subscribe to the RSS Feed

Sunday, December 21, 2014

Dr. Coyne Won’t Debate

Posted by jlwile on March 15, 2010

The AP article that tried unsuccessfully to discredit the biology text I co-authored as well as the biology text published by Bob Jones University Press is still causing a bit of a stir. This morning, a radio talk show host name Adam McManus sent an invitation to both me and Prof. Jerry Coyne to be on his show to debate the merits of the article. Of course, I agreed right away, since I have no fear of debating anyone on the creation/evolution issue. After all, the facts are on my side. Why wouldn’t I want to debate them?

Well, Dr. Coyne refused to be on the program with me. Mr. McManus then wrote him back trying to convince him that he should do the debate. Mr. McManus even implied that Dr. Coyne seemed afraid to debate. Dr. Coyne still refused, claiming that it wasn’t fear. He said he would be glad to appear by himself, but not with me, because that would give me an air of legitimacy that he does not want to give me.

I find that attitude very interesting. I am not sure why debating someone gives him or her an air of legitimacy. In fact, I think not debating someone gives him or her an air of legitimacy. After all, if you are willing to publicly debate someone, it generally means you think you have the ability to show that the person’s position is wrong. If you refuse to debate someone, it looks more like you are afraid of that person’s arguments. To me, that makes the person’s case look more legitimate and, in fact, superior to yours.

So….even though it is not going to be nearly as interesting, I will be on by myself on March 24th at 5:00 Central time. Dr. Coyne might be on after me or at some other time. I don’t know. The station is AM 630, KSLR.

Comments

14 Responses to “Dr. Coyne Won’t Debate”
  1. Good news: Coyne is on the radio tomorrow! Topic – homeschooling:

    “Why is the religious right dumbing down homeschooled kids? Thom talks with Professor Jerry Coyne of the University of Chicago about the missing link in textbooks…evolution”

    Thom Hartman’s show, 1 pm ET hour. Call in and Coyne will have no choice but to answer. 866-987-THOM (8466).

  2. Ben Michael Fournier says:

    Shooter, if Dr. Wile called in, then he’d be treated as a questioner rather than an equal. Coyne would probably prefer that since he could silence Dr. Wile and have the last word… what he wants anyway. What Coyne wont have is a debate where both members get treated to equal allotments of time and equal number of rebuttals of their opponents.

  3. jlwile says:

    Shooter, some of us work for a living. I didn’t check my blog until today at around 4 PM. Despite what Ben said, I would have called. Dr. Coyne needs all the help he can get, since the data are not on his side. Thus, I wouldn’t mind being just a caller. However, since he seems too afraid to debate me, I expect he would end the call pretty quickly. I would even enjoy that, however, as it would further demonstrate his fear of the creationist position.

    Of course, the myriads of success stories given to us by students who use our curriculum show that the title of the program goes against the facts. Then again, evolutionists are experts at going against the facts, so there’s really nothing unusual about that.

  4. Amanda Read says:

    “Dr. Coyne still refused, claiming that it wasn’t fear. He said he would be glad to appear by himself, but not with me, because that would give me an air of legitimacy that he does not want to give me.”

    Such arrogance! That’s wild.

    It is amazing (though I suppose not too surprising now that I think about it) how that AP article stirred up so much controversy. I’ve received more comments than I have in a long time – it’s as though atheists and evolutionists are hovering over my blog like buzzards waiting to pick apart every sentence I write. Boy, do they write so much so fast and furious! I love the above point you made about some of us working for a living. I’m starting to wonder if some commenters have lives at all. ;-)

    ~Amanda~

  5. Ben Michael Fournier says:

    Amanda,

    I haven’t been able to find work since 2007, and employers always give excuses about slow business and being fully staffed, so it’s not necessarily an unemployed person’s fault that they are unemployed. I am in college, since July 2009, studying Accounting so that I may get a well paying job hopefully. In May, my fiancee and I get married. Making a point about people on the basis of whether they are employed or unemployed targets more than just a single group to say the least.

