Egnor’s response to Jerry Coyne is false, misleading, and deceitful

Michael Egnor has posted a reply to Jerry Coyne’s criticism of him in regards to an article he wrote for Forbes magazine.  His reply is filled with the usual Intelligent Design (ID) tactics that we have grown to know and love.  The post is found on the Discovery Institute’s evolution news and views blog and is entitled: My Reply to Jerry Coyne: Why Darwinism is False.

This post really bugged me. Almost every single sentence in this piece of garbage is wrong.  It is filled with logical fallacies, misrepresentations of evolutionists point of view, and denial of evidence.  Jerry Coyne astutely pointed to the evidence for evolution and the reasons not to believe in this repackaged creationism called intelligent design.  Egnor is really grasping at straws to come up with decent counter arguments.  He fails.

Lets start by reviewing Coyne’s excellent points in support of evolution (as illustrated by Egnor):

  • basic tenants of evolution are undeniable to genuine scientists
  • ID proponents are decades out of date on research
  • ID proponents are blinded by faith
  • Fossil record shows transitional fossils, like those predicted by Darwin
  • Dead genes illustrate a record of evolution 

Of course there is more to Coyne’s article than what I have listed, and I suggest you read it.  For the rest of this post, I am going to quote directly from Egnor’s post and respond appropriately.

As evidence for Darwinism, Coyne cites the fossil record. But the fossil record lacks the innumerable transitional forms predicted by Darwin’s theory.

The dozens of transitional forms found already is not enough for Egnor  The fact that these fossils are found in predicted paleo-geographic regions is fantastic evidence to support evolution.  This is simple denial of the evidence.

Coyne cites the existence of “dead genes” as evidence for Darwin’s unguided process and evidence against intelligent design. But data from the genome projects show that most—perhaps all—of what was previously thought to be “junk DNA” is in fact functional.  Following Coyne’s logic, the recent scientific literature actually provides evidence against Darwinism and for intelligent design.

No. There are still "dead genes" There is still a lot of "junk DNA" that still has no known function. Much of the DNA that ID proponents call “junk DNA” has had known functions for decades.  Besides, even if every single molecule of DNA had a beneficial function, that would not disprove evolution in the slightest.  How does this provide evidence for intelligent design? I guess because the only supposed evidence for intelligent design is when there are perceived weaknesses in evolutionary theory.

But ID claims only that we can infer from evidence that some features of living things are better explained by an intelligent cause than by unguided natural processes. ID is not an argument from ignorance, and it does not explain things by saying “God did it.”

They “infer”?  So essentially he is saying is that they have a gut feeling that things are designed but no evidence.  They are essentially saying, we don’t understand how something could have arisen without being designed.  Isn’t that an argument from ignorance?  Besides, how is describing poorly-designed systems a better explanation than evolution?

biomolecules translate the DNA code into functional proteins such as enzymes. Still other molecules are motors, or energy-producing factories, or intricate surface channels that regulate the cell’s interactions with the outside world. Darwinists claim that all of this originated from random mutations and unguided natural selection, without design.

NO! it is not unguided. it is guided by survival and reproduction. Is their a stronger mode of selection? I don’t think so.

Yet there isn’t a single detailed, evidence-based explanation for the evolution of any biomolecule from primordial precursors. All Darwinists have to offer are “just-so” stories about how biomolecules might have originated.

If that isn’t the definition of an argument from ignorance than I don’t know what is.

We have extensive knowledge of computer codes, motors and energy-producing factories. All of them are designed. The more we learn about living cells, the more they look like things that can only be made by design

As someone who studies the internal workings of living cells, I disagree. The more we look at living cells, the more it looks like a haphazard collection of molecules. It has to work or it would be either dead or out-competed by a better system.

Modern cell biology implicitly accepts this and consists essentially of reverse engineering.

How else are we going to figure something out? Besides, it actually isn’t true. There is a whole new field of biology where the scientists are trying to artificially synthetic cells.

Darwinists detest intelligent design theory because it is compatible with belief in God

No, we detest intelligent design because it is pseudoscience with the only thing backing it up is this gut feeling that things look "designed."  Even if every single person studying evolution were Satanists, the data is still points to evolution..


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: