All too often we hear that too many people are not embracing evolution but for those who reject it, they have a logical good reason. Jerry Coyne is a professor of biology who currently resides at the University of Chicago. He regularly debates and defends evolutionary principles.
Last year he wrote a book on why evolution is supposedly true. Some say he has a sad understanding of creationism but that’s hard to believe. He debates in a very tactical manner that angles to what he considers the easiest way for a winnable argument rather than taking it head on.
For example, he argues in his book that if the Earth was young, then Africa and South America would only be inches apart. However, this is not catastrophic plate tectonics of which he is trying to dispute. For it is this theory that pretty much dominates creationism these days. It was first proposed by Dr. John Baumgardner, and is compatible with plate tectonics and continental drift theories. It also provides a mechanism that explains the source and recession of the global flood water.
Next Coyne argues in his book that creationists deny speciation. Many evolutionists like Coyne will claim that variants within an animal’s kind is proof of evolution. Again, Coyne using tactical but not realistic arguments. Creationists do not deny variants known as “Rapid Speciation” as there was designed information by God but also creationists do not believe variants of animals are proof of macro-evolution.
In order for animals to go from one kind to a totally different kind of animal requires an expansion of the gene pool with new traits. Interbreeding doesn’t create an expanded gene pool that would enable mice to turn into bats.
On origins, Coyne claims that chemical evolution is not a problem for evolution because it’s not part of the theory of evolution so it doesn’t have to explain origins…lol…A well known publication called; Scientific American certainly thinks the origin of life from dead chemicals to living ones is part of evolution as it devoted articles on this very subject…
As you can see, evolution is not that strong at all as a hypothesis or a theory. It’s story telling. Coyne uses outdated arguments to make it easier on himself to dispute but doesn’t prove anything. He avoids certain arguments like origins because it’s way too hard to prove with all that massive uncertainty of explanations. However, one thing is for certain, evolution needs not to be true!