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

[Fester Chugabrew]

Your conjectures regarding the evidence deserve no more credibilty than those who accept shorter periods of time and a common designer.

[VadeRetro]

If I can look my version up in an Encyclopedia and you have to make yours up as you go along, who's conjecturing?

[Dimensio]

That is because I am not a Hitler, or Stalin, or Sanger.

Who you are is not relevant to your assertion. You have stated that the theory of evolution can be used to support genocide. Thus far, you have not actually demonstrated that the theory of evolution can be used to support such a thing.

I believe the sanctity of life militates against Darwinism and its intentional application to the human species.

You have yet to demonstrate that the theory of evolution -- or any scientific theory -- can be "intentionally applied". In fact, it is impossible for a theory to be "intentionally applied". Theories are nothing more than attempts to describe the cause behind observations in the universe. They are not, in themselves, a proactive plan. They may be used to predict the outcome of events, but they themselves cannot be "applied" as a means to an end.

You apparently would not be convinced of the connection betrween Darwinism and genocide even if you were to crawl inside the heads of those who practiced it.

I do not need to "crawl inside the heads" of anyone. I only need to hear an explanation of how the theory of evolution logically leads to genocide. Thus far, you have provided no explanation to that effect. Merely asserting that certain individuals believed that such a link exists does not demonstrate that a link actually exists.

Even those who practice it would say, "Genocide? What Genocide? A bunch of people are dead. So what?"

This is not relevant to the discussion.

Now, if you'd care to go back and read #842 all the way through you might see where I agreed in part with what you would like to say, namely that guilt by association does not make a good argument when it comes to science.

I agree, as such is an appeal to the logical fallacy of appealing to consequences. However, you have thus far not demonstrated that genocide is a logical consequence of the theory of evolution.

[kellynch]

How are Creationists on the subject of medical science? Do they visit doctors? Do they get X-rays or MRIs or CAT scans or sonograms? None of these is discussed in the Bible. What about CPR? Jesus could cure the sick and raise the dead, but he's not around right now, so if someone is having a heart attack, should we not try to help? If someone is choking, we shouldn't perform the Heimlich maneuver because we're not Jesus? Medicine is something we are learning about gradually -- just as we are learning more about astronomy, geology, paleontology, evolution, etc.

Did God himself not give us the ability to help ourselves in this way? Why shouldn't we use our brains and the technology our brains create to help ourselves and all of God's creatures? Perhaps Creationists don't think so, but others of us do.

[Doctor Stochastic]

How are Creationists on the subject of medical science?

There are outspoken creationists on these threads who post on medical science. None have ever disagreed with each other so we can assume that they all share the same viewpoint on medicine as on other aspects of science. You might try perusing some of the medical threads.

[Dimensio]

How are Creationists on the subject of medical science?

While I will not generalize regarding creationist views on medical science as a whole, I will note that I have encountered one creationist quite recently who expressed belief that the entire profession of medical science is a fraud designed to benefit the wealth of corporations. This individual suggested that diabetes need not be treated with contemporary medicine, but only through alterations in diet. This creationist also implied that insulin is a "drug", suggesting a stark ignorance of the field that he derided.

I will, of course, note that this was a single isolated event, and cannot be used to determine the viewpoints of creationists in general.

[VadeRetro]

How are Creationists on the subject of medical science?

Most swear there's no problem, but when the few who think surgery is a God-defying act pop off, none of the others ever objects.

In general, the antievolution people are all over the map on everything except that evolution is a fraud and The Designer wasn't a space alien. However, anyone who argues against evolution is "witnessing." There exists a rule that there's no bad witnessing. It's about like saying that there are no bad shots fired at The Enemy.

[Doctor Stochastic]

There are many Christians who believe evolution is the spark God used to create the universe.

Then they would be wrong. Evolution only pertains to descent of living things. It's a common confusion enhanced by having large numbers of people attending public schools.

[balrog666]

In general, the antievolution people are all over the map on everything except that evolution is a fraud and The Designer wasn't a space alien. However, anyone who argues against evolution is "witnessing." There exists a rule that there's no bad witnessing. It's about like saying that there are no bad shots fired at The Enemy.

Except it's all "friendly fire" by any rational definition.

[VadeRetro]

Except it's all "friendly fire" by any rational definition.

"There are no bad shots fired at The Enemy" probably works better on a battlefield than it does in this sort of debate. That the antievolution side is a cacophony of mutually contradicting and often comically absurd screeches against science does not help them.

[kellynch]

Excellent points. I think it should also be pointed out that, at one time, people believed that the Earth was flat and that all heavenly bodies circled the Earth. Galileo was excommunicated for saying otherwise. But it turns out that he was right. Why can't people accept that it's possible that scientists today have valid theories about the origin of the Earth, the Universe and humans?

[Fester Chugabrew]

Merely asserting that certain individuals believed that such a link exists does not demonstrate that a link actually exists.

Merely typing keystrokes in an effort to communicate an incapacity to correlate theories with their implications and applications does not demonstrate that you actually exist. What's your point? How much demonstration do you need? You're convinced by mere conjecture when it comes to fossils, but are unconvinced when adherents to Darwinsism use the theory to justify genocide. That's okay. As long as you are convinced in your own mind.

[old-ager]

> Buddhists are against homosexuality and abortion

Why?

[Fester Chugabrew]

It is not like you to appeal to an encyclopedia as a source of scientific expression, veracity, etc. You could probably do a better job stating the case for evolution than an encyclopedia. My case is not made up on the spot, but derived from a conviction that the biblical texts are authoritative and accurate.

[stands2reason]

Homosexuality is an attachment that serves no purpose other than to temporarily feed urges (unnatural ones at that) that can never be satisfied.

There's no good reason to kill an unborn child. Any reason would be selfishness and therefore a sin.

[grey_whiskers]

I will, of course, note that this was a single isolated event, and cannot be used to determine the viewpoints of --Insert your own "lead us not into temptation" joke here ;-)

Cheers!