Over 1.5 million copies sold
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
Climbing Mount Improbable
by Richard Dawkins
Print
The Challenge of the New Creationism
Jerry Coyne
Reposted from: http://www.rockefeller.edu/evolution/
Feeding and Gloating for More: The Challenge of the New Creationism
Jerry A. Coyne, Ph.D. is a Professor in the Department of Ecology and evolution at the University of Chicago.
Jerry Coyne works on diverse areas of evolutionary genetics. The main focus of his laboratory is the original problem raised by Charles Darwin — the origin of species — and on understanding this process through the genetic patterns it produces. He is also interested in speciation, adaptation, population and evolutionary genetics, ecological and quantitative genetics, chromosome evolution and sperm competition. Dr. Coyne received his Ph.D. in biology from Harvard University in 1978. He completed his postdoc in the genetics department of the University of California, Davis. He was a member of the zoology faculty of the University of Maryland, College Park from 1982 to 1986, when he joined The University of Chicago as associate professor, becoming professor in 1991. Dr. Coyne is the recipient of an Award of Excellence and Meritorious Service from the Illinois Public Defender Association and a John Simon Guggenheim Foundation Fellowship, among other honors.
Video: http://www.rockefeller.edu/evolution/video.php?src=coyne
For the entire symposium, go to:
http://www.rockefeller.edu/evolution/
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Sunday, June 1, 2008 | PermalinkComments 1 - 50 of 71 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #187256 by mordacious1 on June 1, 2008 at 4:41 pm
Oh shit, the lecture starts off with kirk cameron and his friend discussing how god created a banana just to fit our hands and our mouths.Other Comments by mordacious1
3. Comment #187258 by thewhitepearl on June 1, 2008 at 4:52 pm
damnations! My computer device doesn't handle quicktime so well. There's negotiating, buffering, a split second of what appears to be a person- and then the process repeats itself before it just finally times out...
And the comment by mordacious1 is making me even more anxious to see it...
Other Comments by thewhitepearl
4. Comment #187261 by Quine on June 1, 2008 at 5:09 pm
We have been discussing the great value of this video on other threads, and folks have complained about download problems. I think it needs to be re-hosted. I would especially like to have a short clip of the laryngeal nerve part that I could quickly whip out, as needed, to bash the IDiots 'bout the neck and shoulders. Other Comments by Quine
5. Comment #187263 by mordacious1 on June 1, 2008 at 5:11 pm
Embryos of the spotted dolphin, showing formation and regression of hind limb buds...take that you creationists.Other Comments by mordacious1
6. Comment #187269 by righton on June 1, 2008 at 5:55 pm
Don't forget that humans have tails as embryos.Other Comments by righton
7. Comment #187270 by Rational_G on June 1, 2008 at 5:59 pm
Great talk! Destroys ID. "The war is between religion and rationalism." Other Comments by Rational_G
8. Comment #187271 by mordacious1 on June 1, 2008 at 6:06 pm
So why would Eugenie Scott be opposed to getting rid of religion, or "the war is between religion and rationalism"? She is an atheist, is she not? Or does she feel we have to appease the religionists?Nice lecture, enjoyed. Dr. Coyne could have left the term "Darwinism" out though.
Other Comments by mordacious1
9. Comment #187274 by Anters on June 1, 2008 at 6:15 pm
Very informative video. Not a lot of videos actually explain what a scientific theory is.However, the part about the banana really scared me. Some people actually believe what is taught in that clip?
Other Comments by Anters
10. Comment #187276 by righton on June 1, 2008 at 6:30 pm
mordacious1I think Eugenie Scott prefers the NOMA type strategy? Correct me if I am wrong.
Other Comments by righton
12. Comment #187278 by HourglassMemory on June 1, 2008 at 6:34 pm
Eugine Scott seems to be such a nice lady.Can't wait to watch this talk.
EDIT: It was indeeed a nice little talk. Especially the ending.
Other Comments by HourglassMemory
13. Comment #187280 by Yebhx on June 1, 2008 at 6:44 pm
Great talk, I'm glad to see him not just making the case for evolution but also talking about the importance of discouraging religious belief. Other Comments by Yebhx
14. Comment #187283 by mordacious1 on June 1, 2008 at 7:13 pm
I checked the Wiki about Dr. Scott. She's a secular humanist and a "nontheist". Her organization though, the NCSE, is religious neutral and has many religious members. So I guess she has to walk the fence a little. That's OK, she does great work and is a nice person from what I've seen.Other Comments by mordacious1
15. Comment #187284 by A heron at night on June 1, 2008 at 7:14 pm
She's boring.Other Comments by A heron at night
16. Comment #187285 by Uhtred on June 1, 2008 at 7:15 pm
I'm only here to look at thewhitepearls avatar!Other Comments by Uhtred
17. Comment #187290 by RickM on June 1, 2008 at 7:45 pm
I give up - pegs cpu at 100%, no audio. Other Comments by RickM
18. Comment #187305 by Godfree Gordon on June 1, 2008 at 9:28 pm
Was thewhitepearl descended of Isis? Other Comments by Godfree Gordon
19. Comment #187310 by Roy_H on June 1, 2008 at 10:17 pm
Comment #187258 by thewhitepearl,"damnations! My computer device doesn't handle quicktime so well"
I once had that problem too and my computer is pretty powerful.Have you tried Safari for Windows , The browser developed by Apple? I find that it (surprise surprise! ) plays Quicktime movies far better than Firefox or IE. Free download:-
http://www.filehippo.com/download_safari/
Other Comments by Roy_H
20. Comment #187311 by T.L.P on June 1, 2008 at 10:35 pm
>> Oh shit, the lecture starts off with kirk
>> cameron and his friend discussing how god
>> created a banana just to fit our hands and our
>> mouths.
Why the hell is the Rockefeller foundation supporting these bozos?
It used to support cool guys, like Norman Borlaug. Now they're funding banana-man.
Other Comments by T.L.P
21. Comment #187312 by mordacious1 on June 1, 2008 at 10:40 pm
T.L.P.Don't worry. It was just Dr. Coyne using the banana tape to make fun of these clowns. Nothing to do with the R. Foundation. Funnier than hell though, especially when Dr. Coyne shows what a banana looked like before mankind engineered it to fit our hands/mouths.
Other Comments by mordacious1
22. Comment #187315 by T.L.P on June 1, 2008 at 10:56 pm
Ah, okay :).. I'll go ahead and install Safari them :D Other Comments by T.L.P
23. Comment #187320 by PJG on June 1, 2008 at 11:52 pm
The full Ray Comfort "banana episode"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4yBvvGi_2A
In fairness to Ray Comfort, he HAS conceded that the banana is one for "our side" as it is the result of artificial selection.
Other Comments by PJG
24. Comment #187323 by robotaholic on June 2, 2008 at 12:15 am
I can't stand Jerry A. Coyne's voice...it's giving me chills- I think I have to read this instead of listen to it Other Comments by robotaholic
25. Comment #187325 by LaTomate on June 2, 2008 at 12:25 am
Cool talk. I know the bananaman vieo. I laughed so much I almost cried.
Then I cried despairingly that some idiots could believe that bollocks.
Other Comments by LaTomate
26. Comment #187326 by phil rimmer on June 2, 2008 at 12:25 am
Intelligent Design?Don't you just love the laryngeal nerve screw up? Looped under the aorta. No wonder giraffes don't talk so well.
Other Comments by phil rimmer
27. Comment #187335 by Roy_H on June 2, 2008 at 1:40 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HW06Wz_R74&feature=relatedNick Gisburne's rebuttal to the "Banana" nonsense, using a not so intelligently designed pineapple!
Other Comments by Roy_H
28. Comment #187345 by Logicel on June 2, 2008 at 2:29 am
robotaholic, I saw this about a week ago, so I may be remiss in my memory, but Coyne has some kind of cold. Anyway, I am a Coyne groupie. I just love this guy. I have learned so much from his writings.
Other Comments by Logicel
29. Comment #187352 by Dhamma on June 2, 2008 at 3:02 am
This seems like very useful material. Hope I get to see all of it. Problem now is it's pretty hard to watch it for me. What codec did they use to encode this?! I hope they can use proper codecs if they want people to watch it. Other Comments by Dhamma
30. Comment #187353 by Barry Pearson on June 2, 2008 at 3:08 am
mordacious1 said: So why would Eugenie Scott be opposed to getting rid of religion, or "the war is between religion and rationalism"? She is an atheist, is she not? Or does she feel we have to appease the religionists?I've watched everything I can find with Eugenie Scott, (I think she is super!), I have received an information-pack from NCSE, and I can see her point here.
righton said: I think Eugenie Scott prefers the NOMA type strategy? Correct me if I am wrong.
mordacious1 said: I checked the Wiki about Dr. Scott. She's a secular humanist and a "nontheist". Her organization though, the NCSE, is religious neutral and has many religious members. So I guess she has to walk the fence a little. That's OK, she does great work and is a nice person from what I've seen.
NCSE often has to help religious parents get a good scientific eductation for their children, and if necessary support those parents in a court with a religious judge. The Dover trial was a classic. She (and NCSE) has to present this "battle" as Creationism/ID non-science versus a scientific view of the universe, the latter being one that neither those parents nor the judge would feel threatened or insulted by.
Meanwhile the Creationism/ID proponents try to link science, especially evolution, with atheism, to suggest to the parents and the judge that evolution will undermine their religious beliefs. NCSE would not want Richard Dawkins to give evidence in such a trial, and he probably accepts that. Ken Miller is a better witness, someone those parents and the judge will feel comfortable with.
Whatever her private views, NCSE's clear mission is to secure good science education, especially about evolution. It isn't to fight the god/no-god battle, and it would be totally improper to spend resources on that, and dangerous even to be thought to be doing so.
Other Comments by Barry Pearson
31. Comment #187363 by freedom0f5peech on June 2, 2008 at 3:45 am
Very thorough video. Excellent! Other Comments by freedom0f5peech
32. Comment #187462 by briantibbs on June 2, 2008 at 7:12 am
It looks like they have videos of the entire symposium at:http://www.rockefeller.edu/evolution/
Other Comments by briantibbs
33. Comment #187473 by CalgaryShadi on June 2, 2008 at 7:55 am
The videos seems like they're great, but I can't seem to get any appreciable way into any of them without the video and audio beginning to sputter before the audio cuts out altogether. I've already tried IE and Firefox, but I don't think I want to install Safari just to watch some quicktime videos. Are these videos reposted anywhere else in a more reliably viewable format?Other Comments by CalgaryShadi
34. Comment #187493 by ClemIsMe on June 2, 2008 at 8:42 am
I find that, when you come to a stop in the audio, you can drag the progress counter along a bit and it comes back. You miss a little content, however. I think it is worth it.Other Comments by ClemIsMe
35. Comment #187500 by brainsys on June 2, 2008 at 9:01 am
Struggle through it if you can (I just had to keep reloading and guessing how far I had got).The killer is in the finale. After giving all that info for rubbishing creationism he does a wonderful about turn. He uses a graph of acceptance of evolution v acceptance of religion (negative correlation of course) with the US in 33 out of 34th place.
Jerry argues that trying to push the US vertically up the scale (educating religionists about science) is what his community has done for 20 years with no discernable result and probably no hope.
Instead he proposes moving the US along the graph to a more non-religious country and hence a more rational country. Its not the Alabama fundies you need to to change but the less but still religious man in a NY suit. He spells that out as what Dawkins in Hitchens are trying to do in a way I found clearer than the dynamic duo do themselves.
A very brave man. A very inspiring if daunting conclusion!
Other Comments by brainsys
36. Comment #187512 by 5keptical on June 2, 2008 at 9:19 am
For those having problems playing the video, try using VLC ( http://www.videolan.org/vlc/ ).After installing the appropriate version, copy the link and use an open VLC player to access the stream.
