Atheist Jerry Coyne Reviews a BioLogos Book on Evolution…Even Though He Didn’t Bother to Read It! (Part 1)

The other day I came across a short book review by Jerry Coyne, the well-known atheist and biology professor at the University of Chicago. It was entitled, “The Intellectual Vacuity of Theistic Evolution: A New Book from BioLogos.” Just this past May, Coyne published the book, Faith vs. Fact: Why Science and Religion are Incompatible. I haven’t read the book—after reading books by Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens, I’ve had to detox from books by militant atheists for awhile.

In any case, Coyne wrote a short book review of How I Changed My Mind About Evolution: Evangelicals Reflect on Faith and Science, the most recent book that has come from BioLogos. As the title suggests, the book is a collection of short essays by Evangelical scientists, pastors, biblical scholars, theologians and philosophers, in which they tell how they came to accept evolution as the means by which God creates the natural world. I’m about half way through the book, and it is very enjoyable and easy-to-read. The aim of the book is obvious: to ease the fears of many in the Evangelical world about evolution. It’s not the boogey-man, it’s not atheistic religion—it’s just a scientific theory that has discovered some pretty amazing things about the world. Simply put, you can be a Christian and be okay with evolutionary theory.

It is safe to say that the folks at Answers in Genesis will not like this book—I expect at some point they will write their own book review of it, and include insinuations about “those so-called Christians,” and pepper their review with the standard AiG talking points: “the serpent’s lie,” “there are two kinds of science,” “God’s infallible Word or man’s fallible opinion,” “evolution isn’t a salvation issue, but it really is,” etc. etc.

Simply put, BioLogos is going to “get it” from young earth creationists.

But BioLogos won’t just get it from AiG—they, as Jerry Coyne’s book review makes clear, are going to “get it” from the new atheist movement as well. As I’ve said in other posts, this should not be surprising, for at heart—at the fundamental worldview level—young earth creationists and the “new atheists” are each other’s doppelganger. Coyne claims theistic evolution is vacuous (i.e. empty-headed and unintelligent). Let’s check his own arguments, to see if there is a sound of a vacuum to them.

Coyne’s Beef
Now, one might think that a scientist and an atheist like Jerry Coyne would be thrilled that BioLogos is trying to convince the Evangelical world that evolution is true. Well, he’s not…and he wrote a book review to show why he’s not.

The first thing I noticed about the book review that gave me pause was Coyne’s admission, right at the start, that he hadn’t yet read the book. His review is based on what some of the authors and editors have said about the book. More specifically, his review is based on another article about the book, as well as the summary of the book that BioLogos put out.

This struck me as rather funny…and typical for both young earth creationists and the new atheist movement: each group “already knows” their conclusions before they even investigate or pick up a book. In any case, it should be obvious: Coyne isn’t so much reviewing the book—he’s just using the book as an excuse to put forth his own ideas regarding the relationship between science and religion, namely they’re incompatible (“so I don’t need to read a book in which other scientists and philosophers disagree with me on this point—I already know I’m right!”).

Perhaps that is too harsh on my part. In any case, here are Coyne’s specific objections to the book (that he hasn’t read):

First, Coyne says the book is a farrago (i.e. mishmash) of naturalism and supernaturalism. Some of the contributors, although they accept evolution, nevertheless believe in the historicity of Adam and Eve, even though, as Coyne points out, genetics have proven that to be impossible.

Second, Coyne also has a problem with theistic evolution. He describes it as “the doctrine that in some way God impelled the evolutionary process, usually toward Homo sapiens.” He finds to be similar to deism: God just wound the clock up, and let evolution do the rest, but somehow still guided the process to produce human beings.

Because of this, Coyne concludes that theistic evolution is not the kind of thing we should want taught in schools. He then gives three reasons:

1. Theistic evolution, for Coyne, invokes God in the process, and thus is a violation of naturalism. We don’t have “theistic physics” or “theistic chemistry,” so why “theistic evolution”?
2. The notion of theistic evolution is rooted in teleology: namely, that the evolutionary process is directional and “upwards,” with the creation of human beings being the goal. But there’s no evidence for such teleological guidance, Coyne claims. Besides, if that was the case, how can anyone explain the sheer waste of evolution? The vast majority of life forms on earth are now extinct: If there was a God, then why did he do it that way?
3. Finally, one of the wonders of evolution, Coyne says, is that natural selection is a mindless, purposeless process—and that somehow it has produced such marvelous variety in the plant and animal kingdom. By showing that “the diversity of life could all be explained by the simple sorting of hereditary variations in populations,” evolution dispelled the evidence (or need) for God. Coyne claims that what makes evolution “so marvelous” is that “you realize that these fantastically intricate creatures are the products of evolution over billions of years, starting only with a few inanimate molecules, and that nothing guided that save the exigencies of the environment.”

Evolution…and Adam and Eve?
Here are my thoughts regarding Coyne’s book review of the book he hadn’t read. Let’s get right to it.

First, regarding some of the contributors accepting evolution but also accepting the historicity of Adam and Eve—Coyne actually has a point here. For the past 20 years, I have not read the Adam and Eve story as being of the literal, historical first couple. Of course, evolution had absolutely nothing to do with my understanding of Genesis 2-3. My training in biblical exegesis and my background in literature just made it clear to me that not only Genesis 2-3, but Genesis 1-11 as a whole, simply is not trying to relate actual historical facts to begin with.

