Intelligent Design

Jerry Coyne: Simplistic Renderings of Evolutionary Thought

Spread the love

Evolutionist’s come in a wide variety of religious flavors. Even in the Christian wing of evolution-dom, the details of how God and evolution are to be understood vary. There is, for example the bottom-up view where God controls the world via sub-atomic particles all working together to effect macro events. Or, at the other end of the spectrum, there is the top-down view where God controls events in a way analogous to the way humans perceive their willed actions. From my perspective, I simply move my arm. I do not initiate nerve impulses in order to activate muscle contractions leading to appendage movement. It’s almost difficult to find a view that doesn’t fit into the spectrum somewhere. But once again evolutionist Jerry Coyne demonstrates what can be done when facts don’t matter.  Read more

9 Replies to “Jerry Coyne: Simplistic Renderings of Evolutionary Thought

  1. 1
    Granville Sewell says:

    The debate of whether or not design in biology is “detectable” seems a rather strange debate. The real question is, how can you avoid detecting it?

  2. 2
    MaxAug says:

    I love it when atheists charge influent people like Francis Collins of being “creationists” or what have you. First because they are, second because it lends even greater support for ID, since, for instance, i dont know of anyone who thinks Collins is a stupid religous fanatic dinosaur rider or something.

  3. 3
    Robert Byers says:

    If there is a God then he wouldn’t be under the “laws” of the universe. He created them. so they are just a holding pattern save when he has something to do.
    From a christian point its unreasonable to allow for a creator but not allow him to fiddle with his creatin.
    In complex ways beyond our understanding.
    So nothing in the universe is fixed and nothing can be claimed to exist that disallows miricles or special processes .
    So Mr Coyne etc can’t insist only that present processes and so conclusions of origins from them is kosher.
    Nope.
    Conclusions of the past are unsure at best.

  4. 4
    Graham says:

    To Mr Byers: If there is a God

    … then the world is a capricious, non-sensical place. Its impossible for us to ever distinguish between natural effects and actions of the big fella.

    Teams pray before going on to the field, so when they win (or lose) how can we ever distinguish between sporting ability and an act of god ?

  5. 5
    ciphertext says:

    … then the world is a capricious, non-sensical place. Its impossible for us to ever distinguish between natural effects and actions of the big fella. — Graham

    I would argue that you would know precisely because it would appear to “go against nature”. In all of the written accounts of God’s interactions with “creation”, that come to mind, the events were miraculous. Especially for the times in which they occurred (cure for blindness, parting of the sea, resurrection of the dead).

  6. 6
    zeroseven says:

    ciphertext, funny how we don’t see any of those partings of the seas and resurrections of the dead these days. Sure, we have anecdotal accounts of illnesses being cured, but that does not constitute evidence of a miracle as cancer etc is cured all the time by non-religious means. All we need is direct testimony of medical experts who witnessed a limb growing back for example.

  7. 7
    Graham says:

    ciphertext: Im tempted to ask when you last witnessed a miracle.

  8. 8
    above says:

    @Graham #4

    “If we found ourselves in an atheistic world we would expect it to be a capricious, non-sensical place. It would be impossible for us to ever understand it. We would expect to be zombies, (as per materialism) granted that we we ‘lucky’ enough to exist in the first place.”

    I fixed your post for you.

  9. 9
    ciphertext says:

    ciphertext, funny how we don’t see any of those partings of the seas and resurrections of the dead these days. Sure, we have anecdotal accounts of illnesses being cured, but that does not constitute evidence of a miracle as cancer etc is cured all the time by non-religious means. All we need is direct testimony of medical experts who witnessed a limb growing back for example. — zeroseven

    Yes, that would be a good example too. Assuming you couldn’t attribute that capability to a new therapeutic procedure that would cause the “redevelopment” of lost limbs. Though limb redevelopment is not currently being researched, to my knowledge. I am aware of serious research being conducted on the possibility of developing replacement organs from human stem cells. Presumably to avoid tissue rejection and other complications from transplants.

    Regarding your other concerns (parting of the seas, resurrections, etc…) what purpose would the “partings” and “resurrections” serve?

Leave a Reply