Ann Coulter weighs in on Darwinism

uncommondescent.com ^ | William Dembski

[Tribune7]

I’m happy to report that I was in constant correspondence with Ann regarding her chapters on Darwinism — indeed, I take all responsibility for any errors in those chapters. :-)

[Right Wing Professor]

the guy's a known liar,

Documentation?

his story doesn't hold water,

I spent some time checking it out, and I found no major problems with it.

, he's given the police no leads of any value

There is no possible way you could know this, unless you're in the Lawrence Police Department. It is likely, therefore you just made it up. And you call Mirecki a liar?

his vicious and unethical emails were coming to light.

It's 'vicious and unethical' to make fun of one's own religion?

Again - how's the investigation going? What's the latest?

Police have dropped it. I doubt they tried very hard.

According to what I'll loosely call your 'logic', Jimmy Hoffa killed himself.

[wallcrawlr]

certainly youve heard of the 24 vs 1000 days discussion.
we each have our beliefs about the 7 days.

to think Christians, that believe differently in how the world was created, may then believe the Bible is fallible is a tricky leap.

there are many doctrinal differences between literal bible believing people.

[Ichneumon]

Spam.

No, direct evidence, which you can't even begin to deal with, either intellectually or emotionally, so you desperately attempt to dismiss it with a pathetic one-word response which demonstrates quite clearly (especially when taken with all of your *other* posts on these threads) that you have no interest in any of the science which you frequently attack, and have no ability to actually assess it on its own merits, you just operate on your deep bitterness and denial.

Whatever gets you through the day, Mamzelle.

svcw, you expressed surprise that one could conclude that there are science-illiterate religious conservatives. Ask Mamzelle to actually address the contents of post #107, and you'll quickly realize that there are. Now there's nothing wrong with not being conversant on any given topic, of course, UNLESS the person ignorant on [topic X] is arrogant enough to spend a great deal of time attacking [topic X] and denouncing it and attempting to "lecture" and "correct" people on it without actually having any clue what in the hell they're talking about (by actually *understanding* topic X and having a solid knowledge of it)...

There are countless religious conservatives, a large number of them right here on FreeRepublic, who viciously attack evolutionary biology and other fields of science, as well as the people who practice in those fields or who are knowledgeable of those fields and defend them from false attacks, despite not having any real clue about the topics they crusade against.

It gets really old after a while. And worse, this kind of "I don't understand science but I know it's wrong and evil and part of the atheistic conspiracy" folks are very vocal in the public discourse, to the point where a great many people who would otherwise be sympathetic to conservative politics run away screaming after having gotten the impression (which is not far from correct) that conservatism contains a large segment of folks who are wild-eyed anti-science Luddites. This is similar to how the more moderate liberal movements lose support because people are scared off by the more whackjob liberal nuts.

This is *not* a good thing for conservatism. I personally know dozens of people who might otherwise consider voting for conservatives or Republicans, but every time I try to point out how many of their personal views match those of the conservative movement, they recoil in horror and start listing the various antics of the kind of anti-intellectual extremists that have given conservatism a bad name by association.

There's nothing wrong with being religious -- in fact, the *majority* of American "evolutionists" are themselves Christians. But there is a very vocal, very strident, very intolerant, very anti-science segment of religious conservatives who are *not* doing the conservative cause any favors.

[Right Wing Professor]

So obviously anyone who professes to be Christian should be jailed as a mass murderer.

That's what you conclude? Boy, that's dumb.

[ahayes]

No, so obviously it's just as silly to blame Christianity for causing mass murder as it is to blame the theory of evolution for causing mass murder. There have always been and will always be mass murderers, and they'll use whatever rationalization they can to get away with it.

[wallcrawlr]

please....no hitler/stalin talk

that discussion sucks (excuse me...is not edifying...no matter which way we each may believe about it)

[Ichneumon]

You know the same stuff gets posted on these threads over and over and over and you know we have all seen and read them.

...and never *once* actually dealt with the material.

I know you evos keep these articles handy to post again and again to show how all the evidence proves evolution. Blah blah blah

...and to show how incapable you anti-science folks are of actually addressing the material, how pathetically you "respond" to it, how childish is your level of "discourse" (e.g. "blah blah blah") when asked to deal with the actual evidence you slander on a daily basis. You folks are like children trying to argue against quantum mechanics.

