Michael Egnor: Prayer during an epidemic makes sense; Jerry Coyne is scandalized

_{News
March 15, 2020

Evolution, Intelligent Design, theism

3}_{Categories
Evolution
Intelligent Design
theism}

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

It started when diehard Darwinian Jerry Coyne made fun of U.S. Veep Mike Pence and colleagues praying about the coronavirus epidemic:

There’s even a picture of the virus task force praying together! We don’t need prayer; we need science! Here’s the photo, which distresses me but doesn’t surprise me… [a]fter all, one godly intervention is just as delusional as another!
Jerry Coyne, “Jesus ‘n’ Mo ‘n’ Pence” at Why Evolution Is True

Michael Egnor responded,

Evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne thinks that only fools would pray about Coronavirus. He is wrong and here is why…
If God is real, then prayer is probably the first thing you want to do in a crisis. A plea to the Boss is a fine preamble to the grunt work of managing a crisis. I’m a neurosurgeon, and I pray before each operation. It really helps.
Michael Egnor, “Why prayer is wise during a pandemic” at Mind Matters News

He goes on to offer logical proofs of the existence of God, concluding that “The prayer of the coronavirus task force is wise and wholly appropriate, for both theological and scientific reasons.”

Then Coyne replied, offering responses to specific arguments and adding,

And we don’t need a Christian community now during a pandemic: that’s been replaced by epidemiologists and, most of all, medicine and medical care, all based on materialistic science.
Finally, has Dr. Egnor asked himself this: if praying to God stops people from dying, so God has the power to cure, why did God allow coronavirus to spread in the first place? It’s not just killing off evil people, you know: it’s taking babies who haven’t even had the chance to do evil, or learn about the salvific effects of accepting Jesus. In fact, pandemics are one bit of evidence against the existence of any god who is powerful and empathic.
Jerry Coyne, “Egnor: We need to pray during this pandemic” at Why Evolution Is True

And now Michael Egnor has replied, quoting Coyne and responding:

Coyne, in reply: If there are going to be arguments for god that are convincing, they will have to be empirical ones, not theoretical lucubrations of ancient theologians.
Coyne is clueless. All valid proofs of God’s existence—and there are many—are empirical proofs. As St. Thomas observed, any proof of existence must contain empirical evidence in its premise, because a purely logical proof, which is valid for mathematics and logic, cannot demonstrate the existence of anything. That is why the ontological proof of God’s existence is invalid. You can’t, by pure reason alone, conclude that God (or anything) exists. You must have evidence.
Michael Egnor, “Jerry Coyne hasn’t got a prayer” at Mind Matters News

Egnor sums up: We are more scientifically certain of God’s existence than we are of quantum mechanics or Newtonian or relativistic gravitation. The logic is rigorous.

Over to Coyne.

See also: Michael Behe muses on design and COVID-19 Behe: … most viruses do not affect humans and may well have a positive, necessary role to play in nature of which we are currently unaware. (I would bet on it.) From time to time a storm arises in the virosphere and affects humans. But that’s no reason to think either that viruses weren’t designed or that the designer of viruses isn’t good.

Comments

@ Kairosfocus: Truthfreedom wrote (#12)
Your decisions result from molecular-based electrical impulses and chemical substances transmitted from one brain cell to another. These molecules must obey the laws of physics, so the outputs of our brain—our “choices”—are dictated by those laws. j. coyne https://www.chronicle.com/article/Jerry-A-Coyne-You-Dont-Have/131165
Kairosfocus replied (#14)
Does he realise that such words are inherently self-referential and undermine his own notion that he has freely and rationally drawn his conclusions on the weight of warrant duly judged and accepted?
Who knows.Truthfreedom_{March 16, 2020
March
03
Mar
16
16
2020
05:25 PM
5
05
25
PM
PST}

@27 JVL
I’ve been waiting to ask this question for a long time and forgive me if I phrase it badly: If there is an objective morality then where is it?
May I ask another question? -What are 'morals' and what is their meaning within the evolutive paradigm?Truthfreedom_{March 16, 2020
March
03
Mar
16
16
2020
04:55 PM
4
04
55
PM
PST}

