Jerry Coyne Explains Why Evolution Is True

I don’t think there is a lot that can be done to increase the acceptance of evolution in this country. These folks don’t deny the validity of evolution because of evidence or the lack of evidence. They simply do not like evolution.

Jerry is awesome. Loved his book and along with you and a few others, Jerry’s blog is one that I always read daily.

I thought this was a good—not great—explanation of why we should accept evolution as fact. I watched hoping I could recommend it to my a’int-got-no-monkey-uncles family as an overview of a complex topic. I won’t, because there’s no way they’d get through the first ten minutes of feeling mocked. It’s just more of that intellectual elitism.

However, I did take a screen shot of the graphic near the end correlating successful societies with belief in god, which I plan to post n Facebook with the question, “cause of society’s ills, or opiate of the masses?”

I do tend do disagree with his concept that the prostate’s location is an example of bad design because the prostate would have evolved to it’s present location before we were stood erect.

For the purely atheist part, at about 59:35 he gets into “How do you get rid of religion” (after explaining that religion is the main reason people reject evolution)

He then goes on to correlate a society’s health with its religions adherence, and by the measures he’s using (income equality, health care, infant mortality, incarceration, he didn’t say it but I presume education levels,  etc), there’s a very strong inverse correlation, and we’re both very religious, and not very healthy as a society.

If evolution is true then religion is false, such a downer, first no Santa and now no heaven, but come on Xians you still have bingo!

“I won’t, because there’s no way they’d get through the first ten minutes of feeling mocked. It’s just more of that intellectual elitism. ”

If they’re creationists, of course they will feel mocked.  That’s not “intellectual elitism,” that’s honesty.  I’m sorry, but someone who believes in Genesis is believing gibberish.  And sugar coating their feelings won’t change that.

Where does he stand on iOS vs Android?

Look, I get that, based on the evidence he provided, decreases societal success correlates to increased belief in god (though, as he points out, that evidence cannot be used to say which one causes the other, or what other factors may be involved).

My point is, if we really want to convince these people of the evidence, we have to get them to hear it. If we start by saying, “you dumb Christians need to realize how dumb you are,” we aren’t going to change anything. In fact, if any of the churchies did get to the end of this, they probably left strengthened in their resolve that what they believe is true.

I understand your position.  And I believe that it is good that people with more patience than I exist, because, honestly, I cannot believe that anyone who believes in the literal truth of the Genesis story is anything other than delusional, an idiot, a fool, or brainwashed.  And, frankly, when it comes to that creationism nonsense, I don’t see much difference between these.

I hope, of course, that they awake from their mental stupor, but don’t hold much hope that they will.  But I simply cannot even fake the distain for someone who believes such fairy tales are real.  I’m glad that you can.   

You know them all then? Consider that they have been brainwashed since birth to believe the god story and it’s easier to cut them some slack. Yes, we all were subject to the same brainwashing and some of us moved beyond it, but some of us were washed with a mild soap and some of us with lye (hah! Get it? Lye? Lies? Inadvertent puns kill me).

No, I don’t know them all.  But I’ve read a significant amount of creationist literature and statements by creationists over the past 15-20 years to understand what their thinking is.

And I disagree with the notion of giving them slack because of the brainwashing.  At a certain point, a child is responsible for deciding, for him or herself, what to believe.  At that point, the person must, in my opinion, stop relying on what he or she is told. 

But, I’m a hard-ass about this stuff and it’s good that there are those with a more light touch involved as well.

 Sorry, I accidentally hit “post” before adding a qualification.

Almost every evolutionary biologist who does not have a strong opinion on whether religion is an evolutionary by product or an evolutionary adaptation believes that group selection is not “worthy of scorn”. Scientists try very hard not to pour scorn on actual scientific theories, even if they think those theories are incorrect. Pouring scorn on mainstream science is generally left to cranks.

I think I may have been a little clear.

The mechanism of group or multi-level selection is essentially uncontroversial, apart from a few influential high-profile holdouts. There is plenty of modelling and simulation which essentially proves that it can happen.

There are two main points that are controversial.

One is the terminology. Many biologists quite correctly point out that terms like “group selection” are misleading, even if they refer to real phenomena. Genes are what is actually selected, and organisms and groups are merely the vehicles for genes. “Group selection” is actually an emergent phenomenon. So many biologists are against the language of group selection.

The other is whether or not any specific trait or collection of traits actually evolved by that mechanism. Wilson claims, for example, that it’s a more viable explanation for the evolution of altruism.

Some of Wilson’s ideas are wrong. I’d agree with that. But Coyne doesn’t even appear to understand the argument.