Review of Godless -- (Centers on Evolution)

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

[Dimensio]

You can worship Charlie and his bones!

I am curious about those who claim that Charles Darwin or fossils are "worshipped". Are you deliberately lying, or are you simply unwilling to educate youself sufficiently to understand that your statements are absurd?

[steve-b]

Have you read Godless?
I fail to see how this would alter the truth value of Coulter's false claims.

I am reminded of the liberals who ask "Well, did you watch Farenheit 9/11?" as if this had anything to do with the issue of Michael Moore's credibility.

[Dimensio]

If evolution was fact there would be millions and millions of species from ameoba to man and that is not the case.

Why?

[Dimensio]

How do explain the evolution of the eye, was it one evolution or hundreds or millions?

Your use of the phrase "one evolution or millions" suggests strongly that you have no understanding of evolution at all and, as such, you are not qualified to claim that it is a "dying religion".

[pageonetoo]

I am curious about those who claim that Charles Darwin or fossils are "worshipped". Are you deliberately lying, or are you simply unwilling to educate youself sufficiently to understand that your statements are absurd?

You try so much to hide behind seemingly eloquent words like "curious" and "absurd". They do seem rather subjective, to me, and certainly don't advance anything except derision and ridicule.

Back at you, FRiend. ...

I am just a poor ignorant Christian! /sarcasm

worship

1. The act of adoring, especially reverently: adoration, idolization, reverence, veneration. See like/dislike, love/hatred, sacred/profane.

2. Deep and ardent affection: adoration, devotion, love. See like/dislike, love/hatred.

verb

1. To regard with great awe and devotion: adore, idolize, revere, reverence, venerate. See sacred/profane.

2. To feel deep, devoted love for: adore, love. See love/hatred.

[Dimensio]

is "final solution" from factories such as Sobibor was his own concept of the survival of the fittest...........now, doesn't Darwin say something about that?

No. Darwin did, however, address the idea of killing off or allowing to die off those who were considered evil, saying that such a practice is evil.

[Dimensio]

Yeah but our gene for vitamin C Synthesis was more like gerbils than the monkey's evolution claims we descended from.

Do you have a reference for this claim?

[betty boop]

They can see(deduce) that if "today" the liberals sacrosanct ploy of trotting out someone "bullet proof" won't work anymore.. Thier own "bullet proof" arguments might be at risk..

Yeah, thats what Ann Coulter did!.. with this book.. She assaulted "bullet proof" gambits aimed at the "uninformed"..

So true, hosepipe, so true....

Yep, Ann is a genius. In fact, that's how many of our evo friends regarded her -- until she came out and expressed skepticism about their "doctrinaire," dogmatic evolutionism. Then she suddenly became stupid overnight. Sigh....

Thanks for the great post, hosepipe!

[Dimensio]

You try so much to hide behind seemingly eloquent words like "curious" and "absurd". They do seem rather subjective, to me, and certainly don't advance anything except derision and ridicule.

I am attempting nn subtrefuge. I use the word "curious" to express my desire for further knoweldge on a subject and I use the word "absurd" to accurately describe your statements.

You have yet to demonstrate that anyone "worships" either Charles Darwin or fossils. Providing definition of the word does not demonstrate that any of those definitions are applicable. Moreover, your previous derision did not in any way demonstrate that any of Coulter's claims regarding the theory of evolution are correct.

[Dimensio]

Then she suddenly became stupid overnight.

Actually, the most common accusations are that she is uninformed on the subject, that she is not honest in her presentation and that she is a poor researcher. All of these accusations are founded in a premise that her claims are demonstratably false, and ample information has been provided as evidence that her claims are false.

[Fester Chugabrew]

If Darwin is wrong or needs to be modified, science will prove him wrong and adapt in accordance with the rules of science.

If one subscribes to the philosophical underpinnings of naturalistic materialism, Darwin will not and cannot be shown scientifically to be "wrong." Natural selection, being a phenomenon that is defined solely by virtue of results, presents a unfalsifiable claim. As such, dogmatic evolutionists cannot meet the standard of falsifiability they so often demand of intelligent design if it is to be considered "scientific."

The issue is not whether there are good scientists who are also people of faith. The issue is whether faith may be used as a starting point for scientists. Though you and your cheerleaders a loath to admit it science always begins with faith. Intelligent design is a reasonable, normal, non-supernatural means of explaining organized matter in any form. One need not be superstitious, mystical, suprnatural, or even unscientific to assume or assert as much.

[VadeRetro]

That you feel so strongly that "nobody else, but scientists, could hold truth" shows a lot about your mental state.

They are certainly the best bet to get the science approximately right. It is the particular thesis of ID and creationism is that science has been somehow getting a 180-degree wrong answer for the last 150 years. Maintaining such a position would seem to be impossible from the get-go. Nevertheless, it is done via selective misquotes, incorrigible repetition of falsehoods, and relentless illogic.

As for me and my household, we will serve the Lord. I think we are still a majority.

Your household is a majority? You must have been very fertile in your day, Betty!

[pageonetoo]

Moreover, your previous derision did not in any way demonstrate that any of Coulter's claims regarding the theory of evolution are correct.

Moreover, your previous derision did not in any way demonstrate that any of Coulter's claims regarding the theory of evolution are INcorrect.

[Gumlegs]

Half the team that invented the Hi-Fi Speakers?

I ever speak of them because I tend to transpose the initial consonants in their names.

[VadeRetro]

Do you notice how you claim my arguments are stupid? The back side of that statement is that you believe you're intelligent. Yet, while you berate me, you make some ridiculously invalid arguments. If I use Hitler, you can use Christianity? What type of a mind comes up with an excuse like that?

You brought up Hitler, and specifically tried to argue that Darwin was wrong because that Darwinist Hitler was bad. This is exactly the same argument as saying that Christianity is wrong because that self-professed Christian Hitler was bad. You have argued a fallacy of irrelevance. I have pointed it out to you in every post that I have made to you. Your answer is to pretend you don't get it.

OK, so you don't get it. Now THAT's a convincing demonstration!

[b_sharp]

"So where are all the Transitional Fossils laughing boy??

Before I answer that question, I have a question for you that will have a bearing on my answer.

Logically, how many transitional fossils are necessary to show *that portion* of Evolution has occurred as suggested by the SToE?

"You did read the book right, or are you just postering for your envirothugs?

I not only read the evolution portion of her book but I read a number of refutations of her ideas on evolution, something I suspect you have not done.

[Antoninus]

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

Oh, gee, I don't know. It might give more credibility to your argument if you ACTUALLY READ THE WORK YOU'RE ATTACKING.

Have you read it?

[Antoninus]

As you continue to dance around like a trained monkey, I'm going to assume you haven't read the book you're criticizing so vigorously.

Hardly a scientific way of behaving if you ask me...

[steve-b]

Irrelevant. The criticisms are those of a reviewer.

Now, get off your butt and address them.

[Antoninus]

I am reminded of the liberals who ask "Well, did you watch Farenheit 9/11?" as if this had anything to do with the issue of Michael Moore's credibility.

Yes, actually, that's a perfectly valid point. How can you refute something you refuse to read? Doesn't sound like a terribly "scientific" attitude to me.

I didn't watch F 9/11 and as a result, I didn't go on threads attacking the points made by Lil' Mikey. I left that to the people with stronger stomachs who actually went and watched the film.