Proverbs 21:30

Lying for Darwin


Over the past couple of months at Jerry Coyne’s blog, Why Evolution Is True, he and Matthew Cobb have written several blog posts attacking Stephen Meyer’s Signature in the Cell — by my count, five posts. The most recent by Coyne accuses Meyer of dishonesty:

    Meyer does not mean well. He is spreading lies and confusing people by distorting real science. Is that the unfortunate result of “meaning well”? Do you think that because somebody is a “Christian brother,” he’s incapable of lying for Jesus?

Isn’t it strange, though, that for all the persistent attacks on Meyer, in quite personal terms, Professor Coyne hasn’t dared to actually read Steve’s book? That’s obvious because Coyne’s throwaway summary of its contents — Signature “maintains that cells must have been designed by God because they’re too complex to have evolved” — is an absurd misrepresentation. Even someone who had only read reviews of the book would know as much.




January 30, 2010 - Posted by | Uncategorized


  1. Same old tired ad-hominem attacks from people too lazy or too uninformed to address Myers arguments directly. I’ll admit, SITC is a long read – over 700 pages and footnoted heavily. But much of it is very readable to the laymen and his arguments are framed in a narrative style that makes it very engaging. I’ve yet to hear any real challenges to this very significant work from the Darwanists.


    Comment by 2bberean | January 31, 2010

  2. that’s because you suffer from confirmation bias. you’re only interested hearing things that confirm your religious views. there are no data to support intelligent design or creationism. ID is a religious movement and the reason you support it is your religious faith.

    Comment by jack | January 31, 2010

  3. The pot calls the kettle black.

    Comment by Tim | January 31, 2010

  4. Hey, Jack – nice to hear you confirming my assertion above. Yet again we see an ad-hominem attack, claiming I suffer from a bias, and also claiming that there are no data to support ID. Here’s an idea – why don’t you read the book, and instead of making such foolish statements as “the reason you support it is is your religious faith”, make the attemp to refute Myer’s research with some actual data of your own. Then we can have a conversation. Then you might actually ask me the reasons I support his conclusions rather than simply making stupid assertions.


    Comment by 2bberean | January 31, 2010

  5. Hey Jack – there is no ‘vile slander’ on this site. Take a hike.

    Comment by Tim | January 31, 2010

  6. Well done, Jack – once again you don’t deal with any of the arguments offered in Meyer’s book, but simply attack away, dismissivly. BTW, I’m hardly fainting over your ad-hominems, just pointing out how weak and mis-directed they are. I made no claim about my religious beliefs at all, so once again you avoid the argument completely, simply charging me with being dishonest, and that based entirely on your own assumptions. Do everyone a favour and read the book, look at the evidence for Meyer’s claims and then comment. If, after that, you still consider ID to be in line with astrology, alchemy, and witch hunting, and you can offer some evidence to support such a claim, then we’ll have the basis for a discussion. Until then, try to address the actual facts, rather than just spouting insults – it does nothing to further the conversation.


    Comment by 2B Berean | January 31, 2010

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: