by Jerry Coyne. Check out this review of his book. This person is completely misrepresenting what Darwin said about the evolution of the eye. Unbelievable ignorance or malicousness or both. And this mans credentials at the bottom say that he should know better.
March 04, 2009: Coyne, like many other scientists, teachers and the general public, incorrectly treats Evolution as a single absolutely true “theory” or “law” encompassing both Darwin’s truly scientific theory of natural selection or adaptation of species and his subsequent speculative or philosophical rumination culminating in his “philogenetic tree”. Darwin’s latter speculation lacks verifiable experimental suppport that is obviously difficult to acquire or confirm for a random statistical upward “evolution” occurring over a mega millennial time frame. Hence, any “evolution” of species from primordial mud to living species of increasing complexity, while superficially and intuitively obvious, lacks scientific proof demanded of a theory or even an hypothesis. Furthermore, “irreducible complexity”, often requiring concurrent events in creation of complex organs occurring at infinitesimally low compound probabilities, also bars upward evolution even among living species. Even Darwin publicly acknowledged that a complex organ like the human eye could not possibly have evolved by his theory. One must conclude that vertical evolution of species, like Creationism and Intelligent Design, thus is a faith-based construct without scientific merit. Lacking the current knowledge of molecular biology and the unfathomable complexity of the genetic code, Darwin’s flawed beliefs are excusable. But current scientists, like Professor Coyne, must be faulted for blindly embracing the “non-theory” of mud to man evolution and in indiscriminately muddling the two “evolutionary” theories, one true and the other fatally flawed. As a chemist, I second the opinion of the late Professor Leslie Orgel, a molecular evolutionist, who bluntly stated that any proposed evolutionary theories cannot be based on “if pigs could fly chemistries”.
Herman Rutner, M.S. chemistry, retired industrial R&D scientist