Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Review of Godless -- (Centers on Evolution)
Powells Review a Day ^ | August 10, 2006 | Jerry Coyne

Posted on 08/17/2006 11:04:51 AM PDT by publius1

Godless: The Church of Liberalism by Ann Coulter Coultergeist A Review by Jerry Coyne

H. L. Mencken once responded to a question asked by many of his readers: "If you find so much that is unworthy of reverence in the United States, then why do you live here?" His answer was, "Why do men go to zoos?" Sadly, Mencken is not here to ogle the newest creature in the American Zoo: the Bleached Flamingo, otherwise known as Ann Coulter. This beast draws crowds by its frequent, raucous calls, eerily resembling a human voice, and its unearthly appearance, scrawny and pallid. (Wikipedia notes that "a white or pale flamingo ... is usually unhealthy or suffering from a lack of food.") The etiolated Coulter issued a piercing squawk this spring with her now-notorious book, Godless: The Church of Liberalism. Its thesis, harebrained even by her standards, is that liberals are an atheistic lot who have devised a substitute religion, replete with the sacraments of abortion, feminism, coddling of criminals, and -- you guessed it -- bestiality. Liberals also have their god, who, like Coulter's, is bearded and imposing. He is none other than Charles Darwin. But the left-wing god is malevolent, for Coulter sees Darwin as the root cause of every ill afflicting our society, not to mention being responsible for the historical atrocities of Hitler and Stalin.

The furor caused by her vicious remarks about the 9/11 widows ("I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much.") has distracted people from the main topic of her book: evolutionary biology, or rather the pathetic pseudoscientific arguments of its modern fundamentalist challenger, Intelligent Design (ID). This occupies four of Coulter's eleven chapters. Enamored of ID, and unable to fathom a scientific reason why biologists don't buy it, Coulter suggests that scientists are an evil sub-cabal of atheist liberals, a group so addicted to godlessness that they must hide at all costs the awful "truth" that evolution didn't happen. She accuses evolutionists of brainwashing children with phony fossils and made-up "evidence," turning the kids into "Darwiniacs" stripped of all moral (i.e., biblical) grounding and prone to become beasts and genocidal lunatics. To Coulter, biologists are folks who, when not playing with test tubes or warping children's minds, encourage people to have sex with dogs. (I am not making this up.)

Any sane person who starts reading Godless will soon ask, Does Coulter really believe this stuff? The answer is that it doesn't much matter. What's far more disturbing than Coulter herself (and she's plenty disturbing: On the cover photo she has the scariest eyes since Rasputin) is the fact that Americans are lapping up her latest prose like a pack of starved cats. The buyers cannot be political opponents who just want to enjoy her "humor"; like me, those people wouldn't enrich her by a dime. (I didn't pay for my copy.) Rather, a lot of folks apparently like her ravings -- suggesting that, on some level at least, they must agree with her. And this means that the hundreds of thousands of Americans who put Coulter at the top of the best-seller lists see evolution as a national menace.

Well, that's hardly news. We've known for years that nearly half of all Americans believe in the Genesis account of creation, and only about 10 percent want evolution taught in public schools without mentioning ID or other forms of creationism. But it's worth taking up the cudgels once again, if only to show that, contrary to Coulter's claim, accepting Darwinism is not tantamount to endorsing immorality and genocide.

First, one has to ask whether Coulter (who, by the way, attacks me in her book) really understands the Darwinism she rejects. The answer is a resounding No. According to the book's acknowledgments, Coulter was tutored in the "complex ideas" of evolution by David Berlinski, a science writer; Michael Behe, a third-rate biologist at Lehigh University (whose own department's website disowns his bizarre ideas); and William Dembski, a fairly bright theologian who went off the intellectual rails and now peddles creationism at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. These are the "giants" of the ID movement, which shows how retarded it really is. Learning biology from this lot is like learning elocution from George W. Bush.

