Joined: June 2010
If you haven't already read it, you will find that John Pieret on his blog Thoughts in a Haystack is quite scathing about Coyne's forays into philosophy and theology.
As for Duanne D Miller, I see nothing surprising there. He is just further evidence, if any were needed, for the hypothesis that an advanced scientific education and credentials do not necessarily confer an immunity to religious belief of some sort. The only small caveat is whether his field of expertise qualifies him a competent or appropriate authority on evolutionary biology.
In my view, there is no direct clash between a monolithic Science and a monolithic Religion. That is a vast oversimplification.
There are cases where specific claims about the natural world by a particular faith are contradicted by science, such as the Christian creationist claim that the world is only 6,000 years old. Does that somehow invalidate Christianity as a whole? Turn it around. Supposing research were to find that societies that lived by the Golden Rule were, on balance, healthier and happier than those that followed a more selfish morality such as Greed is Good. Would that tend to confirm Christianity?
As for the question of origins, claims by celebrity scientists notwithstanding, the simple answer is no one - no one - knows. Which means that atheists are no more entitled to sneer at the beliefs of a Kenneth Miller than are conservative believers to regard atheists or agnostics as more despicable than pedophiles.
Humility is supposed to be a virtue in both science and religion - albeit more often honored in the breach than the observance, as they say - and I would suggest it its the best way to approach both our differences and our ignorance.