Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

“A Spoonful of Jesus Helps Darwin Go Down” by Jerry Coyne

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In “A Spoonful of Jesus Helps Darwin Go Down”, Coyne criticizes the NCSE:

The pro-religion stance of the NCSE is offensive and unnecessary


Coyne also criticizes Ken Miller’s writings as

perilously close to intelligent design; indeed, it may well be a form of intelligent design.

Coyne articulates the way to teach evolutionary biology:

If we’re to defend evolutionary biology, we must defend it as a science: a nonteleological theory in which the panoply of life results from the action of natural selection and genetic drift acting on random mutations.

But my main beef is this: the NCSE touts, shelters, or gives its imprimatur to intellectuals and scientists who are either “supernaturalists” (the word that A. C. Grayling uses for those who see supernatural incursions into the universe)..(Among the former are Kenneth Miller and John Haught, the latter Michael Ruse and Francisco Ayala).
….
by consorting with scientists and philosophers who incorporate supernaturalism into their view of evolution, they erode the naturalism that underpins modern evolutionary theory.

My principal aim in this thread was to alert UD readers to Coyne’s weblog.

Rather than immediately expressing my opinions about Coyne’s postings, I invite the readers to visit Coyne’s weblog and express their reactions to what he has to say.

Notes:
The title of Coyne’s article is a variation on a song “A spoonful of sugar” from the Walt Disney movie Mary Poppins starring Julie Andrews and Dick van Dyke. See: Julie Andrews sings “Spoonful of Sugar”

