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
She drew fire by being edgy and frankly spiteful, deploying the usual liberal tactic of iconoclasm. The left thought she'd erred badly, and that they had her cornered, and proceeded to try to play the boo-hoo card. It fell flat, and succeeded mostly in impressing in the minds of the viewers and listeners..."Gosh, did we really give them all that money? Was it some sort of Widow Lotto?"
And, you know what you were saying aout her fading looks? Saw her on H+C last night, and she looked smashing, even considering her grueling book tour. Loaded for bear and jeering at the fossils.
Ugh, I know, it reminds me of junior high when the girls would call other girls ugly sluts. That's the same level of intellect and culture.
I think why Ann Coulter would consider herself counter-culture, she's very much a product of modern American pop culture where being "edgy" (i.e. shocking, outrageous, or unconventional) actually elevates one's status. Ann Coulter goes right along with TV shows that make people eat bugs for a chance at cash or film Paris Hilton asking a 13 year old boy if he's a virgin.
Gosh, I feel old, and I'm younger than Ann Coulter!
Suggestion: threads have been moved into the Religion forum when they veered into theological discussion. This thread had negigible religious content from the start. Perhaps it might profit from a move out of the Religion forum?
Ann's book is called "Godless" and is about the secular religion of liberalism. Why can't it be in Religion?
$2m for loss of a wage earner isn't particularly munificent by the standards of contemporary damage awards, particularly if the wage-earner was white collar and earning a six-figure salary.
Funny, I have an advanced academic degree and I pretty much view evolution as junk science. And, apparently, I'm not alone.
Yep. You mean where I said they have little more to counter the arguments of intelligent design than to call names (like "moron"). Indeed, you provided a perfect example of name calling just before I posted. You are the one to be thanked.
First, I don't post in the religion forum. I got involved here before I noticed where it was. Second, a thread about Coulter is going to get very heated, very fast, and Religion Moderator is going to be very busy. Third, science threads with more real content and less flaming than this one have been banished to the Backroom. I'd just like to see some consistency.
I was wondering about this very point from the very first time I read it.
Also, has anyone gone to the link provided by the Poster?
http://www.na/
Africa? Shouldn't it go to at least some representation of the book in question?
IMHO:
1) This Thread should be labeled [Vanity]
2) Should be placed into 'General/Chat'
There were two choices for this thread when it was initially posted: (1) Chat or (2) Religion. It is a vanity book review and not news, I chose religion.
So do I, but only within the limits science is able to demonstrate.
Yeah, in Velikovskian astronomy, right? How's the pet bat?
Ann is right on this outdated "science" too.
But the LINK goes here........
http://www.na/
....and a general website dealing with Africa has to do with Coulter's book, Religion and Darwinism, how?
Please elaborate.
It would behoove the Fab Four to adopt a little gracious decorum, and not retreat behind the sissies when someone like Ann calls them out for their American Idol behavior.
Looking through "Godless"....her subchapter heads are terrific. Frankly, her evo discussion is far more fun than the first two-thirds of the book.
Chapter 8...The Creation Myth: On the Sixth Day, God created Fruit Flies...sound familiar? Remember that thread on the creation of new fruit flies with no new fruit flies?
Step One: Unless You Are a Bacterium, Random Mutation Can't Produce Anything Worth Having
Step Three: Creating a New Species Is Still on Evolution's "To Do" List
I've got this theory that Ann's has spent a lot of time reading FR's evo threads;
Yeah, still waiting for details of your education and perhaps some key papers disproving the theory of evolution.
Care to explain?
Yes, that is shameful. In fact, that reminds me to write to my Congressman to ask him to push for the benefit to be substantially increased.
NA stands for Not Applicable. Thought everybody knew that...
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.