'I think it’s really pointless to get into arguments with intolerant people. Obviously Coyne can’t tolerate the fact that people pray. What’s his problem? No one is forcing him to pray. What business is it of his what other believe...... ?' - Jad Nobody wants to go to hell, alone, John. For most atheists, that fear is like an itch.Axel_{March 16, 2020
March
03
Mar
16
16
2020
04:54 PM
4
04
54
PM
PST}

@13 Kairosfocus
Note, asking according to his will. First, we must be aligned with him in accord with the truth of the gospel.
Yes. People usually ask for Iphones, Netflix accounts and big b**bs. And when they do not get them, they cry foul.Truthfreedom_{March 16, 2020
March
03
Mar
16
16
2020
04:00 PM
4
04
00
PM
PST}

John_a_designer: What is the point of moral subjectivists in even being here? If nobody is right about morality then moral subjectivists like them certainly cannot be right. So why do they persist? What are they trying to prove since even if they irrationally believe they are right they cannot logically prove they are right? I've been waiting to ask this question for a long time and forgive me if I phrase it badly: If there is an objective morality then where is it? I'm asking 'cause there's lots of disagreements between people of faith and I do not want to make any assumptions. I'd just like to know how I can check with the objective morality to see how I'm doing or to guide me when I'm confronted by some situation I don't know how to handle.JVL_{March 16, 2020
March
03
Mar
16
16
2020
02:40 PM
2
02
40
PM
PST}

It’s too bad the Recent Comments feature doesn’t work many hours at a time.Jim Thibodeau_{March 16, 2020
March
03
Mar
16
16
2020
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PST}

Hell’s Bells. DJIA fell 2,997 points today. -12.93%. It was at 19,827 when Obama left office. It’s 20,188 today.Jim Thibodeau_{March 16, 2020
March
03
Mar
16
16
2020
01:14 PM
1
01
14
PM
PST}

JaD
What is the point of moral subjectivists in even being here? If nobody is right about morality then moral subjectivists like them certainly cannot be right. So why do they persist?
Moral subjectivism is just a conclusion based on observation and evidence. Why does it need to have a point or a purpose if it is true?Ed George_{March 16, 2020
March
03
Mar
16
16
2020
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PST}

JAD, sometimes, it is necessary to correct for record, and sometimes it is necessary to slog it out to break the bewitchment of certain ideologies. After some time of that, there is a palpable shift in the clear balance on merits here at UD and I am confident elsewhere. For example, notice that materialism's self referential incoherence and amorality inviting nihilistic factionalism is no longer a strange idiosyncratic notion or a readily ignored clip from a long dead philosopher? That, the fine tuning of the cosmos, the presence of language and algorithms in life and other signs of design have spoken? Even, that we have found a balance on the subject of the transfinite and the challenges of spanning a suggested temporal causal succession of such stages in steps? [This last took three years of hotly contested argument.] What is now emerging is a raw hostility against the Judaeo-Christian heritage that seems to be full of misunderstandings and unbalanced assertions and linked challenge to address the moral fabric of our civilisation i/l/o its roots, the human challenge as well as responsible, rational freedom. The tide has perceptibly been shifting. KFkairosfocus_{March 16, 2020
March
03
Mar
16
16
2020
12:10 PM
12
12
10
PM
PST}

I don’t enjoy, nor do I think it is very wise, getting sucked into baseless “arguments” that lead nowhere. There is big a difference between making logically valid arguments and being argumentative. Some of our regular interlocutors have a “talent” for just being argumentative which only has the purpose of derailing, disrupting or subverting the discussion. Unfortunately, too many people on the ID side get sucked into that kind of nonsense. As I have said here several times before:
I have my own personal standard when it comes to interacting with our regular interlocutors. I usually only engage under two conditions: First, our interlocutor must be willing to ask and answer honest questions. Second, they need make a logically valid argument, which can be stated using succinct fact based premises. Being argumentative is not the same as making a valid argument. Neither is pretension and posturing, obstruction or obfuscation. Reasonable people know how to make reasonable arguments.
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/why-is-seeing-the-glaringly-obvious-so-hard/#comment-688055john_a_designer_{March 16, 2020
March
03
Mar
16
16
2020
09:50 AM
9
09
50
AM
PST}

Jim Thibodeau and MatSpirit are lowering the materialist bar each time they post here. They are j. coyne/ r. dawkins level stupid.Truthfreedom_{March 16, 2020
March
03
Mar
16
16
2020
09:14 AM
9
09
14
AM
PST}

What is the point of moral subjectivists in even being here? If nobody is right about morality then moral subjectivists like them certainly cannot be right. So why do they persist? What are they trying to prove since even if they irrationally believe they are right they cannot logically prove they are right? The only reason that I can think of is that they are self-centered and intolerant. Of course, what else would you expect from a moral subjectivist? Obviously moral objectivists do not believe that everybody is right about morality (that’s the point of an objective transcendent standard) but it does not follow from that that nobody is right about morality. The latter is self-refuting because it’s making a universal truth claim about moral truth. which ironically is exactly what the subjectivists are claiming cannot be done. If they were really intellectually honest about their so-called beliefs the moral subjectivists would move along because they have nothing to say here. So called moral subjectivism is basically moral nihilism, which is about nothing. Therefore, they have nothing to say.john_a_designer_{March 16, 2020
March
03
Mar
16
16
2020
09:04 AM
9
09
04
AM
PST}

@17 JimThibodeau
That’s called self-congratulation. It’s pride, and Christians aren’t supposed to do it. But they do, big surprise.
Mmmm... That is called compassion and reasoning. It is fantastic, and materialists are not supposed to do it. And they do not, so everything is ok. No surprise :) Meanwhile, take a look, materialism is dying (it is an idiotic philosophy): https://strangenotions.com/the-big-problems-with-naturalism/ Truthfreedom_{March 16, 2020
March
03
Mar
16
16
2020
08:18 AM
8
08
18
AM
PST}

When I was growing up my parents got to know a doctor who worked with the poor in Bangladesh-- a so-called medical missionary. One incident that occurred during this man’s life has always stood out to me. It happened in the late 1960’s, when I was in high school. The clinic this doctor was working out of for some reason just got overwhelmed with Bengali’s seeking medical treatment (some had very serious conditions.) He and his staff had no choice but to turn people away knowing that many of them would die. It was during this period that Dr. K. had a massive heart attack. His friends said the circumstances literally broke his heart. However, miraculously, he didn’t die. His staff was somehow able to save his life. They then had him flown to Europe where he underwent surgery and then began rehabilitation. I remember having a discussion with some of the adults at our church after a special prayer meeting we had for Dr. K. One of the questions I heard them asking was, what was he going to do next? It seemed obvious to all of us that he couldn’t go back to his work. But after he recovered that’s what he did. That’s what he had to do. That was his calling. Three points: First, a lot of atheists use the so called argument from evil to argue against the existence of God, but they then turn a blind eye to the suffering around them. This man believed in God and that like many Christians is what motivated him to do something about the suffering in the world. Who’s the hypocrite? It appears to me that atheist uses the so-called argument from evil as an excuse to do nothing about what they term “evil.” Second, if more people like Dr. K. existed we would be able to mitigate a lot more of the suffering that exists in the world. But if mitigating suffering is not really (objectively) good then why would anyone be obligated to do anything about it? And finally, if there is no such thing a moral truth* (objective moral values and obligations) as many atheists argue then Dr. K. was no more moral than Hugh Hefner who at the time was advancing his hedonistic playboy philosophy. According to atheistic materialism there is absolutely no moral difference between Hugh Hefner and Dr. K. They just made different freewill moral choices (ironically, using free will that the materialists say is just an illusion.) In fact from that perspective Dr. K. was a fool. He should have set up his medical practice here in the U.S. where he could have made a lot more money. (*Of course, if there are no objective values and obligations then there is no real evil-- thus there is no problem of evil. Maybe that’s what our atheist interlocutors are really arguing.) Let’s take God out of the equation. Does evil exist? If it does where does it come from? Take for instance evil in human society. Where does evil in society come from? Isn’t the source man himself? Who then is responsible to take care of the evil?john_a_designer_{March 16, 2020
March
03
Mar
16
16
2020
07:35 AM
7
07
35
AM
PST}

@JAD that’s called self-congratulation. It’s pride, and Christians aren’t supposed to do it. But they do, big surprise.Jim Thibodeau_{March 16, 2020
March
03
Mar
16
16
2020
07:06 AM
7
07
06
AM
PST}

Forking Shirtballs. The DJIA was 19,827 the day Obama left office. Right now it’s 20,814.Jim Thibodeau_{March 16, 2020
March
03
Mar
16
16
2020
07:04 AM
7
07
04
AM
PST}