HT: Mike Gene, author of The Design Matrix

Comments
Richard Dawkins responds to Coyne: here
I have from time to time expressed sympathy for the accommodationist tendency so ably criticized here by Jerry Coyne. ..... Is it gloves off time? Or should we continue to go along with the appeasers and be all nice and cuddly, like Eugenie and the National Academy? Richard
I vote for Dawkins to become nice and cuddly like Eugenie. :-)scordova
April 27, 2009
April
04
Apr
27
27
2009
08:28 PM
8
08
28
PM
PDT
The conflict seems to be rather more of a metaphysical one. Your statement below presumes reality is a physical entity. A methodological naturalism 'starter kit', perhaps? BTW, do you trust what you observe with your eyes to be what is ? I mean, what with the eye being such a poorly designed body part an' all, you'd think we should not put too much stock in 'observations'? After all, we know God was asleep at the wheel when he made us. Lordy, the creative principle lost the ophthalmic information on the way to Sunday an' jus' messed it all up; what with all this inverting of images. :) Er, I think it's safe to say "Out of sight is not out of Mind".
Think about it, and you can see that conflict is inevitable between our ability to discover things about reality, and our tendency to invent supernatural explanations.
Oramus
April 27, 2009
April
04
Apr
27
27
2009
03:38 AM
3
03
38
AM
PDT
And this hot off the presses, Larry Moran (the PZ Myers of Canada):
How dare Richard compare me to the American Generals and politicians who sat on their asses while Hitler overran most of Europe and brought Great Britain to its knees.
See, I sensed Coyne's internet posting would light up the internet! Now we need Nick Matzke to weigh in! HT: Mike Gene author of Design Matrix via private communication.scordova
April 26, 2009
April
04
Apr
26
26
2009
09:29 PM
9
09
29
PM
PDT
And Dr. Richard Hoppe on Coyne
Baloney. Pure unadulterated knee-deep baloney.
So there we have it from PandasThumb: 1. the NCSE is lying 2. Coyne is spouting pure unadulterated baloneyscordova
April 26, 2009
April
04
Apr
26
26
2009
09:21 PM
9
09
21
PM
PDT
Just hot off the presses: PZ Myers on the NCSE
the NCSE is lying. --PZ Myers
What, the NCSE is lying? Tell me it ain't so!scordova
April 26, 2009
April
04
Apr
26
26
2009
09:15 PM
9
09
15
PM
PDT
JohnADavison, "I wonder when scordova will......." Well, John, just so you know, Cordova didn't delete your comment, I did. You either calm down and stop being antagonistic, or I will ban you. Then you can cry martyr, that you're just advocating the truth at all costs, the voice of one crying in the wilderness, etc. I think you like that role. But, there is a way, if you can believe it, to discuss ideas without the sort of nonsense in calling people "little" and so on, as you're so fond of doing. It would really help your cause if you stopped. And don't argue with me about this John. I agree with most everything that you say that pertains to the bankruptcy of evolution as an explanation of anything, I really do. I'm glad you're advocating the truth, because people need to hear it. But there's no need to call names and be rude in the process.Clive Hayden
April 26, 2009
April
04
Apr
26
26
2009
03:22 PM
3
03
22
PM
PDT
Never mind, I've found it. the full quote/
It was at a particular moment in the history of my own rages that I saw the Western world conditioned by the images of Marx, Darwin and Freud; and Marx, Darwin and Freud are the three most crashing bores of the Western world. The simplistic popularization of their ideas has thrust our world into a mental straitjacket from which we can only escape by the most anarchic violence.
From a lecture given in Hamburg in 1980.Alan Fox
April 26, 2009
April
04
Apr
26
26
2009
01:36 PM
1
01
36
PM
PDT
John, you know who William Golding was, I assume. I can't find where he said that. Do you have a reference?Alan Fox
April 26, 2009
April
04
Apr
26
26
2009
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT
"Marx, Darwin and Freud are the three most crashing bores of the Western World." William GoldingJohnADavison
April 26, 2009
April
04
Apr
26
26
2009
12:30 PM
12
12
30
PM
PDT
According to Wikipedia, "Bolzman was a tremendous admirer of Charles Darwin." So much for Ludwig Bolzman's judgement in biological science. Surely scordova can do better than that!JohnADavison
April 26, 2009
April
04
Apr
26
26
2009
12:25 PM
12
12
25
PM
PDT
Now you can all resume wasting your time with that mindless vehicle called "debate." It is spring again in Vermont, earlier each year, and I have better things to do than to cast my pearls before sensorally disadvantaged swine known far and wide as Sus darwinia, a variety fertile with Sus religiosa, another degenerate variety of Homo sapiens (wise man). As always, there is no place for "debate" in science. There never will be. It is getting a lot easier to believe isn't it? It doesn't get any better than this. I love it so! "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable." jadavison.wordpress.com.JohnADavison
April 26, 2009
April
04
Apr
26
