A few months ago, I reviewed the book, Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne.  This book seemed to me an interesting primer for ex-Christians seeking more information about evolution.

One of my perceptive blog readers, Randy Walthall, disagreed with my review and sent me his own analysis of the book.  I appreciated his perspective (though I disagree on several points) and asked him if I could post it here on the blog.  He heartily agreed.

I would love to get your feedback about his assessment, too.  Feel free to leave your comments for Randy or me below!

Now, here’s Randy…

I must disagree with your rating of Coyne’s book. I think five stars is too high for a book that uses logical fallacies, insults, and guesswork to support its thesis. Coyne’s egotism should cost the book one star.

The book’s title promises a lot. What we get is unsupported dogmatic statements. On page xx we are told “(w)e are observing species splitting into two….” (Coyne uses the plural). Page four tells that there are “many examples of evolution known to occur within a human lifetime.” Coyne does not give us any examples of this. We have art, but no evidence. On page 178 he tells that we can’t see new species develop in our lifetime. Which is it?

Evolution is about origins and development. Coyne forfeits the origins half of his theory when he tells us (p.3) that it all began with “perhaps a self-replicating molecule.” Perhaps is an admission of ignorance. (On pages xvi and 233 he does not use “perhaps.”) This is worse than speculation. What is the chemical composition of this molecule? Do any exist? Why did they stop self-replicating? Is there even a theory in physics or chemistry that will support this statement? On page 22 he admits he has no “window…at all into the origin of life.”

Coyne tells us that “evolutionary pressures wax and wane.” (p4) What are these pressures? How is the waxing and waning effected?

Coyne engages in speculation when he explains (p. 6) how groups grow apart and become incompatible. The most silly is what I call the Ugly Theory. No evidence, just assertion.

Coyne tells us that all vertebrates descended from a common ancestor (p. and that reptiles and mammals (p.9) “must” have had a common ancestor. How does he know this? Could not there have been parallel lines of descent from different self-replicating molecules? What in evolutionary theory precludes this?

On page 12 Coyne notes the slow process that sea turtles use to bury their eggs. He notes that this exposes the eggs to predators. It also exposes the turtles, but he does not note that. He fails to tell us that predators benefit from this but not to the extinction of the turtles. Coyne thinks that if the turtles had flippers more suited for digging that the turtles would not swim as well. How does he know this? This betrays the presuppositions underlying the book: I know all or at least enough.

Coyne fails to consider environmental changes. He cites plankton (p.29-30) as an example of evolutionary change. He points to the differences in the number of chambers in the final whorl of the shell. What caused this? Evolution of course! Environmental considerations are not mentioned. Could they have been a factor? He does not say. Are the different plankton of the same maturity? He does not say. Yet on page 30 he tells us that environmental changes explain the differences in the fossils of another creature. It is all related to natural selection, he says. How?

Is the recent news that North Koreans are on average an inch shorter than South Koreans an example of evolution? How do we know?

With the trilobites evolution can even go backwards. This is Coyne’s operating principle: always interpret the evidence to support evolution. See, the fossils prove it. Case closed. This is bad science. If size and shape variations are evolution, then the mesomorph, endomorph and ectomorph distinctions are valid.

Coyne openly guesses. Page 34 is all speculation about bird evolution. He says “we can guess that the common ancestor of birds and reptiles was a ancient reptile.” He “knows” the common ancestor of reptiles and birds was a dinosaur. “Its overall appearance would give few clues that it was indeed a ‘missing link’ –that one lineage of descendants would later give rise to all modern birds, and the other to more dinosaurs. Truly birdlike traits such as wings and large breastbone for anchoring the flight muscles, would have evolved only later on the branch leading to birds. As that lineage itself progressed from reptiles to birds, it sprouted off many species having mixtures of reptile-like and birdlike traits. Some of the species went extinct, while others continued into what are now modern birds.” (p.34-35) How? With what evidence?

Coyne appeals to transitional forms. In a from-the-sea-to-the-land progression these creatures evolved, he sites the fossils. But which way did they go? Could they have gone instead from land to the sea? He says this of whales. (p51) It is another case of interpret the evidence to fit the theory. Coyne cannot even prove the “transitional forms” are really transitional. He would need an unbroken series of transitions to do this.

Even his claim that reptiles came before birds is suspect. It is impossible to prove. He would need omniscience to state categorically what he states categorically.

Coyne makes more claims that cannot be proven. The Tiktaalik mentioned is supposed to be the “direct link between earlier lobe-finned fish and later amphibians.” (p.37) First he tells us that Tiktaalik “probably breathe above the surface.” But on page page 38 he tells us that this same creature had lungs and gills so it “could breathe both ways.” Which is it? Probably or definitely?

“Probably” is one of Coyne’s favorite words. He uses that word repeatedly, along with it synonyms. When he needs to have evidence of transitional forms, he is dogmatic. There is no doubt. But when he tries to explain the mechanics, it all probably, perhaps, and may.

Coyne’s tentative language is a big problem with the book. He uses these words continually. Do a word count on some randomly selected pages. I did four pages and averaged two tentative qualifiers per page. This language is a verbal mask he hides behind. With such language it is impossible to pin him down on many of his statements. These words camouflage the vacuity of much of what he says.

Coyne does not let the lack of evidence stop him. On page 51 we are told of Pakicetus. Actually, we are told only of its skull. That is all there is. From this Coyne tells us that “it or its close relative would give rise to a dramatic evolutionary radiation.” All this from a skull. What did the rest of this thing look like? Without the rest of the body how can Coyne tell us “it or its close relatives” did anything? Could this be one of those evolutionary dead ends? What close relatives? He is guessing. He makes this all up. He has no evidence. He passes this off as science. It is junk, but the art on page 50 is nice.

Coyne uses his imagination with the ostrich. (p57) The bird’s wings are vestiges. He does not know this. He just states it. Why are the wings not considered to be evolving so that one day the ostrich will fly? Because the idea of vestiges is essential to evolutionary theory; therefore, no other explanation is considered. Make the evidence fit the theory.

Coyne tries to explain the loss of flight among the ratites (p. 58-59) by saying that in the southern hemisphere there are fewer mammalian predators. Think about this! Fewer predators means more of the prey species. More of the prey species means more predators survive long enough to reproduce. This is well known. When plotted on a graph it is a pair of out-of-phase sine waves. Coyne’s argument make no sense. Furthermore, fewer mammalian predators does not mean fewer predators overall.

Coyne speculates that energy saved by losing flight ability “could” go into reproduction. It is good to give probably a rest. Coyne tries to have it both ways. Metabolic economy in the flightless birds but escape from predators in the flying birds. But what advantage is there in useless wings? He does not say. Nor does he say why useless vestiges do not lead to the extinction of the species. Useless means waste. Waste leads to death.

The issue of vestigial organs is working against evolution. The list of human vestiges has been continually shrinking. The most recent deletion from the list is the appendix. Coyne was not informed about this. On page 60 he call the appendix “the most famous” of human vestiges. He backtracks by admitting that the appendix has some uses.

The issue of vestigial organs raises the issue of the ignorance of science. As research advances, the number of vestigial features declines. The trend is against Coyne. Coyne’s tacit assumption is that if it is not explainable, it must be a vestige. Here Coyne would be wise to be tentative.

On page 62 he discusses the coccyx. Read this paragraph. It is a giant case of begging the question. “It still has a function (some useful muscles attach to it), but remember that its vestigiality is diagnosed not by its usefulness but because it no longer has the function for which it originally evolved.”

On page 75 Coyne mentions human embryonic gill slits. This was Ernst Haeckel’s deception. This idea has been thoroughly discredited and exposed as a fraud. It is outrageous that Coyne mentions this. It is worse that Coyne tries to defend Haeckel. Evolutionists groan about Haeckel. Stephen Gould was upset that this fraud is still found in modern science textbooks.

Coyne’s section on Bad Designs is a case of arrogance. What he cannot understand he considers as a bad design. Coyne gives no thought to the possibility that there may be yet an use for what he considers bad design. Coyne’s opinion assumes omniscience. He offers no alternatives. He forgets that the principle of evolution may be using a “nefarious organ” (another reference to the human appendix p. 81) to kill off a species. He contradicts his own principle.

Coyne further contradicts his principle when he discusses the prickly pear’s introduction into and spread within Australia (p.91). Why should not the pear dominate it new environment? Isn’t this evolution’s way? Isn’t it an evolutionary principle that the new, fitter species displaces the weaker? On page 110 he tells us, “Evolutionary theory predicts that many animals and plants arriving in new and unoccupied habitats will evolve to thrive there, and will form new species, filling up ecological niches.” Men are evolution’s product, so is their introducing the pear a way evolution works? If not, what evolutionary principle contradicts this?

On page 121 Coyne gives an unsupported assertion: “This [symbiosis] is a direct prediction of evolution , and one that does not follow from the notion of special creation or intelligent design.” He does not tell us how it does not follow. How does symbiosis contradict special creation? Assertions are not evidence nor logic.

Coyne tries to use dog breeding as an example of evolution. The problem is that however dogs are bred, they always produce dogs. For dog breeding to be an example of evolution, we would need a dog to produce a lobster. By Coyne’s thinking, since each human is different from every other human, each person is a new species.

In dealing with drug-resistant bacteria (p.131) Coyne assumes that the bacteria evolved. He make the unsupported statement that penicillin could “wipe out every strain of staph in the world.” He then states that the bacteria evolved a resistance to the drug. Where did the bacteria get this new genetic information? How did it know to use it? Was this a case of evolution or a case of penicillin’s not quite killing every single germ because some of the bacteria had a prior natural immunity to penicillin? Was penicillin originally so effective because it killed most of the bacteria, allowing the body’s natural defenses to kill the rest? Was Typhoid Mary a new species of human?

