David Ford cites and quotes Jerry Coyne in support of his position:
DF>"We conclude--unexpectedly--that there is little evidence for the
neo-
DF>Darwinian view: its theoretical foundations and the experimental
DF>evidence supporting it are weak." Go ahead. Tell Jerry
Coyne, from the
DF>Department of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago,
that
DF>the "evidence for evolution is overwhelming."[Orr, H.A., and Coyne,
J.A.
DF>(1992) "The Genetics of Adaptation: A Reassessment," _American
DF>Naturalist_, 140, 726. Cited in Michael J. Behe, _Darwin's
Black Box
DF>the biochemical challenge to evolution_ (1996), 29.]
Jeff Shallit wrote to Dr. Coyne to see if Coyne concurred with Ford's
usage,
and got this response:
JC>Dear Dr. Shallit,
JC>
JC> This quote was indeed taken out of context. It
was from a paper that I
JC>wrote with Allen Orr, and its topic was whether mutations of large
effect
JC>might occasionally play a role in evolution. We certainly
were not
JC>questioning the fact of evolution or of the important role of natural
JC>selection in this article, merely whether the mutations fixed during
JC>adaptive change may have larger effects than previously assumed.
It is a
JC>typical creationist tactic to misquote or mis-cite scientific papers
in
JC>support of the discredited creationist views.
JC> The evidence for evolution, which includes data from
the fossil record,
JC>embryology, biogeography, and vestigial organs, is so overwhelming
that
JC>evolution must be accorded the status of "firmly established fact."
I
JC>teach this evidence in my introductory evolution class, so I certainly
JC>cannot be accused of doubting the existence of evolution.
In my
JC>experience, the only people who still believe in creationism after
learning
JC>this evidence are those who are so firmly committed to the fundamentalist
JC>Biblical view (i.e. Genesis 1-11) that no amount of evidence could
ever
JC>sway them.
JC>
JC>You can certainly quote as much of the above as you wish.
JC>
JC>Yours,
JC>Jerry Coyne