Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Darwinists fall out – Nick Matzke on Jerry Coyne: “ … worrisome if [what] Coyne is pushing became common in scientific journals.”

arroba Email
Gnu Atheist symbol by Aratina Cage

Recently, we discussed: Jerry Coyne in Evolution: ” … religion is highly correlated with the dysfunctionality of a society. Now, Nick Matzke, who comments here, and once worked for the Darwin lobby, NCSE, replies to Coyne, a self-described gnu atheist:

There is a lot more that could be said, but I am most interested in peoples’ comments on the following: Is it good for the professional field of evolutionary biology for arguments about this kind of thing to be aired in the field’s top science journals? I recall a historian once writing that the journal Evolution was set up specifically to help make evolutionary biology into a serious professional science, and disabuse the world of the notion that evolution was more a topic of metaphysical and political discussions than pure rigorous science. Although in general, I actually think it is interesting to “mix it up” like this, it is also true that it would be worrisome if the kinds of metaphysical and political positions Coyne is pushing became common in scientific journals. So I could be convinced either way.

It’s really good for us design folk, because it essentially makes our argument for us, that Darwinism is atheism’s creation story and is primarily advanced for that reason, not on the basis of evidence.

It’s kind of like knowing a guy is cheating, and then unexpectedly catching him in the act.

Pass the popcorn.

See also: Gnu atheists vs. Darwin-in-the schools lobby

Atheism needs Darwin to explain the fantastic complexity of the universe. Evolution is without evidence but I don't think its a idea just for athesim and only that motivates its acceptance. Evolution is accepted because no one really studies it close except those few who get paid to do it. Then they simply desire it to be true or just are not that sharp. Many wrong ideas survive because of this. Evolutionary biology needs defence today and so these magainzes can't act just like real scientific magazines. Evolution is not like physics. its not been proven and is still a open hypothesis. Robert Byers

Leave a Reply