Saturday, May 26, 2012

Coyne bans me from his blog

I criticized a paper by leftist-atheist-evolutionist Jerry Coyne below, and left this comment me on his blog:
This paper is sillier than I expected. It is based on a “Successful Societies Scale” that rates the USA as the least successful nation in the world.
Coyne responded:
It’s not based on that at all – that’s an EXPLANATION for the high degree of religiosity in the US. The main point is that America’s creationism come from its religion. Further, other sociological studies (cited in the paper) support the dysfunctionality of the US compared to other First World countries. Finally, you’re flat wrong about the US being the least successful society in the world. As I said, it’s the least successful society among 17 FIRST WORLD COUNTRIES SURVEYED. Did you even read the paper?

You appear unwilling to accept the US’s position here. Fine, but it doesn’t make the paper silly. And stop urinating on my carpet. If you have criticisms, make them in an objective and non-insulting fashion.
He does not restrict to 17 countries. His paper quotes surveys of aa many as 67 countries, and he uses broad language. His paper says:
Religion is an answer that many people do not want to hear, but there is much ev-idence that America’s resistance to evolution is truly a byproduct of America’s extreme religiosity.
His argument is that social dysfunction causses religiosity, which causes belief in creaationism, which causes disbelief in evolution. This argument is not limited to 17 countries. He says, "Paul’s data show that, compared to other countries, we are a sick society."

Coyne is a leftist who wants the USA to become more socialist. His main criterion for being a dysfunctional society is income inequality. He says that higher income inequality leads to higher religiosity, particularly among the wealthy, but it is also true that higher freedom leads to higher income inequality. When he calls us a "sick society" in the Evolution journal paper, he is just applying his leftist political biases.

Here is his message banning me:
Look, Roger, you first should first apologize for your mischaracterization of the USA’s position in the world on the SSS, and now you show complete misunderstanding of how I regard Gould and Wilson. You obviously haven’t followed my website, which has often praised Gould’s scientific writing (while criticizing his views on punctuated equilibrium and NOMA) and Wilson’s contribution in Socibiology, conservation, and his work on ants. They don’t get ALL OF EVOLUTION “wrong,” but have taken positions that I don’t agree with. That’s true of all science. Your statement that I think “leading evolutionists” (you cite only two) “get it wrong” is misleading, and you know it.

You’re trolling without any knowledge of my views, and you mischaracterized my paper, which is not silly.

I suggest you frequent other websites, because I don’t want you urinating on my carpet.
I was not allowed to respond to this on his site.

His paper is silly. It is worse. It is garbage that should not have been accepted by any real science journal, and was only published in a religion-hating evolutionist journal.

I did not say that the leading evolutionists get ALL OF EVOLUTION “wrong,” But they do disagree about the core of evolution. Gould said evolution is random while Dawkins says it is deterministic. Coyne says we have no free will. Dawkins and Coyne say evolution works purely at the gene level, while Wilson says that life on Earth is dominated by social species benefitting from group evolution. Dawkins and Coyne have denounced Wilson for this in the harshest terms. Dawkins implies that Wilson's ideas are unworthy of being published.

Coyne tries to downplay these as disagreements as if they are inherent in science, or "true of all science." No, they are not. Coyne led a group of 140 scholars to publish a 3-page paper denouncing Wilson. The list of authors was longer than the content. This does not happen in real sciences.

Real scientists do not so carelessly combine scientific, philosophical, and political views, and are not constantly lobbying politicians and judges to force others to accept those views. That is what Coyne does. The reason people don't like evolutionist messages from people like him has nothing to do with income inequality or America being a dysfunction society. It is because evolutionists like him cannot resist making evolution a political and anti-religion cause, and people reject all the non-scientific baggage that goes along with evolution.


Rainer B said...

Coyne gets it wrong way around:
he is pro-religion where religion is bad, and is anti-religion where religion is good.

The controversy between evolutionism and creationism is about gun rights and the rest of the Bill Of Rights. The Founders knew the concept that we have God-given rights that governments may not take away. These rights were given in the act of creation. With evolution that concept might become meaningless. Evolution allows for the concept of a living and breathing constitution. Such concept would lead to the replacement of real rights with meaningless rights. That's what the men behind the evolutionists appear to want.

Roger said...

Good point. I am sure that Coyne is anti-gun. I am all in favor of teaching evolution, but without the other baggage.

A K Haart said...

"Real scientists do not so carelessly combine scientific, philosophical, and political views, and are not constantly lobbying politicians and judges to force others to accept those views."

Excellent summary and it seems to be an increasingly serious problem. Too many scientists are willing or even eager to expand their careers in this way.

Anonymous said...

I am not opposed to public schools teaching evolution as long as the recognize that it too is a religion, only a theory, and present creationism and the supporting evidence for creationism. I don't believe the government should be empowered to mandate the curriculum and attendance.