Darwinian biologist Jerry Coyne takes on skeptical mathematician David Berlinski

_{Denyse O'Leary

April 30, 2018

Books of interest, Culture, Darwinism, Evolution, Intelligent Design}

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

From Darwinian biologist Jerry Coyne at Why Evolution is true, on mathematician and Darwin skeptic David Berlinski.

I’m not sure how David Berlinski manages to make a living, but he does live in Paris, which ain’t cheap. Although he’s a Senior Fellow with the ID Creationist Discovery Institute, that can’t pay much, and his science books, including A Tour of the Calculus (1995), The Advent of the Algorithm (2000), Newton’s Gift (2000), and Infinite Ascent: A Short History of Mathematics (2005), can’t bring in that much dosh. (As Wikipedia notes, “Berlinski’s books have received mixed reviews.”) However, his 2009 book The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions remains at #41 on Amazon, a remarkable spot, but explained of course by those believers hungry to find problems with atheism. And he’s also written fiction, including several detective novels, so perhaps that’s what keeps him in croissants and fancy suits.

Sigh.

Jerry, genuine talent and original thinking are surprisingly wealth-friendly, even among people who don’t particularly seek wealth. Of course, ironclad tenure and narrow dogmatism do work better in a context where no one can just walk away or refuse to read something…

David Berlinski

But I (O’Leary for News) am not here to explain to Jerry Coyne how the world really works. He goes on:

The evolution bit begins at 9:40, and here Berlinski says these things:

– Darwin’s view that species can change into other species is analogous to alchemy: a form of transformation for which there’s no evidence. He uses the stretching of the giraffe’s neck, a Lamarckian principle, as one that still characterizes Darwinism. That’s just wrong.

– Darwinism is a “secular doctrine comparable to the Book of Genesis” and an “ideology”. Darwinism, he says, “is not a scientific theory but a collection of anecdotes.”

What ignorant statements to make! Anecdotes? Has he read my book?

Apparently, anyone who has not read Coyne’s book (we think he means Why Evolution Is True, 2010) is a truly ignorant hillbilly. Coyne’s book is currently ranked at #15,907 (as opposed to Berlinski’s #41, cited by Coyne), which suggests that there may be a great many of us out there.

Oh dear.

As a secular Jew, his schtick is to kvetch and kvetch, which, combined with his Buckley-ian imperious attitudes and mannerisms, are taken by ignoramuses as “wisdom.”More.

Dr. Coyne may wish to contact Michael Ruse, a Darwinian philosopher who is quite sure that Darwinism is a religion, one he himself espouses.

Most of Darwinism’s current credibility problems do not arise from mathematical philosophers like Berlinski pointing out its flaws but from growing conflict with the data around evolution.

If Berlinski replies, we’ll bring you the news, with free virtual popcorn. Meanwhile…

See also: Michael Ruse: Christianity and Darwinism as rival religions. Ruse has always been honest about the fact that, for is serious adherents, Darwinism is a religion.

and

Fossil dragonfly named in Mike Behe’s honor has implications for ID. What chance Darwinists will get up a petition to force a name change, and maybe “unlearn” everything Bechly discovered about the fossil? Maybe a person they prefer could discover it all over again, once again erasing Bechly (and Behe). After all, Wikipedia erased Bechly, despite his stellar record, apparently over his support for design in nature.

Berlinski:

Coyne:

Comments

If Darwinism is a religion by definition it is not science. (Natural) science is a methodology which has the goal of being able to describe nature with nature being defined as that which has observable consistencies. Religion requires faith which by definition means the causes of the belief upon which the faith is based will not have consistencies.tribune7_{May 1, 2018
May
05
May
1
01
2018
05:51 AM
5
05
51
AM
PDT}

Has he read my book? I don't know but I have. I suppose it's pretty good if you're just willing to swallow anything you're presented with but with a little critical thinking it loses it's luster.aarceng_{May 1, 2018
May
05
May
1
01
2018
03:51 AM
3
03
51
AM
PDT}

It's obvious that Jerry is jealous.bb_{April 30, 2018
April
04
Apr
30
30
2018
08:51 PM
8
08
51
PM
PDT}