BTW, I found VLC to be far more reliable and able to open a far greater variety of videos than any other player, plus it's free software under the GNU license.
Other Comments by 5keptical
37. Comment #187514 by robotaholic on June 2, 2008 at 9:20 am
honestly I have Opera and I have never had a single bit of problem with any of these links on this website - this one plays fine just like the rest- & it's very orange- Other Comments by robotaholic
38. Comment #187534 by nalfeshnee on June 2, 2008 at 9:32 am
Must read/watch more of Mr. Coyne.Riveting, magisterial, brilliant stuff.
Other Comments by nalfeshnee
39. Comment #187573 by BeyondBelief on June 2, 2008 at 10:20 am
Very interesting. I LOVE the emphasis on terminology as important to the debate...
1. "Do not say you "believe" in Evolution, as then it is equivalent to religion." Say you accept evolution as the best explanation based on evidence.
2. Did anyone else feel that his consistent pronunciation of "theological" as thee-oh-low-gical instead of "thee-oh-law-gical" might also be a purposeful attempt to avoid making any connection between "theology" and "logic"??
Similar to the way the Republican party has made it a talking-point LAW that you only refer to the Democrat Party, never the "Democratic Party"??
3. If Coyne IS as serious as he seems to be about terminology, I agree with the poster who questions the use of the term "Darwinism" as that is a blatant framing to give "ism's" equal footing with a scientific theory. I would guess that if the first use of the term Darwinism could be found, it would be emanating from the lips of a religious person intent on clambering up to an equal footing.
Other Comments by BeyondBelief
40. Comment #187578 by passutoba on June 2, 2008 at 10:23 am
The banana man is incredible.....these people have such talent for unwitting self-parody....i wonder how he explains brazil nuts? I guess they're just a test of faith........Other Comments by passutoba
41. Comment #187603 by Podaar on June 2, 2008 at 10:54 am
These types of videos and the scientists who make them are the best reason for visiting this website daily.
I'm very glad I didn't miss this one!
Other Comments by Podaar
42. Comment #187759 by PJG on June 2, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Re. Mr. Coyne's comment that ridicule is a good weapon against creationists... this might help!
http://www.alltruism.co.uk/HovindScale.html
Enjoy.
:o)
Other Comments by PJG
43. Comment #187766 by Ascaphus on June 2, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Brainsys said:
"...Jerry argues that trying to push the US vertically up the scale (educating religionists about science) is what his community has done for 20 years with no discernable result and probably no hope.
Instead he proposes moving the US along the graph to a more non-religious country and hence a more rational country..."
This to me was the best of the presentation. The rest is a good, if uninspiring and very brief, review of evidence and the case against ID. I have always fought the NOMA interpretation. Jerry had several ways of putting it, all very good. "The battle is creationism/evolution, but the war is religion vs. rationalism." "Incompatible world views."
Barry, you made some good points, I think you have the NCSE stance nailed, and I can see why some folks would want to go that route. But as Jerry said, it simply isn't happening. Religion teaches people to be irrational and to revel in it. With this attitude, most of them will never even give lip service to the NOMA view. I think we have to admit that science is NOT compatible with superstition. If people are afraid of being associated with atheism, part of the education has to be showing just how absurd religionism is, and that atheism is the only reasonable view of superstition.
Matt
Other Comments by Ascaphus
44. Comment #187767 by thewhitepearl on June 2, 2008 at 3:16 pm
Roy H: Thank You for the link! I appreciate it and will heed the advice.
I'm going to politely ignore the comments about my avatar, but while we're on the topic of appeareances- Dr. Coyne has a freakishly close resemblance to Stephen King...Does anyone else agree or is that just me?
Other Comments by thewhitepearl
45. Comment #187770 by Podaar on June 2, 2008 at 3:38 pm
44. Comment #187767 by thewhitepearlI'm going to politely ignore the comments about my avatarIn contrast to my earlier comment; the oogling of women is the one of the bad things about visiting this site daily.
I can only speak for myself, but I'm sorry you have to put up with that crap and it's discouraging that so-called 'rationalists' can be just as boorish, racist and homophobic (as witnessed on another thread) as the rest of the world.
-- Gregg
Other Comments by Podaar
46. Comment #187795 by BigJohn on June 2, 2008 at 5:01 pm
STOP USING QUICKTIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! EVERY TIME I NEED QUICKTIME I MUST RELOAD IT!!!! NO ONE NEEDS TO USE QUICKTIME!!!!! THERE ARE A LOT OF USEFUL FORMATS AVAILABLE. QUICKTIME SEEMS TO REQUIRE THE ENTIRE CAPACITY OF MY MACHINE, MEMORY, DISK SPACE GRAPHIC CARD AND ALL!!! There I feel better now. Other Comments by BigJohn
47. Comment #187855 by BT Murtagh on June 2, 2008 at 9:35 pm
If you look in the lower right-hand corner of the viewing window there is a point-downward triangle. Click on it, and a set of options will appear. One of those options is "Save As QuickTime Movie" - do that, then open the file to watch it in the viewer of your choice (I also recommend VLC). No sputters.EDIT: Hmmm, having said that the downloaded file doesn't seem to open in VLC - that's a first for me, VLC usually handles anything I throw at it, and I've used it to play QuickTime files before. The downloaded file does play just fine in my standalone QuickTime viewer, though.
Other Comments by BT Murtagh
48. Comment #187859 by Tetsujin on June 2, 2008 at 9:53 pm
I loved it, already bookmarked and favourited.Other Comments by Tetsujin
49. Comment #187919 by Barry Pearson on June 3, 2008 at 3:47 am
BeyondBelief said: 1. "Do not say you "believe" in Evolution, as then it is equivalent to religion." Say you accept evolution as the best explanation based on evidence.Am I the only one who doesn't see a valid objection to using "believe"? (I DO recognise a difference between "believe" and "believe in").
I often use the word "believe", for example: "I believe the meeting is next Tuesday". That means "I have a high degree of confidence in the proposition that the meeting is next Tuesday", but it is much shorter!
Surely it is typically the word "faith" that religious people use for "belief without evidence"? And I would not use "faith" in the context of evolution. Using "accept" sounds artificial, and also somewhat passive (and perhaps dismissive). It is often followed later by "but ...".
I think the solution here is to avoid overloading any single word in any context where more precision is needed. For example: "I have a very high degree of confidence that natural selection is the mechanism that explains adaptation; I have considerable confidence in the overall structure of the evolutionary tree; but I have lower confidence in the details of the evolutionary tree, especially in the Cambrian period".
Furthermore, even the word "evidence" can cause problems. For example, in 2004 I attended a talk given by Alister McGrath at Birmingham University (UK) called "The Twilight of Atheism". It was clear from his tone and body language that he thought he had telling evidence against atheism and was demolishing the case for it. I was still waiting for him to begin supplying evidence when he clearly felt he had delivered it. I assume that the reverse would apply, and "evidence" in support of (say) evolution would not be treated as such by creationists; indeed, they would probably treat it as indicative failure to supply "real evidence". I'm not convinced that Michael Behe left the Dover courtroom accepting that he had been shown "real evidence" for evolution by natural selection.
Other Comments by Barry Pearson
50. Comment #187921 by epeeist on June 3, 2008 at 3:55 am
Comment #187767 by thewhitepearlI'm going to politely ignore the comments about my avatarWhy? If that is a picture of you then you are a beautiful woman and (to change the gender)
"Beautiful young men are always exciting," said the Dean.
(I wonder if Cartomancer can spot the quotation)
Ogling is unpleasant, but enjoyment of beauty certainly isn't.
Other Comments by epeeist
Upcoming Events:
Mailing List
Enter your email:
DVDs
'The Enemies of Reason: The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Voices of Reason' DVD
'Richard Dawkins: Appearances & Events 2007-2008' DVD
'Enemies of Reason' DVD
'Root of All Evil?' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
'Voices of Science' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
1. Comment #187255 by rod-the-farmer on June 1, 2008 at 4:41 pm
Other Comments by rod-the-farmer