After arguing Ad nauseam (examples here, here, here and here) that the evil and dysteleology in nature prove evolution and then denying that he ever did such a thing, evolutionist Jerry Coyne is now sharing more of his theological wisdom. After telling us what god would and wouldn't do, he now adds that the best conclusion is for atheism or Aristotelianism:
In the end, evolution is not a “welcome partner” for religion or theodicy, for it raises more problems than it solves. It’s easier and more parsimonious to simply discard the notion of God, or even to posit a malicious or unconcerned god, than to believe that a powerful and loving deity is author of the world’s ills.
So Coyne is sure god would never create this world (and so evolution must be true) but, oh by the way, there is no such god anyway. He either doesn't exist or he is none other than Aristotle's Prime Mover.
The silliness never ends as Coyne has now drifted into the deep end. Does Coyne not have the slightest idea of his own internal contradictions? Does Coyne not realize that he cannot simply swap his silly theistic notions for atheism or Aristotelianism without losing his proofs of evolution? The entire premise of his recent book is a belly-flop. Religion drives science and it matters.