I don't know why Coyne would be so upset with Berlinski for pointing out the fact that Darwinian evolution is not a real science in the normal sense of how people regard physics as being a real science.,,, Coyne himself admits much the same exact thing:
“In science's pecking order, evolutionary biology lurks somewhere near the bottom, far closer to phrenology than to physics. For evolutionary biology is a historical science, laden with history's inevitable imponderables. We evolutionary biologists cannot generate a Cretaceous Park to observe exactly what killed the dinosaurs; and, unlike "harder" scientists, we usually cannot resolve issues with a simple experiment, such as adding tube A to tube B and noting the color of the mixture.” - Jerry A. Coyne – Of Vice and Men, The New Republic, April 3, 2000 p.27 - professor of Darwinian evolution at the University of Chicago
Darwinian evolution, as Coyne himself tentatively admitted, simply does not qualify as a real science by any reasonable measure one might wish to invoke for considering something as a real science instead of as a pseudoscience:
“There are five standard tests for a scientific hypothesis. Has anyone observed the phenomenon — in this case, Evolution — as it occurred and recorded it? Could other scientists replicate it? Could any of them come up with a set of facts that, if true, would contradict the theory (Karl Popper’s “falsifiability” tests)? Could scientists make predictions based on it? Did it illuminate hitherto unknown or baffling areas of science? In the case of Evolution… well… no… no… no… no… and no.” – Tom Wolfe – The Kingdom of Speech – page 17 Darwinian Evolution Fails the Five Standard Tests of a Scientific Hypothesis – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7f_fyoPybw Darwinian Evolution: A Pseudoscience based on Unrestrained Imagination and Bad Liberal Theology – video https://youtu.be/KeDi6gUMQJQ Darwin’s Theory vs Falsification – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rzw0JkuKuQ
Moreover, as Coyne himself also admits, Darwinian evolution, unlike other sciences such as physics and chemistry which are very useful for man, is for all intents and purposes useless as a 'practical' scientific endeavor that is useful for man:
“Truth be told, evolution hasn’t yielded many practical or commercial benefits. Yes, bacteria evolve drug resistance, and yes, we must take countermeasures, but beyond that there is not much to say. Evolution cannot help us predict what new vaccines to manufacture because microbes evolve unpredictably. But hasn’t evolution helped guide animal and plant breeding? Not very much. Most improvement in crop plants and animals occurred long before we knew anything about evolution, and came about by people following the genetic principle of ‘like begets like’. Even now, as its practitioners admit, the field of quantitative genetics has been of little value in helping improve varieties. Future advances will almost certainly come from transgenics, which is not based on evolution at all.” Jerry Coyne, “Selling Darwin: Does it matter whether evolution has any commercial applications?,” reviewing The Evolving World: Evolution in Everyday Life by David P. Mindell, in Nature, 442:983-984 (August 31, 2006).
In fact, when considering the negative impact Darwinian thinking has had on leading science into blind alleys, such as the Junk DNA fiasco and vestigial organs, etc..., then one could very well argue that Darwinian evolution, besides being useless to science, is actually harmful to science. Moreover, I also find it very strange that Coyne would be so upset with Berlinski since, according to Coyne himself, Jerry Coyne does not actually exist as a real person but is merely a neuronal illusion.
Ross Douthat Is On Another Erroneous Rampage Against Secularism – Jerry Coyne – December 26, 2013 Excerpt: “many (but not all) of us accept the notion that our sense of self is a neuronal illusion.” Jerry Coyne – Professor of Evolutionary Biology – Atheist https://newrepublic.com/article/116047/ross-douthat-wrong-about-secularism-and-ethics "What you’re doing is simply instantiating a self: the program run by your neurons which you feel is “you.”" Jerry Coyne https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2015/04/04/eagleton-on-baggini-on-free-will/ The Confidence of Jerry Coyne - Ross Douthat - January 6, 2014 Excerpt: then halfway through this peroration, we have as an aside the confession that yes, okay, it’s quite possible given materialist premises that “our sense of self is a neuronal illusion.” At which point the entire edifice suddenly looks terribly wobbly — because