As expected with such tutors, the Darwinism decried by Coulter is the usual distorted cardboard cut-out. All she does is parrot the ID line: There are no transitional fossils; natural selection can't create true novelty; some features of organisms could not have evolved and therefore must have been designed by an unspecified supernatural agent. And her "research" method consists of using quotes taken out of context, scouring biased secondary sources, and distorting what appears in the scientific literature. Judging by the shoddy documentation of the evolution section, I'm not convinced that the rest of the book isn't based on equally shoddy research. At any rate, I won't belabor the case that Coulter makes for ID, as I've already shown in TNR that her arguments are completely bogus.

What is especially striking is Coulter's failure to tell us what she really believes about how the earth's species got here. It's clear that she thinks God had a direct hand in it, but beyond that we remain unenlightened. IDers believe in limited amounts of evolution. Does Coulter think that mammals evolved from reptiles? If not, what are those curious mammal-like reptiles that appear exactly at the right time in the fossil record? Did humans evolve from ape-like primates, or did the Designer conjure us into existence all at once? How did all those annoying fossils get there, in remarkable evolutionary order?

And, when faced with the real evidence that shows how strongly evolution trumps ID, she clams up completely. What about the massive fossil evidence for human evolution -- what exactly were those creatures 2 million years ago that had human-like skeletons but ape-like brains? Did a race of Limbaughs walk the earth? And why did God -- sorry, the Intelligent Designer -- give whales a vestigial pelvis, and the flightless kiwi bird tiny, nonfunctional wings? Why do we carry around in our DNA useless genes that are functional in similar species? Did the Designer decide to make the world look as though life had evolved? What a joker! And the Designer doesn't seem all that intelligent, either. He must have been asleep at the wheel when he designed our appendix, back, and prostate gland.

There are none so blind as those who will not see, and Coulter knows that myopia about evolution is a lucrative game. After all, she is a millionaire, reveling in her status as a celebrity and stalked by ignorazzis. I have never seen anyone enjoy her own inanity so much.

But after ranting for nearly a hundred pages about evolution, Coulter finally gives away the game on page 277: "God exists whether or not archaeopteryx ever evolved into something better. If evolution is true, then God created evolution." Gee. Evolution might be true after all! But she's just spent a hundred pages telling us it isn't! What gives? As Tennessee Williams's Big Daddy said, there's a powerful and obnoxious odor of mendacity in this room.

What's annoying about Coulter (note: there's more than one thing!) is that she insistently demands evidence for evolution (none of which she'll ever accept), but requires not a shred of evidence for her "alternative hypothesis." She repeatedly assures us that God exists (not just any God -- the Christian God), that there is only one God (she's no Hindu, folks), that we are made in the image of said God, that the Christian Bible, like Antonin Scalia's Constitution, "is not a 'living' document" (that is, not susceptible to changing interpretation; so does she think that Genesis is literally true?), and that God just might have used evolution as part of His plan. What makes her so sure about all this? And how does she know that the Supreme Being, even if It exists, goes by the name of Yahweh, rather than Allah, Wotan, Zeus, or Mabel? If Coulter just knows these things by faith alone, she should say so, and then tell us why she's so sure that what Parsees or Zunis just know is wrong. I, for one, am not prepared to believe that Ann Coulter is made in God's image without seeing some proof.

Moreover, if evolution is wrong, why is it the central paradigm of biology? According to Coulter, it's all a big con game. In smoky back rooms at annual meetings, evolutionists plot ways to jam Darwin down America's throat, knowing that even though it is scientifically incorrect, Darwinism (Coulter says) "lets them off the hook morally. Do whatever you feel like doing -- screw your secretary, kill Grandma, abort your defective child -- Darwin says it will benefit humanity!"

Unfortunately for Coulter (but fortunately for humanity), science doesn't work this way. Scientists gain fame and high reputation not for propping up their personal prejudices, but for finding out facts about nature. And if evolution really were wrong, the renegade scientist who disproved it -- and showed that generations of his predecessors were misled -- would reach the top of the scientific ladder in one leap, gaining fame and riches. All it would take to trash Darwinism is a simple demonstration that humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time, or that our closest genetic relative is the rabbit. There is no cabal, no back-room conspiracy. Instead, the empirical evidence for evolution just keeps piling up, year after year.

As for biologists' supposed agenda of godlessness -- how ridiculous! Yes, a lot of scientists are atheists, but most have better things to do than deliberately destroy people's faith. This goes doubly for the many scientists -- roughly a third of them -- who are religious. After all, one of the most vocal (and effective) opponents of ID is Ken Miller of Brown University, a devout Catholic.

