Creationism in America, then, may be a symptom of reli-gion, but religion in the modern world may itself be a symptom of unhealthy societies. Ultimately, the best strategy to make Ameri-cans more receptive to evolution might require loosening the grip of religion on our country. This may sound not only invidious but untenable, yet data from other countries suggest that such secularism is possible and, indeed, is increasing in the United States at this moment. But weakening religion may itself require other, more profound changes: creating a society that is more just, more caring, more egalitarian. Regardless of how you feel about religion, that is surely a goal most of us can endorse.For Coyne, teaching evolution is just a tool for undermining religion. Earlier he says:
Now, more than at any time in my life, I see Americans awash in popular science — evolution in particular. Bookstores teem with volumes by Stephen Gould, Steven Pinker, Richard Dawkins, Edward O. Wilson, and Jared Diamond; evolutionary psychology is all the rage; natural history museums have become user friendly; there are dozens of blogs about evolution; and entire television channels are devoted to science and nature. Science education for laypeople is not hard to come by, and we have more popular commentary on evolution than ever before. Yet our record of accepting evolution is still abysmal. Why?Most of those authors are explicitly anti-religion. Coyne's article discusses how Gould was anti-religion. I have discussed Pinker's latest anti-Christian book. Dawkins is probably the world's most famous atheist, and now devote more energy to promoting atheism than evolution. Wilson is an atheist but his ideas have been savagely attacked by Coyne and Dawkins. Dawkins' review today of Wilson's latest book says, "unfortunately one is obliged to wade through many pages of erroneous and downright perverse misunderstandings of evolutionary theory." Diamond's work is widely praised in leftist academic circles, but not well accepted among experts in the subject matter.
Update: Coyne has now banned me from commenting on his blog, because I supposedly misrepresented his views and for "urinating on [his] carpet". Meanwhile he leaves up various ad hominem attacks on me and my mom, such as "you never were housebroken" and "You suck."
Here is my reply to him, that he blocked:
Jerry, I have read your praise of Gould and Wilson, as well as your criticism. You certainly never said that they get all of evolution wrong. But you do harshly criticize them. Wilson just wrote a book on what evolution and human nature are all about, and you just quoted Dawkins today trashing the book in the harshest terms. He says that Wilson's "errors ... are important, pervasive, and integral to its thesis in a way that renders [his book] impossible to recommend." Either Dawkins gets it wrong, or Wilson gets it wrong.About that last blog item, Coyne blocked the comment, "This shows that our leading experts have profound disagreements over what evolution is all about." Coyne posts scathing attacks on others regularly, but he sure cannot take a little criticism.
Also, your paper says, "Paul’s data show that, compared to other countries, we are a sick society."