Why Evolution is True

I should have said that Coyne presents his case for evolution as the ONLY explanation. Creationism is not an option in his mind.
Right, the book demonstrates his position as an atheist opposed to a narrowly defined view of creationism held by religious fundamentalists.

In contrast, there are theists who hold evolution to be true under a broader definition of creationism presuming an allegorical or figurative meaning to scripture.

Currently there is no consensus to reconcile a meaning of the Biblical creation myths with our evolutionary development. This clearly is a weakness for the Christian position. But denying evolution is not an option. Theists must press on in trust until we know. Right, what other choice do we have?

IMO, we are being forced by God off a position of wooden literalism. Forced to consider alternatives to wooden literalism. Forced to examine what the founders of our faith actually taught about cosmogenesis. Forced to question everything. It is not easy but necessary.
 
I should have said that Coyne presents his case for evolution as the ONLY explanation. Creationism is not an option in his mind.
Nothing that science can say will prove or disprove a theological position on the universe. It may be that what Coyne is trying to say is that evolution is the only possible answer, but if so, he is wrong. What he should be saying is that every possible answer, theist or atheist, will include evolution. Evolution is necessary for the world we live in. It isn't sufficient, since it does not say anything about the emergence of first life or of the universe itself. Whether these are the result of the actions of a God or not is a matter of belief. Science will never determine it one way or another. Evolution is however, is nailed in, whether God is there or not.
 
Right, the book demonstrates his position as an atheist opposed to a narrowly defined view of creationism held by religious fundamentalists.

In contrast, there are theists who hold evolution to be true under a broader definition of creationism presuming an allegorical or figurative meaning to scripture.

Currently there is no consensus to reconcile a meaning of the Biblical creation myths with our evolutionary development. This clearly is a weakness for the Christian position. But denying evolution is not an option. Theists must press on in trust until we know. Right, what other choice do we have?

IMO, we are being forced by God off a position of wooden literalism. Forced to consider alternatives to wooden literalism. Forced to examine what the founders of our faith actually taught about cosmogenesis. Forced to question everything. It is not easy but necessary.
You might be projecting your opinion onto Coyne, He leaves no space open for creationism or a designer and I'm assuming the non-existence of God is implied.
I have been looking at alternatives for other explanations of Genesis 1. I'm leaving all options open until I've investigated it fully.
 
I should have said that Coyne presents his case for evolution as the ONLY explanation. Creationism is not an option in his mind.
I need to catch up on the book, but possibly what he means is not that only evolution can be true, but that the only hypothesis that explains the evidence is evolution. Creationism cannot explain why there are vestigial organs, etc. beyond the non-explanation God-did-it.
 
I need to catch up on the book, but possibly what he means is not that only evolution can be true, but that the only hypothesis that explains the evidence is evolution. Creationism cannot explain why there are vestigial organs, etc. beyond the non-explanation God-did-it.
I don't think that works with the text. Coyne says that, for example:

"Evolution is a fact." (p. xiii)

"Evolution gives us the true account of our origins, replacing the myths that satisfied us for thousands of years." (p. xv)

The title of the book is Why Evolution is True. I don't think there's much ambiguity about whether Coyne regards evolution as the one true account.

To be fair, Coyne does say that the theory of evolution is provisional and subject to modification if new evidence comes up. He seems to think truth is an epistemological concept. A "true" theory can always be falsified later, in principle, for Coyne (p. 16).

But he does think the theory of evolution is true.
 
You might be projecting your opinion onto Coyne, He leaves no space open for creationism or a designer and I'm assuming the non-existence of God is implied.
I have been looking at alternatives for other explanations of Genesis 1. I'm leaving all options open until I've investigated it fully.
If that is the case then he has left the realm of science and speaks his opinion only, for nothing in science suggests or implies atheism. Science only seeks to understand nature: how it works, where it came from, where it is going, etc., but science says nothing about God himself, in whom nature exists, and from whom nature exists (before the Big Bang).

For comparison, what does science say about humility, meekness, kindness, and love? Not a whole lot. These intangible things, these immaterial things, are as much a part of reality as the atoms which make up matter but cannot be contained, measured, or dissected by science.

Therefore, a scientist who thinks only as far as his fingers can touch, or as far as his laboratory bench extends, is being short-sighted. Because there is a whole wider intelligible world existing outside mere material things to which we belong that science lacks the technology or resources to explain.

Science has been very productive in the last two to three hundred years in improving the quality of life (in material things) for many humans, and the tendency is to bow down before it, believing it has all the answers, but it does not. There are the intangibles which make life worth living, which cannot be measured or contained.
 
Last edited:
I don't think that works with the text. Coyne says that, for example:

"Evolution is a fact." (p. xiii)
Agreed.
"Evolution gives us the true account of our origins, replacing the [implied: the literal meaning of the] myths that satisfied us for thousands of years." (p. xv)
Agreed, if one inserts into the quote what he implies, that is, the only meaning of the myths is the the literal meaning, —then he has a point. In that case, evolution does PRECLUDE a literal meaning of the Biblical creation myths.

But evolution does not “replace” the myths, presuming they were written allegorically or figuratively in the first place. It is just easier for Coyne (or any partisan) to present the most absurd characterization of his opponent‘s position in order to make their own ideology seem preferable.

The reader needs to differentiate between the opinions of Coyne on religious debates (specifically his presenting the position of fundamentalists in order to undermine theism altogether) and the evidence presented by Coyne for evolution. They are two totally different topics.

The title of the book is Why Evolution is True. I don't think there's much ambiguity about whether Coyne regards evolution as the one true account.

To be fair, Coyne does say that the theory of evolution is provisional and subject to modification if new evidence comes up. He seems to think truth is an epistemological concept. A "true" theory can always be falsified later, in principle, for Coyne (p. 16).

But he does think the theory of evolution is true.
Agreed.
 
I read chapter 4-The Geography of life.

I think this chapter contains his weakest arguments for evolution. There were good observations and explanations as to why oceanic islands don't have amphibians, reptiles or mammals. I agreed with his observations but not his conclusion.

Now try to think of a theory that explains the patterns we've discussed by invoking the special creation of species on oceanic islands and continents. Why would a creator happen to leave amphibians, mammals, fish, and reptiles off oceanic islands, but not continental ones? Why did a creator produce radiations of similar species on oceanic islands but not on continental ones? And why were species on oceanic islands created to resemble those from the nearest mainland? There are no good answers---unless, of course, you presume that the goal of a creator was to make species look as though they evolved on islands. Nobody is keen to embrace that answer, which explains why creationists simply shy away from island biography.

Earlier, he wrote that these oceanic islands start off as volcanos and don't have any life dwelling on them when they first arise. Then he gives educated guesses as how the islands obtained seeds, birds, bugs, and other creatures that can either fly or swim to reach it and populate it. Finches seem to end up on these islands and reproduce with varying varieties. Coyne says it's evolution and calls it radiations of similar species.
I call it variety and God put the variety in the genes of this species to begin with.

Moving on the chapter 5-The Engine of Evolution I have no idea what this engine is.
 
Coyne says it's evolution and calls it radiations of similar species.
I call it variety and God put the variety in the genes of this species to begin with.
Is there any biological evidence that you could conceive of, that would falsify the notion of creation, to you?

If not, I would contend that evolution can never "win" because literally any of its findings could be incorporated into your creationist paradigm.
 
Is there any biological evidence that you could conceive of, that would falsify the notion of creation, to you?

If not, I would contend that evolution can never "win" because literally any of its findings could be incorporated into your creationist paradigm.
You should read my posts on the other 3 chapters. This is the only chapter that I wasn't impressed with in regards to his argument for evolution.
If he were to drop this chapter completely, the other 3 chapters have convincing arguments in them.
 
You should read my posts on the other 3 chapters. This is the only chapter that I wasn't impressed with in regards to his argument for evolution.
If he were to drop this chapter completely, the other 3 chapters have some convincing arguments in them.
Doesn't really answer the question... can there be any such evidence, or not?

Is there some biological discovery that could make you say "well, I guess it was natural selection, after all..."?
 
If that is the case then he has left the realm of science and speaks his opinion only, for nothing in science suggests or implies atheism. Science only seeks to understand nature: how it works, where it came from, where it is going, etc., but science says nothing about God himself, in whom nature exists, and from whom nature exists (before the Big Bang).

For comparison, what does science say about humility, meekness, kindness, and love? Not a whole lot. These intangible things, these immaterial things, are as much a part of reality as the atoms which make up matter but cannot be contained, measured, or dissected by science.

