“A Spoonful of Jesus Helps Darwin Go Down” by Jerry Coyne

_{Salvador Cordova

April 23, 2009

Culture, Education, Intelligent Design, Religion}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

In “A Spoonful of Jesus Helps Darwin Go Down”, Coyne criticizes the NCSE:

The pro-religion stance of the NCSE is offensive and unnecessary

Coyne also criticizes Ken Miller’s writings as

perilously close to intelligent design; indeed, it may well be a form of intelligent design.

Coyne articulates the way to teach evolutionary biology:

If we’re to defend evolutionary biology, we must defend it as a science: a nonteleological theory in which the panoply of life results from the action of natural selection and genetic drift acting on random mutations.
…

But my main beef is this: the NCSE touts, shelters, or gives its imprimatur to intellectuals and scientists who are either “supernaturalists” (the word that A. C. Grayling uses for those who see supernatural incursions into the universe)..(Among the former are Kenneth Miller and John Haught, the latter Michael Ruse and Francisco Ayala).
….
by consorting with scientists and philosophers who incorporate supernaturalism into their view of evolution, they erode the naturalism that underpins modern evolutionary theory.

My principal aim in this thread was to alert UD readers to Coyne’s weblog.

Rather than immediately expressing my opinions about Coyne’s postings, I invite the readers to visit Coyne’s weblog and express their reactions to what he has to say.

Notes:
The title of Coyne’s article is a variation on a song “A spoonful of sugar” from the Walt Disney movie Mary Poppins starring Julie Andrews and Dick van Dyke. See: Julie Andrews sings “Spoonful of Sugar”

HT: Mike Gene, author of The Design Matrix

Comments

StephenB wrote:
Good grief, are you this much behind the curve? Are you familiar at all with the film, “Expelled, no intelligence allowed,” which recounted many of these injustices and reported that they represented just the tip of the iceberg?
Ah yes, Expelled, which showed up on several critics' "Worst Films of 2008" lists and received only a 10% rating (rotten) from RottenTomatoes, which summarized the critical consensus as: "Full of patronizing, poorly structured arguments, Expelled is a cynical political stunt in the guise of a documentary." I guess the film critics are also part of the Darwinist conspiracy.
I gather, by the way, that you are also unaware of the fact that 95.8 % of evolutionary biologists are atheist/agnostic. Obviously, they are heavily invested in world view that is incompatible with intelligent design.
I thought intelligent design wasn't about religion. Didn't you read the ID playbook?
Why would anyone protest an injustice that is not being done to them?
Are you serious? If so, that would certainly explain why you had such trouble understanding everyone else's morality on the 'Bleak Conclusions' thread.
ID scientists protest the pseudo-science of neo-Darwinism for the simple reason that it is not science; it is ideology. If it was science, there would be some evidence for it.
Okay. For your benefit, I will prepare a post comparing the scientific value of ID to that of modern evolutionary theory. Stay tuned. I may not be able to get to it right away, but I will definitely post it by tomorrow night at the latest.mauka_{April 24, 2009
April
04
Apr
24
24
2009
05:27 PM
5
05
27
PM
PDT}

Macua worte: Well, then you’re obviously much more qualified than the entire scientific community to tell us what’s useful “from a science standpoint.”
Since Coyne's writings was the subject, let me quote Coyne:
"In Science's pecking order, evolutionary biology lurks somewhere near the bottom, far closer to phrenology than to physics"
Get the picture? :-)
And by the way, your computer science education is incomplete if you haven’t studied evolutionary computation and genetic algorithms, both of which are based on Darwinian ideas.
An evoutionary algorithm has nothing to do with Darwinism as laid out by Darwin. Some algorithms are Darwinian in name only. The idea of natural selection was pioneered by creationists like Blyth before Darwin. And most "Darwinian" algorithms can hardly be argued to model what is seen in nature since Darwinism isn't what is seen in nature.
You also don’t need cosmology to study genetics, or group theory to study heat transfer. Does that make them “superfluous”?
What makes a theory superfluous is when it is little more than saying "what it is, is what it is". Nobel prizes were awarded for breakthroughs in physcis, chemistry, and medicine, not for Darwinism. But let me point out, the laments of evolutionary biologists, the Society of American Naturalists
Despite its centrality in the life sciences, evolutionary biology does not yet command a priority in educational curricula or in research funding. …. In many or most colleges and universities, a course on evolution is an elective, taken by a minority of biology majors, most of whom do not think it relevant to their medical or other careers. The majority of biology majors may have little exposure to evolution beyond a few weeks (or less) in an introductory biology course
It is not studied because Darwinism isn't central to science, it isn't relevant, and its mostly wrong.scordova_{April 24, 2009
April
04
Apr
24
24
2009
03:43 PM
3
03
43
PM
PDT}

----mauka: “You would make a good conspiracy theorist. Or perhaps I should say that you do make a good one.” You must be ensconced in one of those cozy little cubby holes that insulates your from the real world. -----“Science is in a ferment. New discoveries are being made daily. Scientists are challenging the status quo. New ideas are being introduced and old ideas are being abandoned or modified — including in biology. Ideas that would have seemed crazy a decade ago are accepted as commonplace. Yet according to you, the one area that’s off limits in biology is any challenge to “Darwinism”. Good grief, are you this much behind the curve? Are you familiar at all with the film, “Expelled, no intelligence allowed,” which recounted many of these injustices and reported that they represented just the tip of the iceberg? Or, do you shrug that off as a conspiracy as well? I have actually interacted with some of them on other websites. I gather, by the way, that you are also unaware of the fact that 95.8 % of evolutionary biologists are atheist/agnostic. Obviously, they are heavily invested in world view that is incompatible with intelligent design. Do you challenge those numbers [they have been verified on this site several times], or propose that they were generated by "conspiracy theorists." -----“Despite the fact that cosmologists, astronomers, geologists, chemists, and physicists all enjoy, and demand, the freedom to pursue new ideas, none of them are raising a peep of protest at the suppression of science being carried out by the Darwinist establishment. Evidently the astronomers and solid-state physicists are part of the conspiracy too.” Is there supposed to be a point here? Why would anyone protest an injustice that is not being done to them? -----“In fact, out of the entire scientific community, the only people honest enough to protest this perversion of science just happen to be the ones who find “Darwinism” objectionable on religious grounds.” Do you always do such violence to the truth? ID scientists protest the pseudo-science of neo-Darwinism for the simple reason that it is not science; it is ideology. If it was science, there would be some evidence for it. Other than your appeal to authority, do you have any evidence to support the neo-Darwinist fantasy? As of now, no one visiting this site has yet been able to pull it off. Will you be the first?StephenB_{April 24, 2009
April
04
Apr
24
24
2009
03:03 PM
3
03
03
PM
PDT}

Natural selection, allelic mutation, Mendelian genetics and obligatory sexual reproduction are all conservative anti- evolutionary devices which had and now have absolutely nothing to do with either speciation or the formation of any of the higher taxanomic categories. They are no good for anything except the formation of intra-specific varieties in some but not all plants and animals. Many organisms don't even have the capacity to produce varieties. There probsbly has never been an organism which reproduced strictly by bisexual (Mendelian) means that ever left progeny distinctly different from itself. All such creatures were doomed to extinction in the past and that will be their fate in the future. Evolution is finished folks. Get used to it. It is Darwinism that is the religion, complete with its Deity, Charles Darwin, and a host of patron saints: among them, Ernst Mayr, Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Dawkins. Paul Zachary Myers, Wesley Elsberry and Uncommon Descent's own house Darwinian, Allen MacNeill, just a bunch of armchair theoretical pontificators, not one of whom ever did a real experiment in his entire useless life. They are a collective blight upon the face of experimental and descriptive biology. It is hard to believe isn't it? Not at all. It is the "Gospel" truth! "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."JohnADavison_{April 24, 2009
April
04
Apr
24
24
2009
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PDT}