The real reason Coulter goes after evolution is not because it's wrong, but because she doesn't like it -- it doesn't accord with how she thinks the world should be. That's because she feels, along with many Americans, that "Darwin's theory overturned every aspect of Biblical morality." What's so sad -- not so much for Coulter as for Americans as a whole -- is that this idea is simply wrong. Darwinism, after all, is just a body of thought about the origin and change of biological diversity, not a handbook of ethics. (I just consulted my copy of The Origin of Species, and I swear that there's nothing in there about abortion or eugenics, much less about shtupping one's secretary.)

If Coulter were right, evolutionists would be the most beastly people on earth, not to be trusted in the vicinity of a goat. But I've been around biologists all of my adult life, and I can tell you that they're a lot more civil than, say, Coulter. It's a simple fact that you don't need the Bible -- or even religion -- to be moral. Buddhists, Hindus, and Jews, who don't follow the New Testament, usually behave responsibly despite this problem; and atheists and agnostics derive morality from non-biblical philosophy. In fact, one of the most ethical people I know is Coulter's version of the Antichrist: the atheistic biologist Richard Dawkins (more about that below). Dawkins would never say -- as Coulter does -- that Cindy Sheehan doesn't look good in shorts, that Al Franken resembles a monkey, or that 9/11 widows enjoyed the deaths of their husbands. Isn't there something in the Bible about doing unto others?

The mistake of equating Darwinism with a code of behavior leads Coulter into her most idiotic accusation: that the Holocaust and numberless murders of Stalin can be laid at Darwin's door. "From Marx to Hitler, the men responsible for the greatest mass murders of the twentieth century were avid Darwinists." Anyone who is religious should be very careful about saying something like this, because, throughout history, more killings have been done in the name of religion than of anything else. What's going on in the Middle East, and what happened in Serbia and Northern Ireland? What was the Inquisition about, and the Crusades, and the slaughter following the partition of India? Religion, of course -- or rather, religiously inspired killing. (Come to think of it, the reason Hitler singled out the Jews is that Christians regarded them for centuries as the killers of Christ. And I don't remember any mention of Darwinism in the Moscow Doctors' Trial.) If Darwin is guilty of genocide, then so are God, Jesus, Brahma, Martin Luther, and countless popes.

As Coulter well knows, the misuse of an idea for evil purposes does not mean that idea is wrong. In fact, she accuses liberals of making this very error: She attacks them for worrying that the message of racial inequality conveyed by the book The Bell Curve could promote genocide: "Only liberals could interpret a statement that people have varying IQs as a call to start killing people." Back at you, Ann: Only conservatives could interpret a statement that species evolved as a call to start killing people.

Coulter clearly knows better. I conclude that the trash-talking blonde bit is just a shtick (admittedly, a clever one) calculated to make her rich and famous. (Look at her website, where she whines regularly that she is not getting enough notice.) Her hyper-conservativism seems no more grounded than her faith. She has claimed that the Bible is her favorite book, she is rumored to go to church, and on the cover of Godless you see a cross dangling tantalizingly in her décolletage. But could anybody who absorbed the Sermon on the Mount write, as she does of Richard Dawkins, "I defy any of my coreligionists to tell me they do not laugh at the idea of Dawkins burning in hell"? Well, I wouldn't want Coulter to roast (there's not much meat there anyway), but I wish she'd shut up and learn something about evolution. Her case for ID involves the same stupid arguments that fundamentalists have made for a hundred years. They're about as convincing as the blonde hair that gets her so much attention. By their roots shall ye know them.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Unclassified
KEYWORDS: anncoulter; anothercrevothread; bookreview; coulter; crevolist; enoughalready; genesis1; irreligiousleft; jerklist; pavlovian; thewordistruth
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 521-536 next last
To: bray; Coyoteman
. The fossils do not prove that evolution is plausible and you would rather believe the sun circles the earth as long as your scientist gods say it does.

They don't say that. The evidence provides an overwhelming body of evidence to support TToE. No offense, but the fact you don't UNDERSTAND it doesn't invalidate it.