That being said, I’m not going to completely discount the arguments other theologians and scholars have for their belief that there was a historical first couple. I’m just going to be honest and say, “Okay, but you can’t historically prove it, and it seems pretty obvious to me that those chapters aren’t attempting to give historical information in the first place.” So yes, you can speculate that there might have been an Adam and Eve, or a first couple that God endowed with His image after the long process of evolution—but let’s be honest: it’s speculative, and it always will be speculative, because the Bible itself doesn’t really seem concerned with trying to prove it, or tell how it historically happened.

Nevertheless, Coyne’s real problem (as we will see later) has to do with people believing in the supernatural at all.

Theistic Evolution: A Doctrine and Deism?
Second, although Coyne does have a point about why we need to add “theistic” to evolution, it’s quite clear he doesn’t really get what theistic evolution is. No, it is not a doctrine; and no, it is not a form of deism.

The very reason the term theistic evolution was invented was because atheists (like Coyne) have done a real good job at convincing people that evolution is atheistic. It’s not—it is neither atheistic or theistic, for that matter. It is simply a description of the natural processes that have led to variety of life we have in this world. So yes, we don’t have theistic physics, because at no point is physicists try to claim that physics disproves God and the Bible. Physics is just physics. The case should be the same with evolution, but since over the past 150 years, so many people have tried to equate evolution with atheism, Christians who are convinced of evolution had to come up with something that pushed back against that incorrect equating of evolution and atheism.

In addition, theistic evolution is not a doctrine. Coyne is the only person I’ve ever come across to make that assertion. It also isn’t deism. Deism was a concept birthed in the Enlightenment that essentially regulated God to another part of the universe: he essentially wound nature up like a clock, then left, leaving nature all to its own.

Such a notion betrayed this false Enlightenment notion that radically split the realms of the natural and supernatural worlds. Even Christians still hold to this notion today: God let’s creation run according to natural laws, but then occasionally intervenes and suspends natural laws somehow—and that’s how we get “miracles.”

The Jews and early Christians would be shocked as such a view of reality. They viewed God as intimately involved with his creation at all times, and they also were well aware of what we would today call “natural laws”—(i.e. they didn’t have the word “gravity,” but they knew full well that things fell to the ground). Simply put, they were able to hold both ideas together at the same time: (A) God’s involvement in creation, and (B) the constancy of nature and “natural laws.” And so, far from being deistic, theistic evolution really is just a reaffirmation that these two ideas are not incompatible.

That Word, “Teleology,” I Do Not Think it Means What You Think it Means
Coyne’s objection that theistic evolution is teleological is also shockingly off. To understand teleology, you have to know a little bit about Aristotle. He taught that in order to truly understanding anything, there are four things you must consider: the four causes. They are as follows:

1. The Material Cause: You have to understand the actual material that makes up something (i.e. wood, stone, rubber, etc.)
2. The Formal Cause: You have to understand the form of the thing (i.e. a table, chair, baseball bat, etc.)
3. The Efficient Cause: You have to understand the process by which that thing was made (i.e. a carpenter in his shop made the table, the existence of me is because my parents made love one night, and that initial cluster of cells developed over the course of nine months).
4. The Final Cause: You have to understand the purpose or goal for which that thing was made (i.e. a table was made for eating meals on; a bat was made for hitting baseballs).

Teleology deals with this “Final Cause,” for it deals with understanding the purpose of any specific thing. Coyne though, by claiming theistic evolution is “teleological,” is mistaking efficient causes for final causes. Or to put it another way, saying that God uses evolution to eventually bring about the creation of mankind is not a teleological argument. It is really just saying that God is the ultimate efficient cause, if you will. Or still another way, it’s just saying that efficient causes are blind, and that God is involved in efficient causation.

And yes, that claim (i.e. that God is involved in efficient causation) is not a scientific claim—it is a metaphysical claim. But that is really beside the point, for Coyne’s claim that evolution is blind and purposeless is also not a scientific claim—but rather a metaphysical one. Or more properly, it is simply a denial of the possibility of metaphysical reality, with absolutely nothing on which to base that denial.

But my point here is simple: Coyne doesn’t know the difference between efficient and final causes. He doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

Evolution: If God is Behind it–What a Waste! If Not–How Marvelous!
I’ll expand on that point in a “Part 2”. For now, let me just address one more thing Coyne says that baffles me. He says that if there is a God, then how could one explain all the sheer waste evolution has unleashed over billions of years? Simply put, Coyne’s thinking goes like this: if there is a God, then the process of evolution is a horrid waste of death—so therefore, they’re can’t be a God. Got it? Good.

Because immediately after he issues that conclusion, Coyne then turns around and gushes over the “great wonder” of evolution—how a mindless, purposeless process could produce such marvelous adaptations and variety in nature. Now, like I said earlier, Coyne simply throws out the claim that evolution is mindless and purposeless (that in itself not a scientific claim), and then proceeds to praise it as a being marvelous and a great wonder.

I’m sorry, I’m confused. Coyne is saying if there is a God, then evolution is just one, long sordid history of death; but if there is no God, then evolution is a wondrous, marvelous affirmation of life! That is completely illogical, because it’s the same process. You can’t hold up evolution as evidence against God because it involves death, and then turn around and praise evolution for being a life-producing godless process.

It seems that the young earth creationists at Answers in Genesis aren’t the only ones who love shell games.

In the next day or so, I will post “Part 2” of my analysis of Coyne’s book review of How I Changed My Mind About Evolution—a book he didn’t bother to read before he felt compelled to voice his opinion of it.