26
2009
09:11 AM
9
09
11
AM
PDT
mauka @44 wrote:
aofm, In case you didn’t notice, “Darwinism” went from having no acceptance among biologists to virtually universal acceptance.
First you use circular logic and now you're changing the subject. The issue you were initially addressing (or ridiculing, as the case may be) was today's acceptance of dissent from Darwinism (that's the term that Coyne used, BTW), not the historical acceptance. Haven't you heard that Darwin allowed scientists to be intellectually fulfilled atheists?
Was that part of the conspiracy too? Who were the conspirators, if not the biologists themselves? Was it the CIA?
Try being less illiterate and read my previous comment and links. While you're at it, since you love 19th and early 20th Century history so much, try looking up the Fabians. Also, try coming up with the reason why Darwin, Marx, and Freud are almost always listed together as the greatest minds of all time and why their failed theories are still being taught as irrefutable.angryoldfatman
April 26, 2009
April
04
Apr
26
26
2009
08:01 AM
8
08
01
AM
PDT
I ask mauka, or any other homozyous chance-worshipping, congenital atheist, to name a single scientist of note who was so deranged as to claim that the universe was not designed.
Ludwig Boltzmann. Talk about going into a debate leading with one's chin. (rolls eyes).scordova
April 26, 2009
April
04
Apr
26
26
2009
07:27 AM
7
07
27
AM
PDT
I ask mauka, or any other homozyous chance-worshipping, congenital atheist, to name a single scientist of note who was so deranged as to claim that the universe was not designed. Have fun failing to come up with an answer, an answer you can't possibly provide. I love it so!JohnADavison
April 26, 2009
April
04
Apr
26
26
2009
06:13 AM
6
06
13
AM
PDT
mauka "An hypothesis does not cease being an hypothesis when a lot of people believe it." Boris Ephrussi Darwinism is the most absurd proposition in the history of human communication.JohnADavison
April 26, 2009
April
04
Apr
26
26
2009
03:26 AM
3
03
26
AM
PDT
aofm, In case you didn't notice, "Darwinism" went from having no acceptance among biologists to virtually universal acceptance. Was that part of the conspiracy too? Who were the conspirators, if not the biologists themselves? Was it the CIA?mauka
April 25, 2009
April
04
Apr
25
25
2009
06:10 PM
6
06
10
PM
PDT
mauka @ 29 wrote:
I guess the film critics [against Expelled] are also part of the Darwinist conspiracy.
Nah. Probably just victims of the dumbed-down American educational system. Besides, you don't need a world full of conspirators to pull off a conspiracy. Just a bunch of useful idiots. mauka @ 34 wrote:
Representing “Darwinism” as established science is hardly a stretch, given that the theory has been around for 150 years and has earned virtually universal acceptance among biologists. If that’s not “established science”, then nothing is.
Yes, it's established science because it has virtually universal acceptance among biologists. And it has virtually universal acceptance among biologists because it is established science. And it is established science because it has virtually universal acceptance among biologists. And it has virtually universal acceptance among biologists because it is established science... Man, if I could keep a straight face while that little choo-choo train of circular logic whirled around in my head, I pull down some serious grant money.angryoldfatman
April 25, 2009
April
04
Apr
25
25
2009
05:49 PM
5
05
49
PM
PDT
I see I am wasting my time here just as I was on scordova's earlier thread, This is typical of the way things are done here with elite "authors" dicatating what will be discussed and who will be recognozed. I will leave this one before scordova decides to start deleting my comments or scrambling them as he did before. I don't care for the elitist way in which threads are managed here with all power residing in the "author." Besides I have stated my case and have little more to offer to an audience that would rather "debate" with one another than to confront scientific realty. I'll wait and see if another thread materializes which I might recognize as worthy of my attention. I tried and failed with this one, that's for sure! Just remember - "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable." I find the silence which this maxim evokes to be most gratifying. "Silence is golden." Thomas CarlyleJohnADavison
April 25, 2009
April
04
Apr
25
25
2009
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PDT
Oh, I forgot to mention, I think we need to do a parody of Barbara Forrest (also of the NCSE) as Mary Poppins singing, "A Spoonful of Jesus Helps Darwin Go Down" Here is the outfit I had in mind for Barb: Barb Forrest as Mary Poppins Sounds like it would be good youtube material to highlight the fact that churches professing the name of Jesus have been instrumental in promoting Darwinism. The public schools and secular universities have surely advanced Darwinism, but the churches, seminaries, and religious schools have done their part as well, witness the role of Baylor and SMU! There are a lot of Christian elemetary and high schools that teach Darwinism uncritically as if it were God's truth!scordova
