Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The Best Schools: Darwinist Jerry Coyne runs for office again as Grand Inquisitor


Here, James Barham comments:

Through his popular web site, Why Evolution Is True, University of Chicago evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne has become one of the most famous arbiters of Darwinian orthodoxy.

Why is it that, of all the sciences, evolutionary biology alone requires these counterparts to the Spanish Inquisition to keep the faithful in line? Where is the blog called Why Cosmology Is True? And who is the blogger who spends as much energy as Coyne does ferreting out heresy within the cosmology community and beyond?

Just asking.

Come to think of it, we never hear much about sites like “Why Chemistry Is True” or “Why Mining Engineering Is True” either. Oh wait, those disciplines’ claims are demonstrable.

Unfortunately the original article disappeared!!! Salvador
But hurling thunderbolts, Thor-like, from On High is ... well ... it's fun doggon it! jstanley01
Depending on the definition of species which is kinda squishy, some species can interbreed. Horses and donkeys can sometimes produce fertile offspring. Same with lions and tigers. But long evolutionary lineages that are based on similarity in appearance alone are often controversial even within ranks of evolutionists. Evolution is based on expressed genes, so analysis of DNA should be the final arbiter of evolutionary sequences. But it's not, because patterns emerge that seem to falsify the theory. Because of all of the uncertainty and possibility of alternative interpretations, a de facto hierarchy of authority emerges to control disruptive ideas, both innovative and the truly goofy. While this authority is especially visible in biology, it's also present in other sciences. For example, astrophysicist Halton Arp is persona non grata in his field for suggesting the heretical idea that redshift is not exclusively due to velocity. His observations include the sausage-shaped galactic clusters that point to the Earth, and are dubbed "the fingers of God." If true, this would make the Carl Sagan's inconsequential "pale blue dot" become Something Special, a disturbingly anti-Copernican result that's nevertheless the current consensus opinion. Arp contends that these clusters are spherical instead and that astrophysicists are missing something about redshift. My point is that authority seems to be a necessary but very flawed mechanism in science. Scientists want to prevent science from being flooded with goofy ideas, allow the good ideas, and not be contaminated with political and ideological issues. From what I've seen, the process has not been very successful. Querius
Coyne writes,
"Jim Shapiro is a professor in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology here at the University of Chicago, so I suppose he could be considered a colleague, though I’ve had almost no interaction with him.
If you both are professors at the same university, Jerry, then you are colleagues. Look it up in the dictionary if you have to.
I have, however, followed his activities in the literature—and with some dismay. Shapiro, it seems, has devoted much of his writing to pointing out that the modern theory of evolution (“neo-Darwinism”) is deeply flawed and needs a new paradigm.
Jerry, this is how science works. Theories are tested and tested again and, if new evidence points in another direction, then the theory is either reworked or discarded. Happens all the time.
You’ll recognize this as the old creationist canard.
No, Jerry, we recognize it as a scientifically proven fact. We can breed dogs, cats, horses, and any other animals we wish to but they will not eventually become other species. It simply cannot and will not happen. It's troubling that a professor of a scientific discipline at a major American university cannot recognize a fact when he sees it. Barb
Contemporary Darwinian orthodoxy is not science; it's the creation story of a religion: materialism. How anyone with an understanding of modern science (in particular, the enormously sophisticated information-processing technology found in even the simplest cell) can accept that random accidents and chemistry converted inanimate matter into this technology, simply mystifies me. I once held dear the notion that random accidents and chemistry converted inanimate matter into this technology, because all the smart people I knew told me so. Then one day I realized that they were blowing smoke in defense of a transparently ludicrous proposition. It really is not hard to figure this out, even for someone like I who was indoctrinated for half a lifetime in Darwinian orthodoxy. The hard part is admitting that one is wrong -- especially if one's livelihood, reputation, and career are invested in such an obvious fantasy. GilDodgen

Leave a Reply