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. :-)

[CarolinaGuitarman]

Grrr, that last post was not supposed to have a recipient.

[EveningStar]

Yeah. And there are a lot of them here. I have a large SP ping list and I suspect that it represents only a fraction of them.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

It's amazing how an anti-evo can insult you in one post, then in the next complain about being told their knowledge of history is at grade school level. Such sensitive folks. Threatening to call the mods because their educational understanding was being called into question.

[Oztrich Boy]

Conservatives who believe in science and reason - and porn --...why that would describe most South Park Republicans, wouldn't?

Must not forget the porn (did I say porn? - I meant art - don't know where the other came from)

[Coyoteman]

This thread is getting too far off topic, so here is a little ammunition (this is one of my favorites, a really cute little guy):

---

Fossil: Taung Child

Site: Buxton Limeworks, Taung, South Africa (1)

Discovered By: M. de Bruyn, 1924 (1)

Estimated Age of Fossil: 2.3 mya * determined by Faunal & geomorphological data (1, 4, 5)

Species Name: Australopithecus africanus (1, 3, 7, 8)

Gender: Unknown (1)

Cranial Capacity: 405 (440 as adult) cc (1, 3)

Information: First early hominid fossil found in Africa (7, 8)

Interpretation:

• Juvenile (3 years old based on deciduous teeth, first permanent molars) (1, 3, 4, 7)
• Bipedal hominid (based on position of foramen magnum, brain endocast, small canines) (1, 3, 4, 7)
  
• Killed possibly by bird of prey (based on fractures and puncture marks on skull) (1, 10)

See original source for notes:
http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=27

[andysandmikesmom]

Conservative, belief in God, support of evolution, and a fan of South Park...we are in full agreement here...

[DocRock]

Wanna start over? My name is DocRock... we obviously got off to a bad start...

I humbly retract my request that you not ping me. I hope this solves any issues that may arise from your fumble fingers and maybe we can discuss our differences without resorting to me having to use the /sarc tag or you offending me by grading my history knowledge.

Truce?

[Ichneumon]

[Why do you find it "unfortunate" that competence in science can be recognized and appreciated regardless of party affiliation? Please be specific and complete in your answer, this should be very illuminating, a look into the mind of the anti-evolutionist.]

Please keep in mind that, if you are a teacher of any sort, you have no standing to issue requirements of any sort on my answer. Just...a friendly reminder. Your air of superiority really is a turn-off.

You might want to work on your reading comprehension. I "required" nothing. I asked you a question, and I requested (with a "please") that you be specific in your answer. So why are you falsely accusing me of "requiring" anything from you?

And why are you babbling about this only being applicable "if I am a teacher"? Does this mean I *do* have standing to require things from you if I am *not* a teacher? Because if not, your entire "if you are a teacher" clause is pointless... Try to remain coherent, Dave.

You ask why I say "unfortunately." I think it is "unfortunate" from a perspective of PR/public opinion to have DUers on your side.

Ah, right, because valid science is about *public relations*... I forgot. Thanks for the reminder.

And why exactly is it "bad PR" that a few posters on DU happen to appreciate the validity of PatrickHenry's material? Just how simple-minded are you? Are you truly so knee-jerk as that? Would it be "bad PR" if the tables were turned, and someone on DU said something sensible for a change, and someone on FR commented favorably on finding a DUer with his head screwed on straight?

In any case, WE'RE not the ones who dragged DU into this discussion, *YOU* are. It's not like *we* brought up the fact that a few folks over at DU appreciate PatrickHenry's science resources in a bizarre attempt to sway anyone towards the validity of evolutionary biology. No, *YOU* and "wallcrawlr" are the one who felt the need to drag DU into the discussion in a bizarre attempt to smear science through the fact that (gasp!) some liberals happen to recognize comptenecy in science when they see it, as if that invalidates the science itself.

YOU guys -- you anti-evolutionists -- are the ones playing the "DU card" in a cheap, sleazy attempt to propagandize against science by playing to political prejudices instead of addressing the science. So don't try to lecture *me* on the "PR/public opinion" perspective when YOU guys are the ones who are trying to flog the PR angle for all it's worth and brought up the whole DU thing in the first place.

Personally, I don't give a s**t what anyone on DU has to say. If I'm right, I'm right, and if I'm wrong, I'm wrong, whether anyone at DU might agree with me or not. To me it's the facts, the evidence, that matter. Only to someone as shallow as an anti-evolutionist, like you and "wallcrawlr", would be so obsessively concerned with what some liberals think to go running over to DU and root around to see if you can find some DU poster, somewhere, who might have mentioned any of us in any way, then come running triumphantly back here gibbering about how this somehow reflects badly on sciene, when anyone with a working brain would realize that it doesn't matter squat.

