Scan barcode
A review by alanrussellfuller
Faith Versus Fact: Why Science and Religion Are Incompatible by Jerry A. Coyne
1.0
I read this book to compare it to a couple of Intelligent Design books I've read recently. What surprised me wasn't the things that the two books disagreed on, but the things they actually agree on. Mr. Coyne asserts that ID is scientifically discredited. What reason does he give for that? "While intelligent design creationism does have religious roots, it is those very roots that have discredited it as valid science, for there’s simply no evidence for the claimed intervention of a teleological designer in evolution." There's nothing about the molecular science or basis in Information Theory to discredit it. It's because the people who study it are religious. I think that's called "genetic fallacy."
That's pretty much what ID people say about their critics. People discredit ID because its opponents don't consider anything but methodological naturalism as science. That is an idea that comes from nineteenth-century materialism.
Coyne gives a secular definition of faith which agrees with his view of religion. Science is knowledge based on evidence. Faith is belief based on nothing. It would be hard to disagree with Coyne if such were the case. The sad part is that a lot of religious people would agree with him. The Bible says that faith is based on evidence and can be seen in the actions of those who have it. It also says that faith is tested. To Coyne all religions are the same. Truth doesn't play a part in his understanding of religion.
He says religion is bad because it causes child abuse. He cites a study which says 172 children, infants and fetuses died during a 20 year period due to the refusal of parents to seek medical attention for themselves or their children because of religious beliefs. He says nothing of the more than 20 million children during that same time who were sacrificed by their mothers to the gods of materialism. I'm talking about abortion.
Coyne dismisses cosmological, teleological and morality based arguments for the existence of God. Such arguments are based on a "god of the gaps" according to him. He admits that science doesn't know the answer to these questions, but they are working on it. He has faith that someday these things will be understood. This seems like a science of the gaps.
That's pretty much what ID people say about their critics. People discredit ID because its opponents don't consider anything but methodological naturalism as science. That is an idea that comes from nineteenth-century materialism.
Coyne gives a secular definition of faith which agrees with his view of religion. Science is knowledge based on evidence. Faith is belief based on nothing. It would be hard to disagree with Coyne if such were the case. The sad part is that a lot of religious people would agree with him. The Bible says that faith is based on evidence and can be seen in the actions of those who have it. It also says that faith is tested. To Coyne all religions are the same. Truth doesn't play a part in his understanding of religion.
He says religion is bad because it causes child abuse. He cites a study which says 172 children, infants and fetuses died during a 20 year period due to the refusal of parents to seek medical attention for themselves or their children because of religious beliefs. He says nothing of the more than 20 million children during that same time who were sacrificed by their mothers to the gods of materialism. I'm talking about abortion.
Coyne dismisses cosmological, teleological and morality based arguments for the existence of God. Such arguments are based on a "god of the gaps" according to him. He admits that science doesn't know the answer to these questions, but they are working on it. He has faith that someday these things will be understood. This seems like a science of the gaps.