Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Darwinist Jerry Coyne refuses to discuss origin of life in person with maverick rabbi; claims he oppresses women

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Rabbi Moshe Averick, author of The Confused, Illusory World of the Atheist , tells us the sad story of the “Orthodox Rabbi vs. Atheistic Biologist Who Won’t Put his Money Where his Mouth is: A History.” The “atheist bigot”in the story is surprise, surprise gnu atheist Jerry Coyne (“Why Evolution Is True”):

I have some very sad news to report…Dr. Jerry Coyne (Zealous Atheist – Professor of Biology at the U. of Chicago), and I (Orthodox Rabbi – Fearless Crusader for Belief in God and Spirituality)…are breaking up. I know it’s hard to believe, but our passionate, tempestuous, whirlwind affair has come to an end. In his final letter to me Jerry wrote: “I’m done with Averick, and certainly will not accept his invitation to meet and discuss whether God created the first organism.” The hottest love has the coldest end – Socrates

Regular readers will remember that Moseh Averick’s key issue is the non-science around the origin of life. His sparring with Coyne on that topic can be viewed here (“An Open Letter to Dr. Jerry Coyne, from the Maverick Rabbi”), here (“Should Darwin’s defender Jerry Coyne get silver medal for “sheer crudeness”?”), and here (“Reb Moshe Averick, skeptic of nonsense marketed as science, mixes it up again with Jerry “Why Evolution Is True” Coyne”), for example.

So, what ha-a-a-a-ppened? Why are we deprived, with no apparent just cause, of our regular dose of Maverick? Well, after a discussion of numerous occasions on which Coyne found it hard to understand why an intelligent Jewish person would disagree with him,

9. 12/22/11 – (Don’t worry we’re almost finished) I offer to bury the hatchet and hold out the peace-pipe to Dr. Coyne with: Dr. Jerry Coyne: My Culturally-Jewish, Atheistic, Biologist Bro’ at the University of Chicago: “It does not seem to me that a simple disagreement about the origin of life should be cause for me and Dr. Coyne to be at each others throats. Jerry, I am respectfully answering your challenge and would like to “come at you bro.” Let’s stop fighting over the internet and meet in person and have a mature, civil discussion about Origin of Life….The more I think about it the better it sounds. After all, we do have quite a bit in common; two nice Jewish boys in Chicago who love Hyde Park, who love to hack away at our word processors, who thoroughly enjoy an honest battle of ideas, and most important of all, we both love pastrami sandwiches!” I even sent him a “virtual gift” of kosher pastrami as a peace-offering.

But, the skinny,

In his final post where he announced the “break-up” and that he would not meet me in a debate, the nicest thing he had to say was that I was a “sexist” actively engaged in enslaving and oppressing women on every continent.

Wow! The Reb has that kind of pull? Here we figured he was lucky to just keep some Jewish families faithful – the rabbi’s perennial quest. Anyway, Rev Averick finishes with

Frankly, it is clear that Dr. Coyne was relieved that he found a good excuse not to discuss or debate the issue of Origin of Life with me in an open forum. Origin of Life is the soft, defenseless underbelly of the façade of “scientific” support for an atheistic worldview.

Well, we wish Moshe Averick a tougher opponent.