Hey, why don't I go running over to DU and find some post where someone over there happens to think the same thing that you or "wallcrawlr" do on some issue, so that I come back here and "tut tut" about how "unfortunate" it is for you from a "PR perspective"? Then maybe you'll finally get through your thick skull just how STUPID and CHILDISH this kind of idiocy is. I'd say that this behavior is beneath you, but really, it's not, and that's just freaking sad.

I'd go on more in an attempt to penetrate the fog that fills your skull by explaining just how stupid you're being, but it turns out that "stacytec" did a marvelous job of summing it and putting it better than I can manage:

I for one could care less what some idiot on the DU thinks of a discussion here on the Free Republic. I bet there are some (few) pro-lifers and some free traders on the DU too, how lame would it be to include their perspective on similar topics posted here to attack a position? Its a Red Herring (Guilt by Association) at best. Let them muddle in their own muck.

Bravo, stacytec.

Dave, would you care to apologize for your lame attempt to smear science and/or science-literate Freepers via the sleazy but transparent (and laughably childish) tactic of trying to play "guilt by association", as if the fact that some DUer recognizes good science when he sees it somehow "invalidates" the science?

Or would you like to keep playing these lame games and demonstrate that like all too many anti-evolutionists, you have no honor whatsoever?

You seem to think that members of Democrat Underground supporting the cause of evolution is "competence in science" that can be "recognized and appreciated regardless of party affiliation".

No, that's not what I said. Again, you might want to work on your reading comprehension. I said that competence in science (in this case, in a Freeper) can be recognized and appreciated by people regardless of party affiliation, and asked you why you described this as an "unfortunate" thing. Your bizarre attempt to re-paraphrase has described almost the exact opposite situation of what I actually said. This is not the first time you have done such a thing. Do you do it because you're unable to read and grasp simple English prose, or because you enjoy grossly misrepresenting what someone has said?

You do not find it telling as to the political and philosophical nature of Darwinism,

No, I don't, because I do not subscribe to the same sort of bizarre knee-jerk kind of non-thinking you do, *AND* because I am well aware of the actual "nature of Darwinism", unlike your own misconceptions about its alleged "political and philosophical natures".

Furthermore, only the most simple-minded would be able to "find" anything "telling" in something as trivial as the fact that at least one or two DUers can recognize PatrickHenry's competence in science. Only someone devoid of any ability to actually reason or reflect would use this as a springboard to go, "aha! If any DUer likes something, it MUST perforce be fraught with "political and philosophical" implications!"

Look, Dave, I'm sure a number of DUers like roller coasters, too, but I regret to inform you that this is not "telling", it doesn't say anything meaningful about the "political and philosophical nature" of roller coasters...

Be careful of that jerking knee, won't you?

and you seem to be out of touch with how this comes across to true conservatives.

Ah, yes, "true conservatives" being those who are predisposed to automatically hate anything that any liberal at all might like...

Does the phrase "common ground" or "things which transcend political positions" mean anything to you? Or does, say, car repair divide across liberal/conservative lines in your view as well? Not *everything* is political, Dave, although some self-styled "true conservatives" seem to be unaware of that fact.

And once again I'd like to defer to "stacytec" for making a point better than I could:

Last I checked, your name wasn't next to the definition of conservatism in the dictionary. So spare us with the " out of touch with true conservatives" jive and recognize your own condescending attitude in that very statement.

You know, Dave, it's pretty hilarious that you would arrogantly designate yourself a "true conservative" and imply that I'm not one in the same post that you sneer about my alleged "air of superiority". Hey Dave, your "more-conservative-than-thou" crap "really is a turn-off". Maybe you might want to work on that.

So am I not a "real conservative" in your empty-headed view, Dave? Why exactly would that be? Is it because I actually understand science and can spot the bulls*** shoveled out by the anti-evolutionists? Is spewing manure out of your mouth on science issues the hallmark of a "true conservative" in your view? Inquiring minds want to know. Because I can't think of many other topics on which my positions are significantly different from those generally considered to be "truly conservative".

I think as far as PR goes, it looks awful to have DUers supporting the pro-evolution members of Free Republic.

That's because you're being really silly. Quick, how about this equivalent assertion: "I think as far as PR goes, it looks awful to have DUers supporting the pro-physics members of Free Republic." Yeah, looks pretty moronic, doesn't it?

Dave, I don't give a crap what the DUers say, although *YOU* obviously obsess over it to a great degree, and read all sorts of Great Portents into their posts, as you've made very clear in this post of yours.

