I agree with pretty much everything Coyne says in this book. While many would like to see science and religion as somehow compatible, this is wishful thinking, and the only honest position, whether you're on the scientific or the religious side of the fence, is that as two ways of understanding the universe, they are in irreconcilable conflict. This thesis is laid out and defended with clear explanations, intelligent arguments, and well-chosen quotes, so the book is enjoyable and absolutely worth reading.

I came away, however, with an impression similar to what I got from Jason Rosenhouse's Among the Creationists, which I also enjoyed and recommend - great book, but with two basic issues:

The first is the intended audience of the book. From Coyne's web postings at whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com, it seems that the logical target for his arguments are the science-minded types who would nevertheless like to reach some compromise with the religious. They are the ones who need to recognize that any such attempted compromise is in vain - but much of the book is spent debunking religious (mostly Christian, some Muslim) doctrines - something that is certainly worth doing, but most science-minded accommodationists already agree with these conclusions. These arguments might be better aimed at the faithful who need to be convinced that science invalidates their beliefs. But it seems to me that the truly religious are less likely to be accommodationists in the first place. They are well aware that some of their beliefs are irreconcilable with science, and in those cases, the science must be wrong.

The second thing is that regardless of the truth of science, the falsity of religion, and the impossibility of compromise on any logical level, humans are social animals, and we still want to be able to get along with each other. Being right about the truth of science is all well and good, but going through life in constant argument with others or being shunned by one's community is no way to spent one's limited time. Better to find a way to get along. So although intellectually I fully agree with the anti-accommodationist position, and I look forward to a time when religion has passed into history and the whole point becomes moot, I have some sympathy for those who nevertheless hold out hope for some kind of compromise that might reduce conflict among humanity in the here and now.

If this book is to do its job, then as well as preaching to the choir of the rational or antagonizing the faithful, it will have to reach an audience who has something to gain from it, those who might be on the fence about accommodationism. Perhaps some of those readers will speak up here in the reviews and tell us whether they were convinced by Coyne's arguments, and why.