April 25, 2009
April
04
Apr
25
25
2009
08:00 AM
8
08
00
AM
PDT
Thus I’m inviting reader reactions. Reader reactions are more the focus of this present discussion. I do this because, well, there isn’t much science in Coyne’s posting, mostly politics, and shaky philosophy.
Frankly, I found Coyne's remarks somewhat intolerant. I think you can regard other's beliefs as daft but you don't need to rub their noses in it I was actually hoping some Darwinists here would praise Coyne and slam the NCSE.Alan Fox
April 25, 2009
April
04
Apr
25
25
2009
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PDT
vmartin wrote: First of all I am surprised why posts like this one are tolerated here. Off topic, void babbling-like.
This thread isn't about a focused scientific topic as some of the other threads I have written about.
I wrote: I invite the readers to visit Coyne’s weblog and express their reactions to what he has to say.
Thus I'm inviting reader reactions. Reader reactions are more the focus of this present discussion. I do this because, well, there isn't much science in Coyne's posting, mostly politics, and shaky philosophy. I was actually hoping some Darwinists here would praise Coyne and slam the NCSE. :-)scordova
April 25, 2009
April
04
Apr
25
25
2009
07:13 AM
7
07
13
AM
PDT
----mauka: "Stephen, why do you habitually lie about your opponents’ positions? I have never lied about anything, because I have truth on my side. It is those who contend against truth and common sense that feel the need to resort to dishonesty. Your attempt to assasinate my character smacks of desperation. ----mauka;"…Nothing about “the aesthetic level of the production”. Nothing about the movie being “insufficiently entertaining.” You just made those up out of the blue because you thought they would be easier to rebut than the actual argument. My argument was, and is, that Darwinists persecute non-Darwinists and the movie "Expelled," brought that point to light. Your only response was that critics [likely Darwinist critics] didn't like the movie. Do you not understand that this is not a rational response? What matters is whether or not the stories are true or whether they were made up. I provided an argument; you provided a distraction. It's very simple. ----"Right, because we all know that whether a scientist is atheist or agnostic has no bearing on his or her religious beliefs. *rolls eyes*" I think you need to articulate your arguments and make them explcit so that they can be evaluated, since no one will know what you are talking about until you do. Sometimes, when you discipine yourself to do that, you come to realize that you don't really have an argument. ----"If you still insist that you don’t see a problem with that question, I will explain." Explaining what you mean is always a good idea, since there is no way for people to know what you are thinking until you do. ----"I will provide plenty of evidence for modern evolutionary theory, in the process comparing its ability to explain and predict with that of ID “theory”. For the moment, I am not interested in another distraction. I want to know how naturalistic forces can generate new body plans and new information. Darwinists make that claim, but they can't back it up. That means that they are doing ideology and not science. Stop trying to do an end around run. If you are not up to the challenge, just leave it alone.StephenB
April 25, 2009
April
04
Apr
25
25
2009
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PDT
Thank you Martin for introducing a note of sanity into this "Tower of Babel." Actually Nomogenesis was published in Russian in 1922, then in Englsh in 1926 and finally republished in 1969 with a derogatory Foreword by Leo Berg's former student, Theodosius Dobzhansky and a highly critical Introduction by Darcy Wentworth Thompson, both staunch Darwinians. The 1969 MIT reprint of Nomogenesis was an obvious attempt to cast aspersions on the science of the greatest Russian biologist of his day and, in my opinion, the greatest evolutionist of all time. Stephen Jay Gould pulled a similar dirty trick when he wrote the Foreword to the 1993 English translation of Schindewolf's great 1950 book "Grundfragen der Palaontologie," in English "Basic Questions in Paleontolgy." On page xi of Gould's Foreword you will find him describing Schindewolf's evolutionary views as "spectacularly flawed." Both of these examples demonstrate the length to which the Darwinians are willing to go to preserve the pathetic Darwinian fantasy. Ernst Mayr in his "Growth of Biological Thought" took it a step further by listing Nomogenesis in his Bibliography but making no mention of it in the text. That is insult carried to the extreme. He also dismissed Schindewolf with a few words. Gould didn't either mention or list Nomogenesis or its author in his 1400 hundred plus word "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory." His only mention of Schindewolf was to a minor paper on catastrophism. Both Gould and Mayr were monumental egomaniacs as proved by the hundreds of citations each made to their own works and to one another, none of which, in my opinion, had anything whatsoever to do with the central problem of phylogeny, the mechanism by which it took place (past tense). "No greater proof can be given by a man of his own littleness than disbelief in great men." Thomas CarlyleJohnADavison
