Jerry Coyne's book, "Faith Versus Fact: Why Science and Religion Are Incompatible" -- Misleading and Wrong!

Despite his claims, Jerry Coyne is wrong! The title of his book, "Faith Versus Fact: Why Science and Religion Are Incompatible," attracts attention, but it is an erroneous statement. Comparison of faith and fact is not equivalent to comparing religion and science, despite the title-implied equivalence. Furthermore, science and religion cannot be incompatible. The problem is: in both cases he is comparing apples and oranges.

Facts must be defined. For example, our entire mathematics system is based on ten units of one. From this one fact, every number imaginable can be built. While distances were once physically defined, for modern calculation more precision is required. All time and distance measurements are defined on the basis of electron movement in a Cesium 133 ion at 0 degrees Kelvin!
1 second = the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the Cesium 133 atom. (aren't you happy to know that?)
1 meter =  the distance light travels in 1 / 299,792,458 second
1 foot = 0.3048 meter
These are all defined facts, and all appropriate time and measurement quantities are defined from these definitions. Thus, for example, the speed of light can be measured and defined.

Faith, on the other hand, can never be defined. It is based on belief. Here is where Jerry Coyne's argument falls apart. One does not have to go far into his book to understand that he is really addressing the creation/evolution controversy. Although some attempt to present the creation scenario as fact, even they understand that creation is based on a belief. Evolutionists, however, attempt to convince us that evolution is a fact, whereas it is also based on no more than a firmly held belief.

Let us now moved into the scientific field, where defined facts do not exist, and to say something is a fact simply means all valid experiments to date have supported the appropriate theory (hypothesis). If, however, the next valid experiment disproves the theory, it must be abandoned and a new theory developed.

There are some so-called "facts" that can never be tested by an experiment (i.e. by scientific method). The Big-Bang theory of universe beginning is one of them. While this is being passed off as a "fact," in reality it is merely the currently most popular theory of origins.

Evolution is another example. In this case, there should be archaeological evidence supporting the theory, but to date none of the expected evidence has been uncovered. Therefore, the evolution theory is based solely on physical similarities and DNA similarities. These observations are to be expected if evolution is true, but they are not proof of evolution. They would be equally expected if everything was the work of a creator! Therefore, the evolution theory is just as much a strongly held belief as is creation!

Now, what about science and religion being incompatible? That, again, is comparing apples with oranges. The two basic operation systems are parallel approaches which may support each other or diverge, depending on the circumstances. Religion is based on faith in certain beliefs, whereas science is based on developing and researching theories. One can sometimes support the other and beliefs/theories can sometimes diverge. However, when a scientific theory has been thoroughly tested and supported sufficiently to be considered a fact (the speed of light would be an example), divergent religious beliefs must be altered appropriately, unless those holding these beliefs can create a valid and testable theory to disprove it. 

Religion can sometimes disagree with scientific theories since they are both approaches to life, but it MUST agree with validly tested scientific "facts." I have expounded further on the problems in "Scripture Versus Science: Reconciling God's Ancient Wisdom with a Modern World View."