Posted on 06/27/2006 5:06:32 AM PDT by 7thson
Ann Coulter states in her book on page 201 -
Darwins 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 Darwins theory?
On the ligher side, check out the first paragraph on page 212. LOL Funny!
Are you saying that nothing in evolution theory is backed by fact?
The theory of evolution does not state whether supernatural guidance has occurred or is occurring. It does not address the issue.
I am especially amused by those who try to stretch the theory to state that evolution "proves" that God did not create the stars and planets.
Evolution, of course, addresses strictly biological processes. It has nothing whatsoever to do with anything else.
The Theory of Relativity is still called the Theory of Relativity.
If you've ever used a GPS, the calculations are constantly adjusted for relativistic effects. Planes are guided to their destinations, and Taliban are blown up, by something that's "Just a Theory."
How did you like the beginning of page 212?
I agree almost completly with Ann's expressed political views. She has a devastating pen and she's almost always right on target. But, she would do herself a favor, along with the rest of us conservatives, if she would steer clear of areas obviously outside her expertise--especially evolution. For the life of me, I can't see why it's on her agenda. It's not a political issue. Well grounded opinions about evolution flow from years of study. Ann's remarks betray her ignorance and make her look like a fool to folks like me who would otherwise be staunch admirers. Worst of all, they give conservatism a black eye amoung educated people of all political stripes.
Anyone want to place bets on the amount of time Ann Coulter has spent examining the "fossil record?"
Ohhhhh, no sorry that is incorrect.
From the current political situation worldwide one can draw the conclusion that if the theory of selection of the fittest is to occur and a few mutations along the way then: when the whole world is destroyed by war the selected species will be insects!
I am not a believer in the 6,000 year theory. To GOD one of our seconds could(theory) be a million years. Who knows, we will just all have to wait and see.
"Probably because they're the people surrounded by clear evidence of evolution all the time."
Please state one proof!!
I know this may sound childish - and if so, I guess I have yet to evolve into an adult - but how much time have you spent looking at the fossil record? For that matter, who on FR has spent the most time looking at the fossil record?
She states in her book that back in the 80's, the Chinise uncovered fossils before the Cambrian(sp) period that tends to disprove the theory of evolution. When a school teacher brought this up in class - a biology teacher - with no reference to God, the ACLU got involved and the school teacher was fired. What she is stating about evolution, is that the liberals embrace it to such a degree that they will not abide any argument against it in the public school system.
Yes it does. It's about natural processes. Natural equals not supernatural therefore it is about how things happen apart from any supernatural explanation.
I am especially amused by those who try to stretch the theory to state that evolution "proves" that God did not create the stars and planets.
The theory of evolution goes beyond just biology. Read sky and telescope for a while.
Evolution, of course, addresses strictly biological processes. It has nothing whatsoever to do with anything else.
So when the field of astronomy uses the word evolution they don't really mean evolution?
Perhaps I was not clear in my post. What I said was "This is the way I see it" meaning ME. That was my opinion unless I specifically attributed parts to Ann. Sorry for the confusion.
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.