Why do we never hear Christians saying to an atheist “that’s not very atheistic of you”? Or, “you are not being very atheistic.” The answer should be obvious. Neither atheism nor any atheistic world view (even most “honest” atheists don’t think atheism itself is a world view) provides a sufficient foundation for ethics. Christian’s know that and so do the atheists. Indeed, most of what atheists living in western society believe morally or ethically has been coopted from Christianity and Judaism. That by itself is hypocritical.john_a_designer_{March 16, 2020
March
03
Mar
16
16
2020
06:49 AM
6
06
49
AM
PST}

TF, Great catch:
Your decisions result from molecular-based electrical impulses and chemical substances transmitted from one brain cell to another. These molecules must obey the laws of physics, so the outputs of our brain—our “choices”—are dictated by those laws. j. coyne https://www.chronicle.com/article/Jerry-A-Coyne-You-Dont-Have/131165
Does he realise that such words are inherently self-referential and undermine his own notion that he has freely and rationally drawn his conclusions on the weight of warrant duly judged and accepted? Do we not see how such self-referential incoherence cuts its own throat, necessarily falsifying itself? Or, is it that we refuse to see that every aspect, every facet of responsible rationality is inescapably morally governed by and pervaded with the first duties of reason? To wit, to truth, to prudence [so, warrant], to right reason [so, logic and epistemology, sound observation etc], to sound conscience, to neighbour [so, the Golden Rule], to fairness and justice etc? Do we not understand the principle, ex falso quod libet? From the false, anything, that is a necessary falsity in our system will undermine our ability to reason and perceive soundly. KFkairosfocus_{March 16, 2020
March
03
Mar
16
16
2020
01:32 AM
1
01
32
AM
PST}

Folks, the now predictable dripping hostility to God and to those who seek or trust or serve him is telling. It seems advisable to speak briefly to the philosophy and theology of prayer. I must also note that there is a very good reason why many public meetings or assemblies begin with a prayer: Psalm 127 is a classic:
1 Unless the Lord builds the house, They labor in vain who build it; Unless the Lord guards the city, The watchman keeps awake in vain. 2 It is vain for you to rise early, To retire late, To eat the bread of anxious labors— For He gives [blessings] to His beloved even in his sleep.
We are all too finite, fallible, morally struggling and too often arrogant or otherwise ill-willed. Therefore, instead of dismissively boasting of our ideological, Evolutionary Materialistic Scientism and pretence to effective omniscience and authority, humbling ourselves before Him who is inherently good, utterly wise and source of worlds is advisable. Hubris goes before a fall. In this context, there is a seeming paradox: why should we be telling the all-knowing about our needs that he knows better than we could? The answer, is that prayer is relational and attitudinal. We humble ourselves -- humility, not being a noted characteristic of current mockers of God and of godliness -- and open ourselves to one who is wiser and better than we. This in fact makes it safer for things to be granted or given to us. It also makes us more willing to seek and listen to a famously still, small voice. Then, to heed it. Where of course, that voice can come from anyone, even that 2 - 3 year old child. And, here is a pivotal prayer-promise:
1 Jn 5:14 This is the [remarkable degree of] confidence which we [as believers are entitled to] have before Him: that [c]if we ask anything according to His will, [that is, consistent with His plan and purpose] He hears us. 15 And if we know [for a fact, as indeed we do] that He hears and listens to us in whatever we ask, we [also] know [with settled and absolute knowledge] that we have [granted to us] the requests which we have asked from Him.
Note, asking according to his will. First, we must be aligned with him in accord with the truth of the gospel. Second, we must be informed in accord with scripture, circumstances [which obviously includes sound observation] and the voices in the situation . . . our own, others, conscience, ethics, law, science, philosophy, mathematics, economics, sociology and psychology, organisation behaviour, logistics, management, strategy, communication and media principles, political science, natural and medical sciences etc. Third, we must humble ourselves to ask, seek, knock. Lastly, an obvious but readily overlooked fact. If yes, there were plagues in the classical world [cf. early Peloponnesian war], if yes there were plagues in the middle ages [Black Death], there are also -- manifestly -- plagues and pandemics in our own day [such as is unfolding before our eyes]. So, our vaunted science has not secured for us immunity to plagues. Indeed, dark science has led some to try to create terrifying weapons that pervert our understanding of microbiology to create new plagues and our travel and trade have opened up conduits that can literally spread a plague globally within a week or two. Technically, 24 hours. It seems, we have a wisdom and ill will problem that cannot be cured by technical knowledge of science or even professional ethics. Save, the Lord build the house, save the Lord guards the city . . . KF PS: EG, you forget a basic fact. Mass shootings, bombings, wars etc that do not happen generally don't make the headlines. Again, a statistical blunder; this time, of selection and headline grabbing/slanting effects. How many have learned to chain the wolf-warrior within to become honest, honourable sheep dogs through spiritual disciplines including prayer, scripture, regular attendance on church teachings and habitual discipline under gospel ethics? How often is this headlined or made into movies or is the subject of those notorious Sunday Morning talking head fests that seem to specialise in un-wisdom? Let us think again.kairosfocus_{March 16, 2020
March
03
Mar
16
16
2020
01:18 AM
1
01
18
AM
PST}

