Patterico's Pontifications

6/14/2006

Coulter: Believers in Evolution Are Brainwashed

Filed under: General,Morons — Patterico @ 8:31 pm



John Hawkins has interviewed Ann Coulter. My favorite bit:

John Hawkins: If you were to pick three concepts, facts, or ideas that most undercut the theory of evolution, what would they be?

Ann Coulter: 1. It’s illogical. 2. There’s no physical evidence for it. 3. There’s physical evidence that directly contradicts it. Apart from those three concerns I’d say it’s a pretty solid theory.

John Hawkins: If the science behind evolution doesn’t stand-up, why do you think so many people who should know better so fervently believe in evolution?

Ann Coulter: A century of brain-washing combined with a desperate need to not believe in an intelligent designer.

Very zippy! Let’s buy that woman’s book!

61 Responses to “Coulter: Believers in Evolution Are Brainwashed”

  1. Dude, you’re way behind the news cycle. But you’re right about one thing; on this issue Coulter is infinitely worse than Rall.

    Xrlq (0e2175)

  2. Better to be behind it than too far out in front of it.

    Patterico (50c3cd)

  3. I know, I know: that was a fat softball served up for me to swing at.

    Patterico (50c3cd)

  4. Dear God, Dan Quayle and Kos had a daughter.

    Alan Kellogg (0cce30)

  5. Alan Kellogg wins the prize.

    I’m not sure what prize, but that seems exactly right. I thought about a cheap Kos joke earlier, but now I’m glad I didn’t do it – Alan’s is better.

    She’s a bomb-chucking knucklehead. If I hear she’s smart one more time, I’m going to go find out what that word means, because obviously my previous understanding was mistaken.

    –JRM

    JRM (5e00de)

  6. [song notes]

    This is the topic that never ends,
    Yes, it goes on and on my friends…

    sharon (fecb65)

  7. JRM: It means that she has been smart enough to make a whole lot of money!

    Dana (3e4784)

  8. Meanwhile, in reality, we could not make a bird flu vaccine withot taking evolution into account. I enjoy everyting else she says but this is like the bride starting a fart nose contest after a wedding rather than throwing her bouquet.

    michael (12cbc8)

  9. “If I hear she’s smart one more time, I’m going to go find out what that word means, because obviously my previous understanding was mistaken.”

    She was smart enough to be on the Law Review graduate Order of the Coif from UMich Law; I’d say that’s pretty damned good.

    One can be intelligent and still totally insane.

    Angry Clam (fa7fff)

  10. Organisms certainly do change, such as from the original form of bird flu to a form that can be transmitted from human to human.

    However, this doesn’t explain the origin of life. Spontaneous generation or intelligent design look like equally valid theories to me.

    I also don’t think evolution theory completely explains the complexity of original life.

    Mike S (d3f5fd)

  11. Right you are, Mike, but that’s not what Coulter said. Apparently, she’s unable to understand that the theory of evolution — insofar as it is a theory (in other words, excluding the unscientific extrapolations which attempt to use it to explain the origin of life – which deserve to be called “scientific theory” about as much as creationism does*) — is not inconsistent with a faith-based belief in an intelligent designer.

    I won’t call her stupid if all she’s doing is using evolution theory as shorthand to refer to the apparently common misunderstanding of what Darwin’s theory explains, but if she suggests that a faith-based belief in a supernatural creator can be called “science” or taught alongside science in schools (whether it’s called ID or creationism doesn’t matter very much), well, then I’d say she’s earned the label the old-fashioned way — by earning it.

    *Claiming that evolution theory explains the origin of life is nothing more than a belief in spontaneous generation, which of course is an unscientific explanation of life’s origin. It is based on an observation — that life exists — and concluding that life must have spontaneously generated from inanimate matter, without any scientific validation. The only difference between someone who believes in spontaneous generation -i.e., that evolution explains the origin of life — and someone who believes in creationism is that creationism is a hypothesis that is incapable of being tested, whereas spontaneous generation has been tested countless times and has never been validated. Advantage: Creationists, as they, unlike the other side of the irrational belief coin, at least acknowledge that their belief is based on faith and therefore seem to possess the most important required element for “brainwashing” (you know — brains.)

    TNugent (6128b4)

  12. Sorry, Mike, I skimmed over your comment (it’s been one of those mornings — I should probably come back when I have the time to read more carefully) and missed your succinct and on-the-money tagging of evolution-as-explanation-of-origin as a belief in spontaneous generation.

    TNugent (6128b4)

  13. Evolution is so obviously true that it is sad to see the religious right use it as a piller of faith (To quote the Quran). We got into this a bit on Cathy Seipp’s blog.

    The evidence is so basic to understanding life that I would agree with the Texas A&M prof who refused to write a letter of recommendation to a medical school for a kid who didn’t believe in it. I know physicians, good physicians, who have become born-again Christians and don’t believe in evolution anymore. I just don’t see why this has to be. There is no reason why God could not have established the laws of physics before the big bang.

    The facts of evolution are used every day to, for example, correct babies heart defects. You can’t understand anatomy without understanding it.

    I suspect Ann Coulter, who is a savvy entrepreneur, is using this as a marketing tool. It will get her name in the paper once more and on another topic that appeals to her potential readers.

    Mike K (416363)

  14. “there’s no evidence for it.”

    There’s no evidence for gravity, either. We can’t find gravity waves, gravitons, or any evidence anywhere that it isn’t God’s Will holding everything together. Those atheistic scientists just assume it’s not God and make up this stuff!

    And how logical is it to say that mass attacts mass? Like why? Why would God do that? Just to make a rock so big he couldn’t lift it?

    Kevin Murphy (0b2493)

  15. I guess this is the week for all you guys to show off how enlightened you really are. Pretty tiresome.

    eddie haskell (51058c)

  16. Whoa, there, Mike K. . . . Are you suggesting that an understanding of evolution is necessary in order to understand anatomy? You’re a bit far out on the limb there. DaVinci seemed to have a pretty fair understanding of anatomy, at least from a mechanical perspective, without conceiving that humans and primates might have a common ancestor. Understanding evolution is not the same thing as understanding the relationship between structure and function, which seems to be what you’re suggesting. So, the fact that your physician may be a creationist shouldn’t be cause for concern. If he thinks that gazing upon a bronze serpent is what it will take to cure what ails you, well, then you might want to get a second opinion.

    TNugent (6128b4)

  17. The point is that nearly all the physical sciences mesh in many ways, and evolutionary theory fits completely within that mesh. Creationism, if true, would stand outside that mesh as a unique exception. Illogical indeed.

    The ONLY reason to believe in creationism is faith in a particular, 4000-year old, religious statement.

    Frankly, I want more than a third-grade Old-Man-With-a-Beard God. I find evolution, quantum mechanics, and the general lack of central direction as proof of a creative (and interesting) intelligence.

    Creationism would lead me to believe that God was dumber than a box of rocks, which would make my willingness to turn my will over to It less likely.

    Kevin Murphy (0b2493)

  18. “Whoa, there, Mike K. . . . Are you suggesting that an understanding of evolution is necessary in order to understand anatomy? You’re a bit far out on the limb there. ”

    Arm or leg ?

    I don’t think da Vinci (Which was not his name by the way) did as much pediatric cardiac surgery as I have. He was a wonderful observer. Andreas Vesalius was better because he did dissections. Leonardo may have done some too.

    If you want to get into it in detail, you could even read my book.

    My point is that practical anatomy, that is anatomy you can use to fix a ventricular septal defect for example, requires a knowledge of embryology and that requires an understanding of evolution.

    It’s a bit like the difference between rock collecting and geology.

    Mike K (416363)

  19. My point is that practical anatomy, that is anatomy you can use to fix a ventricular septal defect for example, requires a knowledge of embryology and that requires an understanding of evolution.

    What is there about embryology that requires an understanding of evolution? If you could give the gist of it without getting overly technical.
    Give a specific thing you’re understanding that could not be understood without evolution theory and why.

    Here is a debate between an evolutionist and creationist scientist on the issue of whether genetic information has EVER been observed to be added via mutations, without which evolution is impossible. The creationist creams the evo IMO. Mutations that have actually been observed do not add any genetic info. If evolution is true they should be occurring all over the place.

    Gerald A (fe1f90)

  20. Mike K, I think the disconnect is what we’re each referring to as evolution theory. Seems like you’re referring to an application of that theory to explain the structure and function of the human heart, rather than the theory itself. Maybe you find Darwin’s theory of descent with modification through natural selection (Darwin’s words, not mine) helpful to your understanding of that structure and function. If so, that’s great, especially for your patients. But you’re dealing with the results of evolution, not the process itself (notwithstanding the fact that embryonic development in some respects appears to follow what some people might surmise to be a likely path of human evolution). There’s no logical reason why accepting that theory as the explanation of why our various parts are put together the way they are is necessary to an understanding of anatomical structure and function. Disbelieving Darwin’s theory wouldn’t rule out such an understanding, although it would suggest to me that the disbeliever is irrationally rejecting scientific explanation that truly deserves to be called a “theory,” with all that the term implies (to a scientist — not to the dolts who confuse hypothesis and theory, dismissing evolution as “just a theory”). If the irrational disbeliever is digging ditches or writing speeches and scripts for Al Gore, well, that’s no big deal. But, for what it’s worth, I would rather have someone with your approach to anatomy working on me or my loved ones.

    TNugent (6128b4)

  21. So, Gerald, the creationist’s position is that genetic mutations haven’t really contributed to the diversity of life on earth? So, presumably, every life form was created by the Creator, in a single instant (sometime on the sixth day, for example), more or less genetically complete. Here is another website that supports the creationist argument.

    TNugent (6128b4)

  22. So, Gerald, the creationist’s position is that genetic mutations haven’t really contributed to the diversity of life on earth?

    Very funny. Creationists distinguish between micro and macroevolution. For example dogs probably evolved from wolves, as well as various kinds of wolves evolving from other wolves. That’s microevolution. However creationists don’t believe that humans evolved from apes or whales came from a wolf-like land dwelling creature. By the way the drawing of one of the alleged whale intermediates shown in textbooks is highly misleading.

    In any event we’re not talking about creationism but Darwinism. I think the anti-evolution scientist in the link may not be a creationist. The website is creationist.

    You can disbelieve evolution without being a creationist – which I am. There are some atheists who believe in intelligent design.

    Gerald A (fe1f90)

  23. No offense Mike K, but it is hard to have a discussion with a book. You would do well to realize however that there are many people that don’t believe that Macro Evolution as the source of life fits so nicely, though there are those that do, as you yourself are sufficent evidence. I have no serious knowledge of “embryology” but I don’t seem how that requires a knowledge of evolution to understand. Understanding evolution is a given by that point in speciailization since evolution is part of the general curriculum, but I fail to see how that has anything to do with the normal development of a single organism from an embroy to death (though I can see how it would come up in a general course on biology where they are discussing the different reproductive systems we find in nature and how they may have evolved).

    Cheers

    galletador (b58eba)

  24. I may be wrong on the number, but I think there are some 6000 species of beetles. One ‘out on a limb’ Englishman commented that, if in fact it was God, as distinct from natural selection, that led to the diversity of life, that ‘God is inordinately fond of beetles.’ As for the origin of life, Ponomperuma, at UCLA funded by NASA, did some experiments in the sixties using gases thought to exist at an early stage in the earth’s e*****n, added elictric sparks, for ‘lightning,’ and got various amino acids, nucleic acids, the ‘building blocks of life.’ There has been further work in this area.

    michael (508ade)

  25. Ann remains a media darling, both loved and despised. The ONLY thing that will make her change her act is if the cable shows quit calling. Until then, bloggers keep blogging and bookers keep booking. And Ann keeps up her busy media calendar.

    I would like to see her do a Mary Matalin-James Carville type of relationship with someone from the left. It’s the next plateau for her special brand of entertainment!

    Vermont Neighbor (a9ae2c)

  26. Gerald A, do creationists assert that antibiotic resistant bacteria have always been with us, in their present genetic form? Or does the Creator still like to throw us a curve-ball every now and then? And why explain why evolution which contemplates genetic mutations leading to survival-enhancing traits isn’t just Creation by other means? After all, the inference that mutations have contributed to (at least) the diversity of life on earth is a logical one, supported by observations, fossil records, etc. It’s only the assertion that the mutations are random that is speculative, and then only if “random” means something other than without any particular cause that science can identify as altering the probability of the event occurring. If you see evidence of the divine in mathematical probabilities, then you shouldn’t really have a problem with neo-Darwinism, right? That leap isn’t science, but even scientists don’t claim to be able to explain everything, and certainly there are many who don’t consider scientific and faith-based explanations to be mututally exclusive. Part of what makes them scientists is that they don’t stop trying to find scientific explanations as soon as someone offers one that is faith based. Undoubtedly, some of them would credit this to Creator-given intellect.

    TNugent (6128b4)

  27. TNugget, I’m not familiar with Gerald A’s contetion about mutation, but it appears that he means that a mutation, as studied to date, involves a creature being born *without* something rather than having a new peice of genetic information inserted. I have no idea if the assertion is true, but that is what I understood by it. Also, my understanding of the fossil record disagrees with your assertion. Life forms found in the fossil record actually do not show evolution but have the unsual habit of showing to a life-form, then another life-form that is similar existing along side it, then the first dies, and the second may even die later with no real indication of incremental steps along the way. Granted, the fossil record is sparse, but that isn’t an indication on way or the other but is usual the source of the contetion of those that say that the fossil record does not support the theory of macro-evolutionary.

    galletador (b58eba)

  28. […] For those of you who like discussing Ann Coulter but are fed up with semantic hair-splitting over the meaning of “enjoy,” “dowdify” or “is,” you’re in luck. Patterico has finally found something in Ann Coulter’s book that’s actually worth criticizing, and John Hawkins has found something that’s actually worth quoting. […]

    damnum absque injuria » Llardet Update (38c04c)

  29. Galletador, there’s a difference between supporting and proving. The fossil record, suggesting a great diversity of life forms not just at any particular time, but also over time, does indeed support a conclusion that genetic mutations have occurred leading to changes in organisms over generations. Sure, it’s not sufficient, in itself, to fully support the conclusion, but I don’t think anyone is really suggesting that it is. Other observations also support the conclusion. None are, in themselves, sufficient, and taken together, might not even be conclusive, unless by “conclusive” you mean “far and away the best explanation that anyone has come up with.”

    If the Creationist explanation for changes in the variety of life on earth is that the Creator’s work is never really done (certainly at odds with a literal reading of Genesis), then, it’s not really anything that would, if true, preclude the explanation offered by neo-Darwinists. Just add a smidgeon of ID to neo-Darwinism and viola! Creationism, or neo-Creationism, or whatever.

    TNugent (6128b4)

  30. I typed up a probably too long explanation and hit the wrong button sending it into the ether. Two examples that I had included;

    Gallbladder anatomy in textbooks represents the actual situation in only about 30% of the population. Why all the variation ? Why would God do this when some of the variants cause trouble ?

    The other is mitochondria. These are the intracellular structures that make energy from oxygen. They were once free-living creatures and are found in all cells above bacteria, including ours. Mitochondria have their own DNA, which uses a more primitive process to replicate itself, and they have living relatives called Rickettsiae that cause disease. The DNA of both is almost identical. The free-living relatives have about three more genes than the ones that live in our cells. The DNA replication process that mitochondria use is similar to that used by viruses and explains the muscle weakness caused by AZT in AIDS patients. This was not known until about 25 years ago.

    By the way, all mitochondria come from the mother and their DNA was the basis for the studies looking for “Eve.”

    I have more but I think the subject is about beaten flat. If you want references on any of this, contact me off-list.

    Mike K (6d4fc3)

  31. In all fairness, TNugent, I believe a great many people take that route. I had a biology professor back in the day that was very much a fan of the “God as the manipulator of evolution” school of thought, and I think the thoughts on the subject are about as varied as the people that discuss it, as I have run into people that believe in evolution and believe in no “Higher Power” and those that believe the world was created in 6 days and man literally out of so much dust, and it seems everything in between.

    galletador (b58eba)

  32. And Coulter undoubtedly knows it, but calculated that her comment would be a publicity-producing provocation, at best, or anti-intellectualism on the other end of the spectrum of possibilities. Neither possibility nor anything in between speaks well of Coulter. It’s long past time that conservatives jettisoned that baggage — her Jersey girl comments are having that effect. Probably a bad move for her in the long run, and this comment won’t help either. I don’t know anyone for whom Coulter’s comments have been inspiration to drop money into her bank account.

    TNugent (6128b4)

  33. “I don’t know anyone for whom Coulter’s comments have been inspiration to drop money into her bank account.”

    Really? Check out the New York Times bestsellers list.

    sharon (03e82c)

  34. Yeah, Ann is a money machine. Looks like a hot chick, too, but probably too hot for these old bones. I think I recall her going after a cheating boyfriend with a fire hose a few years ago.

