Caspian noted that Steve Meyer, author of The Return of the God Hypothesis, had a recent piece in Newsweek on that theme.
Darwinian evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne was less than thrilled:
Meyer has managed to con the right-wingnuts at Newsweek into publishing the article below, which list three scientific discoveries that, says Meyer, point directly to God. They’re apparently the subject of his new book (published by HarperOne, the religious wing of Harper), Return of the God Hypothesis: Three Discoveries that Reveal the MInd Behind the Universe. If you go to its Amazon site, you find it highly lauded by those looking for any reason to believe in God. Since that is most Americans, these books usually get high ratings and sell respectably.
But,in truth, Meyer’s “Discoveries” have been long known, and have been debunked insofar as there are more plausible, naturalistic, and non-Goddy explanations for all of them.Jerry Coyne, “Stephen Meyer in Newsweek: Three scientific discoveries point to God. As usual, his claims are misleading.” at Why Evolution Is True (July 15, 2022)
Coyne couldn’t prevent it but he can at least trash it. We like this state of affairs.
You may also wish to read: Jerry Coyne fires back at Egnor and Luskin. Having stated that he wouldn’t engage in a dialogue (which he would presumably be doing if he responded), Coyne conceded shortly afterward that “I may be forced by the laws of physics in making a few remarks.” And he makes more than a few. But he presses on: “one more before I grow ill.” Physics is a harsh master.
9 Replies to “Jerry Coyne weighs in against Steve Meyer in Newsweek”
He believes there are “right-wingnuts” at Newsweek? Just exactly what is this guy smoking?
Jerry Coyne starts off his ‘rebuttal’ of Meyer’s Newsweek article by saying that the Genesis account of creation is just ‘a big mess’, and also that “It’s a stretch to harmonize this with what we know of the Big Bang,”
But alas for Coyne, the creation account in Genesis, and in the Bible in general, (and when holding the ‘Days” to be long periods of time), holds up to scientific scrutiny. As Dr. Ross notes in the following lecture, “if you’re curious about how Genesis 1, in particular, fairs. Hey, we look at the Days in Genesis as being long time periods, which is what they must be if you read the Bible consistently, and the Bible scores 4 for 4 in Initial Conditions and 10 for 10 on the Creation Events'”
As well it is important to note that ONLY the Bible was correct in its prediction for a completely transcendent origin of the universe. Atheistic Naturalism certainly did not predict a completely transcendent origin of then universe. Moreover, none of the other ‘ancient’ ‘holy’ books in the world predicted a completely transcendent origin of the universe. Only the Bible got it correct. Some later ‘holy’ books, such as the Mormon text “Pearl of Great Price” and the Qur’an, copy the concept of a transcendent origin from the Bible but also include teachings that are inconsistent with that now established fact. (Hugh Ross; Why The Universe Is The Way It Is; Pg. 228; Chpt.9; note 5).
Shoot, the late Austin Hughes himself, shortly before he passed away, pointed out to Jerry Coyne that Jerry Coyne’s challenge “to give me a single verified fact about reality that came from scripture or revelation” was satisfied by the Big Bang itself.
Next Coyne takes issue with Penzias’s quote,
First off, Penzias is not alone in noting the correspondence between Big Bang cosmology and the Bible,
Secondly, Coyne tries to refute Penzias’s observation about the consilience between cosmology and the Bible by appealing to, of all things, Darwinian evolution,
First off, appealing to Darwinism to try to refute cosmology is a huge non-sequitur on Coyne’s part. Shoot, Coyne himself honestly admitted that Darwinian evolution is “far closer to phrenology than to physics”.
Secondly, Coyne falsely claimed that there is ‘tons of evidence’ for evolution.
“Tons of evidence’?, Jerry?, Really???
To be blunt, that specific claim from Coyne is a flat out lie. There is ZERO real-time empirical evidence for evolution. ZERO!!!
Not one bacteria has ever been observed morphing into a new species of bacteria,
Moreover, as if that was not bad enough for Coyne, not even a single protein has ever been observed morphing into a completely new protein with a new function.
Again, to be blunt, Coyne’s claim that there is ‘tons of evidence’ for evolution is simply a flat out lie. There is ZERO real time empirical evidence for evolution. ZERO!!!
Coyne then goes on,
Coyne is right. Atheistic Naturalists, ever since Einstein’s ‘biggest blunder’, have desperately been trying to find a ‘work-a-round’ to the Big Bang for a long, long, time. Yet, all of their imaginary conjectures, trying to ‘explain away’ the Big Bang, have all, ultimately, failed.
In the following video, Stephen Meyer explains exactly why each model that naturalists have put forth fails.
Next Coyne pins his hopes on Sean Carroll to try to refute the fine-tuning of the universe.
Yet, Luke Barnes has found all of Sean Carroll’s arguments against fine-tuning to be wanting,
Next Coyne appeals to ‘bad design’ to try to refute intelligent design,
The ‘bad design’ argument against intelligent design has a long history. Charles Darwin himself used it. First off, its main flaw is that it is a theologically based argument, not a scientifically based argument.
Secondly, Coyne’s specific ‘scientific’ example that the recurrent laryngeal nerve is, in particular, a clear example of ‘bad design’ has been refuted,
Again, Darwinists have a long history of claiming something was poorly designed only to find out later, via the scientific evidence itself, that they were wrong in their presupposition.
Thus, given its history of failure, I would call Coyne’s appeal to the theologically based ‘bad design’ argument to be, to put it mildly, ‘scientifically problematic’.
Coyne then finishes off his suppose ‘rebuttal’ of Meyer’s article by saying belief in God is slipping in America because, “People simply have grown up and stopped believing fairy tales.”
Might it be too obvious to point out to Coyne that, since he has not one shred of real-time empirical evidence that Darwinian evolution is actually true, that he himself is guilty of believing in ‘fairy tales’? Or as the late Stephen Jay Gould himself once honestly admitted, evolutionists themselves are guilty of believing in a ‘just-so stories’.
Perhaps Coyne should take his own advise and grow up and stop ‘believing fairy tales’?
Does any other then crap exit Jerry’s mouth?
Coyne writes, “there are more plausible, naturalistic, and non-Goddy explanations for all of them.” OK, what is a plausible naturalistic explanation for any of the following?
– the big bang (and please do not pretend the multiverse is an “explanation”)
– the origin of life (but view Dr. Tour’s videos before pretending there is an explanation)
– the Cambrian explosion (without vague Darwinian “just-so” stories)
– human consciousness (with focus on “more plausible”, whatever that means in this context)
Coyne has bluster, mockery and a wide audience of true believers, but little more it seems.
As I like to say, ID replaces several science mystery explanations (AKA science of the gaps, or just “magic”) with one ontological Mystery with all its collected evidence.
Here’s Jerry on the “more plausible” explanation for the origin of the universe:
“We don’t know how the big bang occurred but we’re 100% certain that God does not exist and plus, I don’t like the Bible”.
The idiot really doesn’t understand science, it’s all about asking questions, and obviously the only reason why he answered the way he did was because he doesn’t like the idea of God as an explanation
If God did it, how did God do it? Wallah! the re-search continues
Jerry shouldn’t be a teacher, he’s a buffoon and it’s embarrassing that he’s been allowed to teach at the level that he has for so long, he calls himself a scientist and yet he can’t ask a simple question
Where have all the darwinist crusaders gone? As stated… you can tell the strength of the position by the weakness of the objections raised.
Jerry Coyne does not have any scientific explanation for our existence.