Review of Godless -- (Centers on Evolution)

Powells Review a Day ^ | August 10, 2006 | Jerry Coyne

[pageonetoo]

Very warm. Very fuzzy...

Actually, Spot's hot and sheds a lot.

You're a little closer to Disney, in your thinking! He always did a good job with fantasy and fiction! Yours seems a little more earthy!

[Antoninus]

Really, it's customary to make some attempt to disguise the fallacy of argument from irrelevance.

As usual, you've got nothing. The fact is the Inquisitional courts actually produced less torture and death sentences per capita than practically all of the contemporary courts in Europe--to the point where defendants occasionally would commit blasphemy in order to get their cases remanded to Inquisitional courts, rather than face the ones run by the the secular state.

[Antoninus]

Given the number of fabrications caught by Ichneumon (who is to Ann Coulter as Buckhead is to Dan Rather), it would be illogical to assume that there is any veracity to these accounts.

What, that unintelligible rant? So because one of Coulter's statements might be called into question, they all are therefore false? And you accuse me of engaging in fallacy?

Tell me, what was false in her exposés of the Scopes Monkey Trial and the treatment of Dr. Richard Sternberg?

Question: Have you even read "Godless"?

[steve-b]

It's not a matter of her being "called into question"; it's a matter of her being caught in a lie.

[spatso]

"The Dark Ages refer to a period of time when the biblical texts fell into disuse. If you want dark ages then turn intelligent design into a mystical, incredible, supernatural, miraculous thing, even though the intelligible universe is replete with organized matter that performs specific functions, which in turn happens to be the ultimate goal of intelligent design."

But, scholars have taught forever on the wonders of the Holy Spirit within the human community. Our capacity to transcend ourselves to become more, to search for more and to know more is an integral part of that Spirit. Theology has accepted science as one of the leading edges of living life in the Spirit. So, it strikes me as ludicrous, when someone speaks from a faith based concept to try and reverse a commonly held scientific belief. Let science debate science. We no longer use the Bible to decide economic principles in relation to the charging of interest.

For years faith has operated under the umbrella of our own notion of salvation history. I have no doubt that our Creator God has always been and remains a part of our spiritual quest. This ID nonsense is a man made creation without biblical foundation. It is a vanity work by people who would be better advised to reflect on the Word as it has been given to us.

[pageonetoo]

Hahahahahahahahahahahah... (breathe)
Hahahahahahahahahahahah... (breathe)
Hahahahahahahahahahahah... (breathe)
Hahahahahahahahahahahah... (breathe)
Hahahahahahahahahahahah... (breathe)
...passes out from laughing so hard at vanity!

[ahayes]

Have you looked at the fossils of Tiktaalik's forelimbs? If so, it would be impossible for you to say that they are mere fish fins. They contain bones and joints never seen in fish and which are more primitive variants of the earliest tetrapods' forelimbs. This is a fish with wrists!

I really really wish you would check the facts for real. I'm sure there's a university nearby where you could go and look up the original research articles.

[Fester Chugabrew]

So, it strikes me as ludicrous, when someone speaks from a faith based concept to try and reverse a commonly held scientific belief.

There isn't anything "ludicrous" about it. Intelligent design as manifested by organized matter that performs specific functions is part and parcel of both theology and science. It stands to reason that an intelligible universe might be the product of an intelligent designer. What is ludicrous is to suggest anything and everything but intelligent design as both the subject and object of science. There is no need to construct an artificial wall between theology and science. Those who do are working from personal and philosophical foundations.

[Antoninus]

It's not a matter of her being "called into question"; it's a matter of her being caught in a lie.

Have you read Godless?

[spatso]

William James in "Varieties of Religious Experience" taught that we probably made a mistake when we ditched pantheism for monotheism. His idea was that people could more readily identify with a more personalized notion of the Gods. So, I take no offense at the notion that God might be better marketed in a multiplicity of identities that better serves our consumer society.

