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 same chapters, (the Letter points out), in simple and metaphorical language adapted to the mentality of a people but little cultured, both state the principal truths which are fundamental for our salvation, and also give a popular description of the origin of the human race and the chosen people.
Metaphorical, adapted, a popular description of the origin of the human race. Humani Generis states, in clear terms, that Genesis is largely a metaphor and a story meant to convey important truths. It is the truths which demand our focus, and not the details which deliver those truths.
We're on the same page.
That's the basic idea of atheism, and I agree it has bad consequences. But there are no particular reasons why God creating people through an evolutionary process is any more problematic than creating them directly from dust.
"Ya' shouldn't outta ha' done it, Baby."
I've read the 'scientific' chapters. Nobody but a complete moron could be taken in by such dreck. But no doubt several of them will appear on this thread.
Her chapters on Darwinism are incisive. Consider the Darwiniacs in our midst to be anomalies, although they do have the tendency, like liberals, to call names rather than scientfically address the evidence for intelligent design. For them evidence of intelligent design is not possible unless there is an intelligent being present to verbally attest to its involvement in the design process. For them, substituting the word "nature" for "God" suddenly makes one a scientist.
Yes, that's why so many of us have been banned or suspended recently--oh, wait, no, those were creationists.
This came after she spent several chapters ridiculing evolution and anyone who accepts it as the origin of species. Bit late for a CYA.
What I like best about myself is that I never boast.
Thanks for posting right after my post number 64. A better example of 'speaking of the devil' I couldn't have hoped for.
"What I like best about myself is that I never boast."
That's nice.
Makes a change from widows.
Let us not flinch from identifying liberalism as the opposition party to God.
Although God-believers don't need evolution to be false, athiests need evolution to be true. A. C.
The last quarter of Ann's book is about scientist posers--and it really stings. Now that she's scored big with the Jersey Girls, we'll start hearing the squawks from our resident sore-tailed evo-cats.
Surely those who act in opposition to Allah and His Messenger shall be laid down prostrate as those before them were laid down prostrate; and indeed We have revealed clear communications, and the unbelievers shall have an abasing chastisement.The Holy Koran, Ch. 58, verse 5. Interestingly, this chapter is titled AL-MUJADILA (SHE THAT DISPUTETH).
It might if there were any accurate information in the book.
But DaveLoneRanger (not exactly and evo) posted this morning a survery published by the Washington Times (not exactly the WP) indicating almost half of Republicans accept evolution.
If you look at the details of the survey, nearly all people with advanced academic degrees accept evolution (80%).
A rhetorical score against Victim politics.
I think she should have made more of the point, however, about military widows of the WOT who do not get feted glamourously in public, nor do they get a hysterically large windfall from an intimidated government.
Ann lost a good friend on one of those 9/11 airplanes.
Claiming that they were happy about their husband's deaths, that they were about to be divorced anyway, and that they should appear in Playboy while they still can, is so crass and despicable that I am ashamed I ever had anything good to say about this shrill, hateful witch.
But it does not surprise me to see you defend her.
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.