Coyne tries to deal with the information increase on page 131, but he just dodges the issue. He claims that evolutionists do not need to explain because it is impossible to do so. Coyne did not accept this argument when it came from the creationists. This necessity to explain is the basis of his “Bad Designs” section.

Further, Coyne begs the question. He cites Doolittle’s and Zhaxybayeva’s explanation of the unexplainable evolution of the flagella: “Evolutionist need not take on the impossible challenge of pinning down every detail of flagellar evolution. We need only show that such a development, involving processes and constituents not unlike those we already know and can agree upon, is feasible.” We already know it is true, so we do not have to prove it. This is bad science and bad logic.

Coyne then defines their use of “feasible.” “[B]y ‘feasible,’ they mean that there must be evolutionary precursors of each new trait, and that evolution of that trait does not violate the Darwinian requirement that each step in the building an adaptation benefits its possessor.” Coyne does not apply this to his “nefarious organ,” the human appendix. Nor does he apply it to the flagella in question. How does a partial flagella benefit an organism? Is this not a waste of metabolic energy that could go into reproduction? That was his argument on pages 58-59 when he was discussing the flightless birds.

Coyne even contradicts his vestigial argument by mentioning his ability to wiggle his ears. Aside from pandering to his vanity (he also mentions that he was a graduate student in Boston, hint, hint; that he attended Harvard as a graduate student; and became close friends with a famous person but you can’t disprove this because he is now dead) by demonstrating this in class so his students (at least the smarter ones) will laugh at him, this trait could be interpreted as progress in evolution. It is easy to assume that this ability is evolution’s way of improving human hearing. Why does Coyne think that this is a vestige that wastes metabolic energy that could go into reproduction? I will leave it to others to determine if this is a chick magnet.

Coyne says there no evidence disproving evolution. What would he accept? He tells us that “(d)espite a million chances to get it wrong, evolution always comes up right.” (p.223) What chance is there to get it wrong? If his predictions are not fulfilled he can say that we just have not looked in the right place. If we had only dug a foot over, a meter deeper, on the other bank of the river on the larger island. How can you disagree with this? What would disprove evolution? This is a major problem with the theory. If something cannot possibility be falsified it is not a good theory. This principle is valid in all other branches of the natural sciences. Why not in evolution?

In criticizing the creationists, Coyne tells us that “if you can’t think of an observation that would disprove a theory, that theory simply isn’t scientific.” What observation would disprove evolution? Coyne gives us none. Apply this dictum to evolution.

Coyne tells us that evolution is very slow, except when it’s fast, unless it is not working for the moment. Evolution always goes forward, except when it goes backwards. Evolution is successful except when it creates dead ends. Evolution is always proven right although there is no stated way it could be proven wrong. Sounds like evolution should be spelled Evolution. This is not science. It is scientism.

Coyne tells us that ‘(w)e should be deeply suspicious of speculations that come unaccompanied by hard evidence.” (p.230) We should. Now delete from Coyne’s book all such speculation.

Coyne insults his opponents. On page xx he tells us that “enlightened religion always found a way to accommodate the advances of science.” You are not enlightened if you disagree with him. It is an implied ad hominem argument. It is also begging the question. He demeans “supernatural explanations” as “always mean the end of inquiry: that’s the way God wants it, end of story.” (p.225) Faraday, Watt, and Maxwell must not of thought so. They even have scientific units named after them.

Coyne is a materialist. He admits this in his last chapter. Coyne’s shahada is “There is no god but Materialism, and Darwin is its prophet.” Today materialism is a major force. Evolutionary thought dominates the academy. But the history of science is a story of discarded theories. Kuhn in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions noted that theories tend to change when their proponents are replaced by the younger scientists. Neils Bohr is said to have stated that science progresses one funeral at a time. In physics it is string theory, in economics it is Keynesianism, disagree at your peril. Jun-Yuan Chen stated that “In China we can criticize Darwin but not the government. In America you can criticize the government, but not Darwin.” Coyne need not worry: Darwin is safe, for the moment.

Coyne fails. He uses made up evidence, forced interpretations, bad logic, speculation, and vague language. You need go no further than the book’s cover. It tells you exactly what is in the book. By looking at the cover the reader is given the impression that the art represents the process of evolution. The explanation on the inside back flap disabuses the reader. It is all cobbled together out of unrelated parts. The cover really does tell us what is in the book. Creationists could not ask for a better opponent than Jerry Coyne.

Science answers question. Since Coyne is a scientist, I have a few to ask him:

At what time did pre-humans become human? When would killing one of them have been murder?

Divide modern humans any way you want. Which group is the most evolutionary advanced? Which is the least?

If humans continue to evolve, when do they become super-human? If they evolve backwards, when do they become sub-human. Would the super-humans be justified in killing off the inferior species?

What happens if a lower species become better than the humans?

Is homosexuality a evolutionary dead-end? You said “it is reproduction, not survival, that determines which genes make it to the next generation and cause evolution.” (p.120)

Regards,

Randy