Posted on 06/27/2006 5:06:32 AM PDT by 7thson
Ann Coulter states in her book on page 201 -
Darwin’s theory of evolution says life on Earth began with single-celled life forms, which evolved into multicelled life forms, which over countless aeons evolved into higher life forms, including man, all as the result of the chance process of random mutation followed by natural selection, without guidance or assistance from any intelligent entity like God of the Department of Agriculture. Which is to say, evolution I the eminently plausible theory that the human eye, the complete works of Shakespeare, and Ronal Reagan (among other things) all came into existence purely be accident.
On page 202, she states The “theory” of evolution is:
1. Random mutation of desirable attributes (highly implausible)
2. Natural selection weeding out the “less fit” animals (pointless tautology)
3. Leading to the creation of new species (no evidence after 150 years of looking)
My question – is she correct in her statements? Is that Darwin’s theory?
On the ligher side, check out the first paragraph on page 212. LOL Funny!
Not all opinions are equally valid, nor are they all equally supported by the "hard evidence."
The creationist position, which Ann adopts in her book, is supported largely by religious belief, not hard evidence. The "science" on the creationist websites is a disgrace to real science; creation "science" is more like it. And, she seems to have swallowed creation "science" hook, line and stinker, even though it has been pretty much all debunked on other websites, and on these threads.
Actually, no, she doesn't. She likes to make it appear that she does, however, by grossly misrepresenting just about everything about a) biology, and b) the alleged case against it.
For just one example, see post #238. And I have found a HUGE number of examples like that in her chapters on evolution. If you'd like to be pinged to the post I'm composing which lists them all (yes, it's going to be ENORMOUS), let me know.
Anyone wanting to get a head start on their own can just read this list of common creationist errors/fallacies/misrepresentations and spot most of Coulter's arguments and claims right there, with handy links to refutations and explanations.
However, I don't understand how she makes the leap from "evolution is wrong" therefore, "creationism/intelligent design is right."
She makes it the usual way that claim is so often made -- by sleight of hand. You've just been astute enough to catch her at it. It's a really common ploy, though -- ask any "Intelligent Design" fan for evidence of "ID" and 9 times out of 10 what you'll get is alleged evidence *against* evolution, including but not limited to Behe's flawed "Irreducible Complexity" argument against evolution. How is that supposed to provide evidence *for* Intelligent Design? It doesn't, of course, except in the IDers mistaken notions of "if evolution falls, ID is the *only* alternative, and thus *must* be right!"
Seems to be a flaw in her logic.
Indeed.
She even says herself that disproving one theory does not prove another. But isn't that kind of what she's doing?
Yes.
Maybe the answer is in the last few chapters and I just haven't read it yet,
It isn't -- in the last few chapters her argument only gets worse, it descends into "HITLER LOVED EVOLUTION!", as if the truth of an idea is somehow invalidated if someone misuses it. And even in this case, she grossly overstates Darwin's influence, if any, on Hitler, while "forgetting" to inform the reader of all the times that Hitler cited religious motivations. I'll mostly skip that chapter entirely, it's just one long "if evolutionary biology can be misapplied, it must be wrong" fallacy, and it's intellectually vacuous.
but I was wondering what others' opinions were on the subject.
My opinion is that a lot of people are going to be amazed at how often I catch Coulter lying to her readers on the topic of evolutionary biology.
It's so bad that over at Pharyngula (a biology-related blog, although it veers off into politics and other topics as well) they've put up a "Coulter challenge" -- at the end of this blog entry addressing Coulter's ludicrous claim that there's no evidence for evolution, there's the following challenge:
Like I said, I'm not going to take this trip apart sentence by sentence, even though I could, given enough time and interest. I will suggest instead that if anyone reading this thinks some particular paragraph anywhere in chapters 8-11 is at all competent or accurate in its description of science, send it to me. I couldn't find one. That's where the obligation lies: show me one supportable claim in Coulter's farrago of lies and misleading statements and out-of-context quotes, and we'll discuss it.So far no one's taken him up on it. He did a clarification the next day stating that, among other things, "Promising to pray for me, or assuring me that I will burn in hell" does not adequately meet the challenge.
There was another followup 8 days later to mention that no one has managed to find an error-free paragraph yet.
I concur -- it's harder to find anything *right* in those chapters than it is finding ten things just mind-blowingly wrong.
Again, I invite you to come back when you have a better understanding of biology. Domestic dogs are in the wolf clade, but that doesn't make them magically have "the same genome" as wolves -- for that matter "wolves" isn't even a species designator, just as "apes" isn't. And again, if domestic dogs *had* the same genome as gray wolves which you keep wrongly claiming, they would be instinguishable from wolves, which of course isn't the case. And "wolves are dogs" when the word "dog" is used in its broad meaning, as in "canine". Try not to confuse the terms.
It's not just a clade thing
You keep clinging to that if you want to. Believe what you want, since you will anyway. I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. And it's not like your misunderstandings matter.
If so, that's a shame. Now explain to me again how this somehow justifies Coulter's lies about evolutionary biology and the people who research it.
This isn't a matter of opinion, son. She made claims that were factually incorrect, and grossly so. Deal with it, and stop trying to lamely weasel it like a laughably incompetent lawyer.
In these cases, absent proveable intent, I don't see how anyone can say anyone else is a liar.
Because we are not "absent provable intent" here. I documented that she had admitted that she had read the material which makes the falseness of her claims known to her. She could not possibly have read that material and still been under the impression that the research she claims "didn't exist" actually DID exist, because she CITED the articles where the authors of the research and one of its (boneheaded) critics were discussing that research, so clearly it DOES exist even though she went ahead and told her readers that "it didn't exist".
When someone writes a falsehood which they know to be false, that's called "lying".
I don't know how much more clearly that can be said. Are you really this dense, or are you just playing dumb because you enjoy making a fool of yourself?
Well said -- mind if I borrow that (with attribution)?
Argh, typo in my post #325... In the line, "She could not possibly have read that material and still been under the impression that the research she claims 'didn't exist' actually DID exist..." the "DID" should of course be "DIDN'T".
Thanks for bringing some sense into this thread.
I only suggest the possibility. IMO probably she knew exactly what she was doing - she knows readership quite well.
There is no more evidence that any species originated from the earth than there is for it to have been delivered or engineered by extraterrestrials.
Evolutionists believe the earth is the center of the universe?
DID LIFE COME FROM OUTER SPACE??? Big Bang theory???
Hmmm....
If Evolutionists poke fun at the Creationists for believing in a Flying Spaghetti Monster, maybe they had better take a look at their own pot of Boiling Primordial Spaghetti Sauce first.
If Evolutionists poke fun at the Creationists for believing in a Flying Spaghetti Monster, maybe they had better take a look at their own pot of Boiling Primordial Spaghetti Sauce first.
I disagree. Genetic change alone must inevitably produce complexity. Suppose you have a homogeneous population and genetic change but no selection. Later generations will almost certainly be more diverse.
Of course there must be a limit. You couldn't, for example, have more diversity than if every individual differed in every locus from every other.
Actually, you made ACs point.
Your third paragraph is what I get to be ACs point. Just allow the discussion in schools and other circles and allow differing viewpoints.
OK.
Why ask that? It does not further the thread!
If you already know the answer, that implies that you are seeking to lay a trap. Sorry, I don't stick my appendages into them!
Part of your answer lies with the particular translator of the one you are reading. For a good read, that is fairly accurate, I prefer the New International Edition, by Zondervan Press. I have 23 different translations on my shelves, plus Greek, Hebrew, and Latin Vulgate. The Latin is the one I rely on least!
IMO, God has repeatedly directed His followers to slay their enemy, so that keeps it in perspective for me... You may answer that question yourself!
Your problem "as a scientist" is that manifestly you hardly understand science at all. You repeatedly misuse words like "theory", "hypothesis", "proof", and "evidence".
My job and career are based upon the science that employees [sic] scientific method that is exact and factual.
OK, I'll bite. You've repeatedly talked about proof. Tell me about something in science that you know to be proven (outside pure fields like number-theory or geometry) and explain how that applies to your job. I'll wait.
I believe from all I've read that Evolutionary science is based only on observations and hypothesis.
You haven't read very much about biology then. Perhaps your knowledge of biology is as limited as your knowledge of the scientific method. The theory of evolution has survived 150 years of accumulated data collection since it was first publicly proposed, any of which had the potential to falsify it. Untold millions of data points. Every fossil we dig up, every genome we sequence could falsify evolution. None have. Numerous successful predictions have been made using the theory of evolution. Successful predictions are the goal and confirmation of theory, and theory is the goal of science. No scientific theory has more data supporting it. Most scientific theories have far less supporting data, and far fewer successful predictions.
Bottom line, no facts, just theory.
"Just theory" is the highest level of explanation that science aspires to. Theory is not lesser than fact; theory explains fact. That you can once again misuse terminology in this way is testament to the vacuity of your claim to be a scientist. (I am not a scientist by the way, but I know one when I see one; they know something about science)
Wow! You posted this in an argument about whether or not evolution is true. Do you really think that being wrong about evolution will cost Christians their souls? If so then you ought to consider the possibility that you are the one who is wrong about evolution. Will God punish you for not accepting the abundant physical evidence for evolution that He made available in the rocks and genomes?
Pascal's Wager is garbage anyway. Riddled with fallacies.
By jove you've almost got it! If you had just stopped right here.
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.