    Atheists and other evolutionist do write quickly and vehemently though, and like you said, they go after every error or anything to them which they think is an error and magnify it to an absurd degree so as to attempt to make their opponents look bad and by that they think they look better… really though, it is fairly much just bullying.

  6. Amanda Read says:

    Well Ben, I didn’t mean it THAT personally. I don’t think Dr. Wile did either. I didn’t intend the comment as part of the argument, I just found it funny. I’m in college too, by the way, for a variety of reasons. A particular commenter on my blog kept giving me a hard time about not responding, to which I tried to explain that I had other things to do (they would have to wait until my Spring Break). Now that Spring Break has arrived, I posted an article, and the first comment I received was along the lines of, “Oh, you don’t have time to respond to my comments, but time to write a whole post? A miracle!” (!?!)

    So, now my points in the article are being ignored while repetitive things are brought up.

    Your last paragraph is right on. I start regretting even responding to them in comments, because Comment Wars are ugly. But they don’t seem to have the patience to read an entire article. I think it’s because they want me to talk to them about what they feel comfortable with. The current tease is:

    “Amanda wrote “But you have no reason to assert that Evolution is science and Creation is not. ”

    Now you know that’s a lie amanda. How many times have I pointed out to you that following the scientific method makes a theory a part of science.

    If creationism is science then point out how it can be falsified. Go on. What would you accept as evidence that creationism is false? Or don’t you have the time to respond anymore?”

    ~Amanda~

  7. Mrs. D says:

    It is true that Dr. Coyne refusing to be in a debate looks a little arrogant. He probably is afraid for his own career. Should he lose the debate it would certainly make him look like a fool in front of many fellows. I am not sure if that is the reason since I’m not thinking his thoughts, but by all appearances it would seem to be the case. My opinion is that science textbooks written for use in the public schools in America ought to be destroyed. Think of what they are teaching our youth to be fact… Global Warming, Darwinianism, and many other BIG LIES. Might as well include Santa Claus in the mix!

  8. Everyone,

    The call-in / debate is not a big deal to me, but I would like to correct the idea that Dr. Coyne would have the power of silencing a caller. He’s not in the control room and was at the mercy of the host, exactly like any caller would be.

    Mrs. D,

    What argument for the non-existence of Santa Claus cannot be applied to the non-existence of God?

  9. jlwile says:

    Amanda, you might ask your commenters how evolution can be falsified. It cannot be. The predictions of evolution have been falsified over and over again, and the evolutionists just come up with special pleading to explain around the data. I agree that creationism cannot be falsified, but neither can evolution. However, their specific predictions can be. For example, creationists predicted that little if any of the genome is “junk DNA.” Evolutionists predicted the vast majority of the genome is “junk DNA.” The creationist prediction has been demonstrated correct, since we now know the majority of the genome is functional.

  10. jlwile says:

    I expect the call-in/debate is more important to Shooter than he is willing to admit. After all, one of his high priests is too afraid of creationism to defend the scientific dogma of the day against a lone nuclear chemist. I expect Shooter wanted a chance for his high priest to redeem himself.

  11. Amanda Read says:

    Thank you so much for that suggestion and the links, Dr. Wile!

    ~Amanda~

  12. Ben Michael Fournier says:

    You know Dr. Wile, when you put it as “against a lone nuclear chemist” that actually sounds quite formidable. Not just in terms of debate, but also in terms of combat. :P

    I’m glad for the work you’ve done in writing, co-authoring, and publishing as it has helped me and a lot of other homeschoolers to understand scientific subjects which would normally be boring as well as utilized for propaganda in government schools.

  13. Josiah says:

    You aren’t quite being fair, saying “a lone nuclear chemist” as though Dr. Coyne had the ability to duplicate himself.

  14. Ben Michael Fournier says:

    Actually Josiah, usually evolutionists argue to the effect that only scientists with degrees in biological science can understand evolutionism. This is not their exact formulation of it, but basically it is a allegation of ad vericundium. Also, they try to keep the term “evolution” to referring only to its biological aspect so that they can claim to argue “properly” on the basis of authority.

home | top