By the way, James Shapiro, currently sparring with the ID theorists, admits that origin of life is still on the fringe of science. It’s hardly a new or unreasonable idea.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
The idea that Jews oppress women is utter nonsense. Almost everywhere you find Jewish people, you find educated Jewish women, holding professional positions. Are they truly oppressed? Some of us, when we think of oppression of women, think of, say, The Stoning of Soraya M, dowry burns, and legal wife-beating. Real horrific deaths and injuries inflicted on real people. Where do Jewish people figure in all that, except as stalwarts in human rights orgs, trying to prevent it?News
January 26, 2012
January
01
Jan
26
26
2012
06:18 AM
6
06
18
AM
PDT
It looks good. I just added it to my Netflix queue.champignon
January 26, 2012
January
01
Jan
26
26
2012
12:37 AM
12
12
37
AM
PDT
That was the subject of the movie, Pan's Labyrinth.Petrushka
January 26, 2012
January
01
Jan
26
26
2012
12:10 AM
12
12
10
AM
PDT
Yeah. Life's funny, isn't it? Don't worry -- I'm sure we'll disagree again soon. :-)champignon
January 25, 2012
January
01
Jan
25
25
2012
11:58 PM
11
11
58
PM
PDT
Champignon, Interesting, isn't it, that in one thread we are practically at each other's throats, and in another we are in agreement?! :) BruceBruce David
January 25, 2012
January
01
Jan
25
25
2012
11:50 PM
11
11
50
PM
PDT
How can you possibly claim to know what the moral standards of God are? You apparently believe that God disapproves of sexism. What is your authority? The Bible? The Old Testament is rife with sexism. If it is so clear what the moral standards of God are, how come every Christian sect has its own version? This is such a canard, repeated over and over in this blog, that morality comes from God, the “ultimate moral authority”, yet Christians cannot agree on what the actual principles of that moral authority are beyond the broadest generalities. There is a major disconnect here. It appears to be a fundamental Christian tenet that morality derives from God, yet God has not made it at all clear what that morality is.
Right on, Bruce. And furthermore, suppose that we did somehow obtain certain knowledge of what God wants us to do. We would still have to ask ourselves, "Is it morally right to do what God is asking me to do, or am I morally obligated to disobey?" For example, who among us would fail to ask ourselves that question if God asked us to kill one of our children, as he supposedly asked Abraham? It comes down to individual judgment. Each of us is responsible for his or her moral decisions, and we can't pass the buck to any external authority -- not even to God.champignon
January 25, 2012
January
01
Jan
25
25
2012
11:36 PM
11
11
36
PM
PDT
Blue_Savannah, I'm sorry, I can't let this pass:
Once again, we see how self-refuting atheism is and why atheists continually revert to the moral standards of GOD (the ultimate moral authority) Makes it hard to be an atheist.
How can you possibly claim to know what the moral standards of God are? You apparently believe that God disapproves of sexism. What is your authority? The Bible? The Old Testament is rife with sexism. If it is so clear what the moral standards of God are, how come every Christian sect has its own version? This is such a canard, repeated over and over in this blog, that morality comes from God, the "ultimate moral authority", yet Christians cannot agree on what the actual principles of that moral authority are beyond the broadest generalities. There is a major disconnect here. It appears to be a fundamental Christian tenet that morality derives from God, yet God has not made it at all clear what that morality is. In the Conversations with God series of books, by Neale Donald Walsch, God, speaking through the author, says point blank that in His eyes there is no moral right and wrong; there is only what works and what doesn't work, given what it is one wants to be, do, and have. If one wants to live in a loving, harmonious world, then one should be loving and harmonious. If not, then not. He also says that the rule to live by if one wants to live in accordance with one's true essential nature (the image and likeness of God) is in every moment to be in the question, "What would Love do now?" Now those are words to live by.Bruce David
January 25, 2012
January
01
Jan
25
25
2012
11:15 PM
11
11
15
PM
PDT
champignon, I have a friendly suggestion for you, if you truly want to find the source for where all life originally came from, I suggest you look to the one who defeated death itself on the cross. notes: (,,,The ‘mathematical endeavor', to unify General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics, has been fraught with extreme difficulty. Here is, I believe, the main ‘mathematical difficulty',,,)