@11 John_a_designer:
I am sure they would care for even Jerry Coyne. It’s the Christian thing to do.
And according to coyne, that would bear no merit, because people are meat-robots and free will does not exist.
Your decisions result from molecular-based electrical impulses and chemical substances transmitted from one brain cell to another. These molecules must obey the laws of physics, so the outputs of our brain—our "choices"—are dictated by those laws. j. coyne https://www.chronicle.com/article/Jerry-A-Coyne-You-Dont-Have/131165
It is obvious that evolution supporters are not mentally sound.Truthfreedom_{March 16, 2020
March
03
Mar
16
16
2020
12:22 AM
12
12
22
AM
PST}

I think it’s really pointless to get into arguments with intolerant people. Obviously Coyne can’t tolerate the fact that people pray. What’s his problem? No one is forcing him to pray. What business is it of his what other believe? Christians of all denominations do more than pray. For example:
CHA advances the Catholic health ministry of the United States in caring for people and communities. Comprised of more than 600 hospitals and 1,600 long-term care and other health facilities in all 50 states, the Catholic health ministry is the largest group of nonprofit health care providers in the nation. Every day, more than one in seven patients in the U.S. is cared for in a Catholic hospital.
https://www.chausa.org/about/about/facts-statistics There are also a large number of hospitals with Methodist and Baptist in their name. Even though neither I nor my parents were Catholic, I was born in a Catholic hospital, spent six weeks recovering in a Catholic hospital after being in a serious auto accident and my present primary care physician is part of a Catholic medical group. I am sure they would care for even Jerry Coyne. It’s the Christian thing to do. Guess who’s going to be on the front line fighting the Coronavirus pandemic? Not Jerry Coyne.john_a_designer_{March 15, 2020
March
03
Mar
15
15
2020
09:12 PM
9
09
12
PM
PST}

People are dying jerry. And? According to you
"The universe and life are pointless...Pointless in the sense that there is no externally imposed purpose or point in the universe".
And were not you the evoTARD who affirms there is not free-will? Michael Egnor is just a neuronal illusion that can not choose his religious beliefs... Well, he can choose nothing really and he does 'not exist' (according to your mental flatulence). Wow, evoTARDs that swallow coyne's bilge used to be called 'lunatics.' :) Padded rooms and all.Truthfreedom_{March 15, 2020
March
03
Mar
15
15
2020
02:59 PM
2
02
59
PM
PST}

LoL! @ Pater- The question was post-hoc. Perhaps there are only so many souls. And then suppose that the death rate is artificially low, while the birth rate is climbing. War or the culling of those who are artificially kept alive?ET_{March 15, 2020
March
03
Mar
15
15
2020
12:38 PM
12
12
38
PM
PST}

@ET #4 ET said " ...Perhaps it is to cull those who should have been dead already." Thanks for the preemptive post-hoc.Pater Kimbridge_{March 15, 2020
March
03
Mar
15
15
2020
12:09 PM
12
12
09
PM
PST}

Coyne claims that,
And we don’t need a Christian community now during a pandemic: that’s been replaced by epidemiologists and, most of all, medicine and medical care, all based on materialistic science.
And yet Coyne also admitted that, "Evolution cannot help us predict what new vaccines to manufacture because microbes evolve unpredictably."
“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).)
And as Philip Skell pointed out.
"Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming's discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No." Philip S. Skell - (the late) Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. - Why Do We Invoke Darwin? - 2005 http://www.discovery.org/a/2816
Well if, as Coyne himself pointed out, the 'materialistic science' of evolution is not helping us to develop new vaccines, then exactly what is? Well that obviously would be humans intelligently designing new vaccines, via empirical evidence and various 'rational design' strategies:
Vaccines: From Empirical Development to Rational Design - 2012 Excerpt: most currently available vaccines were empirically designed. In this review, we discuss why rational design of vaccines is not only desirable but also necessary. We introduce recent developments towards specifically tailored antigens, adjuvants, and delivery systems, and discuss the methodological gaps and lack of knowledge still hampering true rational vaccine design. Finally, we address the potential and limitations of different strategies and technologies for advancing vaccine development. https://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article?id=10.1371/journal.ppat.1003001
And as Michael Egnor points out, "Evolutionary explanations by themselves are worthless to medicine. All medical treatments are based on detailed proximate explanations."
Darwinian Medicine and Proximate and Evolutionary Explanations – Michael Egnor – neurosurgeon – June 2011 Excerpt: 4) Evolutionary explanations by themselves are worthless to medicine. All medical treatments are based on detailed proximate explanations. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/darwinian_medicine_and_proxima047701.html
And as Dr. Egnor further points out, Darwinian evolution has played no role in medical science and yet medical science has been remarkably successful,,
Against "Darwinian Medicine" – Dr. Michael Egnor - August 9, 2016 Excerpt: Darwinist Randolph Nesse has been peddling "Darwinian Medicine" for years.,,, He argues for integration of Darwinian science into medical school curricula,,, The very admission that Darwinism has had no role in medical science is a telling argument not for its inclusion, but for its irrelevance. Medical science is remarkably successful. Antibiotics, cybernetics, cancer chemotherapy, bone marrow transplants, hip replacements, heart transplants, and a host of near-miraculous advances have greatly extended our lifespan and improved the quality of our lives -- all without Darwin. Whether or not Darwinian hypotheses can be teased out of some medical advances, it is simply a fact that doctors and medical researchers pay no attention to Darwinian speculations in their work, and their work has been astonishingly successful. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/08/against_darwini103058.html
In fact, "almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, and physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all."
"In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, and physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all." Marc Kirschner, founding chair of the Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School, Boston Globe, Oct. 23, 2005 "While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”, most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas. Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superflous one.” Adam S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays, Introduction to "Evolutionary Processes" - (2000).
Moreover, in so far as Darwinian speculations have influenced science and medicine at large, those speculations have always been detrimental to science and medicine, i.e. for instance the false predictions of junk DNA and vestigial organs,, etc.. etc... As well, the consequences for societies at large, from 'Darwinian speculations', have been always been catastrophically bad,
A Dehumanizing Ideology Unsurprisingly Catalyzes Violence – Michael Egnor – August 7, 2016 Excerpt: And it is precisely the metaphysical commitments Coyne has championed that have catalyzed atheist violence — the denial of an objective moral law, the denial of eternal accountability for transgressions, the reduction of human beings to animals or even to meat robots, deprived of free will or of any claim to human exceptionalism. These are all tenets of atheist belief, and Coyne himself is one of the loudest salesman for the dehumanizing ideology inherent to atheism. Just how violent and repressive can atheism be?,,, In the past century, a number of nations have been governed by explicitly atheist governments. Atheist governments murdered more than 100 million people during the 20th century.,,, Looking at modern history, we see: Christian culture creates reasonable and tolerant democracies. Islamic regimes create repressive theocracies. Atheist regimes create totalitarian hellholes. The denial of free will and the other anti-human inferences inherent to atheism are not merely theoretical affronts to humanity. The fact is that atheism is the most violent ideology in the 20th century, and given its short run and unprecedented rate of state-sanctioned murder, it is also the most violent and repressive ideology in human history. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/08/a_dehumanizing103055.html Darwin on Marx – by Richard William Nelson | Apr 18, 2010 Excerpt: Marx and Engels immediately recognized the significance of Darwin’s theory. Within weeks of the publication of The Origin of Species in November 1859, Engels wrote to Marx – “Darwin, by the way, whom I’m reading just now, is absolutely splendid. There was one aspect of teleology that had yet to be demolished, and that has now been done…. One does, of course, have to put up with the crude English method.” Marx wrote back to Engels on December 19, 1860 – “This is the book which contains the basis in natural history for our view.” The Origin of Species became the natural cause basis for Marx’s emerging class struggle movement. In a letter to comrade Ferdinand Lassalle, on January 16, 1861, Marx wrote – “Darwin’s book is very important and serves me as a basis in natural science for the class struggle in history.” Marx inscribed “sincere admirer” in Darwin’s copy of Marx’s first volume of Das Kapital in 1867. The importance of the theory of evolution for Communism was critical. In Das Kapital, Marx wrote – “Darwin has interested us in the history of Nature’s Technology, i.e., in the formation of the organs of plants and animals, which organs serve as instruments of production for sustaining life. Does not the history of the productive organs of man, of organs that are the material basis of all social organisation, deserve equal attention?” To acknowledge Darwin’s influence, Marx asked to dedicate Das Kapital to Darwin. https://www.darwinthenandnow.com/2010/04/darwin-on-marx/
In conclusion, contrary to what Coyne believes, there is no such thing as 'materialistic science'. In fact, the term 'materialistic science' is an oxymoron, An oxymoron that Coyne used just to try to shoehorn his Darwinian religion into science. The fact of the matter is that all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on the presupposition of intelligent design and is certainly not based on the presupposition of methodological naturalism., (i.e. 'materialistic science'). From the essential Christian presuppositions that undergird the founding of modern science itself, (namely that the universe is rational and that the minds of men, being made in the ‘image of God’, can dare understand that rationality), to the intelligent design of the scientific instruments and experiments themselves, to the logical and mathematical analysis of experimental results themselves, from top to bottom, science itself is certainly not to be considered a ‘natural’ endeavor of man. Not one scientific instrument would ever exist if men did not first intelligently design that scientific instrument. Not one test tube, microscope, telescope, spectroscope, or etc.. etc.., was ever found just laying around on a beach somewhere which was ‘naturally’ constructed by nature. Not one experimental result would ever be rationally analyzed since there would be no immaterial minds to rationally analyze the immaterial logic and immaterial mathematics that lay behind the intelligently designed experiments in the first place. Again, all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on the presupposition of intelligent design and is certainly not based on the presupposition of methodological naturalism. In short, Coyne is a snake oil charlatan who is selling quackery when he tries to claim that science is 'materialistic' . The assumption of materialism, much like the assumption of Darwinian evolution itself, has nothing to do with science save to be a unnecessary hindrance to it.bornagain77_{March 15, 2020
March
03
Mar
15
15
2020
11:47 AM
11
11
47
AM
PST}

If God exists then he has a purpose for COVID-19. If God exists, why should be doing something that goes against this purpose?
Maybe His purpose is hearing evoTARDs like you praying. -If naturalism is true (and there is proof that it is not) life is meaningless and helping people to avoid sickness/ death is a waste of time/ a 'trick' or a spandrel.Truthfreedom_{March 15, 2020
March
03
Mar
15
15
2020
09:29 AM
9
09
29
AM
PST}

Or even better, the virus is an impetus for us to learn.ET_{March 15, 2020
March
03
Mar
15
15
2020
09:23 AM
9
09
23
AM
PST}

Eddie George:
If God exists then he has a purpose for COVID-19.
OK. Perhaps it is to cull those who should have been dead already.ET_{March 15, 2020
March
03
Mar
15
15
2020
09:22 AM
9
09
22
AM
PST}

If God is real, then prayer is probably the first thing you want to do in a crisis.
Prayers have done such a wonderful job at stopping mass shootings. If God exists then he has a purpose for COVID-19. If God exists, why should be doing something that goes against this purpose?Ed George_{March 15, 2020
March
03
Mar
15
15
2020
09:12 AM
9
09
12
AM
PST}

@1 Seversky
I’m sure the Christian people of Europe in the Middle Ages prayed fervently for protection from the bubonic plague. That didn’t stop a third of the continent’s population being wiped out by it. Maybe there was no one there to hear them?
Yes, keeping on being alive to know each and every day of your existence is 'purposeless' is quite nice. -Hearing naturalists like dawkins would have helped people in the Middle Ages a lot.
Humans have always wondered about the meaning of life…life has no higher purpose than to perpetuate the survival of DNA… life has no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference. Richard Dawkins.
Pray Darwin.Truthfreedom_{March 15, 2020
March
03
Mar
15
15
2020
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PST}

Prev 1 2 3 Next