Jerry Coyne on how mathematician John Lennox embarrasses himself

These people cannot help but Reveal themselves when they're exposed. It's so common for them to try and belittle anyone who points out truth. We have to remember there is a deep hate inside them for anyone whose argument ultimately leads to God. Who consents to their own doom? So any point that can lead toward God, design etc has to be crushed or ridiculed for these people to put their head to pillow each night. Absolutely

Does Jerry Coyne get along well with his fellow U of Chicago professor JAS, who also rejects ID? James A. Shapiro is an American biologist, an expert in bacterial genetics as well as a professor in the Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at the University of Chicago.[1] He has become well known for his controversial views on the mechanisms of evolution. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/James_A._Shapiro PeterA

Jerry Coyne, if he exists as a real person who is conscious of himself, should be embarrassed.

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 The Illusionist - Daniel Dennett’s latest book marks five decades of majestic failure to explain consciousness. - 2017 “Simply enough, you cannot suffer the illusion that you are conscious because illusions are possible only for conscious minds. This is so incandescently obvious that it is almost embarrassing to have to state it.” – David Bentley Hart https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-illusionist

The claim from Coyne that Coyne himself does not really exist,,,

The Confidence of Jerry Coyne - Ross Douthat - January 6, 2014 Excerpt: But then halfway through this peroration, we have as an aside the confession (by Coyne) 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: But more on that below.) Prometheus cannot be at once unbound and unreal; the human will cannot be simultaneously triumphant and imaginary. http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/06/the-confidence-of-jerry-coyne/?_r=0

The claim from Coyne that Coyne himself does not really exist, but is merely a neuronal illusion, is just the beginning of embarrassing problems for Coyne, (again "IF" Coyne really exists). Although the Darwinist firmly believes he is on the terra firma of science, (in his appeal, even demand, for methodological naturalism), the fact of the matter is that Darwinists are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to:

Darwin’s Theory vs Falsification – 39:45 minute mark https://youtu.be/8rzw0JkuKuQ?t=2387 Excerpt: Basically, because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris), who has unreliable beliefs about reality (Plantinga), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the reality of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is too much for him to bear (Weikart), and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God (Craig, Kreeft). Bottom line, nothing is real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,, Paper with references for each claim page; Page 37: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pAYmZpUWFEi3hu45FbQZEvGKsZ9GULzh8KM0CpqdePk/edit

Thus, although the Darwinian Atheist firmly believes he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for methodological naturalism), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists/Atheists are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to. It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.

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;

Bottom line, assuming naturalism as the supposedly 'scientific worldview' is to steal science from where it properly belongs, i.e. from Intelligent Design, even from Christian Theism. The very practice of science is certainly not ‘natural’. All of science is infused with intelligent design. From the Theistic presumption that the universe is rational and that the minds of men can dare understand that rationality, to the intelligent design of the scientific instruments and experiments, to the mathematical and logical analysis of experimental results themselves. From top to bottom science itself is certainly not ‘natural’. Not one scientific instrument would ever exist if men did not first intelligently design that scientific instrument. Not one test tube or microscope was ever found just laying on a beach which was ‘naturally’ constructed by nature. Not one experiment would ever be logically analysed if our thoughts were merely the product of the random jostling of material particles. And as was pointed out above, assuming Naturalism instead of Theism as the worldview on which all of science is based leads to the catastrophic epistemological failure of science itself in that everything becomes illusory. Basically. atheists are thieves who have stolen science from Christians, and they have no right whatsoever to the science that they claim to champion. bornagain77

“I really don’t understand Jerry Coyne’s reactions to this.” Don’t worry, since Jerry Coyne doesn’t have free will he probably doesn’t either. aarceng

At least, Aaron, atheists' disgrace is so real and so gross, so off-the-dial, even for a child, a degree of utter exasperation on the part of Christians, is surely understandable, even tolerable. I was only musing yesterday how exasperated Jesus seemed with his disciples, much of the time, so great was the gulf between their pre-Pentecostal faculty for understanding the spiritual matters he was addressing. Indeed, it was often quite comical. For instance when Jesus seemed almost appalled that poor Philip and Thomas didn't understand that he was a member of a divine Holy Trinity, the nature of whom as God, was not to be defined until the First Council, I think of Nicea, in the fourth century. 'How long have I been with you ?! And you still don't understand that the Father and I are one !' And so on. The whole passage is in similar vein, as, indeed, is, much of the rest of the Gospels, if perhaps a little less strikingly so. I would venture to suggest that no young child would be so literally mentally deficient as to fail to realise that materialists 'cut off the branch they are sitting on', by ascribing thought-processes, themsleves, as nothing more than serendipitously-random collisions of atoms. One thing that is invariably strikingly absent from their considerartions is that, even knowledge of God's creating everything, which we believe, still doesn't address the matter of its ongoing sustenance, (since the imponderable mystery of life, itself arises). The only explamation is that, without the conscious awareness of their sorry motivations, as exhibited in all its cynicism by Lewontin, in their case, they haplessly fall into such blind muddle-headedness. Axel

AaronS1978, “I really don’t understand Jerry Coyne’s reactions to this.” Most probably he doesn’t either. :) PeterA

I really don’t understand Jerry Coyne’s reactions to this. He belittles it like most atheists do that share his belief. in his. I was expecting John Lennox to say insulting things towards the perspective or say anything that would make him look like an absolute buffoon. He said no such thing, he was polite cordial and he simply explained his book and why he wrote it. So I do not understand Jerry’s over reaction to this other than he just hates Christianity and is a complete jackass. Maybe it’s his flight or fight syndrome. He can’t help it. But John Lennox did nothing and said nothing that was even remotely insulting to the atheism, science or any part of Jerry Coyne’s culture. Why are these people so blindly rude? Richard Dawkins can’t go through a single lecture without being an absolute ass by being insulting to some Christian or Muslim in some way because he thinks he’s brilliant and smart. Unfortunately, people seem to eat up his ridiculous bravado no matter how rude and primitive it might be when Dawkins is simply acting like a mean bully on the playground. No I’m not saying that Christians are all innocent but I am saying this is the type of behavior I see consistently from Jerry coyne’s ilk. AaronS1978