who, exactly, is doing all of this forging and shaping and purpose-creating if Jerry Coyne, as I understand him (and I assume he understands himself) quite possibly does not actually exist at all? The theme of his argument is the crucial importance of human agency under eliminative materialism, but if under materialist premises the actual agent is quite possibly a fiction, then who exactly is this I who “reads” and “learns” and “teaches,” and why in the universe’s name should my illusory self believe Coyne’s bold proclamation that his illusory self’s purposes are somehow “real” and worthy of devotion and pursuit? (Let alone that they’re morally significant:,,) Read more here: http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/06/the-confidence-of-jerry-coyne/?_r=0
Coyne, instead of being so upset with Berlinski, and since he himself claims to be an illusion, should really try to get over 'himself'. :) Moreover, (the illusion of) Coyne points to his book "Why Evolution is True" as if that book includes some type of definitive empirical evidence that would (finally) prove Darwinism is true. It doesn't. Coyne's book, like the rest of the popular level books on evolution going back to Darwin himself, is a basically a (very bad) liberal Theological treatise on what God would and would not do and/or allow in this universe, and therefore, according to their bad theology, Darwin must, by default, be true:
Methodological Naturalism: A Rule That No One Needs or Obeys - Paul Nelson - September 22, 2014 Excerpt: It is a little-remarked but nonetheless deeply significant irony that evolutionary biology is the most theologically entangled science going. Open a book like Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution is True (2009) or John Avise's Inside the Human Genome (2010), and the theology leaps off the page. A wise creator, say Coyne, Avise, and many other evolutionary biologists, would not have made this or that structure; therefore, the structure evolved by undirected processes. Coyne and Avise, like many other evolutionary theorists going back to Darwin himself, make numerous "God-wouldn't-have-done-it-that-way" arguments, thus predicating their arguments for the creative power of natural selection and random mutation on implicit theological assumptions about the character of God and what such an agent (if He existed) would or would not be likely to do.,,, ,,,with respect to one of the most famous texts in 20th-century biology, Theodosius Dobzhansky's essay "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution" (1973). Although its title is widely cited as an aphorism, the text of Dobzhansky's essay is rarely read. It is, in fact, a theological treatise. As Dilley (2013, p. 774) observes: "Strikingly, all seven of Dobzhansky's arguments hinge upon claims about God's nature, actions, purposes, or duties. In fact, without God-talk, the geneticist's arguments for evolution are logically invalid. In short, theology is essential to Dobzhansky's arguments.",, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/09/methodological_1089971.html According to Jerry Coyne, “Why Evolution Is True” in a Nutshell - March 21, 2012 Excerpt: the argument for evolution goes like this:
1. Many animals seem similar to humans. 2. Religious explanations for this, as I understand them, seem silly. 3. Ergo, Darwin.
There you have it. Not only for Coyne but for scholars with equally penetrating minds in a variety of fields, that’s “Why Evolution Is True.” https://evolutionnews.org/2012/03/according_to_je/
Thus, Coyne's evidence for why evolution is true, much like Coyne's illusion of himself as a real person, does not exist, it is an illusion. ,,, And I might add that much like Coyne's belief that he really is doing real science instead of pseudoscience is merely an illusion in Coyne's head.
2 Corinthians 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
bornagain77_{April 30, 2018
April
04
Apr
30
30
2018
12:19 PM
12
12
19
PM
PDT}

Jerry Coyne hardly deserves the attention he gets. Surprised that people take this a/mat zealot so seriously.Truth Will Set You Free_{April 30, 2018
April
04
Apr
30
30
2018
11:48 AM
11
11
48
AM
PDT}

There isn't any evidence for evolutionism in "Why Evolution is True". He doesn't even try to support the claim that evolution by means of blind and mindless processes produced the diversity of life starting from some unknown populations of prokaryotes. If Coyne and Berlinski ever got into a debate on evolutionism Jerry would be severely bloodied and battered.ET_{April 30, 2018
April
04
Apr
30
30
2018
09:44 AM
9
09
44
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply