Coulter vs Darwin

Godless | 06/06 | Ann Coulter

[Mamzelle]

Compared with their fanicful story of human consciousness developing by random mutation and a bloody battle for survival, the story of Genesis is quantum physics. It's not merely opposable thumbs and a bipedal gait that make us distinct from the other beasts. It is consciousness of our mortality, a moral sense, language, mathematics, art, beauty music, love, longings for immortality, a sense of symmetry, the soul's ascent, the ability to accessorize, and our fascination with Branson, Missouri--none of which make sense in Darwinian terms. Darwiniacs like Dennett avoid explaining the human soul by calling the soul an illsuion. As Dennett says, "(If) mindless evolution could account for the breathtakingly clever artifacts of the biosphere, how could the products of our own real minds be exempt from an evolutionary explanation?" She devotes some ink to this Dennett fellow...

[bornacatholic]

Fides et Ratio is worth googling in relationship to the background of the question of evolution. The Catholic Church, unbeknownst to many, has championed innumerable scientific advances. We see no war twizt genuine science and authentic Faith .

[Finny]

ahayes, that was a GREAT post! I couldn't agree more. God works His wonders in strange and mysterious ways, and through the most unlikely people and venues. To me, evolution IS intelligent design, a mechanism of God. The bible talks a lot about the devil disguising himself as holy. The devil uses deception. Science seeks the truth about the physical world around us, and truth leads to God. To me, educated people of the 21st century who are anti-evolution and pro-creation, are following a well-disguised Satan. They are being fooled.

[DoctorMichael]

"....there is no shortage of Eisegesis either....."

*LOL*

[Nod, nod, wink, wink]

[Dracian]

[evolution is] a basic plank in the liberal/demokkkrat world view.

But that illustrates a fallacy of Annie and the creationists, since the conclusion they draw doesn't follow.

Schematically it is: liberals believe in evolution, liberalism is wrong, therefore evolution is wrong.

Liberals also believe in mathematics. Therefore mathematics is wrong. etc. You can see the logical error of damning evolution merely because of who believes in it.

Annie could be 100% right that liberals have evolution as a foundation of their ideology. Yet it would be a logical error to condemn evolution on that basis. Evolution as a theory has to stand or fall on its own and the nature and ideology of the people who accept or reject it is irrelevant.

Therefore Annie's long discussion is irrelevant.

[bornacatholic]

I expect you to believe Jesus.

Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered him, saying: Master we would see a sign from thee. Who answering said to them: An evil and adulterous generation seeketh a sign: and a sign shall not be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet. For as Jonas was in the whale's belly three days and three nights: so shall the Son of man be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights.

[Finny]

"No science is ever frightening to Christians. Religious people don't need the science to come out any particular way on IQ or AIDS or sex differences any more than they need the science to come out any particular way on evolution...If evolution is true, then God created evolution." -- Ann Coulter

If Ann wrote that, she's okay in my book and has been woefully misrepresented regarding her ideas about natural selection and evolution.

[bornacatholic]

Yeah but she is definitely better-looking than Darwin; and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Or, maybe Darwin evolved into Ruth Bader Gibsburg

Anyway, Ann she did a great job last night during her interview with Lou Dobbs

[Mamzelle]

Ernst Haeckel, the creative genius behind the fake embryo drawings that were cited as proof of evolution for a century, was an influential German Darwinist. Upon reading The Origin of the Species, Haeckel abandoned his practice as a physician and became a leading proponent of racism and nationalism. He gleefully wrote that Darwinism had overthrown religion's "anthropocentric fable" which had falsely elevated man above other species...

[ahayes]

Assuming Satan's existence, the insistence that evolution could never happen, even with God's guidance, does seem like a rather diabolical ploy to keep people from converting to Christianity.

[bornacatholic]

NO WAY. A conservative misunderstood? :)

If 1/2 of the GOP "men" had 1/10th the courage she displays, we'd be 200% better off than we are now

[Right Wing Professor]

If Ann wrote that, she's okay in my book and has been woefully misrepresented regarding her ideas about natural selection and evolution.

Yes, she wrote it, but only after 3 chapters of flinging abuse at evolution and anyone who considers it the best explanation of the origin of speices. In the military, it's known as a CYA.

[bornacatholic]

http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/godless.php

[Mamzelle]

The single greatest victory of the Darwiniacs is in the realm of rhetoric, not science. They have persuaded the slumbering masses that anyone who questions the theory of evolution must do so out of religious fervor. Not matter what argument you make against evolution, the response is "well, you know it's possible to believe in evolution and believe in God." Yes, and it's possible to believe in Spiderman and believe in God, but that doesn't prove Spiderman is true.

[sinkspur]

Of course Jesus would know the Jonah story. He was an educated Jew. The point of Jesus' reference was His own death and resurrection, foretold in the Jonah metaphor.

What difference would it make, in Jesus' admonition to the Pharisees, if Jonah actually existed or not?

[PatrickHenry]

Fides et Ratio is worth googling in relationship to the background of the question of evolution. The Catholic Church, unbeknownst to many, has championed innumerable scientific advances. We see no war twizt genuine science and authentic Faith .

This may be what you have in mind: Faith can never conflict with reason. The Church has had a spotty record in the past, but they're definitely on the right track now.

[bornacatholic]

Yes. He was pretty smart, wasn't He? Prolly home-schooled.

It made a difference to you, brother. You used it as an attack on the Bible.

Please be at liberty to engage in Eisegesis to explain how the narration of the history of Jonah's actions are metaphor while the similar narrations about Elias and Eliseus are not metaphor. Or, maybe those too are "metaphors."

Did the men of Nineveh do penance or not? Was it metaphorical penance, brother?

About the historical Jonas, read..St. Augustine The answer to this (Jonas) is that either belief must be withheld form all divine miracles, or there is no reason why this should not be believed

[bornacatholic]

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0895260387/104-0684467-3532723?n=283155

[VadeRetro]

Supposedly so. And yet this evolutionary change has never been directly observed to produce anything but minor tweaks within limits. It hardly merits extrapolations into the amoeba-to-man history so loftily espoused as a "scientific reality" in many public school textbooks.

How many times have you made this protest, and when I stuffed all the evidence at you, you admitted that as a YEC you were never going to acknowledge that any of it means anything?

[JamesP81]

I'm afraid that what those in the science community either don't or can't understand is that ToE is a large club that the liberals are using against Christianity. They get very unhappy when I start pointing out that libs are doing this. All I can say is this: if they don't want to be painted as being on the lib side of an issue, they need a) quit acting like they know that evolution did, in fact, occur because they don't and b) they need to clean their own house (by that, get rid of the libs trying to discredit Christians using ToE).