Can anyone make sense of this?

[Animavore]

Because I can't.
I was reading reviews of Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne on Amazon.com when I came across this puzzling review.

3.0 out of 5 stars Why evolution is true, and natural selection false, February 12, 2009
By John C. Landon "nemonemini"
Of books defending the Darwin paradigm there is no end, and yet the controversy nevers goes away. This book, in the obstinate narrowness of obsessive Darwinists, on the surface looks convincing but misses the point, starting with its title, 'why evolution is true'. We already know evolution is true, but Darwinism, the theory of natural selection we don't know to be true, since it is nearly a metaphysical claim, ironically like ID. Proving the claims for natural selection has never been properly accomplished, and it is hypocrisy on the part of Darwinists to say otherwise. Coyne seems to be aware of, and/or attended, the Altenberg 16 conference last year, of biologists attempting to challenge the frozen Darwin dogmas. So it is false, brazen hypocrisy, to claim that selectionist Darwinism is finally establshed or without problems.
The confusion between the reality of evolution and the theory of natural selection is in part the fault of creationists who still question the reality of evolution, making it easy for hard-core Darwinists like Coyne to egregiously defend evolution, a no-brainer, slipping in the quite different claims for natural selection. These tactics have gone on long enough, and the hopes of the Darwin propaganda machine to close ranks and tell the 'Darwin deception' straight always seems on the verge of success, but always fails in the end.
This book shows that the author, along with most Darwinists, suffer from a refusal to learn form the past or to acknowledge what is obvious, that there is something too limited in the Darwinian framework, and that this taken as a complete theory of evolution is a species of fraud. There is a kind of obstinate refusal to face the limits of Darwinism that makes the unending resistance persist.
The reductionist scientism of the Darwinian fundamentalists is unable to explicate the issues of ethics, consciousness, human evolution, or the historical complexity of man, from art to religion. The immense effort to freeze the study of evolution in Darwin's perspective is as puzzling as it is counterproductive and will result finally in the discredit of science.

I don't get it. Is he trying to say that things evolve but, not true natural selection? Is he a Lamarckian or something? I don't believe he's a biologist or was at this biologist convention. I think he's a creationist trying to obfuscate the situation.

[leo-rcc]

I don't see how natural selection would be wrong, as it is an observed fact.

[Animavore]

I read another review which read something similar although the other reviewer used a word which this reviewer may have deliberately left out; INTELLIGENT DESIGN.'

[Gawdzilla Sama]

They grow ever more desperate in trying to dis Darwinism. The evidence piles higher every year, but MUST be ignored or they're pet gods just might go "poof". Can't have that, can we?

[MedGen]

The classic signs of an IDiot of cdesignproponentist is the use of the term "Darwinist" to describe evolutionary biologists. I get the impression this reviewer is trying, in a way, to revive the "lets teach both sides"/"teach the controversy", the out-dated and exposed "wedge strategy" from the ID camp.
Essentially they are trying to make it look, to the layperson, like they a) know what they are talking about (ref. Altenberg 16 was a widely reported conference held last year in Austria by a select group of biologist to try and integrate all of the research and discoveries made since the inception of the modern synthesis by Fisher et al in the 1960's) and b) to essentially obsufscate and draw attention away from their own debunk beliefs about introducing religion into the classroom.

I'll give it to the Id camp, they are fucking tenacious, despite all the knockbacks they taken. There's a certain amount of morbid fascination, like rubber-necking past a accident on the motorway, watching these fucktards get repeatedly beaten down, only to stumble back up for another pounding.

I'm reading Why Evolution is True at the moment and I'd personally recommend to anyone who is even remotely interested in the area, be it bat-shit-crazy-creationist, interested layperson or professional scientist. Coyne does a fantastic job of laying out the basics in such a way that he doesn't skimp on the details. I've not read Dawkins Blind Watchmaker, Climbing Mount Improbable or Ancestors Tale, but I would posit that this is a better text for truly getting to grips with evolution and actually understanding what it is, why it is and why it works the way it does.

[CP]

I've not read Dawkins Blind Watchmaker, Climbing Mount Improbable or Ancestors Tale, but I would posit that this is a better text for truly getting to grips with evolution and actually understanding what it is, why it is and why it works the way it does.

Did I misunderstand this sentence? How can you know if you haven't read them? (I'm not disagreeing with you, just curious about your logic.)

[MedGen]

I've not read Dawkins Blind Watchmaker, Climbing Mount Improbable or Ancestors Tale, but I would posit that this is a better text for truly getting to grips with evolution and actually understanding what it is, why it is and why it works the way it does.

Did I misunderstand this sentence? How can you know if you haven't read them? (I'm not disagreeing with you, just curious about your logic.)

I'm basing it on the numerous reviews I've heard from everyone who has already read them. I probably should read them, I'm just not sure it would be anything new.

[Psi Wavefunction]

While there are some vicious arguments and dogmas over various details of evolutionary biology, the public always tends to over dramatise them without understanding the slightest bit about what is actually being argued over :pissed:

Understanding evolution seems to progress in stages, or steps...
First you must accept inheritance, role of natural selection, etc. Then you must accept lack of divine creator. <this is where creationists drop off>
Then you must accept the blindness of evolution. <This is where many biology undergrads drop off>
Then you must accept the sheer diversity of life, and the challenges it poses to theories derived merely from large animals, <This is where most zoologists drop off> and the little work done on plants <this is where most botanists drop off>.
Then you must accept the power of neutral, non-selectionist, forces, termed 'constructive neutral evolution'. Additionally, you must also accept the organismal nature of thoughts and ideas in the form of memetics. By that point, very little of us are left. And there's probably quite a few more stages I've yet to reach....

The media falls apart around step one, methinks...

[CP]

I disagree that it is necessary to accept lack of a divine creator. One who created things in their modern forms (or close to), yes; a supernatural guide, yes; but there is nothing contradictory between evolution and a creator who made, for example, a population of prokaryotic cells long ago and then stepped out for a coffee break.

[Feck]

I disagree that it is necessary to accept lack of a divine creator. One who created things in their modern forms (or close to), yes; a supernatural guide, yes; but there is nothing contradictory between evolution and a creator who made, for example, a population of prokaryotic cells long ago and then stepped out for a coffee break.

If you carry on that logic ,take it past biogenesis and apply it to cosmology the first thing in the universe must have been god
ok but then god is just a label .Leaving a little wriggle room to allow god in results in ID ,which is just creationists saddlebacking .

[MedGen]

I disagree that it is necessary to accept lack of a divine creator. One who created things in their modern forms (or close to), yes; a supernatural guide, yes; but there is nothing contradictory between evolution and a creator who made, for example, a population of prokaryotic cells long ago and then stepped out for a coffee break.

Apply Occams Razor and the above is not just unnecessary but is entirely superfluous.

[CP]

I disagree that it is necessary to accept lack of a divine creator. One who created things in their modern forms (or close to), yes; a supernatural guide, yes; but there is nothing contradictory between evolution and a creator who made, for example, a population of prokaryotic cells long ago and then stepped out for a coffee break.

If you carry on that logic ,take it past biogenesis and apply it to cosmology the first thing in the universe must have been god
ok but then god is just a label .Leaving a little wriggle room to allow god in results in ID ,which is just creationists saddlebacking .

I'm not sure where you're going with this. I merely suggested that it's possible to accept divine creation and evolution at the same time, not that it was a particularly good idea to do so. I'm not sure how saying that such a view is non-contradictory suggests that the first thing in the universe must have been a god (although that view wouldn't contradict evolution either).

I disagree that it is necessary to accept lack of a divine creator. One who created things in their modern forms (or close to), yes; a supernatural guide, yes; but there is nothing contradictory between evolution and a creator who made, for example, a population of prokaryotic cells long ago and then stepped out for a coffee break.

Apply Occams Razor and the above is not just unnecessary but is entirely superfluous.

Agreed but irrelevant. It is not necessary to use good science in order to understand evolution, although it sure makes it much easier.

[MedGen]

I disagree that it is necessary to accept lack of a divine creator. One who created things in their modern forms (or close to), yes; a supernatural guide, yes; but there is nothing contradictory between evolution and a creator who made, for example, a population of prokaryotic cells long ago and then stepped out for a coffee break.

Apply Occams Razor and the above is not just unnecessary but is entirely superfluous.

Agreed but irrelevant. It is not necessary to use good science in order to understand evolution, although it sure makes it much easier.

The application of Occams razor has nothing to do with science per se, more of the general basis of the scientific method, i.e. naturalistic philosophy. Evolution is good science, so by definition you require an understanding of science to fully understand evolution, and why it is good science. The attempted reconcilliation of religion with scientific advances is ultimately a futile effort.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

IF something created life on this planet at the beginning they're totally fubar, IMHO. For proof, consider that life during the first few BILLION years on Earth consisted mostly of cyanobacteria. How many BILLION years does it take to get something interesting out of slime?

[Animavore]

IF something created life on this planet at the beginning they're totally fubar, IMHO. For proof, consider that life during the first few BILLION years on Earth consisted mostly of cyanobacteria. How many BILLION years does it take to get something interesting out of slime?

Maybe they went into statsis for a few billion years until they awoke in the 50's and started paying visits