Why don't you read his book? YouTube videos don't even scratch the surface of the evidence he presents in his book.
I have no interest in reading his book for the same reason I have no interest in watching any more of his videos. I watched them but not to hear "evidence" for evolution....I watch them for a whole range of reasons, one of which is to hear "what" he was saying and "how" he said it.
If you watch his videos, he has the same air of superiority that Dawkins demonstrates. He uses derision to make people feel stupid if they don't accept science's "evidence". He uses ridicule to shame people into believing what science presents as "evidence" and
why they should believe it.....even though there is no real proof for any of it. If evolution is a fact, then why is it still called a theory?....oh, I know, it's because science is not about proof or facts.....its about what "might have" or "could have" taken place on earth at a time when there was no one around to document a thing. And don't ask them about how life began...that has nothing to do with them.
Even in that short promo for his book we hear things like...'
Evolution is the best idea anyone ever had ', followed by the claim that it is one of our '
greatest intellectual achievements'. So with that idea firmly planted in the hearer's mind before he even begins, where is the reader or the viewer taken right off the bat? Do we understand the power of suggestion when it is made by someone with credentials? The thing we have to ask is who gave these people their credentials? Who taught them everything they know? And who do they pass their teachings on to? No one is born with knowledge...it all has to be learned. We become the disciples of our teachers. But what if our teachers are dead wrong?
The most amazing thing that Coyne admits is that so many "believe" in evolution without knowing what it is. Imagine! People will accept the truth of evolution without any real education about it.
Coyne has to tell people" its more than a theory, but is true".
He then speaks about 'creeping opposition' to evolution in America and Britain and claims to want to give people "ammunition" to help them defend their beliefs.....how strange that evolutionists are now having to 'defend' their theory in the light of people becoming skeptical about it actually being provable. There is an equally large body of evidence that indicates that science makes things up and passes them off as facts.
He says it isn't just one theory, but a group of theories and supported by many branches of science...but is it?
Could it be that in academic circles, pride plays a greater part in its teachings than actual truth? Could it be that the 'branches' are all attached to the same tree?
How much can science actually 'prove' as opposed to what they suggest "might be" or "could be" the truth?
We need to really listen to what these men are saying as opposed to what we assume they are saying. There is a reason for the "creeping opposition".....people need more than educated guesses and supposition to base their future on.
The lines of evidence are not really all that convincing when you look at them more closely....
Embryology for example....
"Embryology is defined as the branch of biology and medicine that studies embryos and how they develop. The study of how human embryos develop from fertilization to birth is an example of embryology."
Why is a similarity in the way embryos develop a proof of evolution? It has to be read into the process because it isn't evident right off the bat. Unless scientists led you to believe that it was, you wouldn't automatically assume it. In each organism, the DNA codes for what that creature will become. The cells will form body parts according to the information in that code....who wrote the code? Information doesn't come from nowhere. It has to come from an intelligent source.
Vestigial organs is another one cited by Coyne....
One site I looked up said this...
"If living beings developed by evolution, not only organs would have to be formed totally new. It would also have to be expected that already existing organs were altered or even reduced in time. An evolutionary process obviously cannot be “closed for renovation” (G. Osche), the living beings on the contrary have to be capable of surviving in every generation. The hypothetical process of evolution preferentially “carries on building” on whatever already exists: reconstruction instead of new construction. In other words, if a structure is not needed anymore, e.g. because of altered environmental factors or after occupying a new habitat it can atrophy or even disappear totally in time."
Vestigial organs (Interested)
How does one recognize a vestigial organ? Only by assumption based on a pre-conceived idea.
Muscle movements are also interpreted as "left-overs" from evolution.....another assumption. No real evidence for this one except the suggestion.
What about "faulty design"? The same site also says...
"The argumentation is, that during the course of evolution often only reorganization can be made, which leads to suboptimal constructions and even constructional flaws. In this sense, an argument of imperfection is introduced. This imperfection is seen as an indication for evolution, because evolutionary reorganization often only allows imperfect solutions.
The chiasm of mammalian oesophagus and windpipe is occasionally cited as an example. Because of the danger of choking this construction seems to be suboptimal and a phylogenetically caused faulty design. On the other hand, a missing chiasm would place the oesophagus right in front of the heart, which would mean its strangulation in the case of an enlarged heart. Besides the chiasm has some advantages: Phlegm that is transported upwards through the windpipe can take its way down the oesophagus. Besides, this construction allows mouth breathing, which is a thankworthy construction under stress, when expectorating foreign bodies or having a cold. Furthermore, the construction is space-saving. A discrepancy of structure and function does not exist."
Do you see why there is "creeping opposition" to evolution as people hear the other side of the argument, which students will not hear discussed in their lecture theatres.There is no end of reading material online for both sides of this story, so each can evaluate for themselves what makes more sense.
Coyne's work is nothing but a load of unsubstantiated supposition IMO, as is Dawkins'. Both rely on scant evidence and lots of suggestion. If the scientific community falls for this so called "evidence", based on little but the wishful thinking of evolutionary scientists, then the "creeping" will continue among those who can not so easily dismiss an Intelligent Designer of the whole process.