And any time someone posts opinions from scientists who disagree with TOE, you and others point out how unqualified they really are.

No, actually, we don't. We deal with their *material* and show how false, misleading, or fallacious it is. Additionally, we also show that while you were trying to offer so-and-so's musings in a cheap attempt at "argument from authority", the folks you people fling around as your anti-evolution "authorities" usually aren't even speaking within their own fields of knowledge.

I've lost count of the number of times an anti-evolutionist dragged in someone and claimed they were an "expert" on the topic and how dare we disagree with him, only to have it turn out that the guy was, say, a geologist commenting on biochemistry.

No surprise there. So please forgive me for laughing at your continued, tiring "proof."

Yeah, laugh instead of actually address it -- as always. Pathetic.

[mlc9852]

Pathetic - then why do you keep posting the same stuff over and over?

[driftdiver]

Evolution isn't being blamed for mass murder. Its said that evil people used the idea of evolution expanded into racial superiority to support their quest for ultimate power.

Like you say there are plenty of bad people throughout history. There are also plenty of hypocrits, in and out of a church.

[Tribune7]

Stalin credits Darwin with leading him to atheism. Why would you take the word of a mass murderer?

????? Stalin credited Darwin this his atheism in an authorized biography. Why would you doubt him?

Lysenko didn't understand Darwinian inheritance, and thus anything he said about it has to be taken with that caveat. .

Your losing track of the debate. You claimed that Stalin rejected Darwin, not that he -- or Lysenko -- misunderstood him.

Wow, an article from a religious periodical. That's convincing.

Here it is on Amazon

My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. Hitler 1922. I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so. Hitler, 1941

Hitler's plans for the Catholic Church along with his opinion of Christianity have become well established.

[ahayes]

Yep, but when this is posted the implication is that because the theory of evolution can be twisted to support evil, that means that the theory of evolution is inherently evil.

It comes up quite frequently.

[mlc9852]

Reference?

[Conservative Texan Mom]

I am not referring to science in this observation. I've been most impressed with most of the evos on these threads, as they will admit that science doesn't address whether or not there is a God. I believe that evolution, and God can both exist. That is my belief. Some believe that evolution exist, but there is no God. It is their belief, and they have the right to have this. Both of these are from a philosophical view, as science does not address whether there is, or is not, a God.

These threads do stray from basis in science at times. Most evo's on these threads, like yourself, stick to arguing science. The insults are often the result of frustration. In nearly every single thread, however, I have seen some sort of reference to the dark ages, and ignorance, in reference to religion. Currently there are remarks on this thread alluding to how one can understand the possibility of imprisonment for descent in the past, from their experience on these threads. I do feel that these comparisons are made out of a need to protect what one holds dear. In some cases, that is science, and in others that is religion. It is an observation, and not an insult. As to whether or not the fear is justified, I can not answer.

[driftdiver]

perhaps I forgot to inlcude my /sarc tag for the sarcasm challenged.

[Right Wing Professor]

please....no hitler/stalin talk

Kenny Bunkport brought it up.

[Virginia-American]

So please forgive me for laughing at your continued, tiring "proof."

"Science is hard."

- Barbie

[Virginia-American]

????? Stalin credited Darwin this his atheism in an authorized biography. Why would you doubt him?

Wow.

[ahayes]

Everyone knows Stalin would never lie!

[daysailor]

After a couple more books Coulter will have whittled down what it means to be conservative to, well, just her.

Everyone else will have been written off as treasonous, slandering, evolutionist girly-men.

Come to think of it, that's a pretty common tactic amongst the "more conservative than thou" crowd.

[Right Wing Professor]

Why would you doubt him?

Why would I doubt Stalin? LOL!

Your losing track of the debate. You claimed that Stalin rejected Darwin, not that he -- or Lysenko -- misunderstood him.

You think you can't simulataneously reject and misunderstand somthing? I wish it were true, because then creationists would not exist.

Here it is on Amazon

Weikart is a fellow of the Discvovery Institute and an avowed opponent of evolution. He's spent his career attacking 'Darwinism'. Why would I take him as an authority on anything?

The OSS was an arm of the US government, and by 1945 were intensely interested in anything that would position Hitler on the same side as Soviet Russia. This was policy, not history.