As a Conservative I am not going to believe everything that is shoved down my throat.

Like that awful "physics." And "chemistry." And don't get me started on those "astronomers" and the crap they try to shove down everyone's throat. I mean, if they can't explain EXACTLY how the Universe started, how can they tell us stars are billions of miles away? You are right -- having this kind of nonsense shoved down our throats should not be tolerated! ;)

That is hardly a dark age belief. Where are all those Transitional Species???

Have you seen Coyoteman's chart? (In fact I know you have -- I have seen you on other threads).

My friend, are you like that fish Dory in "Finding Nemo"? You know, you ask a question on a thread, it gets answered completely, so you leave the thread only to ask the same question again on the new thread.

I mean this seriously -- do you have a memory problem? We can get help for you.

121 posted on 08/17/2006 6:31:11 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (I LIKE you! When I am Ruler of Earth, yours will be a quick and painless death)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Actually she shreaded your Archaeopteryx so called reptile bird that came after bird fossils. Again you guys spin and twist every fossil to try to make it into something it isn't. If anything it is nothing more than an extinct species.

If evolution was fact there would be millions and millions of species from ameoba to man and that is not the case. Every so called example has serious questions.

I do admire your faith in your religion though. You guys act like everyone has to believe in what you believe in or it is heresy to the Sanhedrin of Evolution. Those Saintly Scientists have been wrong far more they have been right and this is another example of Junk Science.

Ann knocked Humpty Darwin off the Wall.

Pray for W and Our Troops
Shalom Israel


122 posted on 08/17/2006 6:31:39 PM PDT by bray (Bring Back Bibi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: Dante Alighieri

Beautiful summary BTW -- I will be sending people to it when they need a quick refresher. If I cut and paste it without attribution, I hope you'll understand.


123 posted on 08/17/2006 6:32:52 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (I LIKE you! When I am Ruler of Earth, yours will be a quick and painless death)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
The debate here is not science verses non-science. The debate is over the interpretation of scientific evidence and whether or not it really supports one theory over the other.

On these threads the debate is science vs. religion.

The debates over the interpretation of scientific evidence take place in technical journals and scientific conferences, not on FR.

124 posted on 08/17/2006 6:35:32 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

I have seen Coyotes chart and even watched Disney's movie, they are both full of fakes and frauds. Pictures are not evidence. But hey if you want to believe it have at it, just don't expect the more cynical to swallow that Junk anymore.

I love your if you don't understand our religion than you have no opinion of validity argument. Worked really well with the femienvyists.

Ann Knocked Humpty Darwin off the Wall and All the Kings Scientists can't put him together again.

Pray for W and Our Troops
Shalom Israel


125 posted on 08/17/2006 6:36:17 PM PDT by bray (Bring Back Bibi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: spatso

Have you even read her book? Ann Rox!!

Pray for W and Our Troops
Shalom Israel


126 posted on 08/17/2006 6:38:11 PM PDT by bray (Bring Back Bibi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: bray
Where are all those Transitional Species???

Museums.

127 posted on 08/17/2006 6:39:13 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Dante Alighieri
Is ID or Creationism:

A) Falsifiable - are scientists going to be able to potentially show it to be false?

Neither Evolution, ID, nor Creationism is completely falsifiable. However, contrary to evo claims, both ID and Creation Science have models that do make individual predictions, which can be confirmed or falsified. Just like evolution though, the failure of one prediction, does not invalidate the theory.

Creation Theory - Predictive model
Intelligent Design - Predictive Model

B) Tentative - is it subject to change and incomplete?

It can be said that the theory of evolution has been modified with "punctuated equilibrium", "convergent evolution", etc. Like evolution, neither ID nor Creation claims to have a complete understanding of everything that happened. But I would say that all three are generally complete and not tentative.

"C) Naturalistic - does it use natural explanations to explain natural phenomena? "

Only in the field of evolution does "naturalistic" become part of the definition of science. There are many fields of science in which "design" plays a part. Forensic sciences and geology frequently look to see if something was caused by man or was caused by other forces. So to say that in the field of life sciences, a designer cannot be considered a primary cause, is ridiculous. It's a weak attempt by evo's to narrow the scope of science until no other explanation that evolution exists, because all others have been defined away. We now have designer corn. But under your definition of science, anyone looking at a vegetable would be forced to conclude that it arose strictly from happenstance because no other explanation is defined as "science", even thouth genetic modifications are clearly a science.

"D) Parsimonious - does it make the least assumptions possible and does it not unnecessarily complicate itself?"

Oh, like evolution makes the least assumptions possible!!!!

E) Make Accurate Predictions - Does it predict what we should see in the fossil record, in comparative genomics, etc.

Evolution has made many many false predictions. For example evolutionists taught us that there were something on the order of 169 vestigal organs in the human body, including the tonsils, the appendix and the tailbone. Now not one is believed to be vestigal. Evolution taught us that much of DNA is "junk DNA". But we now are discovering function to that "junk DNA".

ID and Creation do make predictions, some prove correct. And some prove false. Just like evolution.

"F) Encompassing - Does it explain why predictions made by evolutionary theory are very accurate and why evidence supports evolution? "

I've already pointed out that evolution has made many false predictions. It's not "very accurate". But each time new observations are made, evolution restates itself and incorporates the new observations post humously as "predictive". Evolution didn't predict "punctuated equilibrium", but once the fossil record did not show a continous progression like evolution predicted, the theory was modified to fit the observations. And now it's claimed that evolution predicts punctuated equilibrium, when it really did not such thing.

G) Supported - Are there many positive lines of genuine evidence for it?

There are. Answers in Genesis posts article after article demonstrating evidence. A biased mind however, can reject those evidences. As one evolutionist on FR told me, we must have evolved because we are here. Thus when you aren't willing to consider any other possibility, evolution becomes the most likely.

128 posted on 08/17/2006 6:39:58 PM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
This article is good start. I keep hearing a really detailed dissection is coming someday. The biggest hurdle in Ann's stuff is "Where to begin?"
129 posted on 08/17/2006 6:40:05 PM PDT by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: bray
I have seen Coyotes chart and even watched Disney's movie, they are both full of fakes and frauds.

Please provide proof that there is a single fake and/or fraud on Coyoteman's chart. Please provide subsantiation. "'Cause I think so" isn't generally accepted as argumentation nor proof.

I love your if you don't understand our religion than you have no opinion of validity argument. Worked really well with the femienvyists.

That statement makes no sense.

Ann Knocked Humpty Darwin off the Wall and All the Kings Scientists can't put him together again.

Ann played to the crowd. It seems it worked.

Cheers.

130 posted on 08/17/2006 6:40:23 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (I LIKE you! When I am Ruler of Earth, yours will be a quick and painless death)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
I hope she's got the sense to realize her error, publicly recants this unfortunate episode of Luddism, and recovers her reputation. She was too valuable to conservatism to go out in a blaze of silliness.

Don't forget she should have to go to AA or some dry-out clinic.

131 posted on 08/17/2006 6:48:30 PM PDT by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
This article is good start. I keep hearing a really detailed dissection is coming someday. The biggest hurdle in Ann's stuff is "Where to begin?"

As I said earlier (post 91) to b_sharp, anyone can write a pack of lies. It's easy to do, and requires little thought. It's even easier if you just copy the nonsense that appears on creationist websites. Or if you do as Ann did, and let creationists feed you their long-rebutted foolishness. But putting together the material to counter that stuff takes time, and effort. And knowledge of the subject matter. Be patient.

132 posted on 08/17/2006 6:50:18 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Everything is blasphemy to somebody.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

"On these threads the debate is science vs. religion."

I hope you really don't mean that. As you probably already know many of the great men of science such as Galileo, Newton, Descartes were also great men of faith. Most of the people on this thread who talk about Creationism or ID as science are really being quite silly. It bothers me, as a conservative, and as a person of faith that somehow I have to choose between faith and science. I choose to support both. It is most upsetting that some people take pleasure in suggesting that 77% of Republicans don't believe in evolution. More than upsetting it is shameful and I refuse to believe it is a legitimate survey.


133 posted on 08/17/2006 6:50:29 PM PDT by spatso
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
"It is not falsifiable, testable, observable nor any of the other umpteen requirements for a scientific theory (heck even a scientific hypothesis)."

