http://www.news.appstate.edu/2013/04/09/jerry-coyne/

Did anyone on YC/MMB attend? Can you provide a summary?

I would have liked to have heard him speak, wish I would have had a chance to attend.

moehler wrote:I would have liked to have heard him speak, wish I would have had a chance to attend.

This popped on the ASU Facebook page and I noticed it just before it started. I would imagine it was advertised around campus and in the two science buildings. I assume it was not recorded, but that might be an option.

From Wikipedia
Coyne is an atheist. He claims that religion and science are incompatible, that only rational evaluation of evidence is capable of reliably discovering the world and the way it works, and that scientists who hold religious views are only reflective of the idea "that people can hold two conflicting notions in their heads at the same time". He has argued that the incompatibility of science and faith is based on irreconcilable differences in methodology, philosophy, and outcomes when they try to discern truths about the universe.

Coyne is a critic of creationism[4] including theistic evolution[5][6] and intelligent design, which he calls "the latest pseudoscientific incarnation of religious creationism, cleverly crafted by a new group of enthusiasts to circumvent recent legal restrictions."[7]

seems he has been working on it since 1971 and still hasn't proven it yet......... But its true.

1ASU78 wrote:From Wikipedia
Coyne is an atheist. He claims that religion and science are incompatible, that only rational evaluation of evidence is capable of reliably discovering the world and the way it works, and that scientists who hold religious views are only reflective of the idea "that people can hold two conflicting notions in their heads at the same time". He has argued that the incompatibility of science and faith is based on irreconcilable differences in methodology, philosophy, and outcomes when they try to discern truths about the universe.

Coyne is a critic of creationism[4] including theistic evolution[5][6] and intelligent design, which he calls "the latest pseudoscientific incarnation of religious creationism, cleverly crafted by a new group of enthusiasts to circumvent recent legal restrictions."[7]

seems he has been working on it since 1971 and still hasn't proven it yet......... But its true.

What hasn't he proven? They are incompatible on the fundamental level.

Creationism is delusional idiocy, but as myths go, it's had a pretty good shelf life.

My theory of evolution is that Darwin was adopted.

Steven Wright

If he's right we all have the same probrability of an afterlife, if he's wrong some of us have better odds.

Saint3333 wrote:If he's right we all have the same probrability of an afterlife, if he's wrong some of us have better odds.

I wonder which ones?

Saint3333 wrote:If he's right we all have the same probrability of an afterlife, if he's wrong some of us have better odds.

Yes. Better for him that I be wrong, because if he is, well, the way I read things, he might want to take along a big thermos.

Saint3333 wrote:If he's right we all have the same probrability of an afterlife, if he's wrong some of us have better odds.

This one is my favorite reason people practice a major religion.

appdaze wrote:What hasn't he proven? They are incompatible on the fundamental level.

E.O. Wilson may be of interest. He has a fairly rational take on creation and evolution. (Not necessarily directed at you, but your comment made me think of him.)

McLeansvilleAppFan wrote:http://www.news.appstate.edu/2013/04/09/jerry-coyne/

Did anyone on YC/MMB attend? Can you provide a summary?

Looking at the picture his arms are definitely hairy enough to prove evolution from apes, no wonder he is an expert on the subject.

StumpyCulbreath wrote:Creationism is delusional idiocy, but as myths go, it's had a pretty good shelf life.

Line one of chapter on in the evolution handbook should read. In the beginning nothing became something, something exploded and became everything that exists today. Talk about delusional idiocy.

1ASU78 wrote:From Wikipedia
Coyne is an atheist. He claims that religion and science are incompatible, that only rational evaluation of evidence is capable of reliably discovering the world and the way it works, and that scientists who hold religious views are only reflective of the idea "that people can hold two conflicting notions in their heads at the same time". He has argued that the incompatibility of science and faith is based on irreconcilable differences in methodology, philosophy, and outcomes when they try to discern truths about the universe.

Coyne is a critic of creationism[4] including theistic evolution[5][6] and intelligent design, which he calls "the latest pseudoscientific incarnation of religious creationism, cleverly crafted by a new group of enthusiasts to circumvent recent legal restrictions."[7]

seems he has been working on it since 1971 and still hasn't proven it yet......... But its true.

What a shock! An atheist who has not been able to produce any evidence to support his theory.

Master Kingfish, was there somewhere in my brief statement that I defended atheism? I guess I missed that, you know, lacking your powerful intellect and all.

Let's assume he's right: God is a myth, the Bible is fiction. Therefore, one dies and simply turns to dust. There exists no other possibility.

Let's assume he's wrong: God is real, the Bible is His direction for living one's life. Therefore, one dies and either goes to Heaven or hell. There exists no other possibilities.

The decision is yours.

Kgfish wrote:

1ASU78 wrote:From Wikipedia
Coyne is an atheist. He claims that religion and science are incompatible, that only rational evaluation of evidence is capable of reliably discovering the world and the way it works, and that scientists who hold religious views are only reflective of the idea "that people can hold two conflicting notions in their heads at the same time". He has argued that the incompatibility of science and faith is based on irreconcilable differences in methodology, philosophy, and outcomes when they try to discern truths about the universe.

Coyne is a critic of creationism[4] including theistic evolution[5][6] and intelligent design, which he calls "the latest pseudoscientific incarnation of religious creationism, cleverly crafted by a new group of enthusiasts to circumvent recent legal restrictions."[7]

seems he has been working on it since 1971 and still hasn't proven it yet......... But its true.

What a shock! An atheist who has not been able to produce any evidence to support his theory.

Just to play devils advocate for a second - non-atheists can't really prove anything, either. No one knows, without a shadow of a doubt, what lies in the afterlife. You can believe something in your heart and soul, but that doesn't make it fact for everyone. Maybe, instead of mocking one another (this goes down both sides of the aisle), we should all just peacefully accept each others differences. The world would be a better place.

App74 wrote:Let's assume he's right: God is a myth, the Bible is fiction. Therefore, one dies and simply turns to dust. There exists no other possibility.

Let's assume he's wrong: God is real, the Bible is His direction for living one's life. Therefore, one dies and either goes to Heaven or hell. There exists no other possibilities.

The decision is yours.

Let's assume that God is real but what someone believes about getting to heaven and hell is wrong. Therefore, one believes that he goes to heaven but goes to hell and one that doesn't care goes to heaven.

Maybe the decision isn't so clear.

Maybe when Jesus said "follow me" he didn't mean "out religion your fellow man" but "take care of your fellow man/earth". Wouldn't many of the "saints" end up in hell?

Maybe the people that think kids shouldn't have health care would be leading the "hell" line (since Jesus was the great healer) but I'm not sure.

Kgfish wrote:

1ASU78 wrote:From Wikipedia
Coyne is an atheist. He claims that religion and science are incompatible, that only rational evaluation of evidence is capable of reliably discovering the world and the way it works, and that scientists who hold religious views are only reflective of the idea "that people can hold two conflicting notions in their heads at the same time". He has argued that the incompatibility of science and faith is based on irreconcilable differences in methodology, philosophy, and outcomes when they try to discern truths about the universe.

Coyne is a critic of creationism[4] including theistic evolution[5][6] and intelligent design, which he calls "the latest pseudoscientific incarnation of religious creationism, cleverly crafted by a new group of enthusiasts to circumvent recent legal restrictions."[7]

seems he has been working on it since 1971 and still hasn't proven it yet......... But its true.

What a shock! An atheist who has not been able to produce any evidence to support his theory.

Regardless on which side of the argument you are on the burden of proof is not on atheists, it is on religious folk. Religions are the ones claiming that something exists therefore they are the ones that need to show the proof.

Just as other religions have come and gone over history the ones around now will fade in the future and I'm sure others will pop up and take over. 2000 years from now people will look on our religions as mythology the same way we look on those of the ancient world and the cycle continues.