April 25, 2009
April
04
Apr
25
25
2009
02:25 AM
2
02
25
AM
PDT
mauka's empty post: John, You have an extremely rich fantasy life. First of all I am surprised why posts like this one are tolerated here. Off topic, void babbling-like. Secondly it is also revealing. Darwinists hate intelligent thinkers who are not YEC'ists. They intuitively feel that there are great adversaries of "natural selection" myth whose arguments sound pretty convincing and right. Many of them are mentioned in professor John Davison's Manifesto. Some others are Franz Heikertinger, Adolf Portman, Wilhelm Troll. I am also surprised that Leo Berg's Nomogenesis was translated into English in 1969 (Berg published it in 1926). Such delays are of great significance - the same for one of the most profound philosophical work of 20 century - Martin Heidegger's "Sein und Zeit". It was translated only in 1964. Some crucial works of the greatest writer of modern era Christian Fyodor Dostoevsky haven't been traslated at all.VMartin
April 24, 2009
April
04
Apr
24
24
2009
11:09 PM
11
11
09
PM
PDT
StephenB writes:
Let’s examine the strength of your response. I refer to examples of documented abuse in the academy and you respond by telling me that the aesthetic level of the production didn’t satisfy partisan critics who had no more to say about the substance of the matter than you do. Summing up your argument, the abuse didn’t happen because critics didn’t think the movie was sufficiently entertaining. Does anyone find that logic compelling?
Stephen, why do you habitually lie about your opponents' positions? Are you truly unable to restrain yourself? Does it not occur to you that readers can scroll up to check whether what you are saying is actually true? Here's what my comment says:
...RottenTomatoes...summarized the critical consensus as: “Full of patronizing, poorly structured arguments, Expelled is a cynical political stunt in the guise of a documentary.”
Nothing about "the aesthetic level of the production". Nothing about the movie being "insufficiently entertaining." You just made those up out of the blue because you thought they would be easier to rebut than the actual argument.
I explain that the Darwinist academy is invested in atheism, follow it with evidence that 95.8% of evolutionary biologists are atheist/agnostic, and you change the subject to the “ID playbook.” The only person who has mentioned religion is you.
Right, because we all know that whether a scientist is atheist or agnostic has no bearing on his or her religious beliefs. *rolls eyes* Regarding the issue of protest, do you truly not see what is wrong with your question (below)?
Why would anyone protest an injustice that is not being done to them?
If you still insist that you don't see a problem with that question, I will explain. But at that point I will begin to suspect that you are a sock puppet trying to make ID proponents look bad. C'mon... fess up, Stephen. I wrote:
Okay. For your benefit, I will prepare a post comparing the scientific value of ID to that of modern evolutionary theory. Stay tuned. I may not be able to get to it right away, but I will definitely post it by tomorrow night at the latest.
StephenB replied:
Here is a tip: Don’t focus too much on “scientific value.” The challenge is to show how unguided naturalistic forces, through a slow gradual process, can produce new body plans, or, if you like, new information.
What I plan to do is to show that this statement of yours is wrong:
ID scientists protest the pseudo-science of neo-Darwinism for the simple reason that it is not science; it is ideology. If it was science, there would be some evidence for it.
I will provide plenty of evidence for modern evolutionary theory, in the process comparing its ability to explain and predict with that of ID "theory".mauka
April 24, 2009
April
04
Apr
24
24
2009
08:58 PM
8
08
58
PM
PDT
Sal wrote:
I’m not aware of any solid YEC theories. My sympathies could be wrong. Do you have a problem with me entertaining a speculative hypothesis?
Speculate all you want, but my recommendation is to provisionally adopt the model that best fits the evidence, and to reevaluate the fit when new evidence comes in or when new models are proffered.
Contrary to yourself, who represents Darwinism as established science, I’m willing to voice strong criticism of ideas I’m sympathetic with.
Representing "Darwinism" as established science is hardly a stretch, given that the theory has been around for 150 years and has earned virtually universal acceptance among biologists. If that's not "established science", then nothing is. And unlike you, I tend to be more sympathetic to ideas that appear to be correct and not so sympathetic to ideas for which there is strong and valid criticism.mauka
April 24, 2009
April
04
Apr
24
24
2009
08:08 PM
8
08
08
PM
PDT
-----mauka: "Ah yes, Expelled, which showed up on several critics’ “Worst Films of 2008? lists and received only a 10% rating (rotten) from RottenTomatoes, which summarized the critical consensus as: “Full of patronizing, poorly structured arguments, Expelled is a cynical political stunt in the guise of a documentary.” I guess the film critics are also part of the Darwinist conspiracy." Let’s examine the strength of your response. I refer to examples of documented abuse in the academy and you respond by telling me that the aesthetic level of the production didn’t satisfy partisan critics who had no more to say about the substance of the matter than you do. Summing up your argument, the abuse didn’t happen because critics didn’t think the movie was sufficiently entertaining. Does anyone find that logic compelling? -----“I thought intelligent design wasn’t about religion. Didn’t you read the ID playbook? Let’s examine this argument as well. I explain that the Darwinist academy is invested in atheism, follow it with evidence that 95.8% of evolutionary biologists are atheist/agnostic, and you change the subject to the “ID playbook.” The only person who has mentioned religion is you. The issue on the table is this: Darwinists in the academy persecute dissidents, and that their atheistic bent drives that persecution. For a counter argument, you hearken back to the subject of ID and religion. Sorry, but that doesn’t help you much. -----“Are you serious? If so, that would certainly explain why you had such trouble understanding everyone else’s morality on the ‘Bleak Conclusions’ thread.” I understood their argument, and it really wasn’t very much trouble taking it apart. Indeed, they didn’t really argue, they just flooded cyberspace with a lot of words and no substance. Atheism = amorality. There is no way around that, and predictably, they found no way around it. The comical part is that they didn’t understand the subject well enough to know that they had no argument. On the other hand, I am hoping that you will provide more substance than they did. ----“Okay. For your benefit, I will prepare a post comparing the scientific value of ID to that of modern evolutionary theory. Stay tuned. I may not be able to get to it right away, but I will definitely post it by tomorrow night at the latest.” Here is a tip: Don’t focus too much on “scientific value.” The challenge is to show how unguided naturalistic forces, through a slow gradual process, can produce new body plans, or, if you like, new information.StephenB
April 24, 2009
April
04
Apr
24
24
2009
07:27 PM
7
07
27
PM
PDT
Sal, This thread isn’t the place to argue over it, but I am genuinely interested in understanding how YECs attempt to explain the formation of the Hawaiian/Emperor seamount chain. Could you point me to a YEC explanation, if there is one?
I'm not aware of any solid YEC theories. My sympathies could be wrong. Do you have a problem with me entertaining a speculative hypothesis? Contrary to yourself, who represents Darwinism as established science, I'm willing to voice strong criticism of ideas I'm sympathetic with.scordova
April 24, 2009
April
04
Apr
24
24
2009
06:30 PM
6
06
30
PM
PDT
scordova wrote:
Since Coyne’s writings was the subjection, let me quote Coyne: “In Science’s pecking order, evolutionary biology lurks somewhere near the bottom, far closer to phrenology than to physics”
And to counter your usual quote-mining, I'll supply the rest of the quote:
In science's pecking order, evolutionary biology lurks somewhere near the bottom, far closer to phrenology than to physics. For evolutionary biology is a historical science, laden with history's inevitable imponderables. We evolutionary biologists cannot generate a Cretaceous Park to observe what exactly killed the dinosaurs; and, unlike "harder" scientists, we usually cannot resolve issues with a simple experiment, such as adding tube A to tube B and noting the color of the mixture.
Gee, I wonder why you truncated the quote where you did? And since you consider Coyne to be authoritative on the value of evolutionary theory, here's what else he has to say on the subject:
Darwin's theory that all of life was the product of evolution, and that the evolutionary process was driven largely by natural selection, has been called the greatest idea that anyone ever had. But it is more than just a good theory, or even a beautiful one. It also happens to be true.
mauka
April 24, 2009
April
04
Apr
24
24
2009
06:02 PM
6
06
02
PM
PDT
Sal, This thread isn't the place to argue over it, but I am genuinely interested in understanding how YECs attempt to explain the formation of the Hawaiian/Emperor seamount chain. Could you point me to a YEC explanation, if there is one?mauka
April 24, 2009
April
04
Apr
24
24
2009
05:31 PM
5
05
31
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply