How can this be in an enlightened country? he asks. In fact, how can it be an enlightened country if it does not accept Darwinian evolution?
People like Coyne really believe that you just can't be an intelligent person and reject their atheistic form of biological development. And yet here we are, in the world's most technologically advanced country the world has ever seen. And we still reject it.
Rudolf Bultmann once articulated what the Coyne's of the world believe: "It is impossible," he said, "to use electric light and the wireless and to avail ourselves of modern medical and surgical discoveries, and at the same time to believe in the New Testament world of spirits and miracles."
Only one problem. We do use these things. We do avail ourselves of these advances. And we still believe, in large part, in this world of spirits and miracles.
Now people like Coyne are fond of saying that a scientific statement is a statement that is empirically falsifiable. Well now, here we've got one. Bultmann's statement can easily be falsified. In fact, it has been falsified over and over and over again. The survey that Coyne points to is only the most recent instance of this.
But they go on believing it anyway. Is this what enlightened people do?
8 comments:
"How can this be in an enlightened country? he asks"
Coyne doesn't ask a single question in this blog post. He doesn't comment on intelligence, either. Nor does he comment on how this country can't be enlightened.
This was a grade-A hatchet job by you.
What's the world coming to when nobody trusts the most reliable propaganda?
One IBrow,
“Fewer than one in six Americans accept evolution as scientists do: a materialistic, unguided process with no supernatural intervention. The unguided evolution stats are up a bit over the past 30 years—nearly 50%—but it’s still a fraction of what it should be in an enlightened country. [emphasis mine].”
Wherein lies the hatchet-job?
Coyne seems to imply that unless one agrees entirely with his naturalistic conception of evolution--- i. e. unless one is a deist or an atheist---one is a fool.
I disagree with that implication. So does Martin. Is that a problem?
Sincerely,
Daniel
> Coyne seems to imply that unless one agrees entirely with his naturalistic conception of evolution--- i. e. unless one is a deist or an atheist---one is a fool.
I think that's what the Darwinists call "settled science."
Daniel,
If you don't understand the difference between saying a measurement is far too low and expressing bewilderment at that measurement, and/or if you think it's acceptable to completely make up what Coyne believes regarding the limits of what intelligent people accept, then I don't think any further discussion will be fruitful.
I agree that Coyne likely thinks people with religions are foolish. Do you think a person can be both intelligent and foolish? Do you have any reason to think Coyne does not believe this is possible?
One Brow,
If you don't understand the difference between (a) saying a measurement is far too low and (b) expressing bewilderment at that measurement
(I added the letters for my own clarity, as I had originally thought something was missing from the sentence.)
I think your understanding is that Coyne is saying (a) rather than (b)? If so, I agree.
and/or if you think it's acceptable to completely make up what Coyne believes regarding the limits of what intelligent people accept,
It’s possible that I’m reading things into his article that said article doesn’t really discuss.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think your frustration with my post is essentially that you see me as turning a primarily scientific discussion, into a theological one, when Coyne’s post isn’t directly about theology?
Do you think a person can be both intelligent and foolish?
Yes, of course.
Do you have any reason to think Coyne does not believe this is possible?
No, I do not.
Sincerely,
Daniel
Daniel,
I don't read enough of Coyne to say I know his views well, but from the little I have read of him, I don't think he would consider men like Alvin Plantinga to be stupid/illiterate/etc. My objection was to Martin Cothran's portrayal of Coyne position as one of equating lack of belief in evolution with a lack of intelligence, and responding to Coyne on that basis.
My guess is that Coyne sees this question as in the intersection of science and religious beliefs, so I don't think you have properly captures my "frustration".
One Brow,
Okay, understood.
I haven’t read any of Coyne’s writing beyond the article Martin linked to in his post. I may take a look at his book though.
Sincerely,
Daniel
Post a Comment