Actually, it gets worse and worse from there.
Ann hits *a* nail squarely on the head when she points out the Darwinism functions as a creation myth for liberals. The problem is, she then goes on with a parody of their world-view which, if taken as a comment on evolutionary biology, betrays a staggering ignorance of the content of modern biology and of science in general.
Darwinism has two faces, one as a scientific theory, the other as the secular atheists' creation-myth. Stripping away the second face cannot be done by misunderstanding and mischaracterizing the first face.
The defenders of neo-Darwinism on FR vex me only in that they often cannot distinguish between the perfectly proper attack on the logically and philosophically invalid use of evolutionary biology as a prop for an atheistic secularist world-view and an attack on the validity of evolutionary biology as a scientific theory, and similarly cannot distinguish between the criticism of the polemical defense of neo-Darwinism mounted by atheistic secularists and criticism of the scientific theory. Their politics and its relation to their views on science are not problematic at all as your post would suggest.
Actually, evolution is a creation myth only for Conservatives. Other know it's a theory of descent and adaption irrespective of any creation method. Ann's ignorance of the subject isn't unexpected in a lawyer.
Yes. Well written post in general.
I agree, somewhat. I'm afraid you're right that the anti-evolutionists do not distinguish between the two. However, many of us do agree that "conclusions" based upon evolutionary theory that include atheism and moral relativism are invalid. I have stated this many times in these debates--you can't logically draw philosophical and moral conclusions from an observation of the material world. But as long as the anti-evolutionists fail to distinguish between the science and the invalid philosophical conclusions and persist in attacking the first when they ought to be attacking the second, it's to no avail.
"No science is ever frightening to Christians. Religious people don't need the science to come out any particular way on IQ or AIDS or sex differences any more than they need the science to come out any particular way on evolution...If evolution is true, then God created evolution." --
*Brother, don't be so quick to criticise. As for you accusing Coulter of betraying a staggering ignorance..Let me ask you how much of her book have you read so far?
Well said.
Given the trouble I had parsing this sentence, it's no wonder I don't always perform the action properly.
Wow. excellently stated.
John Hawkins: If you were to pick three concepts, facts, or ideas that most undercut the theory of evolution, what would they be?
Ann Coulter: 1. It's illogical. 2. There's no physical evidence for it. 3. There's physical evidence that directly contradicts it. Apart from those three concerns I'd say it's a pretty solid theory.
John Hawkins: If the science behind evolution doesn't stand-up, why do you think so many people who should know better so fervently believe in evolution?
Ann Coulter: A century of brain-washing combined with a desperate need to not believe in an intelligent designer.
John Hawkins: Do you think evolution, intelligent design, or something else should be taught in schools?
Ann Coulter: I would say teach them the one that has the strongest scientific basis to it, and if there's any time left over at the end of the day you could also teach them about the theory of evolution.
*LOL Ann doesn't back down