Posted on 06/09/2006 6:16:57 AM PDT by 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
The recipe for good sales...
If one doesn't take something literally, does that mean they take it relatively?
For the record, I hadn't encountered this word in awhile so I had to look it up.........
ex·e·ge·sis ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ks-jss)
n. pl. ex·e·ge·ses (-sz)
1) an explanation or critical interpretation (especially of the Bible)
2) Critical explanation or analysis, especially of a text.
exegete \EK-suh-jeet\, noun:
A person who explains or interprets difficult parts of written works.
exegete is from Greek exegetes, from the verb exegeisthai, "to interpret," and is related to exegesis.
All the things said in this passage are clear and should be paid attention to, without an exegete interpreting.
-- Galen, "Commentary on Hippocrates", On the Nature of ManHe is far more a man of prayer, a witness, a confessor and a prophet, than a learned exegete and close thinking scholastic.
-- Adolf Deissmann, Paul, A Study in Social and Religious History
[Greek exgsis, from exgeisthai, to interpret : ex-, ex- + hgeisthai, to lead; see sg- in Indo-European Roots.]
"You can understand how evolution and natural selection work without being terrified of the word 'Jesus' and scared of religion in general."
Not if you're a pandering, anorexic clone of Skeletor!!!
Yes. One place where it's used to great effect is here: The Pope's 1996 statement on evolution. Exerpts:
It is necessary to determine the proper sense of Scripture, while avoiding any unwarranted interpretations that make it say what it does not intend to say. In order to delineate the field of their own study, the exegete and the theologian must keep informed about the results achieved by the natural sciences ...
[snip]Today, almost half a century after the publication of the Encyclical, fresh knowledge has led to the recognition that evolution is more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favour of this theory.
Ann Coulter is not a scientist. Why in the world should anyone care a whit for her opinions on evolution? People who run around attacking Darwinism on religious grounds do tremendous damage to the cause of religious belief. I have never met anyone who lost his faith because of Darwin. I have met many who lost it because they became convinced that religion was anti-science. These kinds of attacks on Darwin may make some people feel good, but they persuade no one in the scientific community. And as long as the scientific community (which, by the way, includes many devout religious believers, like myself) is convinced that Darwinism is substantially correct, no amount of agitating against it in the popular media is going to overthrow it. If Darwinism is wrong, it will eventually be overthrown by scientists, not by sneering ignoramuses.
If you're going to publish on a subject under your own name, and your ghoster is a crackpot, you have failed in your profession.
Well said.
Bookmark
Given the trouble I had parsing this sentence, it's no wonder I don't always perform the action properly.
Ann Coulter seems to share my own basic opinion of evolution, i.e. that it is junk science and that, unlike scientology and other things which might be called harmless flavors of junk science, evolution is manifestly harmful. On top of all that, it's a basic plank in the liberal/demokkkrat world view. I don't really see how a conservative could buy off on it. Ideas have consequences and the consequences of evolution have been horrific. The basic idea is that your neighbor, rather than being a creation of God, is basically just a cosmic accident or a meat byproduct of cosmic accidents. That idea has to have bad consequences.
Two problems:
1. Your point of view would justify censoring an idea not because it is untrue, but because it has consequences you personally don't like.
2. The theory of evolution cannot logically have philosophical or moral consequences due to the ought-is conflict. Thus your entire argument is irrelevant. As the initial poster said, if you don't like atheistic philosophy, attack that, don't get confused and attack evolution and think you're going to accomplish anything.
Ann echos my own view in noting that the theory is so bad that it would have been abandoned as science 100 years ago other than for the fact that libs and atheists use it as a security blanket. The theory has been massively disproven any number of ways; GIVEN that, it is absolutely valid to note the pathalogical consequences.
Really, what is your scientific educational background? Because I read journal articles on the topic every day and more and more supporting evidence is being found.
Ping.
That probably wasn't a good idea of what to say to the Religion Moderator.
And her basis for saying this is . . . ?
In addition to those denominations that follow a literal reading of Genesis, there are people all over the world, of many faiths, who share Ann's deeply-held belief in creationism, creation-science, and Intelligent Design.
To begin with, there are the Raelians, a sect based entirely on ID.
Don't overlook a billion followers Islam. For inspiration, read: Why Muslims Should Support Intelligent Design, By Mustafa Akyol.
The Hare Krishnas also reject Darwinian evolution. Their website has several enlightening articles. For example: The Intelligent Designer.
There is also the Unification Church, founded by Rev. Sun Myung Moon. One of Moon's followers, Jonathan Wells, is a leading intellectual in the ID movement. He is the author of Icons of Evolution, and is a Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute. Wells has written movingly about how Rev. Moon motivated his career in ID: Darwinism: Why I Went for a Second Ph.D.
You're in good company, Ann! Keep up the good work!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.