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. :-)

[Ichneumon]

You make it sound just like TOE.

You really haven't a clue. Why do you even bother?

[mlc9852]

I bother because of the apparent aggravation it causes you and RWP. It's my entertainment on boring days at work.

[Ichneumon]

Hand-wave

Thank you for demonstrating yet again that the anti-evolutionists don't even attempt to deal with the points people make, or the evidence presented.

[swmobuffalo]

"No, there isn't. There are many things that you can point to to reinforce your beliefs, but, objectively, they aren't evidence of squat, deity-wise."

Sad. There's more I could say but it obviously would be lost on you.

[mlc9852]

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. 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 any time someone posts opinions from scientists who disagree with TOE, you and others point out how unqualified they really are. No surprise there. So please forgive me for laughing at your continued, tiring "proof."

[wallcrawlr]

its pretty clear what God is going to grade us on.

yeah, what you believe about his son and have done about it...not what you believe about the earth

[ahayes]

Yeah, it's too bad, I really liked her at first and then in the past couple years she's started grating on me. She can be way too excessively obnoxious.

[Sam's Army]

"Nor is an 80-pound anorexic looking to sell her latest book."

Mee-ow

[Conservative Texan Mom]

(Again, if you read the bible its pretty clear what God is going to grade us on.)

The Bible is very clear about salvation. The New testament is devoted to Christ teachings. Creation in Genesis is limited to 37 sentences in Chapter one, and one very long sentence in chapter two. There is a lot of room for interpretation. I believe that if we were to be judged on whether our interpretation is correct or not, it would be far more detailed. The point of Genesis is that God did it, and we should have faith in that. How, is not spelled out.

( The bible (NT) can be traced back to the original texts which were written, in many cases, by the witnesses of events.)

There was no original witness to creation other than the Creator. Authorship of Genesis is thought to be attributed to Moses. I believe the Bible to be God's inspired word. Moses would have to have been inspired through some sort of revelation, perhaps a vision or a dream. What would this have looked like? If the Earth, and life took many years to form, would the vision have reflected that, or might it have been interpreted spontaneously? One thing I find very curious in Genesis is that on four occasions it mentions life being formed out of the Earth. What did Moses see in his revelation that he would interpret in this way?

[wallcrawlr]

I'm surprised they even know who Ann is.

the pictures help

[wallcrawlr]

What's also interesting is that they all show up without any evidence of pinging.

they share the same closet?

[ahayes]

Nah, we more often point out how their argument is inaccurate, shallow, or irrelevant to reality.

[driftdiver]

"Now think this through -- when you witness to someone do you argue the age of the Earth or do you describe how Jesus changed your life and delivered you from your sins?"

Don't argue the age of the earth. I admit I don't know and will probably never know as our sampling is microscopic.

The OT can be traced back to original texts which still exist. Many of these are on hand in the vatican which for some reason never lets anyone see them.

You can either accept the research and documentation of thousands of biblical scholars or not. But if you start to question the bible as being fallible it opens the barn door. If the bible is fallible then who decides what parts are correct? Why should I believe some liberal "scientist" who is government funded any more than I should believe biblical scholars who are privatly funded.

The scientists are pushing this agenda ( as with Global Warming) to get more grant money.

[Conservative Texan Mom]

I knew post #107 was yours LONG before I got to the bottom.

[mlc9852]

Maybe God inspired Moses on what to write. After all, the Bible is the inspired word of God. And Genesis is clear that God is the creator of all.

[wallcrawlr]

thats silliness...are you just one dimensional?

[Right Wing Professor]

Stalin credits Darwin with leading him to atheism.

Why would you take the word of a mass murderer? In contrast, we know Stalin trained in a seminary. We don't have to take his word for it.

Progressively thinking biologists, both in our country and abroad, saw in Darwinism the only right road to the further development of scientific biology. Reactionary biologists have therefore done everything in their power to empty Darwinism of its materialist elements. Trofim Lysenko

Boy, you really have quote mining down to a science. You find a quote page, and then mine it further, ignoring the quotes that contradict your position.

Lysenko didn't understand Darwinian inheritance, and thus anything he said about it has to be taken with that caveat. Wikipedia has a full article on Lysenkoism. It nicely summarizes it thusly: Lysenko's actual "science" was nonexistent. He was a proponent of the ideas of Ivan Michurin, and practiced a form of Lamarckism, insisting on the change in species among plants through hybridization and grafting, as well as a variety of other non-genetic techniques.

As for Hitler, Richard Weikart , a respected historian, wrote a book making a strong case for that he was influenced strongly by Darwin.

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

Here's Hitler in his own words. He constantly professed to be a Catholic/Christian. Therefore, it's really odd to say he was anti-Christian.

And remember, Hitler was anti-Catholic/anti-Christian.

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

[driftdiver]

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

Good point. To me its like saying "I say this color is red, if you don't believe its red then you are ignorant."

[wallcrawlr]

There are, however, *specific* anti-science folks on these threads who are indeed accurately described as fanatics and who, if they had their way, would destroy the effective teaching of science in the United States, even if they *think* they're "protecting" science when they attack what they see as "heretical" fields of science.

name names...or ping them when you discuss them

I'm interested to see who's on your "list"

[driftdiver]

"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"

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