See my post 128, it deals with this.

If you are right, I am very afraid of the damage our party is doing to the next generation of Americans.

You can relax. Because the truth is, that the evolution/ID/Creation debate really doesn't impact much practical science.

Had darwin never been born, we'd still have developed cell phones and nukes, and traveled to the moon. We'd still have explored the microscopic world and discovered DNA, because we'd still be asking questions about how God designed and constructed us. We'd still catalogie species based on similiarities and eventually DNA.

About the only difference is that more people would still have their tonsils, those unfortunate few who had their tailbones removed by medical doctors believing in evolution would never know the hell that they missed, and research into DNA would probably be more complete becaused the "junk DNA" wouldn't have been so easily dismissed.

Contrary to the cries of the evolutionary faithful, Creationists wouldn't turn back the clock to the dark ages, in fact, Creationists fathered many of the scientific fields.

134 posted on 08/17/2006 6:51:50 PM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: spatso
I don't consider myself choosing between faith and science. I just don't buy evolution as the only "scientific" explanation for the observable facts. I was taught scientists keep open minds, and develop and test hypothesis. Evolution is all about shutting down debate.

Just because 77% of republicans reject evolution, don't assume they are all scientifically illiterate, just because they don't agree with you.

And I posted in this thread a link to another thread where the links to the polls can be found. There are multiple polls. And while Republicans are more likely to reject evolution than rats, a majority of both parties reject evolution. So the evolutionist cry that creationists are going to somehow hurt the party, is just evo fearmongering.

135 posted on 08/17/2006 6:57:29 PM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: bray
So where are all the Transitional Fossils laughing boy??

First of all, let's try not to follow this template. (Yeah, right!)

OK, now here's one decent-sized sample of the thing that supposedly doesn't exist. Make us all proud!

136 posted on 08/17/2006 7:00:36 PM PDT by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
Neither Evolution, ID, nor Creationism is completely falsifiable. However, contrary to evo claims, both ID and Creation Science have models that do make individual predictions, which can be confirmed or falsified. Just like evolution though, the failure of one prediction, does not invalidate the theory.

Not quite right. If we were to find a modern horse, human or dog fossil from millions of years ago, it TToE would be falsified (as I believe I already pointed out). Creationism and ID, OTOH, are not falsifiable, since the Supreme Intelligence can create whatever conditions it wants "on the fly."

It can be said that the theory of evolution has been modified with "punctuated equilibrium", "convergent evolution", etc. Like evolution, neither ID nor Creation claims to have a complete understanding of everything that happened. But I would say that all three are generally complete and not tentative.

You my say so, but you would be wrong. The picture changes and is emerging all the time. In the last few months some amazing changes to TToE have emerged.

Again, CR/ID don't change, since THEY CAN'T. At their core is an Intelligent Designer or Supreme Being that is by definition omniscient and thus unchangeable.

Only in the field of evolution does "naturalistic" become part of the definition of science. There are many fields of science in which "design" plays a part. Forensic sciences and geology frequently look to see if something was caused by man or was caused by other forces.

"Forensic science" is applied science. Just because something has the word "science" in it doesn't make it a pure science pursuit. That is why introducing the term "Creation Science" is so amusing -- "oh! It has the word 'science' in it! That must mean it is Science!"

So to say that in the field of life sciences, a designer cannot be considered a primary cause, is ridiculous. It's a weak attempt by evo's to narrow the scope of science until no other explanation that evolution exists, because all others have been defined away.

In an applied science, human intervention is always possible. Your analogy fails as specious at best.

We now have designer corn. But under your definition of science, anyone looking at a vegetable would be forced to conclude that it arose strictly from happenstance because no other explanation is defined as "science", even thouth genetic modifications are clearly a science.

No, any biologist worth his salt would say "a HUMAN introduced these changes because of..."

That is NOT the same as an omniscient designer.

Oh, like evolution makes the least assumptions possible!!!!

Admittedly, CR/ID makes exactly one assumption. But it uses the same assumption for every datum it encounters: the Designer did this. But that is more of an assertion than an assumption. TToE tries to minimize assumptions to draw the straightest line between the data available.

Evolution has made many many false predictions. For example evolutionists taught us that there were something on the order of 169 vestigal organs in the human body, including the tonsils, the appendix and the tailbone. Now not one is believed to be vestigal. Evolution taught us that much of DNA is "junk DNA". But we now are discovering function to that "junk DNA".

So has every science. But it is understanding of TToE that provided the impetus for exposing the Genome. Had CR/ID held sway, today we would be looking at DNA saying "dunno -- must be the Designer. Looks too complicated to me."

TToE has been able to explain a lot of data. And of course, it has been able to explain and sometimes predict (to some degree) micro-evolution we see right under our very eyes. I ID and Creation do make predictions, some prove correct. And some prove false. Just like evolution.

Please provide evidence if a single ID or Creartion prediction proven correct and tied in to The Designer.

I've already pointed out that evolution has made many false predictions. It's not "very accurate". But each time new observations are made, evolution restates itself and incorporates the new observations post humously as "predictive". Evolution didn't predict "punctuated equilibrium", but once the fossil record did not show a continous progression like evolution predicted, the theory was modified to fit the observations. And now it's claimed that evolution predicts punctuated equilibrium, when it really did not such thing.

So, when new dta are available and science adjusts to that, it somehow "proves" it was bad to begin with? You really need to understand the scientific process better. Any scentifi pursuit that DIDN'T change based on new data would be less than useless. Now, what changes have been made in the CR/ID model? NOne, since the only change that COULD be made would be as a result of understanding The Designer.

Are there many positive lines of genuine evidence for it? There are. Answers in Genesis posts article after article demonstrating evidence. A biased mind however, can reject those evidences. As one evolutionist on FR told me, we must have evolved because we are here. Thus when you aren't willing to consider any other possibility, evolution becomes the most likely.

Again, there is no other SCIENTIFIC possibility at this time. There is no Genuine Evidence of a Designer. It (or He) didn't stamp "Made in Heaven" on the million year old bones to make it clear.

We see transitional fossils. We see micro-evolution in front of our eyes. There is no EVIDENCE of a Designer stepping in. But we do see EVIDENCE of physical changes forced by the environment at the DNA level.

137 posted on 08/17/2006 7:01:00 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (I LIKE you! When I am Ruler of Earth, yours will be a quick and painless death)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

It's the same old censorship that you see from all the Lib arguments. If you don't agree with the secular dogma your not to be listened to. Darwin did not hold up to the evidence and is falling like a house of cards.

Her all fossils being in the same strata pretty much destroyed the 40 million year evolution. Now the scientists say there was basically a big bang evolution. They have twisted themselves like pretzels.

Pray for W and Our Troops
Shalom Israel


138 posted on 08/17/2006 7:06:06 PM PDT by bray (Bring Back Bibi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: spatso
"On these threads the debate is science vs. religion."

I hope you really don't mean that. As you probably already know many of the great men of science such as Galileo, Newton, Descartes were also great men of faith.

You are correct, but they are not on these threads. On these threads, scientists are continually called "atheists" or "evol doers" or "evilutionists" or some such, if not compared with Hitler and his nazis, and many warm prognostications are made for our afterlives. I think Galileo, Newton, and Descartes would have been treated as badly.

Most of the people on this thread who talk about Creationism or ID as science are really being quite silly. It bothers me, as a conservative, and as a person of faith that somehow I have to choose between faith and science. I choose to support both.

Agreed on both points.

It is most upsetting that some people take pleasure in suggesting that 77% of Republicans don't believe in evolution. More than upsetting it is shameful and I refuse to believe it is a legitimate survey.

I don't know the accuracy of the poll, but I would hate for the Republican party to be associated with Luddites and seen as anti-science.

139 posted on 08/17/2006 7:06:16 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
Had darwin never been born, we'd still have developed cell phones and nukes, and traveled to the moon. We'd still have explored the microscopic world and discovered DNA, because we'd still be asking questions about how God designed and constructed us. We'd still catalogie species based on similiarities and eventually DNA.

And folks would be complaining about Wallacism.

140 posted on 08/17/2006 7:08:09 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 521-536 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson