At his website Why Evolution Is True, Jewish atheist and U. of Chicago biologist Jerry Coyne has responded in twoposts to my own entry on Chanukah, knee pain, and suboptimal design in creatures as a bogus argument for atheism. (As an aside, note the gentleman’s last name. I’m guessing it started out as Cohen, meaning that he is presumably a cohen, a descendant of Aaron. In Ashkenazic pronunciation the Hebrew name often comes out as coyne. Pending information to the contrary, take a moment to appreciate the irony of his illustrious priestly lineage.) Professor Coyne is full of “Aha’s!” and “Gotcha’s!”  He writes:  [T]he “bad designs” [in creatures] are more than just random flaws in the “design” of organisms: they Read More ›

You think I’m kidding but this line of reasoning is commonly heard from devotees of evangelizing atheism like Richard Dawkins.

It’s somehow cheering to know that while the pompous know-nothingism of Darwinian atheists in the U.S. is matched by those in England, so too not only in our country but in theirs the screechy ignorance receives its appropriate reply from people with good sense and an open mind. Some of the latter include atheists who, however, arrived at their unbelief through honest reflection rather than through the mind-numbing route of fealty to Darwinist orthodoxy. Such a person is Thomas Nagel, the distinguished NYU philosopher. He praised Stephen Meyer’s Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design in the Times Literary Supplement as a “book of the year,” concluding with this enviable endorsement: [A] detailed account of the Read More ›

Display content from Amazon Kindle Click here to display content from Amazon Kindle. Learn more in Amazon Kindle’s privacy policy. Always display content from Amazon Kindle Display content from Amazon Kindle Click here to display content from Amazon Kindle. Learn more in Amazon Kindle’s privacy policy. Always display content from Amazon Kindle Display content from Amazon Kindle Click here to display content from Amazon Kindle. Learn more in Amazon Kindle’s privacy policy. Always display content from Amazon Kindle  

Why do so many writers who insist on emphasizing the consequences of radical Muslim belief tend to ignore the social consequences of other belief systems — for example, Darwinism? My question is prompted by reflections that are being published about the Fort Hood massacre. Darwinist blogger PZ Myers is among many voices to be raised in protest that shooter Nidal Hasan’s Islamic beliefs are getting too little attention: “Unfortunately, there’s [a] factor that seems to be getting minimized in the press accounts: [Hasan] was also a member of an Abrahamic death cult” (i.e., Islam).  PZ quotes Ibn Warraq’s comment on Hasan’s crime, “To leave Islam out of the equation means to forever misinterpret events,” before broadening the scope of the Read More ›