If anything, you should be *glad* that some of them have come to the conclusion that not all conservatives are morons and that some conservatives actually have a brain. This could be the crack in the door which might eventually lead them to consider that conservative positions or conservatism in general might not be as ridiculous as they had previously believed. Many people have come to eventually become conservatives themselves via such a road. But no, rather than take that as a potentially good thing, the first thing *you* can think of is to come running back here to beat some of your fellow conservatives over the head with it, in an attempt to excommunicate us from the flock and drive us out as not being "real" conservatives, begone foul posers who consort with demons! Wow, way to make friends and influence people, jerkwad. Not only do you want to demean the few liberals who have found at least one reason to respect some conservatives, but you want to attack the conservatives whom they admire and denounce them! Now *that's* a recipe for disastrous PR!

I'd ask if you have thought this through, but I already know the answer -- "thought" had nothing to do with how you arrived at your boneheaded strategy.

Few on FR tend to think of the DUers as a very scientific bunch;

Some are, some aren't -- just like here (*cough*).

this is the same board threatening Michelle Malkin by posting her name and address.

...and *this* (the one we're posting on) is the same board where numerous people frequently threaten to commit mass genocide on the entire Muslim world, via nuking hundreds of millions of people. Now would you care to return to the subject at hand, or run off on yet more irrelevant tangents? And although I was not previously aware of the action you mention (when I said I don't give a crap about what happens at DU, I meant it), your comment made me curious (I reflexively fact-check the claims of anti-evolutionists, because long experience has taught me that they're masters at gross falsehoods, misrepresentations, half-truths, and selective omissions), so I did some research on it just now, and I note that you have sort of "forgotten" to mention that this was in response to Michelle Malkin posting other people's personal contact information herself first (more details here). There's enough blame to go around on that one. You also "forgot" to mention that the DU moderators removed the member post that contained Malkin's information, and in its place provided a link to the DU rules which prohibit such behavior. Was that very honest of you?

In any case, again this whole issue is irrelevant to your lame attempt to play "guilt by association". Even if DU is Hitler reincarnated, the fact that someone at DU happens to recognize scientific competence when they see it in no way impugns the target, as you and "wallcrawlr" try mightily to assert. Heck, even Hitler himself tried to get people to stop smoking -- does that automatically make all anti-smoking efforts a *bad* thing?

Yes, there are a lot of true nutballs at DU. Granted. Sadly, we have a bunch here as well. Such is the nature of the internet (or any large gathering of people anywhere).

But if you think that it's "unfortunate" or "telling" that someone at DU -- or *anywhere* -- happens to recognize scientific competence when they see it, it reveals a *whole* lot more about your own mindset than it does about ours. It shows that since *you* already falsely see evolutionary biology as primarily a "political or philosophical" issue instead of as a scientific one, you make the mistake of interpreting everything ever said about it in the context of "proving" your pre-existing prejudice. Like most anti-evolutionists, you base your *opposition* to biology on political/philosophical grounds, and as a result you incorrectly presume that people who *support* science must likewise do so for political/philosophical. Your mindset colors your thoughts and alleged reasoning process. You're reinforcing your personal presumptions.

When I asked the question of you, I predicted that the answer would be "very illuminating, a look into the mind of the anti-evolutionist". And I was right. The most thing "telling" about this exchange is what it says about yourself, Dave.

And what's with the massive ping list on your post? Are you under the impression that your cheap and transparently lame slurs against pro-science Freepers are avidly followed by your adoring fans? Or were you just desperately signalling for help as you flailed around? I only pinged a very few folks to my original question who had already seen your original comment and I thought they might be interested in your followup. What's *your* excuse?

So will we see an apology from you for your sleazy attempt at a cheap smear?

[Oztrich Boy]

Fossil: Taung Child

Big deal (that sarcasm by the way). You can't fool Ann Coulter, she knows stuff "And a long line of supposed evidence, from the infamous Piltdown Man "

[wallcrawlr]

Ich, do you happen to live alone or are you married?

I mean...do you talk more than her?

When youre sitting in your house chatting...who gets a word in?

I've never seen a dude with so much to say.

That was a great post. I'm glad I was mentioned...I feel honored.

[Virginia-American]

Just becuase someone has a different opinion about evolution discredits her opinions on everything else?

No, she might have a reasonable opinion on other things. But it does call her integrity, credibility and honesty into question.

I'll not be buying any more of her books if she in fact is supporting anti-science.

(Assuming the worst here)

Either she has been educated in science, and knows better, and is dishonestly playing demagogue, OR she's uneducated, but instead of consulting experts, she consulted Dembski. That, in fact, would be very M. Moorish.

Like I said, I'll have to see excerpts from her book before making judgment.

There are a lot of honest conservative authors left

[Ichneumon]

Think about it, Dave.

That's good advice, I wish he'd follow it for once.

People who talk about nothing but Darwinism all day and never prove their conservative mettle.

Really? Like whom? I'm not aware of anyone who posts "about nothing but Darwinism all day". Perhaps you could name some names and substantiate your allegation, so that we can be sure you're not just talking about fignments of your own imagination.

It's not implausible that FR is flooded with DUmmies parading as "conservative" Darwinists.

That would only be plausible to people who were very confused about what would actually fit the DUmmies' agenda. Why in the heck would faux "conservative Darwinists" do any good for the DUers? Instead, they'd make a lot more headway by trolling as such whacko anti-evolutionists that they'd scare a lot of sane people away from conservatism, *and* give lots of liberal bloggers juicy quotes to use to show just how wild-eyed and irrational the "conservatives" are.

I can't imagine what good it would do the liberals to fake "conservative Darwinists", and I doubt you can either. What on Earth would it benefit the DUers to add rational, informed posters to FreeRepublic? You really haven't thought this through at all, have you? You seem to just be relying on your paranoia ("gosh, Martha, no one could possibly disagree with me and be a real conservative, must be them anti-conservative conspiracies!")

You guys crack me up.

[EveningStar]

commit mass genocide on the entire Muslim world, via nuking hundreds of millions of people

What's wrong with that?

Just kidding! :D~

[wallcrawlr]

ok, i dont think it calls those things into question but we're different.

yep, i look fwd to seeing the actual quotes/paragraph/chapter too.

but you may have to buy it to see it. :)

[Ichneumon]

Ich, do you happen to live alone or are you married? I mean...do you talk more than her? When youre sitting in your house chatting...who gets a word in? I've never seen a dude with so much to say. That was a great post. I'm glad I was mentioned...I feel honored.

So no apology or even a cogent response from you, I see, just more childish sneering.

Folks, behold the maturity level of the average anti-evolutionist.

[Oztrich Boy]

I think as far as PR goes, it looks awful to have DUers supporting the pro-evolution members of Free Republic.

That's because you're being really silly. Quick, how about this equivalent assertion: "I think as far as PR goes, it looks awful to have DUers supporting the pro-physics members of Free Republic." Yeah, looks pretty moronic, doesn't it?

Actually the argument "I think as far as PR goes, it looks awful to have DUers supporting the pro-NRA RKBA members of Free Republic." IS made over on DU a lot. And Yes it looks pretty moronic.

And anybody over there who argues "Look RKBA is the correct position, and I don't care if Freepsrs are agreeing with that or not" is called "Freeper Troll"

[Ichneumon]

ok, i dont think it calls those things into question but we're different.

Yes, you don't care if someone spews gross falsehoods, and we do.

yep, i look fwd to seeing the actual quotes/paragraph/chapter too. but you may have to buy it to see it. :)

It hardly surprises me that yet another anti-evolutionist reveals that he is unfamiliar with things called "libraries".

[wallcrawlr]

Ich...your meds are starting to wear off.


you know how cranky you get when that happens.

go drink some warm milk and lay down.

[Ichneumon]

And anybody over there who argues "Look RKBA is the correct position, and I don't care if Freepsrs are agreeing with that or not" is called "Freeper Troll"

It's rather ironic that there are DUers who "reason" the same way that DaveLoneRanger and his friends do, given the nature of his recent silliness.

[RunningWolf]

Not only is the Mayflower compact is a founding document. It like the Magna Carta, is just one of the key and core documents that formed the bedrock of documents of which then the US Constitution was built upon.

Pre-Colonial
To 1600

* The Magna Carta (1215)
* Letter from Christopher Columbus to the King & Queen of Spain (1490's)
* The *Iroquois Constitution

17th Century
1601-1649

* The First, Second, & Third Virginia Charters
* The Mayflower Compact (1620)
* The Charter of Massachusetts Bay (1629)
* The Fundamental Orders of Connecticut (1639)

1650-1700

* The Connecticut Colony Charter (1662)
* The First Thanksgiving Proclamation (1676)

18th Century
1701-1774

* The Albany Plan of 1754
* The Resolutions of the Stamp Act (Oct. 19, 1765)

1775-1800

* *Biographies of the *First Ladies & *Presidents of the United States
* Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death by Patrick Henry (March 23, 1775)
* The Declaration of Arms (July 6, 1775)
* Yankee Doodle
* The Virginia Declaration of Rights (June 12, 1776)
* The Declaration of Independence (July 4, 1776)
* The Works of Benjamin Franklin
* The Articles of Confederation (Nov. 15, 1777)
* The Treaty of Paris (1783)
* The Federalist Papers
* The Memorial and Remonstrance (June 20, 1785)
* The Annapolis Convention (Sept. 14, 1786)
* Letter of Transmittal of the U.S. Constitution (Sept. 17, 1787)
* The Constitution of the United States. (1787)

Wolf