[RFC_Gal]

Well she did spend 3 chapters in her latest book trying to prove that a belief in science makes one a God hating liberal.

That didn't exactly help the conservative cause.

[Sam Hill]

"Well she did spend 3 chapters in her latest book trying to prove that a belief in science makes one a God hating liberal.

That didn't exactly help the conservative cause."

You sure have been doing a lot of Coulter bashing in your ten day (signed up Jul 16, 2006) FR career.

Nice to see you helping "the cause" so much.

[netmilsmom]

RFC_Gal
Since Jul 16, 2006

Did you sign up to bash Coulter or to champion the Darwin theory?

[Jim Noble]

prove that a belief in science makes one a God hating liberal.

What does "belief in science" entail?

If you "believe in science", what exactly is it that you believe?

[Recovering_Democrat]

I started this thread so I want to respond. :)

Ann dealt with some real problems with evolutionary theory. She's not alone in thinking there is some real groupthink going on in that regard.

Not believing in evolution doesn't make one anti-science by definition.

Having said that, I'm not interested in engaging in a big debate about the subject on this thread; just wanted to get my two cents in regarding the matter.

RD

[Hawthorn]

RFC_Gal wrote:

> she did spend 3 chapters in her latest book trying to prove that a belief in science makes one a God hating liberal <

Wow! Thanks for alerting us.

I didn't realize that I've been a God-hating liberal ever since I fell in love with science back in the 7th grade, some 50+ years ago!

After all, if Ann says it, it's GOTTA be absolute truth raised to the nth power!

[Hostage]

As I am a scientist I confirm she is actually right in saying that a 'belief' in science makes one doubt God or 'Divine Providence' as historically referenced by many scientists.

Every scientist philosopher including computer scientists knows there are limitations to every scientific theory and system, for otherwise science would be equivalent to astrology. The reason the scientific method is successful is precisely because it is allowed to be wrong whereas astrology will always have an answer to everything. As a system astrology is closed, science is open.

So Coulter is merely pointing to the pattern of behavior that says science has an answer for everything. It does not and if it did it would be as useless as astrology.