The book by Coyne (2010) provides an analysis of the existing arguments that suggest that the theory of evolution first introduced by Charles Darwin in 1859 indeed exists. The book is divided into nine chapters that dwell on different possible evidence that the evolution left in its wake. The author mentions such evidence as fossils that many archaeologists find during their excavations. Of course, this is not the only evidence elucidated in the book. Nevertheless, evolution had been highly debated since it was first mentioned by Darwin. Although the presentation and rhetorical abilities demonstrated by Darwin both in his manuscript and discussions proved the counter-arguments to be insufficient for the time being, modern creationists and other individuals supporting them develop their arguments as well. Thus, it even came to the point where evolution theory might be at risk of being dismissed. This paper will, however, focus on Coyne’s book and its weight in proving that evolution indeed exists and its results are visible.
Arguments Provided in the Book
The author provides several primary arguments that are aimed not at explaining how evolution works. Instead, the book provides several pieces of evidence suggesting that the traces of evolution left are visible and may be scientifically researched to establish what significance they have. Thus, the author focuses on fossils found in ancient layers of the lithosphere, genetic connections to ancestry found in animals and plants, geographic allocation of found life forms (both petrified, extinct but documented, and existing), and so forth. As it becomes evident, the author resorts to a great deal of scientifically proved data to ensure that his research will indeed be significant enough when it comes to supporting the theory of evolution.
The first argument provided in chapter one is the formation of the fossils found in various layers of tectonic plates. It is important to notice that this evidence is one of the most basic existing arguments that are provided in defense of the evolution theory. Many researchers have also contributed to developing these arguments. The role of fossils detection and research may be evaluated solely by the number of researches that deal with this topic. For example, research by Solodovnikov, Yue, Tarasov, and Ren (2013) demonstrates how the extraction and analysis of fossils lead to establishing connections between the evolutionary processes that led ancient insect species to transform into the modern ones.
Further, the chapter that sheds light on the importance of the existing traces of earlier species that gave birth to new ones also may find significant support in various publications. However, vestiges of the modern species received more coverage than any other aspect mentioned by Coyne. The research by Ruiz-Labourdette, Schmitz, and Pineda (2013) elucidates the discoveries related to vestiges found in tree species that were predicted to emerge (having the mentioned vestiges). Indeed, vestiges are an important element that many species possess when it comes to visualizing the results of evolution and how they may be detected and researched. Vestiges may be found in various species – including homo sapiens – and it is yet to be proved by creationists that these are not the remains of organs or body parts that the ancient species possessed.
Moreover, Coyne provides a great example from his personal experience to support his argument. He talks about ostriches and how they use their wings not to fly but to maintain balance while running. Naturally, it is not direct evidence of evolution as the function that their wings have may have been given to them initially by the Creator. However, it is common in science to adopt the explanation that results in fewer complications and doubts. As for the creation theory, it would be unclear why the Creator gave ostriches wings that have a function that differs from those of other winged creatures. After all, it is their wings that add to the body composition and mass preventing ostriches from running without having to take their body position and balance into account.
One of the most fundamental flaws in the creation theory is that it does not explain why the distribution of species is so immensely diverse. It is often stated that if creation took place as described in the Bible and Noah did indeed build his Ark, it would be impossible for certain species to be located in isolated regions such as Australia. For example, it would be impossible for kangaroos to inhabit the areas they exist in without some means of transportation that would have them delivered from the place of Ark’s stopping. Even if there had been some land bridges or ships that would allow kangaroos to inhabit Australia, there is no evidence of that between the Ark’s destination and the modern area that kangaroos inhabit. There are no traces of bridges or kangaroo remains underwater which leaves this possibility under significant doubt.
To support this point of view, one may pay attention to the amount of coverage that the topic of species distribution has. An article by Warren, Cardillo, Rosauer and Bolnick (2014) may be viewed as one of the examples of this issue’s cover. Although the authors mostly dwell on a more specific part of the topic, it is explicitly stated by them that there is indeed a connection between evolutionary processes and species distribution as they state that “patterns of species distributions driven by historical biogeography are often interpreted as evidence of particular evolutionary or ecological processes” (Warren et al., 2014, p.1).
One of the most interesting arguments provided by Coyne, however, is the mechanisms that drive evolution. He picks an example of Japanese hornets and honeybees. The evolutionary processes include adaptation. And the example described by Coyne perfectly demonstrates how surprisingly complex the mechanisms of adaptation may be. It is indeed very likely that, without evolution, many species would not be able to survive and reproduce as they do now. If one considers that species were created, it would be strange to notice that some of them start to derive from the original manner of behavior prescribed to them by their Creator. It is another important aspect of dismissing the creation theory.
Moreover, adaptation may be seen not only in species. On a cellular level, there are also evolutionary processes that push organisms to shift their behavior, body structure, or even their intellection. Zhang et al. (2014) describe the recent discoveries regarding genome evolution and adaptation in avian species. It is important to notice that the authors stress the evolution part. Indeed, as stated above, it would be most irrational for created species to shift their body structure and genome structure. After all, that would lead to new species born from the original ones. The Bible states, however, that there cannot be any more species that we have now. This point is highly debated, and creationists already have an answer that would be mentioned later.
All in all, the base of arguments provided by Coyne is more than significant. The highlights of the book, however, lie in the author’s ability to state his findings with a particular background or a supporting example from his personal experience and knowledge. It is essential to do so as the arguments become much easier to understand and form a more complete picture of what the author is trying to convey. Also, the author successfully picks the arguments that compile the basis of the modern evolution versus creation debate. This basis of arguments is the most useful tool in dismissing creation theory.
Nevertheless, creationists also have a robust base of arguments that may easily prove that Coyne is wrong after all. There are numerous counter-arguments as well as scientific data that allow creation theory to exist very successfully even now. Moreover, there are hundreds and thousands of scientists that do not believe in evolution. With their experience and scope, they dismiss a great number of postulates offered by evolutionists. In the context of this paper, it is also important to research the arguments provided by creationists to ensure that the work by Coyne can hold such pressure and remain topical.
Alternative Perspective
It is commonly stated by evolutionists that the arguments provided by those who believe in creation address separate questions and problems while not forming a whole picture. Although it may be true, there is no point in denying that some of the arguments not only create a complete model of the world but also with relative ease dismiss evolution as a theory and as a phenomenon.
The first argument against evolution is usually the fact that evolution is a process that nobody can perceive right now. Creationists state (quite rightfully) that there are indeed a variety of different kinds of flora and fauna species, but there are no “transactions.” For instance, there is no example of mixtures between cats and birds or rhinos and jackals. If evolution were indeed happening, there would have been a significant number of species that are currently evolving into new kinds. This would manifest in lots of things: new limbs, new organ functions, increase or decrease in size, etc. All of this, however, is out of sight.
Nevertheless, this argument proves to hold little significance because of numerous reasons. For example, the evolutionary processes may have been significantly slowed down or even stopped because of human activity. There are simply no significant changes in the environment for species to shape-shift. Moreover, cross-species reproduction has also been left out of the question because there are simply no ways for initially different species (especially with different reproductive systems) to have any offspring.
Next, there is the argument that evolution is not scientific because it is not testable or falsifiable. Indeed, there is no way to test evolution or even observe it. All that humankind is allowed to do is find the consequences that were presumably caused by evolution. Nevertheless, this argument tends not to endure any sort of criticism as there are two critical areas to evolution science: micro-and macroevolution. Nowadays, even creationists have to acknowledge that it is indeed very much possible to test microevolution in laboratories. Moreover, resorting to the falsifiability of any given phenomenon works against creationists as the Creator as a concept is most unscientific. It is also impossible to perceive, experience, test, measure, prove or dismiss anything related to God and his alleged existence.
There are also such arguments as the one stating that it would be impossible for one species to evolve from another, while these previous species exist. For example, creationists may say that if humans evolved from a kind of monkey, then there would be no monkeys left. However, this statement completely ignores that the theory of evolution does not suggest that “humans evolved from a monkey.” The statement should be “human and monkey have a common ancestor.” After this remark is made, it becomes apparent that there is easily a way for both humankind and various kinds of primates to coexist without replacing each other.
Although the opposition of the evolution theory is quite high, it is often seen that creationists may readily accept evolution as well as evolutionists may believe in both creation and the evolutionary processes that followed it. All in all, the acceptance of both teachings remains rather uneven across the globe. Many countries even go as far as to deny evolution or creation on a national level prohibiting this teaching in schools and preventing related publications from being permitted on the territory of the country.
There are, however, some initiatives that have the goal of uniting evolution and creationism by allowing both theories to be introduced to children in schools. An article by Baker (2013) provides an example of such an initiative. The author states that “The influence of religious identity on educational trajectory and selective perception presents unique challenges for advocates of evolution. Addressing these topics in a manner perceived as an attack on creationism, and therefore religion is likely to strengthen prior convictions of the faithful” (Baker, 2013, p. 226). This provides an example of just how difficult it becomes for evolution adherents to promote evolution-related ideas. This problem has become surprisingly acute with the growing amount of radical religious groups that strictly prohibit the theory of evolution from being taught among them.
Flaws in the Book
One of the greatest advantages that Darwin’s manuscript had is that it provided both evidence supporting his theory and an explanation of flaws that the creation theory possessed at the time. This simple approach to compiling the work made Darwin’s manuscript so convincing and disarming regarding the opposition. However strong the arguments were, they alone would not suffice if it would have come to debates. After Darwin’s magnum opus had been published, the creationists were simply left astonished and lacking any possible counter-evidence. This made the theory of evolution so successful.
This is important to notice because the book by Coyne simply does not do anything of a sort. Although providing robust evidence supporting evolution, the author leaves any possible answers to his opponents aside. It becomes unclear as to who should be convinced by the book. After all, the ninth chapter “Evolution redux” is dedicated directly to this question. Many may find the arguments provided significant and convincing, but they still will not be convinced. Why? The answer is simple: the only approach to place one theory above any other that works are to introduce the theory and then immediately present the flaws of the ones that are to be replaced.
This significant weakness may also not be the only one that this book possesses. After all, the evidence that the author speaks of is not the final amount of visible traces of evolution. The author could, for example, also include the evidence that relates to the age of the Earth. Surprisingly enough, the claims about the Earth being much younger than modern science believes are one of the cornerstones of the contemporary creation theory. Should the young age of the planet be dismantled, the creation theory would suffer a significant loss in its significance. However, it may be what prevented Coyne from including this in his book. As of now, there is no way to undoubtedly say that the Earth is indeed approximately 4.5 billion years old.
Any of these additions would make the book much more convincing and significant at the same time. However, it is pointless to state that Coyne’s work as it now does not necessarily possess any importance. It is indeed a significant contribution to the evolution theory and the ongoing debate regarding creation and evolution. The work in itself is a compilation of existing facts that prove to hold the most weight relating to the truthfulness of evolution theory. It seems that the book is mostly designed for an average reader that does not professionally exercise science.
Personal Response
The most compelling thing about the book is, of course, how it approaches the presentation of facts. However, I was also greatly interested in the arguments that the author provided to support his claims. I found them to be well-selected and thoughtfully placed. Each supporting statement that the author makes leaves a lasting impact on how one perceives evolution and the struggle that evolutionists have regarding opposing the theory of creation.
Another important factor that led me to believe that this book is, in fact, a great piece of scientific literature is the self-aware nature of the author’s claims. In the chapter “Evolution redux,” the author notes that it is almost impossible for some people to accept evolution, and that is what makes evolution so influenced by debate. All in all, this book created a very positive impression on me.
Conclusion
After reading the book and dwelling on the arguments and commentaries that Coyne provides, it becomes far less difficult to accept evolution. This conclusion is easily explainable. The theory in itself is a scientific fact – this statement is undoubtedly true. However, there are also arguments against evolution that quickly dismiss every assumption that the theory makes. The problem with these facts is that they are also dismissed without any effort. What is more important, however, is the fact that these counter-assumptions create a significant number of controversies both in the whole picture of the world (in which evolution does not exist) and the minds of those who dwell on these arguments for more than one second. In science, it is often referred to as a concept known as Occam’s razor. This concept is used to explain the methodological approach that postulates that the assumption that requires more explanation and causes more doubts must be dismissed.
If Occam’s razor is applied to the theory of creation with the progress that science has made over the centuries, it becomes clear that creationism requires lots of explanation and causes a lot of doubts. It just does not work as intended. There is a vast amount of evidence that points out the insolvency of the theory of creation. The evolution theory, on the other hand, is far less complicated in this perspective. Therefore, if nothing else, it would be most rational to accept the theory of evolution, and the book by Coyne is an excellent example of why one may do that.
References
Baker, J. O. (2013). Acceptance of evolution and support for teaching creationism in public schools: The conditional impact of educational attainment. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 52(1), 216-228.
Coyne, J. A. (2010). Why evolution is true. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press.
Ruiz-Labourdette, D., Schmitz, M. F., & Pineda, F. D. (2013). Changes in tree species composition in Mediterranean mountains under climate change: Indicators for conservation planning. Ecological Indicators, 24(1), 310-323.
Solodovnikov, A., Yue, Y., Tarasov, S., & Ren, D. (2013). Extinct and extant rove beetles meet in the matrix: Early Cretaceous fossils shed light on the evolution of a hyperdiverse insect lineage (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae: Staphylininae). Cladistics, 29(1), 360-403.
Warren, D. L., Cardillo, M., Rosauer, D. F., & Bolnick, D. I. (2014). Mistaking geography for biology: Inferring processes from species distributions. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 29(10), 572-580.
Zhang, G., Li, C., Li, Q., Li, B., Larkin, D. M., Storz, J. F., … Gary, R. (2014). Comparative genomics reveals insights into avian genome evolution and adaptation. Science, 346(6215), 1311-1320.