Therefore, a scientist who thinks only as far as his fingers can touch, or as far as his laboratory bench extends, is being short-sighted. Because there is a whole wider intelligible world existing outside mere material things to which we belong that science lacks the technology or resources to explain.

Science has been very productive in the last two to three hundred years in improving the quality of life (in material things) for many humans, and the tendency is to bow down before it, believing it has all the answers, but it does not. There are the intangibles which make life worth living, which cannot be measured or contained.
Torin represented Coyne in his post more accurately.
 
Doesn't really answer the question... can there be any such evidence, or not?

Is there some biological discovery that could make you say "well, I guess it was natural selection, after all..."?
I'm going to do more than read this book to come to a decision about the truth of evolution. I've been investigating how evolution will fit into my understanding of creation. I'll seek out Christians who hold to evolution and God. And of course, I will continue to pray and seek God as well. This all will take time.

I'll answer your question when I finish this book.
 
I'm going to do more than read this book to come to a decision about the truth of evolution. I've been investigating how evolution will fit into my understanding of creation. I'll seek out Christians who hold to evolution and God. And of course, I will continue to pray and seek God as well. This all will take time.

I'll answer your question when I finish this book.
Do you really need to finish the book in order to answer my question?

I'm not asking which evidence would change your mind; I'm only asking whether it's possible that you could change your mind.
 
Nothing that science can say will prove or disprove a theological position on the universe. It may be that what Coyne is trying to say is that evolution is the only possible answer, but if so, he is wrong. What he should be saying is that every possible answer, theist or atheist, will include evolution. Evolution is necessary for the world we live in. It isn't sufficient, since it does not say anything about the emergence of first life or of the universe itself. Whether these are the result of the actions of a God or not is a matter of belief. Science will never determine it one way or another. Evolution is however, is nailed in, whether God is there or not.
I haven't fully embraced the bolded.
 
I haven't fully embraced the bolded.
I appreciate that. I admire the honest way that you are approaching your own attitudes and how they are formed. If nothing else, it shows just how different two seemingly similar societies actually are. Where I live and was brought up, there are no intelligent voices whatsoever who deny evolution. It just isn't seen as a quasi-religious issue, but as a scientific reality like germ theory or quantum physics. The notion that scientific discovery can be dismissed because of religious objections is a very difficult one for me to comprehend. It requires an attitude to thinking and belief about the world that is quite alien. That so many people on this site think this way is astonishing, as is the virulence with which most attack what I consider to be fundamental, and obviously true, science. That is why I value this thread, as it gives an insight into why an intelligent person, examining facts and evidence, can still have serious doubts about evolution.

I hope that you come to the end of this process with your faith as strong as ever, and accepting that scientific realities do not threaten religious belief unless that belief is flawed. Millions around the world reconcile their faith with science. I hope that you will be able to also.
 
...
Earlier, he wrote that these oceanic islands start off as volcanos and don't have any life dwelling on them when they first arise. Then he gives educated guesses as how the islands obtained seeds, birds, bugs, and other creatures that can either fly or swim to reach it and populate it. Finches seem to end up on these islands and reproduce with varying varieties. Coyne says it's evolution and calls it radiations of similar species.
I call it variety and God put the variety in the genes of this species to begin with.
...
Only evolution can explain why it is like that, why we see this pattern is the distribution of species.

Creationism is compatible with what we see, sure God could have chosen to create them like that, but it does not tell us why there is that pattern. It is not an explanation.

I would also point out that creationism that posits a global flood is not compatible with the distribution we see, If the flood happened, we would see all species radiating out from one exact point - the place the ark landed.
 
Torin represented Coyne in his post more accurately.
At the end of your investigation, I sure hope that you don’t conclude evolution has “replaced” the Biblical creation myths, as Coyne states.

It does not have to be EITHER evolution OR the Bible. There is a third option:
the myths contain a spiritual meaning, AND evolution is true.

Coyne’s POV as an atheist is what drives his conclusion that the Bible myths have been “replaced.” This POV hangs some people up and incites them to react negatively to evolution or become atheist.

My post was trying to understand Coyne‘s narrow POV and counter with why Science has not “replaced” the Bible. There are Christians who accept evolution and who hold the Bible sacred for its spiritual meaning (something Coyne does not acknowledge).

There is no doubt in my mind that one can accept evolution as fact AND seek the spiritual meaning of the Biblical creation myths.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top