)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s