Why what Jerry Coyne says isn't true

A few comments on a review of Jerry Coyne's book; 'Why evolution is true'.

Quotes and comments;

1. 'Throughout this book, Coyne pontificates on what a Creator would not do. Incredibly, he asserts that a Creator would never make organisms that have convergent adaptations (p. 92). Consider man the creator. He uses convergent structures all the time as part of his designs. Caterpillar treads are convergent in military vehicles (tanks) and earthmoving equipment (caterpillar tractors). [1.]

- For Coyne to pretend he knows what a Creator would do is intellectual buffoonery; utterly without warrant. He has NO idea whatsoever what a creator would do. Like every atheist I know he denies and ignores the Creator/creature distinction. It's apparently impossible for him to imagine that God might be different than he is. He apparently believes his own mind to be ultimate and the determinator of all things; the standard for all judgment!

2. 'Coyne asserts that the unexplained origin of life is no problem for evolution because it is not part of evolutionary theory (p. 236). How convenient! In actuality, had the first cell arose by non-design means, it must have been the culmination of a long series of steps from more primitive life-forms and still-earlier quasi-life forms. If this is not evolution, then what is?

- Apparently the origin of life isn't a case of evolution because he says so. You see how huge the problem of the origin of life is for materialists when people like Coyne deny that it's part of E. theory. We see them running scared and hiding behind straw man attacks, ridicule and slander. It's evidence to me that they think the problem is unsolvable for them. If he included OOL in his definition he wouldn't be able to claim evolution is true. Why? Because he has no explanation for it. If you have no explanation you can't be right or wrong, and evolution can't be true or false.

OOL used to be a part of evolutionary theory, so what happened to make it drop out? A. No answer could be found, and all the OOL experiments were failures. How to deal with the colossal embarassment? Do what PR firms do; deny the problem exists. We see in Coyne's remark (and it's used by most evolutionists I'm familiar with) an admission of bafflement and defeat.

One wonders what's next; will evolutionists start claiming body plans aren't part of E. theory? that speciation isn't part of E. theory? that DNA isn't part of E. theory? that missing links aren't part of E. theory? that information isn't part of E. theory?

Some evolutionists claim OOL is part of e. theory and some claim it's not; so who should we believe? What game is being played here? Apparently were looking at two different groups; those who think E. theory should be completely free of problems, and those who feel it's alright to admit some problems. This looks like two different political strategies.

3. 'Predictably, Coyne would have us believe that “bad design” (as he and other evolutionists define it) could only imply that the Designer intentionally made things to look as if they had evolved.

- This is more Darwinian theology; and as Cornelius Hunter has pointed out, it's a main thrust in evolutionist rhetoric, as people can't resist speculating on what God would or would not do... should he exist. Let's turn the tables on them and point out that these theological speculations are scientific theories. Coyne has no idea what the Creator would or wouldn't do for the simple reason he doesn't (comprehensively) know the Creator. (You can't know what even another human being would do if you don't know them.)

4. 'Coyne tries to get around the humans-are-savages implications of evolution by pointing to societal advancements, such as the virtually universal rejection of the mortal gladiatorial combat of Roman times.

- We haven't gotten rid of 'gladiatorial combat' at all; all we've done is make it virtual, a spectacle of the screen. (Should the screens disappear one day, the physical combat will surely return, as the appetite seems as strong as ever.) The stronger response to Coyne's idea that man is getting better morally is that as a materialist he has no valid standard for judging such a thing. i.e. if all is matter in motion morality is at best an illusion.

Telling children they're really just animals seems like a funny thing to do if you expect them to become moral idealists when they become adults.

As W. notes, the 'progressivist' notion expounded by Coyne necessitates denying that there's anything wrong with abortion.

- M. Johnson

Notes;
1. Why evolution need not be true; A review of Why Evolution is True by Jerry A. Coyne - John Woodmorappe
2. 'In this review, I analyze the evolutionary arguments and do not generally attempt to present creationist alternatives, of which there are many, and almost none of which are even mentioned by Coyne. In fact, Coyne’s understanding of the creationist position is absolutely pathetic.
- Evolutionists like Coyne much prefer the old creationist arguments; some of which were admittedly poor and often without sufficient warrant. They don't want to know about more recent c. ideas because they are much more substantial and hard to refute or mock.
- Coyne uses old creationist ideas as ideas to mock, though they've long been abandoned by the creationist community, and replaced with new thinking and theories.