On the other hand, James also taught that when we attempt to explain or comprehend the notion of sacred mystery it will always be More and always beyond our capacity of fully knowing. This is, of course, my fundamental issue with IG. In trying to fight science they turn a sacred mystery of unknowing into an attempted scientific formulation to try and explain what we do not know. I have no idea if IG is good science. I do know that it is dreadful theology.

[Loud Mime]

I like how you continue to ask if that person has read "Godless", yet they refuse to answer.

In his farewell address, George Washington warned us of the dangers of the spirit of the political party. That spirit can limit our education and our growth. If one can rid themselves of that spirit, this book is a book that will encourage good thought and good debate.

Coulter identifies today's political wars as a war of belief systems. The godless do not think their belief system qualifies as a religion. Therefore, they feel free to impose their belief system upon everybody in the nation by using the processes of government. Her argument in this area is well presented.

The last two chapters is where Coulter puts the heat on by citing the proven frauds of evolutionists and their continued lack of honesty. The numbers of hoaxes add up while the necessary corrections within our education system (which are under the control of the godless) remain stagnant. Is Ms. Coulter charging that the evolutionists are corrupt? Yes. And she does it well.

Sadly, the liberalists I talk to will not read this book because they don't like its author. This upholds my belief that a political follower doesn't care what is said, they care who says it. "Godless" is a book that should be read by all who seek truth and are able to think and debate matters for their own growth.

[pageonetoo]

I am not an apolgist for ID. I am a die hard creation person. I don't understand the mechanics of it, but I stand on earth, and chew on beef.

I have not devoted my studies of the natural world to determine the nature of nature. I use my time living here to dwell on living, loving, and having a good time. But, the context I place myslef into requires me to follow through with certain components of my belief system.

I have reasonable intelligence, and sufficient "scientific basics" to understand that what I know, I do not need to understand. What I believe has the same determinant. I have faith. That is my determinant.

I know that if I shoot a bullet into the air, the bullet will return to ground. I used that knowledge as a fire control technician in the US Navy, circa 1966-68. Our bullets were 5" diameter rounds.

I learned enough to build almost 500 homes as a general contractor. I did not pound any nails. I was a general contractor, and relied on those who had the proper talents to get the job done.

Science has its place. It is nice to treat bacterial infections, and replace body parts. It's fun to play god... and surely you will not die!

[relictele]

and -- you guessed it -- bestiality.

Um, no, I didn't guess bestiality. What audience is this writer addressing that would guess bestiality?

[spatso]

"There is no need to construct an artificial wall between theology and science. Those who do are working from personal and philosophical foundations."

Now you are just being silly. There have been many great scientists who were people of faith. And, great theologians who were men of science. It is not an issue of artificial walls. If Darwin is wrong or needs to be modified, science will prove him wrong and adapt in accordance with the rules of science. That is their purpose. On the other hand, theology is our talk about our relationship, meaning, purpose and call to our Higher Power. This talk about ID is really a worrisome distraction in terms of what should be really important to those of us who claim to be people of faith.

[MHGinTN]

.

[relictele]

Classic Lib 101 response

- Purport to attack Coulter's ideas then immediately attack her appearance with all sorts of sophomoric references (flamingos & Rasputin???)

- Not a review at all, but a stuck-pig squeal because Coulter name-checked Coyne in an unflattering way (what did he expect?)

- Doesn't believe in that old-fashioned Christianity stuff...but apparently believes in it enough to demand that Christians abstain from any sort of debate. In other words, libs believe in Christianity only when it serves their purposes - a bit backward, no? As a corollary to this point, the Godless (to use Ann's phrase) seem to want to constantly elevate any other religion over Christianity.

- One of many howlers: "Scientists gain fame and high reputation not for propping up their personal prejudices, but for finding out facts about nature." How does that jibe with all the 'scientists' making WAGs about global warming?