StephenB wrote:
You are comparing apples and oranges. Neither Newton, Faraday, or any other foundational scientist would ever have dreamed of suppressing an Einstein or a Heisenburg. They loved truth and they were willing to follow wherever the evidence would lead. Indeed, Einstein himself was suspcious about some elements of quantum mechanics, but that didn’t prompt him to call for an end to the discussion. The Darwinist academy has established a stronghold in academia and built a wall around itself. No one gets in unless they “play ball.” This is different.
Stephen, You would make a good conspiracy theorist. Or perhaps I should say that you do make a good one. Science is in a ferment. New discoveries are being made daily. Scientists are challenging the status quo. New ideas are being introduced and old ideas are being abandoned or modified -- including in biology. Ideas that would have seemed crazy a decade ago are accepted as commonplace. Yet according to you, the one area that's off limits in biology is any challenge to "Darwinism". But the biological community doesn't protest this. And despite the fact that cosmologists, astronomers, geologists, chemists, and physicists all enjoy, and demand, the freedom to pursue new ideas, none of them are raising a peep of protest at the suppression of science being carried out by the Darwinist establishment. Evidently the astronomers and solid-state physicists are part of the conspiracy too. In fact, out of the entire scientific community, the only people honest enough to protest this perversion of science just happen to be the ones who find "Darwinism" objectionable on religious grounds. Everyone else is part of the conspiracy. And you actually believe this?mauka_{April 24, 2009
April
04
Apr
24
24
2009
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT}

StephenB "You obviously missed his point. Oramus, (not Orasmus) was simply recounting an unassailble historical fact. Religion provided the philosophical foundation and the rational justification for the entire scientific enterprise. As the early scientists put it, they were “thinking God’s thoughts after him.” I didn't miss his point. I disagreed with his claim. Neither astronomy nor science started with Kepler, Stephen. You quote me saying: ..."our species has always had the ability to discover things about our environment through observation, the formation of hypotheses, and the testing of those hypotheses.” Do you disagree? This ability (and the earliest records of it) predate the invention of your god. Oramus claims that religion got science its start, and I disagree.iconofid_{April 24, 2009
April
04
Apr
24
24
2009
01:26 PM
1
01
26
PM
PDT}

scordova:
Agreed, because from a science standpoint Darwinism is mostly of no utility, and often wrong. I’m not a scientist, but I am a student of science.
Well, then you're obviously much more qualified than the entire scientific community to tell us what's useful "from a science standpoint."
I’ve not had any need to learn Darwinism to study computer science or physics.
You also don't need cosmology to study genetics, or group theory to study heat transfer. Does that make them "superfluous"? And by the way, your computer science education is incomplete if you haven't studied evolutionary computation and genetic algorithms, both of which are based on Darwinian ideas.
I have biologist friends, and they feel exactly the same way about Darwinism and biology. It is mostly superfluos.
Yes, "Darwinism" is superfluous, which is why not just the biological community but the whole scientific community is celebrating Darwin this year, and why prominent scientists from all fields consider Darwin's idea to be one of the most important scientific ideas of all time.
Well since you’ve implicitly (not explicitly) conceded Darwinism is of little utility to science, overturning a superflous theory would hardly deserve a Nobel prize.
You're spitting into the wind, Sal. But I imagine you're used to having a wet face. By the way, I thought of you a few days ago when I was on the Big Island of Hawaii. Geologists have deduced that the entire Hawaiian island chain, plus a chain of seamounts extending the rest of the way to the Aleutian Trench, were formed over some 70 million years as the Pacific Plate moved slowly over a mantle "hotspot". How do YECs like you explain their formation in less than .02% of that time?mauka_{April 24, 2009
April
04
Apr
24
24
2009
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PDT}

