All seriousness aside, are there Freepers who understand the evolution/ID stuff well enough to give me--and others--a set of brains on it?
I guess he didn't like the book. lol
"Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." -- William F. Buckley
I hadn't realized tht Powell's allows for responses. I'm sharing this one because it is so... soo... well, because there is no word for what it is that allows thwe writer to stll be human...
Marianne says:
August 13th, 2006 at 1:56 am
You write beautifully and I'll admit I'm only half way through it, but I simply must point out that it is not true that every one is lapping it up. You must be basing that on her book sales.
Believe me they are bought up by Regnery Books and the likes of Foundations funded by Richard Mellon Scaife. The hard rights equivalent of the lefts George Soros. Then the books are handed out freely to true believers. The title says it all. (though, it's doubtful they would admit buy blocks of book. I'm certain David Brock, the President of Media Matters.org and author of Blinded by the Right, would know. I seem to remember reading in his book that they did that routinely, at least with their own published authors) It's not a conspiracy theroy. It's hard ball politics. Down and dirty. And, it's smart strategy. Their investments in buying up blocks of her books makes her rating on the NY Times Book list go up and that open her up to shows like Good Morning America, Hardball on MSNBC, The Tonight Show, ect. The fact that she's attractive doesn't hurt her there either. Matthews gushed all over her and even allowed her 30 nauseating minutes to spew her venom and insults to hafe the country. You see, the term Liberal, to her, means any one who happens to disagree with her,or the current Administration or any number of other social issues. Let's face it, she's a self-hating feminist. LOL.
So, please, don't be fooled. I don't know anyone who can even stand her for more than two minutes. Even my horny brother who happend to catch her on the tube on day ended up screaming at the top of his lungs at the TV set to "shut the F* up!!) He hates big mouth women who think they know every thing and interupt constantly. Most folks I know can't stand her. Even the ones who don't care about politics. They watch much like one watches a train wreck.
She's in her 40's now and her look are starting to fade...so then what. By then I suppose she'll be rich enough it won't matter. But one thing is certain. The country will be much poorer.
Thanks for your beautifully written review. Very descriptive.
Best,
Marianne
Bonney Lake, WA
I stopped reading after the "scrawny and pallid" remark. If Coulter had been fat and black would the writer have used "squat and dusky"?
I doubt it.
Oh jeeze... you just opened a can of worms.
It is hard to tell who are the more fanatical zealots: the rabid Creationists or the militant Evolutionists.
To be fair, there has been a lot of sex with monkey threads lately.
Not "hundreds of thousands". Don't be ridiculous! It's more like 77% of the population. It's hundreds of millions that don't buy evolution.
Oh the height of jealousy.
Who is this chickensh*t Coyne?
Behe is labeled a "third rate" biologist? Why? Because he has elected to challenge the enforced dogma of evolution?
Anyone who has read Behe or heard him speak would come away quite impressed with his intellect. Quite a formidable mind.
All seriousness aside, it's been tried, but the transplant is generally rejected.
at the risk of engendering controversy (sly grin) here, I am going to state what I think about ID.
ID is ***not*** science. It is not a *scientific* alternative to the Theory of Evolution (tm) because it is not science in the first place.
It is entirely possible that the theory of evolution (which includes Interspecial and Intraspecial evolution. ID'ers usually only have a problem with the former btw) is fundamentally wrong. It would not be the first example of consensus scientific theory that was overthrown by a new theory.
However...
it is BY FAR the most scientific supported theory out there. And it cannot be countered, in the scientific realm, by promoting ID. Because ID is not science.
Famously, when the Soviets shot the first men into space, they declared that this proved god did not exist. That of course is absurd, since the scientific fact that sputnik did not crash into the pearly gates (and the russians get cited for hit and run) is not proof of the nonexistence is god.
Similarly, the facts that the theory of evolution has holes in it (all scientific theories of any breadth whatsoever do) does not mean that ID is a valid counter to evolution.
Heck, ID'ers may be right. But that's kind of irrelevant to the fact that they are not promoting SCIENCE and ID has no place in a science classroom. Nor does politics, but that's another topic :)
ID absolutely has a place in a class on religious philosophy or metaphysics. But not in science
To 'give you a set of brains' on ID as you request, ID basically boils down to
1) evolution is not a complete theory
2) there is this ":irreducible complexity' in organisms that means "god did it"
Evolution boils down to
1) organisms adapt to environment
2) given sufficient time/generations, increasing complexity can result
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.
False. The greatest mass murders in history have been perpetrated by the godless (atheistic communists).
What's going on in the Middle East...
Islamofascists are trying to dominate.
... and what happened in Serbia...
Islamofascists tried to dominate.
... and Northern Ireland?
There! Christians were murdering each other.
What was the Inquisition about...
Purging Moors and their sympathizers from the halls of Spanish government.
... and the Crusades...
Pushing the Muslims out from the land they conquered and subjugated.
... and the slaughter following the partition of India?
Islamofascists tried to dominate.
----------------
There's a common thread throughout his examples that's hard to get a grasp on...
If Coulter said this, then this is really indefensibile. No Christian who has matured in love really wants to see anyone roast in hell. But there are many immature Christians. Probably all Christians are immature in some ways.
And even the prophet Jonah was angry when God spared Ninevah. Which really was the bigger point of Jonah, not Jonah's disobedience and being swallowed by the fish, but Jonah's lack of love for the people of Ninevah whom God had created. So while Coulter is wrong in laughing at the thought of Dawkins burning, she isn't the first to be wrong.
Another hack collects a paycheck by bashing Ann.
Of course, bestiality. What other explanation is there for the physical appearance of the half-animals that always show up at demonstrations for liberal causes??
I was prepared to really hate Coulter's discussion of evolution--didn't even read it for weeks after I'd finished the rest of the book--but actually, it's quite interesting. I wondered how a biologist on the other team would respond. Now I see: He responds with the same malice he criticizes in Coulter herself, without once responding to her argument.