Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

In New Republic Jerry Coyne attacks Edge authors who would retire Darwin

arroba Email

His title:

Which Scientific Idea Should Be Retired?

Believe it or not, some people’s answer is “evolution”

Yuh. So?

Oh wait, those Edgers are being very bad kitties indeed. Why are people allowed to say that at The Edge?

Here’s Darwin’s defender Coyne:

There is no “peer review” of the answers to Edge questions, and I guess I’m the first question-answerer who has decided to criticize the answers of other respondents. But, as always, the laws of physics have determined that I must be a pain in the tuchus by criticizing folks who spread misconceptions about evolution.

Wonder if The Edge will continue to allow criticism of Darwin.

If so, as Canadian blogger Blazing Cat Fur would say: Bad cat. Bad.

See also: Retire this science idea, Edge: That there is a common toolkit of conserved genes


Who would have expected Darwinian evolution to come up in The Edge’s list of …

It's ironic that polling shows that many Americans believe in creation by God and not evolution. But then you have to ask: why do so many science teachers in America promote mindless, chance evolution as fact? One reason is that “Darwinist fundamentalists . . . control the science departments in many universities,” says Phillip E. Johnson, law professor at the University of California at Berkeley. Johnson points out: “In some cases biology professors have been forbidden to tell students that there is any reason to doubt the claim that mindless material processes could and did create the wonders of biology.” Scientist and engineer Murphy O’Dean observes: “Rather than discard a theory that does not stand up to fact, the direction of ‘evolutionary science’ has become a statement of faith that ‘evolution must be true.’” Conflicting evidence and the lack of evidence are either ignored or explained away. Why? Michael Behe, molecular biologist, says in Darwin’s Black Box: “Many people, including many important and well-respected scientists, just don’t want there to be anything beyond nature. They don’t want a supernatural being to affect nature.” But true science does not ignore contrary evidence in order to advance preferred ideas. Nor do all scientists believe evolution. The Brazilian magazine Veja asked Carlo Rubbia, winner of the Nobel Prize for Physics, “Do you believe in God?” While not acknowledging a personal God, he did admit: “The more you observe nature, the more you perceive that there is tremendous organization in all things. It is an intelligence so great that just by observing natural phenomena I come to the conclusion that a Creator exists.” Barb
New Republic is a left wing rag. Don't need their support. Evolution is denied by more people in america today then existed at the time of ww1! Or the scopes trial. Especially the Yanks and Southerners and Africans. there is a reason for this. Evolution teachers can't make a good case or are terrible teachers. Its not always the students. Teachers matter. YEC and ID despite limited resources just kick ass whereever confrontation occurs. I'm banned on Mr Coyne's blog just because I clobber them.! No other reason for sure. Evolutionary biology, like Communism , had its time and now is headed for the ashheap of bad ideas in history. We are watching the wall come down. Robert Byers
I can see why this article made Coyne blow a fuse:
WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? Evolution is True - Roger Highfield Excerpt: If evolutionary biologists are really Seekers of the Truth, they need to focus more on finding the mathematical regularities of biology, following in the giant footsteps of Sewall Wright, JBS Haldane, Ronald Fisher and so on. The messiness of biology has made it relatively hard to discern the mathematical fundamentals of evolution. Perhaps the laws of biology are deductive consequences of the laws of physics and chemistry. Perhaps natural selection is not a statistical consequence of physics, but a new and fundamental physical law. Whatever the case, those universal truths—'laws'—that physicists and chemists all rely upon appear relatively absent from biology. Little seems to have changed from a decade ago when the late and great John Maynard Smith wrote a chapter on evolutionary game theory for a book on the most powerful equations of science: his contribution did not include a single equation. http://www.edge.org/response-detail/25468
Yes Coyne, surely can't let that mathematical *cat out of the bag! :) *Coyne is a obsessive cat lover (and no, I will not speculate on what unfulfilled desire in Coyne's life drives that compulsion) bornagain77
lifepsy, I just realized something about Jerry Coyne. Its likely that he is more than a little bitter about his specific height limitations, and reproduction preferences that natural selection has chosen for him, and so his plethora of angst ridden posts and attacks on colleagues and other thinkers are really just because he wishes to take out some of his perpetual frustration with a pinata-like god image. phoodoo
Mapou, I politely disagree, I don't think he is acting. phoodoo
Here is Jerry speaking on "Why Evolution is true" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1m4mATYoig Yes, this man is considered an intellectual icon that people should pay attention to... for some unknown reason. lifepsy
Jerry Coyne looks and acts like a buffoon. Mapou
Why is he surprised that some people's answer is evolution. Dr. Coyne, the denier of free will says
the laws of physics have determined that I must be a pain in the tuchus by criticizing folks who spread misconceptions about evolution.
What he should have said was
the laws of physics have determined that I must be a pain in the tuchus by criticizing folks who, compelled by the laws of physics, spread misconceptions about evolution.
Without free will, there can be no reason. Only with force and coercion can one side overcome the other. But only one side seems to be willing to use such means. Right, Mr. Freedom From Religion? What a clown. RexTugwell
Yeah, Jerry baldly declares that natural selection is a designer mimic and has a tizzy over the "random" in random mutaion. IOW he proved that evolutionism needs to be retired. Joe

Leave a Reply