----mauka: "That’s why relativity and quantum mechanics were unable to overtake classical physics, why plate tectonics never took off, why everyone rejects the Big Bang and why nobody accepts the reality of dark matter. And that’s why scientists still believe that the Sun circles the Earth." You are comparing apples and oranges. Neither Newton, Faraday, or any other foundational scientist would ever have dreamed of suppressing an Einstein or a Heisenburg. They loved truth and they were willing to follow wherever the evidence would lead. Indeed, Einstein himself was suspcious about some elements of quantum mechanics, but that didn't prompt him to call for an end to the discussion. The Darwinist academy has established a stronghold in academia and built a wall around itself. No one gets in unless they "play ball." This is different.StephenB_{April 24, 2009
April
04
Apr
24
24
2009
12:04 PM
12
12
04
PM
PDT}

----iconofid: "Orasmus, our species has always had the ability to discover things about our environment through observation, the formation of hypotheses, and the testing of those hypotheses." You obviously missed his point. Oramus, (not Orasmus) was simply recounting an unassailble historical fact. Religion provided the philosophical foundation and the rational justification for the entire scientific enterprise. As the early scientists put it, they were "thinking God's thoughts after him."StephenB_{April 24, 2009
April
04
Apr
24
24
2009
11:47 AM
11
11
47
AM
PDT}

mauka Do you have a substiture for the Darwinian fairy tale or don't you? If you don't, I suggest you retire from this thread. So far you have offered absolutely nothing of substance. Neither have a number of other anonymous blowhards. I neglected to mention another predecessor who believed in a planned evolution. "...the main features of the evolutionary trend were laid out RIGHT FROM THE START with the abrupt discontinuous production of the type, and with evolutionary potential being restricted RIGHT FROM THE START to certain paths." Otto SChindewolf, Basic Questions in Paleontolgy, page 360, my emphasis. This is the same Otto Schindewolf that one of your heros, Stephen Jay Gould, dismissed by calling his evolutionary views "spectacularly flawed," but only after Schindewolf had been dead for forty years! Schindewolf was the greatest paleontologist since Cuvier. Gould abandoned paleontolgy when he was in his thirties to dedicate the rest of his life glued to an endowed chair at Harvard promoting Darwinian mysticsm. His colleague down the hall, Ernst Mayr, had a similar history, having abandoned working ornithology in his twenties also to become a sedentary Darwinian advocate. Neither of them ever contributed a scintilla to the great mystery of phylogeny and they both greatly retarded our understanding of it. I love it so!JohnADavison_{April 24, 2009
April
04
Apr
24
24
2009
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PDT}

Young scientists just starting their careers don’t have a huge investment in Darwinian ideas.
Agreed, because from a science standpoint Darwinism is mostly of no utility, and often wrong. I'm not a scientist, but I am a student of science. I've not had any need to learn Darwinism to study computer science or physics. I have biologist friends, and they feel exactly the same way about Darwinism and biology. It is mostly superfluos.
Furthermore, there’s nothing a young scientist would rather do than to prove his or her elders wrong. That’s how you quickly establish yourself as a scientist, and if the idea you’re overthrowing is big enough, that’s how you earn yourself a Nobel prize.
Well since you've implicitly (not explicitly) conceded Darwinism is of little utility to science, overturning a superflous theory would hardly deserve a Nobel prize.scordova_{April 24, 2009
April
04
Apr
24
24
2009
09:23 AM
9
09
23
AM
PDT}

That's right. Scientists don't allow anyone to question the orthodoxy. That's why relativity and quantum mechanics were unable to overtake classical physics, why plate tectonics never took off, why everyone rejects the Big Bang and why nobody accepts the reality of dark matter. And that's why scientists still believe that the Sun circles the Earth.mauka_{April 24, 2009
April
04
Apr
24
24
2009
08:59 AM
8
08
59
AM
PDT}

mauka, There's only one problem with your thesis: A young scientist just starting his career will have no career if he questions Darwinian orthodoxy.GilDodgen_{April 24, 2009
April
04
Apr
24
24
2009
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT}

Gil, Young scientists just starting their careers don't have a huge investment in Darwinian ideas. Furthermore, there's nothing a young scientist would rather do than to prove his or her elders wrong. That's how you quickly establish yourself as a scientist, and if the idea you're overthrowing is big enough, that's how you earn yourself a Nobel prize. If modern evolutionary theory had all of the obvious flaws that you claim it does, then young biologists from all over the world would be scrambling to be the first to demonstrate it. Funny how they're all passing up a shot at an easy Nobel, isn't it, Gil?mauka_{April 24, 2009
April
04
Apr
24
24
2009
08:32 AM
8
08
32
AM
PDT}

You won’t of course because you and your intolerant masters [Elsberry, Myers, Dawkins, et. al.] all are terrified at the propect that you have dedicated your lives to a phantom...
I've commented on this a number of times. When one has invested his entire professional life in an idea, the notion that it might all be wrong will simply not be considered. Never mind the evidence or logic. Just imagine the thousands of hours Dawkins invested in writing The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker, Climbing Mount Improbable, etc. It was all speculation and storytelling that turns out to be wrong. No amount of evidence or rigorous logical and mathematical analysis would ever convince him to consider that possibility.GilDodgen_{April 24, 2009
April
04
Apr
24
24
2009
08:02 AM
8
08
02
AM
PDT}

Damn! drivelJohnADavison_{April 24, 2009
April
04
Apr
24
24
2009
04:11 AM
4
04
11
AM
PDT}

That is redundant drvel. I repeat - Who is next?JohnADavison_{April 24, 2009
April
04
Apr
24
24
2009
04:11 AM
4
04
11
AM
PDT}

By the way, lower case mauka and every other might-have-been who must hide his identity, the idea of a planned evolution is not original with me. Robert Broom, a great paleontologist, and one of the most original minds of the post Darwinian era, capitalized the word "Plan" in 1950. William Bateson had suggested as much in 1914, Reginald C. Punnett in 1915, Leo Berg in 1922 and I am happy to join them all by proclaiming it to be the only conceivable alternative to the Darwinian fairy tale, the most absurd proposal ever to find the printed page. Who is next? It doesn't get any better than this.JohnADavison_{April 24, 2009
April
04
Apr
24
24
2009
03:39 AM
3
03
39
AM
PDT}

mauka, whoever that is and we will never know. I don't regard your comment as an answer to my challenge. Why don't you go whining to M.P. Zyers for some help? Who next is anxious to expose himself as a "prescribed," "born that way" loser? Set 'em up in the other alley. So far I'm bowling a perfect game. I love it so!JohnADavison_{April 24, 2009
April
04
Apr
24
24
2009
03:08 AM
3
03
08
AM
PDT}

The title of Coyne's book is wrong. It should have been "Evolution Was True," but of course such a book could never have been written by a Darwinian like Coyne. Phylogeny and ontogeny have much in common. Both have always proceeded on the basis of pre-existing stored information, information which is largly if not completely independent of environmental infuence. They were both "designed" to be that way probably millions of years ago. Both ontogeny and phylogeny have always terminated, the former with the death of the individual, the latter with the extinction of its many products. Without extinction there could never have been evolution. It is my conviction that the present biota is the climax assemblage of a planned sequence in which chance played no significant role. The dinosaurs, like the giant amphibians before them , would have become extinct with or wthout environmental catastrophes. Extinction WAS programmed, just as evolution WAS and the development of the individual still IS. There is not a shred of evidence that creative evolution is any longer in progress. Those that claim otherwise better start presenting their case. So far my many challenges to the Darwinian hoax have all gone unanswered. I can't imagine a better venue than Uncommon Descent which is now crawling with the atheist Darwinista one can also find at Panda's Thumb, Pharyngula and richarddawkins.net. Better yet, why don't you lightweight, mostly anonymous chance worshippers ask your brave leaders, Wesley Elsberry, Paul Zachary Myers and Richard Dawkins to come out of their protectionist atheist ghettos and take this glorious opportunity to defend their idotic position here at Uncommon Descent. You won't of course because you and your intolerant masters all are terrified at the propect that you have dedicated your lives to a phantom, an illusory delusion, the most ridiculous proposal ever concocted in the history of human thought. It doesn't get any better than this. I love it so! "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."JohnADavison_{April 24, 2009
April
04
Apr
24
24
2009
02:41 AM
2
02
41
AM
PDT}

Orasmus says: Coyne forgets that it was religion that god science its start. Orasmus, our species has always had the ability to discover things about our environment through observation, the formation of hypotheses, and the testing of those hypotheses. We would have been doing this long before the invention of written language, although not systematically, as we do now. We have also always had the ability to invent religions, and religious explanations for things. Think about it, and you can see that conflict is inevitable between our ability to discover things about reality, and our tendency to invent supernatural explanations. Either the evil spirits or gods cause disease, or it's germs. You choose. Is there really room for both?iconofid_{April 24, 2009
April
04
Apr
24
24
2009
02:18 AM
2
02
18
AM
PDT}

Coyne forgets that it was religion that god science its start. Coyne and friends have been trying to bamboozle (thats a good word)the public into believing science is atheist territory. . The fact is people like Coyne, Dawkins, Myers, Harris, et al are just squatters that have hung around long enough that they think they have a right to own the house. Coyne, our house was built way back and doesn't need your management services, thank you. If you want, we'll go all out to help you find a nice plot of land to build your own house. How 'bout that! Then you can think and do whatever it is you want. You can call it ascience. Ascience. Yep, its got a ring to it. Coyne, it's all yours. Have fun with it.Oramus_{April 23, 2009
April
04
Apr
23
23
2009
11:19 PM
11
11
19
PM
PDT}

As a side note, what is striking is the flagrant misuse of the word evolution. I learned recently that the word evolve comes from the latin 'to unfold'. Well, without a doubt life did just that; unfold. If only that were how it is presented to students. We all know that what is taught is not an unfolding, but a 'building up'. Micro-evolution is also a misnomer. What happens at the molecular level is a rearrangement, not an unfolding. I'd like to see an effort made to take back the words "evolve" and "evolution" to mean what they were meant to mean, not what someone twists it to mean. I'm starting a search for terminology that correctly reflects the observations. Crank it up!Oramus_{April 23, 2009
April
04
Apr
23
23
2009
11:07 PM
11
11
07
PM
PDT}

I wonder how many NAS scientist believe in a deist God. It seems Coyne and other atheists et al have an issue with the so-called Judeo-Christian 'personal' God. It rather like a grudge match than a rejection of the idea of a supernatural being.
Coyne: while 92% of NAS scientists reject the idea a personal god, the National Academy is clearly pushing its agenda in defiance of evidence.
Oramus_{April 23, 2009
April
04
Apr
23
23
2009
10:57 PM
10
10
57
PM
PDT}

First, it dilutes their [the NCSE's] mission of spreading Darwinism...
I thought that only "anti-evolutionists" and religious fanatics used the terms Darwinism and Darwinists. If the mission is Spreading Darwinism (which it obviously is), why isn't this organization called the NCSD? The reason is obvious, and it is that they have no interest in real science, only the indoctrination of other people's children -- with public funding, intimidation, and coercion enforced by the courts -- in the 19th-century creation myth of a secular religion.GilDodgen_{April 23, 2009
April
04
Apr
23
23
2009
05:04 PM
5
05
04
PM
PDT}

Does a "Spoonful of Jesus help Darwin Go down"? Figuratively speaking, yes. The spread of Darwinism owes much to those who profess the Creeds of Christianity. Imho, Coyne is expressing more of a personal desire to see the eventual non-existence of religious scientists. I could of course be wrong in my assessment, but that's how I see it. Coyne stated Must we always cater
Because of this, I think that organizations promoting the teaching of evolution should do just that, and that alone. Leave religion and its compatibility with faith to the theologians. That’s not our job. Our job is to show that evolution is true and creationism and ID aren’t. End of story. In 25 years of effort, these organizations don’t seem to have had much effect on influencing public opinion about evolution. I think that this may mean that our nation will have to become a lot less religious before acceptance of evolution increases appreciably.
I actually think the NCSE and NAS and AAAS have been successful at marketing Darwinism because they sugar coat it with Christian theology, contrary to the way Coyne would have them do business. The landscape of public opinion is more complex and subtle than Coyne suggests. Recall, some of the main architects and supporters of neo-Darwinism were men of faith like RA Fisher and Theodosius Dobzhanzky! Darwin was honored by being buried in Westminster Abbey, despite the fact Darwin referred to certain Christian ideas as "damnable doctrine". Without the aiding and abetting of the churches, Darwinism would not have flourished as it did. It is an uphill battle in various churches and seminaries and other religious institutions to get them to see that Darwinism is at variance with the empirical evidence. They have to see that evidentially and theoreticaly speaking, Darwinism is not consistent with the facts. It is a premature speculation at best. Witness what happens in places professing Christ like Baylor, SMU, or the the Vatican conference on Origins.scordova_{April 23, 2009
April
04
Apr
23
23
2009
04:42 PM
4
04
42
PM
PDT}

The pro-religion stance of the NCSE is offensive and unnecessary — a form of misguided pragmatism. First, it dilutes their mission of spreading Darwinism,
The mission of the NCSE is spreading Darwinism! Visit the NCSE website. How much is focused on science education, as in: math physics chemistry geology biology (as in traditional disciplines of anatomy, physiology, cellular biology, molecular biology, genetics, ecology, etc.) The majority of their mission is the spread of Darwinism!scordova_{April 23, 2009
April
04
Apr
23
23
2009
03:38 PM
3
03
38
PM
PDT}

If we’re to defend evolutionary biology, we must defend it as a science: a nonteleological theory -- Jerry Coyne
Science does not require that a theory be nonteleological. Science requires that the theory be consistent with observations and can make testable predictions. I pointed out that Coyne's views are at variance with others, including historical figures in science: Teleology and ID in Physics Even someone as modern as John Barrow pointed out the role of teleology in science:
Fermat’s work led the German philosopher Leibniz to argue in a letter written in 1687 that in as much as the concept of purpose was basic to true science, the laws of physics should and could be expressed in terms of minimum principles
and Euler writes (as quoted by Barrow):
All the greatest mathematicians have long since recognized that the [least action] method…is not only extremely useful in analysis, but that it also contributes greatly to the solution of physical problems…the fabric of the universe is most perfect, and the work of a most wise Creator
But let us even grant, for the sake of argument, that Euler and Fermat and Liebnitz were wrong. If Coyne had his way, he would have subverted and expelled Euler and Fermat and Liebnitz's contributions to physics as "religious". The world of science would have suffered a grave loss. Least-Action-Principles in physics were developed through profound theological conviction. They were inspired by the premise that the universe was Intellgently Designed. How badly would the world of science if Coyne succeeded in his crusade against theologically inspired scientific ideas? Consider a world that did not discover least-action-principles. Edwin Taylor writes:
Not only does the least-action principle offer a means of formulating classical mechanics that is more flexible and powerful than Newtonian mechanics, [but also] variations on the least-action principle have proved useful in general relativity theory, quantum field theory, and particle physics. As a result, this principle lies at the core of much of contemporary theoretical physics.
scordova_{April 23, 2009
April
04
Apr
23
23
2009
03:06 PM
3
03
06
PM
PDT}

Coyne: "If you’re a regular at this website, you’ve heard me complain about scientific organizations that sell evolution by insisting that it’s perfectly consistent with religion." Hey, maybe we can get Coyne to start calling the NCSE the National Center for Selling Evolution!tragic mishap_{April 23, 2009
April
04
Apr
23
23
2009
11:33 AM
11
11
33
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply