Egnor: The Prime Mover argument is the most popular formal argument for the existence of God, and it is often misunderstood and, when understood, often misrepresented. Atheists, in my experience, never get it right. If they did, they wouldn’t be atheists.
It would be fun to discuss the history of life for once without the dead hand of Darwin overruling all. From the looks of things, it may also be possible now.
Coyne: If our capacity for reason gives us the “capacity to know immaterial reality and act on our knowledge”, then how come every religion has a different conception of immaterial reality?
Michael Egnor: A shimmering example of atheist idiocy (there is no other word for it) is Jerry Coyne’s recent argument, at Why Evolution Is True, against God’s existence in his post on David Attenborough’s agnosticism.
Researcher: “Evidence is converging towards picturing the Cambrian explosion as even swifter than what we thought,” says Aria. “Finding a fossil site like the Burgess Shale at the very beginning of the Cambrian would be like looking into the eye of the cyclone.”
The distinction is that low-quality papers might happen to fall through the cracks now and then and a cherry picker could gin up an indictment of a whole field unjustly. BUT when a number of hoax papers get accepted by various journals, that points to deeper systemic rot. Especially when the social science profs are enraged rather than ashamed
“I hate to give publicity to a bunch of superstitious yahoos, but…” C’mon, Jerry. People are probably reading you in part because you write about them. Cuts all ways.
Jerry will never be short of an explanation, no matter what the circumstance.
It’s somewhat like blaspheming against Darwin by airing doubts about his theories in the American school system. But in Pakistan, the death penalty is involved.
Gelernter is HOW likely to read Coyne’s diatribe and conclude he must be all wrong? But then Darwinians tend not to notice what others do. Presumably, it’s an adaptation.
He notes: Coyne rants that Staddon’s essay should never have been published. In other words, he responds to the observation that atheism is censoriously thuggish by… being a censorious thug.
He tells readers, “The “Darwinian Perspective,” or at least the atheistic one, hadn’t at all proved terribly corrosive. Indeed, people found it liberating.” ENST editor Klinghoffer disagreeswith that.
It sounds as though the Darwinian biologist is confusing “religion” with “theism”.
We recommend you listen to the podcast, watch the video, and ignore Jerry. In fairness, he has got at least as far as realizing that anti-Semitism is a problem among the raging Woke. We can’t ask for more than that just now. It’s hard for a Darwinian to understand a mathematician anyway. We’ve seen it a few times before. Something about things adding up.
Not sure what the difference is between disappearing and diffusing “into the wider conversation.” Time will tell.