At Evolution News & Views, David Klinghoffer challenges Darwin’s man Jerry Coyne to a debate. But that guy refused to even have lunch with Reb Moishe Averick, claiming that guy oppresses women.
It would be a serious accusation if any reasonable person believed it. It would get the guy defrocked. Typical Darwinism.
Apart from the fact that Coyne is a tenured Darwinist, how seriously is anyone, apart from his grad students, to take him?
9 Replies to “A debate with Jerry Coyne? Why bother?”
For me there are two interesting things in Dr. Coyne wanting to silence Ball State University physics professor Eric Hedin. One is that, contrary to Darwin’s own plea that ‘both sides’ of a argument be heard, Darwinists, rather than letting any countervailing evidence be freely heard in the classroom, have consistently tried to suppress the opposing viewpoint by force of law, or by intimidation, instead of letting the evidence speak for itself:
In fact the persecution by Darwinists is so bad that it, for those who don’t know, inspired a documentary:
Some Darwinists/Atheists objected to EXPELLED saying that those were only isolated cases. Let me assure you that that is not the case. The persecution has been systematic and widespread:
James M. Tour, one of the ten most cited chemists in the world, relates, in the following, how he has personally witnessed the unfair treatment of some of the over 800 scientists who have dared publicly question the sufficiency of Natural Selection and random mutation to explain what is being claimed for them by Darwinists.
Perhaps Dr. Coyne would like to take Dr. Tour up on his standing offer for a free lunch so as to explain to Dr. Tour exactly how evolution works. Or perhaps Dr. Coyne would like to write a letter to Dr. Nobel, President of the International Union of Physiological Sciences, so as to explain to him how neo-Darwinism works.
Or if Dr. Coyne is too busy to eat a free lunch with Dr. Tour, or write a letter to Dr. Nobel, perhaps he can bump up against Dr. James Shapiro, his own university colleague in Chicago, and explain to him how neo-Darwinism works:
The second thing I find interesting things in Dr. Coyne wanting to silence Ball State University physics professor Eric Hedin is that, to use Dr. Coyne’s own words:
Thus, by Dr. Coyne’s own reasoning, should not Dr. Coyne pay a certain measure of respect to a physics Professor instead of trying to silence him? Especially seeing that:
If that shattering weakness in any supporting evidence is not enough to wake Dr. Coyne from his robotic dogmatism, perhaps a mathematical prodigy can stir Dr. Coyne from his dogmatic stance against any opposing opinions,,,
Verse and Music:
I’ve seen Coyne on youtube and seen him TRY to say there is biological evidence for evolution. Its not biological but rather biological interpretations of biological data points in living or fossil form.
Take him on about scientific biological evidence and ask for his top three points of this evidence.
i never have found a evolutionist who can meet the challenge.
Of coarse ID folk have trouble with biological evidence as opposed to interpretations of biological data points TOO.
it takes YEC to get ‘er done!
It would be fun to watch.
If Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens are the four horsemen, then Coyne is more like My Little Pony. An intellectual featherweight amongst intellectual, well, lightweights.
Jerry Coyne is just another bluffing evo equivocator.
BTW djockovic, Coyne understands biology better than any of the four alleged horsemen- well Hitchens is dead anyway…
Sam Harris is a “neuroscientist” (and I use the term loosely) and Daniel Dennett is a philosopher. Only Richard Dawkins, to my knowledge, actually holds a PhD in…something, biology, I think. Does Coyne have a PhD?
Here are a few questions left unanswered by evolution:
Questions Left Unanswered by Evolution
• How could life come from something without life?
• Why do animals and plants reproduce only according to their kinds?
• If humans descend from inferior monkeys, why did not a single superior ape-man survive?
• How can altruism be explained by the theory of the survival of the fittest?
• Does mankind have any real hope for the future?
According to an oft-repeated definition of insanity (I forget whose definition it was), it is to continually repeat the same action in the expectation of a different outcome, and we do that on a regular basis here, expecting somehow that the atheist materialists/naturalists will finally, one day, accept logical a conclusion based on a sound premise. I mean one as simple as 2 x 2 = 4. This is not hyperbole, as you all well know.
Consequently, I couldn’t help laughing when I read this passage from a catechesis on the angels by Pope John-Paul II, relating, more specifically, to the fallen angels: Satan and his followers, as it occurred to me what a state we get in, when our pathetic mortal adversaries refuse to face up to the most primordial, elementary truths – and here were these extraordinarily, mind-bogglingly intelligent, pure spirits who couldn’t face up to the ultimate primordial truth either! And, if anything, they had immeasurably less excuse!
Here’s the passage:
‘On the basis of their created freedom they made a radical and irreversible choice on a parity with that of the good angels, but diametrically opposed. Instead of accepting a God full of love they rejected him, inspired by a false sense of, self-sufficiency, of aversion and even of hatred which is changed into rebellion.
5. How are we to understand such opposition and rebellion against God in beings endowed with such profound and enlightened intelligence? What can be the motive for such a radical and irreversible choice against God? Of a hatred so profound as to appear solely the fruit of folly? The Fathers of the Church and theologians do not hesitate to speak of a “blindness” produced by the overrating of the perfection of their own being, driven to the point of ignoring God’s supremacy, which requires instead an act of docile and obedient subjection. All this summed up concisely in the words: “I will not serve” Jer 2:20), which manifest the radical and irreversible refusal to take part in the building up of the kingdom of God in the created world. Satan, the rebellious spirit, wishes to have his own kingdom, not that of God, and he rises up as the first “adversary” of the Creator, the opponent of Providence, and antagonist of God’s loving wisdom. From Satan’s rebellion and sin, and likewise from that of man, we must conclude by accepting the wise experience of Scripture which states: “In pride there is ruin” (Tob 4:13).’
… and here’s the link:
On the other hand, at least the choice of atheist ‘dim bulbs’ need not be definitive. So, all hope of enlightening one or two need not have been immediately and entirely lost.
First off, I’m no fan of Jerry’s so I’m not out to defend him but I wanted to comment on the part where David writes
“To him we are “clowns” or worse, and I’m a stooge for defending the religion that well over a hundred generations of Coyne’s own ancestors lived for — and were murdered and died for — the “despised faith” that includes among its hallmarks the imperative to defend the weak, the widows and orphans, the Eric Hedins, from their secure, powerful persecutors. For my part, I have said Coyne is an “ignoramus” (on intelligent design, and on his ancestral faith, Judaism).”
Of course what happened in the Holocaust is horrifying but one shouldn’t use that against his choice to reject the Judaic faith. The evidence to believe in it simply isn’t there. Science has totally demolished the Genesis account relegating it the realm of ancient myth and Archeaology has found no evidence that the Exodus happened. This is the event that supposedly led up to the formation of the Jewish people and it’s nation. No Adam, No Abraham, No Moses, No David. Of course history shows that the nation was formed but that had nothing to do with a god. It was a human creation that this particular group of people started in order to “compete” with the other nation’s religions. Judaism happened to prove the fittest and survived. Now, atheism is growing and competing with other religions for top spot. I think that unless god shows up, it will win in the years ahead because the gaps are being filled and showing that no god was needed. Two of the biggest questions is the origin of the universe and the origin of life. Once those get filled, we can build a map of our history quite nicely. The multiverse and the miller-urey experiment are good starters for answering those questions.