[OriginalIntent]

There is no need to construct an artificial wall between theology and science. Those who do are working from personal and philosophical foundations.

Well said! You bet they are, but they keep up the charade not to fool those who can see through the charade, but only to fool the lurkers.

[spatso]

"Science has its place. It is nice to treat bacterial infections, and replace body parts. It's fun to play god... and surely you will not die!"

I followed everything you said up to the above quote and agreed. If your exclamation point is too suggest that in playing God we deceive ourselves into believing we will not die, I agree. When we put ourselves into the position of knowing or speaking for God (against science) surely we have already died in terms of our own spiritual growth.

[Dimensio]

Have you read Godless?

I fail to see how this would alter the truth value of Coulter's false claims.

[steve-b]

In case you had a problem with the link, the following are the key portions of Ichneumon's post (emphasis added):

Okay. Now read from the top of [page 208] down to the sentence which ends, "...the Darwiniacs' version of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion."

(Background: In case you didn't know, the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" was an infamous forgery -- it was created by Jew-haters in order to make it look as if Jewish leaders were plotting world domination. It's one of the most disgusting and vicious hoaxes of all time, was made up out of thin air, and yet after being repeatedly debunked is still believed authentic by some conspiracy-minded kooks among the skinhead and neo-Nazi movement, because it "supports" their prejudices and paranoia about Jews.)

So when Coulter accuses the "Darwiniacs" (charming -- no one will ever mistake her for a lady) of something akin to the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", she's making one of the most extreme possible insults, insinuating that the "Darwiniacs" believe something that is a complete fabrication, and something that no sane person would want to associate with.

And her tale on page 208 sounds pretty bad, doesn't it? She's doing everything she can to try to imply that Dawkins et al just made something up out of thin air, and tried to attribute it to a researcher who, when asked, had no idea what Dawkins was talking about -- Coulter wants you to believe that a fraud had been committed, and that in fact no researcher has successfully modeled the evolution of the eye.

Do you agree that this is the impression she's trying to give? With me so far? Good.

It's a lie. But the person lying is Coulter. The ONLY grain of truth in her rant is that Dawkins had misspoken when he described the research as a "computer simulation" -- it was actually a combination of mathematical models, physical models, and computer analysis, but not a "computer simulation" in the strictest sense of the word. But the research WAS actually performed, it WAS actually done by the researcher Coulter tries to imply had denied its existence, Dawkins's description of the results of the research WERE ACCURATE.

If Coulter had wanted to take issue with the research methodology, she's free to do so. But to DISHONESTLY try to blow up an extremely insignificant slip of the tongue (calling something a "computer model" when it was analyzed in a different manner) into a false tale that the research was never done and that "Darwiniacs" just made it all up is an INCREDIBLY dishonest sleight-of-hand that would make Michael Moore green with envy.

If Coulter allegedly has a good case, why does she have to lie about it? ...

Worse, she can't even claim not to be aware of these things. In her endnotes for this chapter (second part of reference 10 for chapter 8 on pg. 297), she specifically cites the article in "Commentary" magazine which contains multiple rebuttals by Nilsson (the author of the eye evolution paper) and other researchers, who dismantle David Berlinski (the "authority" Coulter cites for her "it didn't exist" accusation) on his errors, his false accusations, and his making a mountain out of a molehill over the "computer simulation" label. Read that again until it sinks in -- COULTER ADMITS TO READING the letters in which the researchers themselves (and others) discuss the research itself (so Coulter KNOWS the research actually exists) and taking Berlinski to task for nitpicking about the "computer simulation" description (so Coulter KNOWS this is a trivial issue). And yet after KNOWING this, Coulter went ahead and MADE THE FALSE ACCUSATION of "it didn't exist" concerning Nilsson's research, *AND* spun that lie around the already discredited nitpicking about whether or not the research was best described as a "computer simulation" or some other descriptive term....