Woo hoo first comment! Adding to the sense of urgency for replacing the need for religion, you can look at maps of the poorest versus the richest countries , and it's clear that no God is rewarding the poor countries with 99% belief, and know God is punishing atheistic northern Europe with the majority of disbelievers. Religion does not really help at the macro level.
I have a lot of respect for Jerry Coyne. He's more straight forward than other scientists like Richard Dawkins. There's a video of Jerry Coyne giving the finger to creationists. Great stuff.
Jerry was triggered by the evidence favoring the creationists.That is why he threw a tantrum and like a child gave the finger. The truth has obviously offended Jerry , a truly ESN Professor.(Educationally Sub Normal)
55:50 this is pretty much how I lost faith in Catholicism and Christianity in general, the Catechism seems to affirm this (particularly around section 389) and the Council of Trent affirms that Original Sin is an infallible teaching (session five). Without Adam and Eve it makes no sense as there's no "Fall" so no need for Jesus to die, and other doctrines like infant baptism and the infallible teaching of the Immaculate Conception make no sense either as a result, the whole thing falls apart if you fully apply human evolution to the theology. I feel that the bastards lied to me and many others practically all my life on this detail (the accommodationist part) and although I may disagree with the speaker on some of his claims he nails it on this point. If Eve is a metaphor then 2000 years of misogyny were justified for such metaphor, and ultimately for nothing (all thanks to Paul not in the least). I found out about that as I found out the hard way that there way more creationist Catholics than I was made to believe for so long, my previous parish community was full of those and other people hostile to science in general (one time the priest we had said that climate change was a "false apocalypse" despite what Pope Francis has said, they can just ignore him on the science parts because it's not "infallible"). I ended up being Unitarian Universalist (and tried the Quakers before that) mostly because I wasn't willing to let go of the sense of community I was used to and so far it has worked for me, but I may technically still be considered as religious even if I heavily lean towards Humanism at this point. I also have listened to some of Spong's lectures and I respect him a bit for some of the stuff he has said too.
The problem with your premise is that you conflate the theory of all organisms have a common ancestor which is a microbe that arose spontaneously from random natural causes of nature. That’s not science. Everything about that theory becomes more improbable with the more scientific facts that are discovered about the cell. The only things about the theory that makes any sense at all is the superficial observation that there are similarities in features of various life forms. Name just one prediction that can be made from the in organic to organism, evolutionary bacterium to man theory? There are zero. It’s science fiction. You guys lump that science in behind the guise of science. It’s not
I think for something to be accepted as scientific knowledge it must be clearly observed. Theory necessarily means that the subject hasn't been observed but it did leave behind a historical remnant, or evidence as we call it. Evidence allows for a forensic analysis, but like with lawyers and juries, all the best evidence can do is maybe render a decision among a jury where the conclusion of guilt is beyond the shadow of a doubt. (Good lawyers are the smartest people.) Courts do not always get it right. Innocent people have been sent to jail in spite of convincing evidence. Evidence can't always be trusted which is why lawyers, and not scientists, run the world. If I am going to believe that slime on a rock turned into Beethoven, I will have to see a lot more than what the evolutionary researchers have put forward.
@30:30fwd Jerry cites "64% of people would reject a proven fact in favor of their faith." I'm skeptical. ;) The more likely fact would be that 64% SAY that they would reject the fact. I'm sure there are even more who WOULD reject the fact, but are too embarrassed by the 'gawd, I'm an idiot' implications to admit it.
Diomedes22 uh, honey, if he's being disingenuous here it's actually going AGAINST him. The point is that probably MORE people would disregard science for their faith.
Matthew, I think you may be on to something. I wanted to respond to Dromedary but couldn't find anything there that was coherent enough to answer with anything but ridicule. “Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. [as just one example among many] It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus.” ~ Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Adrian Van der Kemp, 30 July, 1816
Jerry is one of the 64% of evolutionary biologists who are in denial of many facts that are now proven refuting their scientistic religion.Jerry is a practitioner.of Scientism. Darwin's theory of evolution is no more than a religious belief.(Look at the evidence if you disagree).
In Australia, the church buildings are sold due to lack of interest (i.e. income). I've been involved in turning a handful of them into wedding planners and night clubs etc. Future is bright for our children we just have to keep the pressure.
So what appeared in the Primordial soup ? - a simple single celled organism ? - but there is no such thing as a "simple cell" - a cell is as complex as a whole animal or plant - its fractal - A cell is hugely complex
@@mcmanustony Have a look at the book shelves in University books shops in the biology department "The cell" is a huge section - nothing remotely simple about it
@@DamienMearns I didn't say it was simple. For it to be fractal however it would have to be self similar at every level of magnification. If you zoom in on mitochondria you don't find mitochondria inside, you find DNA. Zoom in on that and you don't find endless levels of DNA you find a chain of molecules with a phosphate group, a sugar group and one of four bases. Zoom in on those and you find the compounds making up these parts, keep going and you'll get to the atoms that make them up. This is breathtakingly complex for sure. It's not fractal.
@@mcmanustony At the level of complexity its fractal. A body is not a complex thing put together out of simple cells, it is a complex thing put together out of complex cells... well all cells are complex... deeply deeply complex - a 1 with a telephone book of zeros after it level of complexity
It's simple, various religions are our first attempt at describing and understanding the world. Then we figured out we should be systematic and we got philosophy. After a while we discovered that we need to test and observe our hypothesis and we got science. Now we know that scientific method is our best tool for understanding the word and life around us.
umm atheism has existed since at least ancient Greece. dont flatter yourself. your ideas are not new, progressive, or intelligent. you are just as wrong as they were, thousands of years ago.
I am a great fan of Dr. Coyne's worldview concerning religion. Whether I am afflicted with some form of confirmation bias or not, I agreed with almost everything Dr. Coyne stated in his lecture - except for his stand on free will. As an aspiring jazz musician, I am not sure the next note I play is pre-determined because of my lack of free will. I try to stay within the harmonic structure of whatever opus I am playing, but the choices I have for my next note are, perhaps not infinite, but certainly great in number. If I thought I had no control over my next choice of note(s), I would give up all my aspirations to be a better aspiring jazz musician. Sorry Dr. Coyne - on this one note (pun intended!) I do not agree with you.
TOM NEEDHAM you're entirely under the illusion. If you pay attention you will notice that your playing is coming naturally and often unconsciously. Why do you play certain notes? Is it random? Or is it because it's sound somehow fits into the music you are playing? Either one has no room for free will. This process of letting music flow largely unconsciously from you actually anecdotally demonstrates this, you just need to pay attention.
His views on evolution have benn superceded and Jerry, like Richard Dawkins, is an antiquated relic of a bygone era.Darwin.himself if alive today and witnessing the great body.of evidence refuting Darwinism would unequivocally reject NEODARWINISM.
I think for something to be accepted as scientific knowledge it must be clearly observed. Theory necessarily means that the subject hasn't been observed but it did leave behind a historical remnant, or evidence as we call it. Evidence allows for a forensic analysis, but like with lawyers and juries, all the best evidence can do is maybe render a decision among a jury where the conclusion of guilt is beyond the shadow of a doubt. (Good lawyers are the smartest people.) Courts do not always get it right. Innocent people have been sent to jail in spite of convincing evidence. Evidence can't always be trusted which is why lawyers, and not scientists, run the world. If I am going to believe that slime on a rock turned into Beethoven, I will have to see a lot more than what the evolutionary researchers have put forward.
I usually listen to videos like this while doing my boring work. I agree with what his saying, but I tend to notice, as a third world country-born atheist, that the english atheist are far more concernd about denouncing religious privilegies, and how we can lead a good life without religion, while american atheist are focused on prove that god does not exist and how chistianity is a lie. I like the english atheist's approach better.
…but what about Quantum Science? Does Jerry Coyne definition of Science covers this other thought? How does conventional science allure Love, Justice, Friendship - name their antonyms - and all of those terms that Philosophy is not able to define: the part of the soul that is always with us in polarity as essence of our lives? If a man doesn’t make a willing attempt to reconcile these two, then he has no purpose in life, does he?
Neuroscientist Sam Harris covers all you ask, plus more, in his book and RU-vid videos. I highly recommend you watch them. Search for Sam Harris on Morality; Sam Harris on the meaning or purpose of life, etc. He's a very renowned scientist.
The problem of religion is that it is the abandonment of reason which can lead to institutional extremism if left unchecked (and has). Compassion and reason should be our guides, not dogma.
Religion is not the abandonment of reason. Religion is a tool to organize society. By the way, science has caused more harm to humanity than any religion.
His description of evolution is fine and factual but his "speculation " that socialism is the ideal for humanity lacks knowledge of the tyranny caused by socialistic utopian visions in the last century.
I am a Christian and a member of the worship team. 😳 I am also a fan of Dr Coyne. I have always believed and followed the obvious logic and data of evolution. So how can I get a Christian? Because the bible was only partially true.
Jerry Coyne, Professor of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago, quotes: "In science's pecking order, evolutionary biology lurks somewhere near the bottom, far closer to phrenology than to physics. For evolutionary biology is a historical science, laden with history's inevitable imponderables. We evolutionary biologists cannot generate a Cretaceous Park to observe exactly what killed the dinosaurs; and, unlike "harder" scientists, we usually cannot resolve issues with a simple experiment, such as adding tube A to tube B and noting the color of the mixture." Of Vice and Men The New Republic April 3 2000 p.27 (Note: Phrenology is predicting the future by reading of bumps on a head) "Truth be told, evolution hasn’t yielded many practical or commercial benefits. Yes, bacteria evolve drug resistance, and yes, we must take countermeasures, but beyond that there is not much to say. Evolution cannot help us predict what new vaccines to manufacture because microbes evolve unpredictably. But hasn’t evolution helped guide animal and plant breeding? Not very much. Most improvement in crop plants and animals occurred long before we knew anything about evolution, and came about by people following the genetic principle of ‘like begets like’. Even now, as its practitioners admit, the field of quantitative genetics has been of little value in helping improve varieties. Future advances will almost certainly come from transgenics, which is not based on evolution at all." Nature August 31 2006 p.984 (Note: Evolution produces nothing of use.) "We'll never be able to reconstruct how selection created everything -- evolution happened before we were on the scene, and some things will always be unknown." Why Evolution is True 2009 p.137 (Note there is no observable and testable science) "These mysteries about how we evolved should not distract us from the indisputable fact that we did evolve." Why Evolution is True 2009 p.208 (note: Despite the fact there is no science supporting Darwinism, you must believe.) (Referring to the cover of Jerry Coyne’s book, “Why Evolution is True”, which depicts a dinosaur, a transitional creature, an archaeopteryx and a great blue heron.) Disclaimer: "The jacket depicts a chronological sequence of fossils showing the evolution of birds. We do not know whether the actual line of descent included the first three. (Note: the book starts with deception, but you can believe the rest of it.) It is lies that lead to atheism, not science. Science leads to God.
