Darwinism Religion

Jerry Coyne chooses his rabbis with as great care as his sandwiches

Spread the love

Dawkins pal Jerry Coyne has noticed the ID Community’s reb, and in “Moshe Averick: another creationist rabbi”, he makes clear what he thinks of clergy who have actually noticed the unseen world:

Perhaps I was wrong to assume that rabbis have higher respect for science, and less tolerance for theological bullshit, than do Christian preachers or Muslim imams.

Let us take it as a given that no rabbi, whatever his learning, can have a high respect for truth if something he says displeases Jerry Coyne. That’s just the way the universe is. Having pointed out that our “maverick” is nobody’s fool (used to trade on the Chicago Exchange floor), Coyne invites his trolls to go after Averick’s comment about the origin of life, in defense of Rabbi Jacobs’ recent Huffpo op-ed, “A Reasonable Argument for God’s Existence”:

Rabbi Jacobs did not take Francis Crick’s statement out of context. Crick was being totally candid when he said that it looks like life is a miracle. His caveat afterward is only a reflection on his own illogical and unreasonable committment to atheism. Just because Crick did not have the intellectual integrity to follow his very true assessment of the evidence to its logical conclusion is his problem, not mine.

If someone was thrown out of a Las Vegas Casino for winning 100 hands of black jack in a row and then pleaded, “I know it seems miraculous that I won so many times by luck, but it’s not IMPOSSIBLE” we would laugh as such a ridiculous argument. This is exactly what Crick does. He admits that a naturalistic emergence of life is “miraculous”, but then quickly adds, “but it’s not impossible.”

About that guy’s “lucky streak”: It may not be “impossible.” Depends how you define “impossible”: In this or any other universe, whether actual or imaginable? Basically, that guy is thrown out because the house can’t meet the payroll if he stays, nor could any casino. So on Earth, “impossible” is restricted to statements about factual reality.

Coyne also informs us,

I remain a cultural Jew, but now my pastrami sandwich (see post above) is salted with my tears.

Aw come on, Jerry. We all know that you and your trolls get off on this sort of thing.

PS: Here’s an interview with the reb.

4 Replies to “Jerry Coyne chooses his rabbis with as great care as his sandwiches

  1. 1
  2. 2
    zephyr says:

    Coyne is contradicting himself blatantly and doesn’t see it naturally enough.

    Coyne is not only an atheist but like William Provine and the other more honest forthright atheists, insistent on the incompatibility of neo-Darwinism with theism. He has insisted unambiguously on the atheistic implications of orthodox evolutionary theory. So according to his own logic, a rabbi, a priest, a minister, a wiccan etc cannot – according to their own personal religious philosophy – subscribe to neo-Darwinism as a theory of evolution in toto. If they do so – according to Coyne himself – they are subscribing to atheism, even if they don’t know it.

    Coyne should be commending the rabbi for his clear-sightednness, for *getting* neo-Darwinism and realizing where the battle-lines are drawn. Coyne should be mocking and criticizing the clergy (Jewish and non-Jewish) who are dupes to Darwin. Instead Coyne wants to have it both ways and contorts his “logic” like a teenage Olympic gymnast in order to do so. Jerry ‘the pretzel’ Coyne.

    ‘Coyne’ is a modern corruption of ‘Cohen’, an ancient Judaic rabbinical name/lineage. Considering how Jerry Coyne has openly abandoned his (and my) tribe’s own religious heritage, in favour of the atheistic church of neo-Darwinism (by his own admission) of which he is a high-ranking priest, his surname is almost profoundly significant. I couldn’t think of a more appropriate one. Yet if his surname was still Cohen as it would have been with his paternal ancestors, that would simply be ironic, rather than significant and appropriate. No offense to any Coynes out there who are not atheists!

  3. 3
    nullasalus says:

    If they do so – according to Coyne himself – they are subscribing to atheism, even if they don’t know it.

    Well, that’s one possibility according to Coyne. The other possibility is that they don’t ‘really’ subscribe to Darwinism after all. They subscribe to a form of evolution that’s ultimately guided and purposeful – and guided, purposeful evolution can be all sorts of things, but it’s not Darwinism by Coyne’s measure.

  4. 4
    Robert Byers says:

    Whoaaa there Mr Cohen.
    Protestant ministers have less respect for science then Rabbi’s?!!! I think he means Protestant, evangelical really, ones and not roman catholics.
    As a evangelical Christian Protestant I insist and demand rememberance of who moved to whom!!!
    The modern world and the ‘scientific’ age is entirely from the rising of the intelligence of , the mean, of the Protestant peoples since Martin Luther. especially amongst the british people.
    Protestant ministers are the cell group leaders to the raising of the common people and so a raising of the tiny minorities who put their minds to matters of nature etc.
    Science is the creation of protestantism and so its ministers naturally have a greater historical and modern affinity for it relative to other religious leaders.
    Mr Coyne is taking a cheap shot based on wishful presumptions of seeing his opponents less sharp then the demographics he was weaned and moves in.

    For the record there is no such thing as a cultural Jew.
    Its just another word for a more accurate analysis of a different identity or people. like in Canada a French Canadian is a different identity then others and not just any Canadian who speaks French.
    Being a different identity means your not the same identity/people as your neighbours within the boundary.
    So a suspicion can be invoked that one putting down anothers religion is really/also putting down ones people.
    Mr Coyne might be putting down the American people and other ethnic peoples.
    A line of reasoning and my own observations of these things.
    Everyone should just say what they mean.

Leave a Reply