Science vs God: Its The Collapse Of Physics As We Know it – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHHz4mB9GKY THE MYSTERIOUS ZERO/INFINITY Excerpt: The biggest challenge to today’s physicists is how to reconcile general relativity and quantum mechanics. However, these two pillars of modern science were bound to be incompatible. “The universe of general relativity is a smooth rubber sheet. It is continuous and flowing, never sharp, never pointy. Quantum mechanics, on the other hand, describes a jerky and discontinuous universe. What the two theories have in common – and what they clash over – is zero.”,, “The infinite zero of a black hole — mass crammed into zero space, curving space infinitely — punches a hole in the smooth rubber sheet. The equations of general relativity cannot deal with the sharpness of zero. In a black hole, space and time are meaningless.”,, “Quantum mechanics has a similar problem, a problem related to the zero-point energy. The laws of quantum mechanics treat particles such as the electron as points; that is, they take up no space at all. The electron is a zero-dimensional object,,, According to the rules of quantum mechanics, the zero-dimensional electron has infinite mass and infinite charge. http://www.fmbr.org/editoral/edit01_02/edit6_mar02.htm
(,,,Moreover, this extreme ‘mathematical difficulty', of reconciling General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics into the much sought after 'Theory of Everything', was actually somewhat foreseeable from previous work, earlier in the 20th century, in mathematics by Godel:,,,)
THE GOD OF THE MATHEMATICIANS – DAVID P. GOLDMAN – August 2010 Excerpt: we cannot construct an ontology that makes God dispensable. Secularists can dismiss this as a mere exercise within predefined rules of the game of mathematical logic, but that is sour grapes, for it was the secular side that hoped to substitute logic for God in the first place. Gödel’s critique of the continuum hypothesis has the same implication as his incompleteness theorems: Mathematics never will create the sort of closed system that sorts reality into neat boxes. http://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/07/the-god-of-the-mathematicians
(,,,Moreover when we allow consciousness its proper role in quantum mechanics:,,,)
The argument for God from consciousness can be framed like this: 1. Consciousness either precedes all of material reality or is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality. 2. If consciousness is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality then consciousness will be found to have no special position within material reality. Whereas conversely, if consciousness precedes material reality then consciousness will be found to have a special position within material reality. 3. Consciousness is found to have a special, even central, position within material reality. 4. Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality. “It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness.” Eugene Wigner (1902 -1995) from his collection of essays “Symmetries and Reflections – Scientific Essays”; Eugene Wigner laid the foundation for the theory of symmetries in quantum mechanics, for which he received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1963.
(,,,We then find a very credible reconciliation between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics which, very unlike the multiverse conjecture, actually has some very impressive empirical evidence backing it up,,,)
The 'center of the universe' is life - General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy, and The Shroud Of Turin – updated video (notes in description) http://vimeo.com/34084462
(,,,Thus, when one allows God into math, as Godel clearly indicated must ultimately be done to keep math from being 'incomplete', then we find that there actually exists a very credible reconciliation between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity into a the much sought after 'Theory of Everything'! Yet it certainly is a 'Theory of Everything' that many dogmatic Atheists will try to deny the relevance of.,,, As a footnote; Godel, who proved you cannot have a mathematical ‘Theory of Everything’, without allowing God to bring completeness to the 'Theory of Everything' in the first place, also had this to say,,,)
The God of the Mathematicians – Goldman Excerpt: As Gödel told Hao Wang, “Einstein’s religion [was] more abstract, like Spinoza and Indian philosophy. Spinoza’s god is less than a person; mine is more than a person; because God can play the role of a person.” – Kurt Gödel – (Gödel is considered by many to be the greatest mathematician of the 20th century) http://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/07/the-god-of-the-mathematicians
bornagain77
January 25, 2012
January
01
Jan
25
25
2012
04:13 PM
4
04
13
PM
PDT
champignon, aside from the name calling that you so easily catered to, of the good, but human, Rabbi Averick, of alleged sexual bigotry, and cutting to the nitty gritty of this 'origin of life' matter, do you, or do you not, disagree with any of the 'science' behind these following quotes, that Averick has cited, other than you having severe dislike that the 'science' is not conducive in the least to your atheistic worldview???:
The Theist holds the Intellectual High-Ground - March 2011 Excerpt: To get a range on the enormous challenges involved in bridging the gaping chasm between non-life and life, consider the following: “The difference between a mixture of simple chemicals and a bacterium, is much more profound than the gulf between a bacterium and an elephant.” (Dr. Robert Shapiro, Professor Emeritus of Chemistry, NYU) http://www.faithfulnews.com/contents/view_content2/49631/rabbi-moshe-averick-the-theist-holds-the-intellectual-high-ground-apologetics-christian-apologetics-defending-gospel Scientists Prove Again that Life is the Result of Intelligent Design - Rabbi Moshe Averick - August 2011 Excerpt: “To go from bacterium to people is less of a step than to go from a mixture of amino acids to a bacterium.” - Dr. Lynn Margulis http://www.algemeiner.com/2011/08/17/scientists-prove-again-that-life-is-the-result-of-intelligent-design/
Here is a related article with several more excellent quotes, by leading origin of life researchers, commenting on the 'problem' that the origin of life presents to 'science' (actually it is only a problem for atheists who 'believe' that 'science' equates strictly to their reductive materialistic view of reality):
Faye Flam: Atheist Writer Who is Long on Graciousness, Long on Civility… Short on Reason, Short on Scientific Realities - Rabbi Averick http://www.algemeiner.com/2012/01/12/faye-flam-atheist-writer-who-is-long-on-graciousness-long-on-civility-short-on-reason-short-on-scientific-realities-2/
Further comments on the origin of life 'problem':
Stephen Meyer - Proteins by Design - Doing The Math - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/6332250/ Signature in the Cell - Book Review - Ken Peterson Excerpt: If we assume some minimally complex cell requires 250 different proteins then the probability of this arrangement happening purely by chance is one in 10 to the 164th multiplied by itself 250 times or one in 10 to the 41,000th power. http://www.spectrummagazine.org/reviews/book_reviews/2009/10/06/signature_cell
In fact years ago Fred Hoyle arrived at approximately the same number, one chance in 10^40,000, for life spontaneously arising. From this number, Fred Hoyle compared the random emergence of the simplest bacterium on earth to the likelihood “a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 therein”. Fred Hoyle also compared the chance of obtaining just one single functioning protein molecule, by chance combination of amino acids, to a solar system packed full of blind men solving Rubik’s Cube simultaneously. Professor Harold Morowitz shows the Origin of Life 'problem' escalates dramatically over the 1 in 10^40,000 figure when working on a 'simple' cell from a thermodynamic perspective,:
"The probability for the chance of formation of the smallest, simplest form of living organism known is 1 in 10^340,000,000. This number is 10 to the 340 millionth power! The size of this figure is truly staggering since there is only supposed to be approximately 10^80 (10 to the 80th power) electrons in the whole universe!" (Professor Harold Morowitz, Energy Flow In Biology pg. 99, Biophysicist of George Mason University)
Dr. Don Johnson lays out some of the probabilities for life in this following video:
Probabilities Of Life - Don Johnson PhD. - 38 minute mark of video a typical functional protein - 1 part in 10^175 the required enzymes for life - 1 part in 10^40,000 a living self replicating cell - 1 part in 10^340,000,000 http://www.vimeo.com/11706014 Programming of Life - Probability of a Cell Evolving - video http://www.youtube.com/user/Programmingoflife#p/c/AFDF33F11E2FB840/9/nyTUSe99z6o
Dr. Morowitz did another probability calculation working from the thermodynamic perspective with a already existing cell and came up with this number:
DID LIFE START BY CHANCE? Excerpt: Molecular biophysicist, Horold Morowitz (Yale University), calculated the odds of life beginning under natural conditions (spontaneous generation). He calculated, if one were to take the simplest living cell and break every chemical bond within it, the odds that the cell would reassemble under ideal natural conditions (the best possible chemical environment) would be one chance in 10^100,000,000,000. You will have probably have trouble imagining a number so large, so Hugh Ross provides us with the following example. If all the matter in the Universe was converted into building blocks of life, and if assembly of these building blocks were attempted once a microsecond for the entire age of the universe. Then instead of the odds being 1 in 10^100,000,000,000, they would be 1 in 10^99,999,999,916 (also of note: 1 with 100 billion zeros following would fill approx. 20,000 encyclopedias) http://members.tripod.com/~Black_J/chance.html
Also of interest is the information content that is derived in a cell when, 'mathematically', working from the thermodynamic perspective:
“a one-celled bacterium, e. coli, is estimated to contain the equivalent of 100 million pages of Encyclopedia Britannica. Expressed in information in science jargon, this would be the same as 10^12 bits of information. In comparison, the total writings from classical Greek Civilization is only 10^9 bits, and the largest libraries in the world – The British Museum, Oxford Bodleian Library, New York Public Library, Harvard Widenier Library, and the Moscow Lenin Library – have about 10 million volumes or 10^12 bits.” – R. C. Wysong 'The information content of a simple cell has been estimated as around 10^12 bits, comparable to about a hundred million pages of the Encyclopedia Britannica." Carl Sagan, "Life" in Encyclopedia Britannica: Macropaedia (1974 ed.), pp. 893-894
of note: The 10^12 bits of information number for a bacterium is derived from entropic considerations, which is, due to the tightly integrated relationship between information and entropy, considered the most accurate measure of the transcendent quantum information/entanglement constraining a 'simple' life form to be so far out of thermodynamic equilibrium.
"Is there a real connection between entropy in physics and the entropy of information? ....The equations of information theory and the second law are the same, suggesting that the idea of entropy is something fundamental..." Siegfried, Dallas Morning News, 5/14/90, [Quotes Robert W. Lucky, Ex. Director of Research, AT&T, Bell Laboratories & John A. Wheeler, of Princeton & Univ. of TX, Austin]
For calculations of the 10^12 bit number, from the thermodynamic perspective, please see the following site:
Moleular Biophysics – Information theory. Relation between information and entropy: - Setlow-Pollard, Ed. Addison Wesley Excerpt: Linschitz gave the figure 9.3 x 10^12 cal/deg or 9.3 x 10^12 x 4.2 joules/deg for the entropy of a bacterial cell. Using the relation H = S/(k In 2), we find that the information content is 4 x 10^12 bits. Morowitz' deduction from the work of Bayne-Jones and Rhees gives the lower value of 5.6 x 10^11 bits, which is still in the neighborhood of 10^12 bits. Thus two quite different approaches give rather concordant figures. http://www.astroscu.unam.mx/~angel/tsb/molecular.htm
bornagain77
January 25, 2012
January
01
Jan
25
25
2012
04:07 PM
4
04
07
PM
PDT
Oh the hypocrisy of our atheistic friend, Jerry Coyne. Let's assume for the sake of argument that Rabbi Averick is sexist and oppressive...by what authority does the atheist deduce such traits would be wrong? Keep in mind, we are told by atheists that we have no free will (no more than a bowl of sugar according to Cashmore in PNAS) and that humans are not superior to any other living organism, such as maggots or bacteria (Ruse) So, it's a little hard to believe Coyne could intellectually take offence in regards to sexism if Rabbi Averick had no choice but to be that way. Once again, we see how self-refuting atheism is and why atheists continually revert to the moral standards of GOD (the ultimate moral authority) Makes it hard to be an atheist. ;-)Blue_Savannah
January 25, 2012
January
01
Jan
25
25
2012
03:27 PM
3
03
27
PM
PDT
Averick wrote:
but you have made it clear in several of your posts at Why Evolution is True that you prefer to have women do your fighting for you. That includes both Terri-Lynne McCormick (the wife of Origin of Life researcher Dr. Jack Szostak), and Faye Flam the Planet of the Apes columnist at the Philadelphia Inquirer.
Coyne responded:
Let me clarify to this dreadful specimen of Judaism that these women did not do their fighting for me; they did it on their own behalf. I neither incited Flam or McCormick to post, nor, indeed, had any contact with them about their attacks on Averick’s beginning-of-life creationism. I’ve never had any contact at all with Ms. McCormick. Maybe the good rabbi can learn from this exchange that in the secular community, women can actually think for themselves. Averick, you owe both of these women an apology.
Indeed. Averick seems to be what is known in the vernacular as a "sexist douchebag".champignon
January 25, 2012
January
01
Jan
25
25
2012
02:48 PM
2
02
48
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply