Jerry Coyne Recycles: Why Darwinism Is False, Part I
On Earth Day 2009, we are reminded of the ecological importance of recycling. As a professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at The University of Chicago, Jerry A. Coyne must be keen on recycling: He even recycles worn-out arguments for Darwinism.
If "evolution" meant simply that existing species can undergo minor changes over time, or that many species alive today did not exist in the past, then evolution would undeniably be true. But "evolution" for Coyne means Darwinism -- the theory that all living things are descendants of a common ancestor, modified by unguided natural processes such as DNA mutations and natural selection.
Coyne discusses the fossil record, embryos, vestigial structures, the geographic distribution of species, artificial and natural selection, and the origin of species. In the process, (1) he ignores the Cambrian explosion -- which Darwin considered a "serious" problem -- and he rearranges the fossil record to fit Darwin's theory; (2) he defends Ernst Haeckel -- who faked some drawings of vertebrate embryos to provide support for Darwinism -- and he dredges up the doctrine that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny; (3) he claims that much human DNA is useless junk -- despite abundant recent evidence that this is not true -- and he relies on theological arguments that have no legitimate place in natural science; (4) he invokes "the well-known process called convergent evolution" to explain many cases of the geographic distribution of species -- even though the "well-known process" is merely speculation -- and he again falls back on theology to justify a supposedly scientific theory; and (5) he describes examples of natural and artificial selection -- none of which show anything more than minor changes within existing species -- and he misrepresents experimental evidence to make it sound as though the origin of species by natural selection has been directly observed.
Why Evolution Is True reads like a recycled old biology textbook that shamelessly exaggerates the meager evidence for Darwinism, blatantly ignores the mounting evidence against it, and lamely falls back on theological arguments to make its case. Students with access to the evidence and freedom to think critically might nevertheless find Coyne's book useful -- as an example of how not to do science.
In the next few days I will post a series here at ENV detailing the problems with Coyne's book.