Posted on 06/27/2006 5:06:32 AM PDT by 7thson
Ann Coulter states in her book on page 201 -
Darwin’s theory of evolution says life on Earth began with single-celled life forms, which evolved into multicelled life forms, which over countless aeons evolved into higher life forms, including man, all as the result of the chance process of random mutation followed by natural selection, without guidance or assistance from any intelligent entity like God of the Department of Agriculture. Which is to say, evolution I the eminently plausible theory that the human eye, the complete works of Shakespeare, and Ronal Reagan (among other things) all came into existence purely be accident.
On page 202, she states The “theory” of evolution is:
1. Random mutation of desirable attributes (highly implausible)
2. Natural selection weeding out the “less fit” animals (pointless tautology)
3. Leading to the creation of new species (no evidence after 150 years of looking)
My question – is she correct in her statements? Is that Darwin’s theory?
On the ligher side, check out the first paragraph on page 212. LOL Funny!
evo ping
I doubt that Ms. Coulter had such atrocious editing.
She is wrong, assuming this is indeed her position. The theory of evolution does not address whether the process is guided by any higher power. Although some of its proponents use the theory this way, it is a misuse and is highly unscientific.
I'm not the right person to explain the intricacies, but there is a distinction between Darwin's Theory and the modern Theory of Evolution.
Actually arguing against Darwin (and I don't know that Ann is doing precisely that) is pointless. Everyone recognizes that Darwin got some stuff wrong.
Arguing against the modern Theory of Evolution is at least not pointless.
The theory of evolution is entirely about natural processes, therefore, without supernatural guidance at all.
Darwin's theory is whatever IDers want it to be.
Evolution started in some "HOT" bubbling cauldron of pond scum, well at least they are thinking it is now a "HOT" pot, use to be thought it was "COLD". Soon they will discover it was a "JUST RIGHT" wetland.
All this global warming must be about a new wave of species transitioning.
Evolution is a Theory Opinion. It requires placing a whole lot more faith in man's science, than any Christian places in God's creation.
I think the best analogy to the evolutionary process was illustrated by a friend (and teacher in a class on "Christian Ethics", which is TOO often an oxymoron).
He took a pocket watch, placed it into a cloth sack, then smashed it repeatedly with a hammer. He then stood shaking the bag, and talking. He explained that there was a better liklihood that he could shake the watch back into original condition, than to believe that all this we see around us is an accident of nature!
The classroom was silent while he poured the parts into his desk, and a lot of parts spilled onto the floor!!!
He convinced me of the hutzpah, and folly of the human species! I am intelligent, educated, and reasonalby mature.
I do not need to hold to any schedule for creation. I have studied the Bible in its original languages, and nuanced the distinctions of translators. In the end, it all boils down to one thing. Do you believe in magic?
I'm always amused that Darwinist evolution stands alone on a self-fullfilling prophecy. Why does an animal have certain traits? Because the traits gave it competitive advantage in the survival of the fittest. What is the proof? The animal has certain traits. Its really quite circular.
Thus most Darwinists have no problem accepting that traits that should clearly be self-eliminating like diseases that occur before reproduction and homosexuality continue, while simultaneously insisting that a 1mm extension of a Giraffe's neck every 100 years gave clear competitive advantage. The proof? Well that's the way it is, and the only accepted mechanism is survival of the fittest.
I accept evolution, but question the "theory" that all changes are the result of competitive advantage. Interestingly, that small differentiation is always enough to bring the wrath of every Darwinist down on me. That gives me the impression that Darwinian Theory has become more of an orthodox doctrine than a scientific theory.
Eh, sort of shooting yourself in the foot there...the point of those traits if designed by a deity is what, exactly, then?
I quite agree. Christians recognize a supernatural God who works miracles. Does the Bible require a belief in "magic"? Absolutely! Christians willingly embrace that!
Scientists study the material universe. The natural, physical world is what they know and accept. Supernatural stuff is -- by definition -- outside the realm of Science and they won't touch it. Now, the problem is that a belief in Evolution really requires a belief in "magic" -- but scientists cannot use that as an explanation for anything, so they struggle to justify their faith in Evolution strictly through random physical processes. A fool's errand.
I just can't type well!
It's amazing how terrified people are of the word "random."
No, that is me. I typed it and did not do a good job editing. That is why she is a best selling author and I have to schlub around all day. 8-)
I believe that is what she is saying. She is saying that the believers of evolution says it all happened by accident.
I might even refer to Occam's Razor. Did the Life on Earth arise through billions of years of random mutation? Or did a transcendent God create it through supernatural means? The simple explanation seems more likely to me.
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.