Coulter vs Darwin

Godless | 06/06 | Ann Coulter

[tomzz]

You can't help but notice that there is a very vocal sort of a little clique of evolutionists on FreeRepublic, and there has always been a question in a lot of people's minds as to whether or not the theory of evolution is in any way compatible with conservatism.

This new book ("Godless") of Ann Coulter's should pretty much settle the issue.

Ann does not mince words, and she has quite a lot to say about evolution:

"Liberals' creation myth is Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, which is about one notch above scientology in scientific rigor. It's a make-believe story, based on a theory which is a tautology, with no proof in the scientists laboratory or the fossil record, and that's after 150 years of very determined looking. We wouldn't still be talking about it but for the fact that liberals think evolution disproves God....

It gets better from there, in fact a lot better. Ann provides a context for viewing the liberal efforts to shut down everything resembling debate on the subject in courtrooms and makes a general case that it is the left and not the right, which is antithetical to science in general. Anybody interested in this question of American society and the so-called theory of evolution should have a copy of this book

[1000 silverlings]

Sigh back to you, evolution is not a "threat" to our belief. It's a wrong path we refuse to follow you down.

[andysandmikesmom]

Ah, go on ahead and brag...I often brag about my younger son(I am sure I could have bragged about my older boy, had he survived his leukemia)....

I used to look at the Astronomy Picture of the Day, quite regularly...havent done that for a while tho...thanks for bringing that to my attention...will have to look at that once again, because some of those pics were just wonderful...

We also get the NASA channel, tho I have not really watched it...maybe I should, and see what I have been missing....thanks for bringing that to my attention as well...

On bragging about ones children...nothing wrong with that...sounds like your son is a really bright child, and interested in such grand subjects...he makes you proud, and there is nothing wrong with that...brag away, I like to hear about other peoples children and their accomplishments...

[Right Wing Professor]

We know for a fact that the liberal left and Hillary Clinton agrees with you.

Nope. They hate her because she's a conservative. I'm ashamed of her because she's a conservative.

[DaGman]

Coulter jumps the shark with this one. She ought to stick to things she knows something about. Both skis, way up in the air... way over the shark! Good job, Annie. Science lessons from an attorney. Right.

[DaGman]

"The age of Darwin has come to a close and not with a big bang, but with a whipping."

Meanwhile, all over the world, scientists are applying knowledge of evolution to everything from new vaccines to developing new polymers.

[1000 silverlings]

Well that is your opinion and you have a right to that opinion. I think she's brave and I think she rocks.

[RightWingNilla]

It's a wrong path we refuse to follow you down.

Why exactly is it "wrong"?

[1000 silverlings]

I got a partial answer, not a full one. I don't know tomzz nor even if he is a Christian and no one made me a judge over the man.

[restornu]

How is 1000 silverlings responsible for what tomzz's post?

[RunningWolf]

There are elitists in this country who think Americans are stupid people and make derogatory comments about them. I think they do it to make themselves feel better as they really are not any great shakes themselves

You might see that from some of the 1st generation immigrants, and native citizens with a leftist agenda. Academia seems to be a rich environment for them. They want to re-write our history and our Constitution too. I'm not saying I don't want them here, but they do come across as some conflicted individuals at times.

Free speech is vital, how one uses it equally so.

It is shameful that I allow myself to get engaged by their vitriol at times and 'behave poorly, not nice, impolite' but if it comes down to it, I will stay towards truth rather than 'nice'

Wolf

[1000 silverlings]

They want to re-write our history and our Constitution too.

Yep, you are so right.

[Almagest]

As everyone can see, my post was removed, because it contained a personal reference. Let me rephrase the question in a more academic way.

Here's the set-up: Let's say I am in a discussion concerning the different Christian ideas about baptism. We all know there are several competing positions on baptism, and the various factions are vociferous in their arguments for their own view, and in their arguments against other views.

Now -- let's say that I am an advocate of infant baptism by sprinkling, and I am arguing with an advocate of believer's baptism of adult converts only -- by immersion. In the course of the argument, I post a link to an article claiming that those on my opponent's side have suppressed biblical material that clearly supports my side's view. I not only post the article -- but I press the point strongly, on the basis of the article. That is -- I am not just a "messenger"; I am an adcovate, and I am using that article to help me make my point.

Now -- it just so happens that you have the inside information about the issues addressed in that article. You have the "goods" -- and the facts not only do not support the claims in the article, but they completely refute the claims. Your source goes right back to the original documents [Yes, I know we don't have the original MSS, but this is just an analogy] -- and the original documents turn out to support your side completely.

Would you consider it fair play or a demonstration of integrity on my part to refuse to accept your evidence -- and continue to point to my article as the final answer? I sincerely doubt that you would. I think it is obvious that you would consider my behavior in the matter outrageous and inexcusable.

Now then -- let's reverse things. What if it were someone on YOUR side of the baptism debate who was using a fraudulent argument in the same way -- posting to an article whose argument is completely refuted by the original documents -- and refusing to back down, even in the face of the clear evidence. Would you be just as disturbed by the behavior, were it coming from someone on your own side?

I know that when I was a Christian pastor, and I saw people on "my side" making arguments that are proven false, and refusing to retract them and admit wrong -- I was very upset with them -- because it reflected so badly on "my side," and I did not want to be associated with that kind of behavior, which to me was unethical. I have been there many times -- and every time I hated to see it done by those "on my side." I was often harder on them than I was on those from "the other side."

Without reference to anything or anyone in here -- this is what I am getting at. As a general principle -- can I get people on both sides to agree with this? I would hope so. I know I can get my fellow "evil evos" to agree to it, because I have seen in their behavior this same approach. But I am very disturbed by what I have seen on "the other side." I have already mentioned it several times on several threads.

Can I get at least some creationists to agree with this general principle of ethical behavior? Is this not reasonable -- and right? Please -- speak up and let me know. I am not asking for argument about any of the specific issues. I just want to know that the people I am debating with have the same ethical principles I am trying to adhere to. Otherwise, I am wasting my efforts.

[RunningWolf]

I believe you about your son.

My dad was a draftsman-engineer at North American during the early mid parts of the B70 project and would bring home tons of stuff to absorb. Later he was contract purchasing mgr for one the corporations that did the Curtain-wall and some of the Iron work on the Sears Tower.

I had a good talent for visualizing 'the picture'. At age 6 or 7 I pointed out some technical errors in the images on electronic theory book, etc, and identified the interior of a Spanish galleon 'by the structure' when none of my peers could.

Approx 16 years later, myself and only one other guy aced a 2 hour exam in 40 minutes on all the dynamics of sonic-to-supersonic-back-to-sonic airflow that was given by a GE turbine design engineer who had been with GE from J47 to the J93 and beyond, he was talking about the 'scram jet' in the mid 70's.

But back to the past, my Dad spent the time one night in Highland Pk-Dallas Tx circa 1960 to just watch the dark star filled sky till I saw that one 'moving star' tracking across. That was sputnik, I learned it was a 'satellite' and he explained all the physics involved. And he did it in a way to awaken wonder and awe rather than trepidation.

Of course the world was getting ready to deal that to us anyway in a couple of years with the Cuban Missile's crisis, Kennedy's assassination, riots, etc. Even then I figured out that the ridiculous crouch posture behind a wall was not going to do much for us. As kids we found and explored some of the underground evacuation tunnels lined with 50 gal drums of water, asstd foods, dry and can foodstuff's, medicines, etc.

Wolf

[restornu]

I think this has been debated and many are not please with a vanity that confuses both sides, but it is here now going on the 433 post!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1646185/replies?c=83

And the RF don't get many Cervo threads and some Cervo are so academic and might I say elitist.

I think it is still in many cases theory and if one does see it in the traditional evolution, which a mutation takes place as in the Walking Stick insect many here will make fun of story!

Walking sticks lost wings, then re-evolved them
Raises questions about basics of evolutionary theory
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-01/byu-wsl011303.php

[Almagest]

Well -- I read your answer four times, and I still can't find anything in it that has anything to do with what I asked about -- but thanks anyway -- I think.

[restornu]

FM

[Dimensio]

Your statement in no way shows that there is any flaw with the theory of evolution. In fact, it appears to be attacking the situation from an incorrect angle; the statement that it is not impossible to beleive that God exists while accepting evolution is a response to claims that evolution is inherently atheistic. It is not, and has never been used as an argument to show that evolution is true. The counterargument that you present is not honestly representing the statement to which it responds.

[Dimensio]

I see it didn't take long for someone to compare Christians to Islamic Terrorist killers and kooks.

PatrickHenry was speaking specifically of creationists, not all Christians. It is not honest to represent his statement as such.

[1000 silverlings]

So then Creationists are terrorists, killers and kooks?