    Crazy ideas sell. Ask Noam Chomsky

    Mike K (f89cb3)

  35. Fair point, sharon. I should clarify: I don’t know anyone, EXCLUDING THOSE ALREADY INCLINED TO BUY COULTER’S BOOK, for whom Coulter’s RECENT comments have been inspiration to drop money into her bank account.

    I’ll pick on the recent comments only because they seem to have attracted the most attention — even though they’re not the most offensive things she’s ever said. Sure, those inclined to read Coulter are probably so inclined because of her comments, generally. But among potential readers who aren’t paid critics or Coulter’s die-hard fans, I would bet that the list of those who decide not to buy because of her recent comments is longer than those who are led to the opposite decision.

    TNugent (6128b4)

  36. As one who has published a book and is still trying, with modest success, to sell it, any publicity is better than none. I don’t think she has sold the book to everyone who might be interested. That being the case, she has a strong incentive to stir the pot and the size of this thread is an indicator of how well she’s done it. I’ve not read her books, nor Michael Savage’s books but they have an audience that is sizable. I have a lot harder time understanding the appeal of Chomsky.

    Mike K (6d4fc3)

  37. As everyone knows, Deucalion and his wife, Pyrrha, repopulated the earth by throwing rocks backwards over their shoulders — the ones thrown by Deucalion became men, the ones thrown by Pyrrha became women. As to Ms. Coulter’s beliefs, whatever “designer” created that lifeless hair, corpse-like skin and those bony knees (size thirteen feet, also, if Time magazine can be believed), as well as that venomous tongue, may have been “intelligent” but entirely lacking in sensibility.

    See, Coulterism is not all that hard after all.

    nk (06f5d0)

  38. Moneyrunner, Comment #39:

    It is the difference between pursuing the unknown and kneeling to the unknowable. Between fact and fantasy. Between imperfect science and science as heresy.

    And don’t be too quick to cricize lawyers’ meddling in non-law subjects. Lawyers may not be trained in biology but they are very thoroughly trained in distinguishing between s__t and shinola.

    nk (57e995)

  39. NK:

    And don’t be too quick to cricize lawyers’ meddling in non-law subjects. Lawyers may not be trained in biology but they are very thoroughly trained in distinguishing between s__t and shinola.

    Thanks, but I think you’re giving us too much credit. Much of our job consists of obfuscating the distinction between shit and shinola, not just distinguishing the two. More importantly, though, the hard sciences are not the sort of thing a smart but untrained guy can “psyche out.” I haven’t read Coulter’s book yet, but I know the chapter on evolution is crap. I don’t know, however, that it will read like obvious crap. My guess is that it won’t.

    Xrlq (0e2175)

  40. Isn’t Coulter a lawyer? She can’t distinguish between shinola and what she says.

    Patterico (50c3cd)

  41. I made the point earlier that this has been made into a pillar of faith by so many fundamentalist Christians. That’s too bad but it may explain some of the vehemence.

    For example, a friend of mine in medical school came from a very orthodox Jewish family. He told me that his grandfather was so devout (if that is the term) that he refused to accept money for serving as a rabbi. He earned his living as a butcher.

    Anyway, my friend was convinced by his parents that the sabbath was so sacred that lighting a match would cause him to be struck with lightning.

    That is not all that far fetched because the nuns told us that a little boy had once not swallowed the host at communion and had taken it home and stuck a fork into it. She told us very seriously that the host bled when stuck with a fork. This, of course, scared the sh*t out of us and discouraged any attempts at experimentation with our first communion.

    My friend told me that finally, with the reckless bravado of teenage youth, he had lighted a match on the sabbath and waited for the lightning. In the next moment, he lost his religion.

    These folks may never waver in their faith but they may have a kid with an interest in science who will conclude that their parents are fools.

    Mike K (416363)

  42. do creationists assert that antibiotic resistant bacteria have always been with us, in their present genetic form? Or does the Creator still like to throw us a curve-ball every now and then?

    This debate I gave previously discusses that.

    Here’s another discussion of that from the same web site.

    The short answer is no, they have not or at least not necessarily. Antibiotic resistant bacteria are one of the most frequent examples given by Darwinists of “evolution”. It’s understood that one way bacteria become resistant is by losing the ability to bind to the the antibiotic. This involves a loss of genetic information which is the opposite of what macroevolution consists of. All the mutations producing antibiotic resistance are like that.

    And why explain why evolution which contemplates genetic mutations leading to survival-enhancing traits isn’t just Creation by other means?

    It hypothetically could be, but I believe the bible is God’s word and ape to man evolution is simply incompatible with the bible. There are many objective evidences, such as fulfilled prophecy, that the bible is supernatural in origin as many apologists have detailed. That’s a discussion for another time.

    On a purely scientific level, the kind of mutations necessary for macroevolution simply haven’t been observed. It’s not enough for a survival enhancing mutation, such as the bacteria, to be observed. There has to be mutations which actually add genetic information.

    After all, the inference that mutations have contributed to (at least) the diversity of life on earth is a logical one, supported by observations, fossil records, etc.

    Gerald A (2728c7)

  43. Mike, great post. But this is the best:

    “the nuns told us that a little boy had once not swallowed the host at communion and had taken it home and stuck a fork into it. She told us very seriously that the host bled when stuck with a fork.”

    yowza

    Vermont Neighbor (a9ae2c)

  44. Well, actually, I did not think that I was indulging in ad hominem. I thought that I was attacking ideas instead of people. Such as a belief that cannot be tested as opposed to an inquiry that can be tested and fail the test. And be re-tested when, and if, better re-testing tools become available. Without belief forbidding the test.

    As for lawyers not being experts in biology but being experts in winnowing out grain from chaff, I stick by my guns. I apologize for not using the grain/chaff metaphor instead of the shinola/s__t metaphor in the first instance, if that’s what caused the raised hackles.

    nk (d7a872)

  45. P.S. Yes, lawyers being able to distinguish s__t from shinola winnow grain from chaff makes Ms. Coulter a liar and hypocrite.

    nk (4d4a9d)

  46. Moneyrunner, I don’t recall chemistry having much to do with evolution. Biology and anthropology, on the other hand, are steeped in it. So when someone comes across as if they’re in a cult because they adamantly argue for macroevolution, it is because of the overwhelming evidence for it. Not much in biology fits together well without an understanding of evolution.

    In the philosophy of science, Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions argues that, in effect, all of science is basically a cult. Are you alluding to Kuhn’s book? I don’t believe Kuhn is right in that analysis primarily because science requires the successful reproduction of hypotheses, for one thing. But Kuhn does bring out the fact that what truth we attain through science is merely pragmatic: that is, it is not The Truth. In science, if it works – i.e., it produces results that are close enough to what we basically wanted or expected – then it is good enough. In contrast, ordinarily faith is not systematically put through any tests whatsoever. In fact, many facets of faith are not empirically verifiable at all (not that I’m a logical positivist though of course – not everything we believe can be empirically verified). You can’t design a test that proves that an invisible being doesn’t exist, for example.

    Evolution may not explain everything, but no theory does. Theories, being created by us, always have limited application.

    I believe that the story of creation is just beginning to be exposed. Evolution is just one major mechanism involved in it. Why should we assume that there are no others?

    Psyberian (dd13d6)

  47. Patterico #43 slamming Coulter and

    TNugent #36 “It’s long past time that conservatives jettisoned that baggage — her Jersey girl comments are having that effect.”

    Read Chapter 3. Seriously. You may hate Coulter now, but Chapter 3 about crime is great. Maybe you’ll like her again.

    D Huff (290510)

  48. …the test of a hypothesis is its reproducibility. I have not seen the kind of reproducibility regarding evolution. – Moneyruner

    That’s a fair enough point. But think about this for a minute. There is reproducibility in micro-evolution. Almost no one doubts that. But for macroevolution to take place, a new species has to be formed. This process normally takes at least hundreds of thousands of years if not millions of years. However, given that micro-evolution is proven, why wouldn’t it make sense to say that if one species is, for example, separated geographically, that it could eventually adapt into different species over time? It isn’t a very big leap at all to see that. Notice also the very strange creatures around – “walking,” breathing catfish for example. In 500,000 years (assuming the species lives), what will that creature look like?

    Psyberian (dd13d6)

  49. D Huff, no one is saying that Coulter’s substantive positions are all bad, it’s just that she chooses to make calculatingly offensive comments which help her sell books but certainly don’t help persuade anyone who isn’t already in agreement with her. If the objective of rhetoric is to persuasion rather than self-congratulation, then Coulter is an utter failure.

    TNugent (6128b4)

  50. moneyrunner–

    The fact is that of those with scientific degrees, the vast majority accept the overwhelming evidence of evolution.

    I remember, taking my physics degree, a “Scientific Creationist” named Duane Gish being invited to a symposium, specifically to allow the students to be exposed to the other side. Apparently they had to go outside the college to find such. We listened carefully, then tore his arguments to threads. Mainly because his science was junk.

    It is always dangerous to try to use junk science in front of people who know what science is (and is not). What I heard was a profound misunderstanding of thermodynamics, entropy and quantum mechanics that assumed that the chaos of the universe was unbounded, or bound only by God’s active interference. It isn’t. There is balance in everything. God created a universe that didn’t need his active control to work.

    For example, entropy does not argue that evolution is impossible, only that life is a force that opposes entropy. The complexity argument of intelligent design neglects the fact that life hoards information and reproduces sucessful information hoards rapidly.

    Now, if you want to say that God created a universe where life was possible, where dead molecules could randomly arrange to a point where a reproductive, information storing compound existed, then fine. I’ll agree.

    But to say, categorically that God could not create such a universe, especially when the physics we observe says He could and probably did, well, bugger off.

    Kevin Murphy (0b2493)

  51. Kevin, your point is excellent. The creationists simply do not know enough science. Darwin did not know how his system worked because genetics had not yet been described by Mendel. William Bateson discovered Mendel’s work in 1905 and coined the term “gene.” James Herrick discovered sickle cell anemia in 1910. Friedrich Miescher discovered the genetic material in cell nuclei in 1869. Walther Fleming discovered chromosomes, and named them, in 1882. Oswald Avery discovered that DNA carried the genetic information in 1944. All these people deserve as much credit as Darwin although, as in many other topics, he is credited because he was first to think of the concept.

    There was little or no conflict between science and religion until people who insisted on literal interpretation of the bible got their dander up and began to complain about schools teaching kids that there was no God. This whole argument is about schools and the culture wars of the 20th century. I am with them in most of this argument. I just don’t think we need to have a conflict between genetics and evolution on one side, and religion on the other. It was unnecessary for the Pope to insist on a geocentric universe. This is another loser for religion.

    Mike K (6d4fc3)

  52. For example, entropy does not argue that evolution is impossible, only that life is a force that opposes entropy.

    More fundamentally, the Earth is not a closed system, and the second law of thermo only requires that entropy not decrease in a closed system.

    The complexity argument of intelligent design neglects the fact that life hoards information and reproduces sucessful information hoards rapidly.

    I’ve never understood how someone can rationally hold the intelligent design “theory” based on a complexity argument. The intelligent designer would presumably be endowed with greater intelligence and complexity than human beings.

    So who designed him/her/it?

    Ann has jumped the shark by going after science, AFAIC.

    LagunaDave (0aecad)

  53. Mike K., why is it a loser for religion? It might be a crisis for those who view science and religion as competing explanations for heretofore unanswered questions and see scientific advances as encroachment on religious territory. But a loser for religion?

    I don’t think ID should be considered science — it’s hypothesis can’t be tested, of course — but that doesn’t mean we shuld ignore everything that its more thoughtful proponents are saying, one of which is that evidence of divine intervention is all around us. Not at all useful from a scientific point of view, but since when is a scientific viewpoint the only valid one? (seeking scientific answers to non-scientific questions has given us communism, national socialism, eugenics, etc. . . .) At least for those who don’t presume to create God in Man’s image, scientific advancement wouldn’t seem to diminish the divine, but would rather reveal it.

    TNugent (6128b4)

  54. …since when is a scientific viewpoint the only valid one? – TNugent

    That’s a wonderful philosophical question.

    There are two philosophical works often cited which deal with that question. William James, a famous American philosopher and psychologist wrote “The Will to Believe.” (I think that’s here: http://www.infomotions.com/etexts/philosophy/1800-1899/james-will-751.txt)

    Another frequently cited and highly recommended work, which gives the opposite view is “The Ethics of Belief” by William Clifford: http://ajburger.homestead.com/files/book.htm .

    Both are wordy, but being an attorney, you’re probably used to that TNugent.

    FWIW, I side with Clifford on the morality of belief.

    Psyberian (dd13d6)

  55. Moneyrunner, Comment #51, you said:

    “One of the things I took away from that study is the test of a hypothesis is its reproducibility. I have not seen the kind of reproducibility regarding evolution.”

    Please, no. Only one of the many possible tests of a hypothesis is its reproducibility. That’s called a prospective study. How we, humans, test things we make. Like medicines and nuclear weapons.

    How we study things God made (and I mean it sincerely) is by observation and, if possible, with models within human capability. We cannot reproduce the sun. Shall we deny its existence? That humans have not been able to form even the most basic amino acid by electrifying water containing methane and nitrogen does not mean that the Earth did not do it four billion years ago.

    I tried to say this in my earlier comments. Start a search for the “intelligent designer” and I will be the first one aboard your spaceship. Tell me, “Shut up, God made the world because Genesis says so” and I will tell you, “Genesis can stand on its own as a myth of incomparable beauty and wisdom. It does not need to be a treatise on cosmology”.

    There is an offensive hubris to the certitude expressed by some of God’s Plan.

    nk (2e1372)

  56. That should have been, “There is an offensive hubris in the certitude expressed by some of their knowledge of God’s Plan”.

    Signed: Boob who needs to improve his command of English.

    nk (5a2f98)

  57. “Shut up, God made the world because Genesis says so” and I will tell you, “Genesis can stand on its own as a myth of incomparable beauty and wisdom. It does not need to be a treatise on cosmology”.

    Then why should Christians believe any part of the Bible if it is just a contrived myth? Are we going to say “this part of the Bible is true, this isn’t?”

    Besides the point, macroevolution (the addition of genetic information) is non observable, young-earth creationists have no problems with new species popping up (and actually support the idea of rapid speciation after the flood.) The problem that young earth creationists and Old-age Neo-Darwinists is the age of the earth/universe, the origin of life, and the magical properties for DNA to create extra information via genetic mutations which tend to be lethal, or at best, benign. However, the loss of an physical ability (like the beetles on a windy island) will render that species that has a genetic mutation of loss of flight will increase the survivorship rate than those that have wings and fly off the windy island into the ocean and die.

    What the propnents neo-Darwinism/evolutionary theory is to actually debate the scientific merit of both evolution and creationism, not ad hominem and theological attacks which will in essence, be tautological.

    Conservativefreak (95637b)

  58. TNugent–

    My viewpoint is not only scientific. There is a spiritual component. For example, I have trouble believing in a God that “created Man in His own image.”

    1. The idea that God would intentionally create something as deeply flawed as mankind, and view it as the pinnable of His creation bewilders me. Is God incompetent? Cruel? Having a sick joke? Certainly God could create better.

    2. The idea that Man is in some way in God’s image is slanderous to the point of blasphemy. I’d hope that God is less flawed.

    Now, sure, one can argue that Man is just not living up to his potential and that by accepting Christ and living by His precepts, Man can reach the heights that God had in mind. Maybe someday soon, but I’m not holding my breath. See Man, New Soviet.

    But the evolutionist would simply say the creation isn’t done. Not by a long shot.

    My more basic spiritual problem is that the whole Creationist argument attempts to limit God to simple means in His creation. That evolution (or whatever the real story is that looks like “evolution” to us naked apes) is complex, subtle and based on chance seems more like what a Being with a jillion times my intellegence might do. The Creation Myth, on the other hand, seems so, well, brainless. I have trouble believing in a brainless God.

    So, going back to the “loser” argument, I’d say that the Creationism argument is a loser on the religious front — it prevents those who view Christ’s teachings as meaningful and worthy of consideration from accepting the offered package. Suspension of disbelief can only go so far, and that’s just a bit too much to swallow.

    Kevin Murphy (0b2493)

  59. You might find interesting my essays on Coulter’s mistakes and confusion regarding evolution. Go to Talkreason.org, and check under author Downard. I’m examining each of her statements in detail, though that will take quite a few installments.

    Good that mitochondria came up. I’ll be noting in a future posting at Talk Reason how Coulter missed the mitochondria issue. This is because no one she’s read thinks about it. That would include Michael Behe, who does not dispute the endosymbiotic origin for mitochondria, but airily sidesteps the huge implication of this (that we have mitochondria in our cells only because we have inherited them from our own distant bacterial roots).

    Jim Downard (83607e)

  60. Evolution is both fact and theory. Creationism is neither.

    beepbeepitsme (775877)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0971 secs.