Ann Coulter weighs in on Darwinism

uncommondescent.com ^ | William Dembski

[Tribune7]

I’m happy to report that I was in constant correspondence with Ann regarding her chapters on Darwinism — indeed, I take all responsibility for any errors in those chapters. :-)

[Tribune7]

In future I'll stick to recommending Sowell and Steyn.

Better cross out Steyn :-)

[Mamzelle]

I'd like to point out, the conversation here was initiated by you.

[wallcrawlr]

Virg states,

if now she's supporting anti-science or pseudo-science, 1) I'll never buy another one of her books, and 2) I'll be a lot more careful quoting from her previous ones as though she had actually researched something and knew what she was talking about.]

"Never buy a book, more careful quoting her..."
oh yeah, I'm sure she has the whole "liberals are bad for America thing" wrong.

Just becuase someone has a different opinion about evolution discredits her opinions on everything else?

puh-lease!!!

considering her as Michael Moore?

HAHAHHAHAHA...ich, you better lighten up on the starch...your neckties are getting too tight.

[Ichneumon]

["Someon'e been put in jail for a belief? Do tell."]

Perhaps not jail, yet. People have had their careers and reputations attacked.

...for abusing their careers and doing things which justifiably damage their reputations...

Certain radicals have proposed jail for other activities generally considered to be non-liberal.

The same goes for "certain radicals" on the conservative side, for activities "generally considered to be non-conservative". Do you have a point to make, or do you wnat to speak in broad, vague generalities?

And in some cases they have been successful.

Until you say something specific for a change, it's really hard to tell if these alleged "some cases" a) actually exist, and b) are actually relevant to your following bit of paranoia:

How long before I'm jailed for saying evolution is junk science based on incomplete data being manipulated to a pre-determined conclusion.

Oh, look paranoia -- another common hallmark of the anti-evolutionists.

Here's your answer, kid: It'll never happen. Spewing false and ignorant propaganda isn't a jailable offense. It does, however, have the built-in penalty of revealing the speaker to be an ignoramus.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"I'd like to point out, the conversation here was initiated by you."

And? I didn't saying you were stalking me now.

[Ichneumon]

Evo is junk science. no argument here.

Let's see you attempt to substantiate this assertion. This should be freaking hilarious.

Go for it, son. Show all of us that an anti-evolutionist actually has the first clue what in the hell he's talking about -- for once.

Be sure to explain what, exactly, is wrong with *all* the vast amounts of evidence which overwhelmingly establishes the validity of evolutionary biology. After all, you couldn't possibly arrive at a conclusion like "Evo is junk science" without being aware of the flaws in all of its foundations -- at least not if you weren't a complete liar, that is. So I'm sure that you have carefully examined this field of science and can personally explain where all of its links to the evidence have been shown to be actually "junk science", so go ahead and lay it all out for us, including for example why the inherent phylogenies in the pattern of endogenous retroviruses is flawed, and why the fact that coherent cladograms keep arising from DNA and morphological studies isn't actually the support for evolution it appears, but are really "junk science" instead.

We'll wait. Go for it. Impress the lurkers. Now's your chance! Don't let it slip by.

[driftdiver]

"It does, however, have the built-in penalty of revealing the speaker to be an ignoramus."

Look, the personal attacks I thought would come.

[x]

Coulter always gloms onto things that she thinks will win her support from the conservative base. Everything for her is a black/white good/bad issue. But plenty of Democrats do go to church, and a lot of Republicans and Libertarians don't. There are agnostic or atheistic conservatives and religious liberals. Life is complicated like that, and not everyone lives in a knee-jerk world.

What Ann's doing isn't so different from how those kids behave who'll tell you that you have to think Mumia innocent and a victim if you believe in civil rights. They don't think that people can make up their own minds about a particular controversy based on the facts at hand. Everything has to be part of one global mentality or another. It's the same way with Ann.

But Coulter sometimes has the opposite affect on people than she intends. When she jumps on board one side of a controversy, some people jump off -- not necessarily because they're liberals, but because they don't like being browbeaten into this or that position.

[Echo Talon]

Let's see you attempt to substantiate this assertion. This should be freaking hilarious.

Go for it, son. Show all of us that an anti-evolutionist actually has the first clue what in the hell he's talking about -- for once.

Be sure to explain what, exactly, is wrong with *all* the vast amounts of evidence which overwhelmingly establishes the validity of evolutionary biology. After all, you couldn't possibly arrive at a conclusion like "Evo is junk science" without being aware of the flaws in all of its foundations -- at least not if you weren't a complete liar, that is. So I'm sure that you have carefully examined this field of science and can personally explain where all of its links to the evidence have been shown to be actually "junk science", so go ahead and lay it all out for us, including for example why the inherent phylogenies in the pattern of endogenous retroviruses is flawed, and why the fact that coherent cladograms keep arising from DNA and morphological studies isn't actually the support for evolution it appears, but are really "junk science" instead.

We'll wait. Go for it. Impress the lurkers. Now's your chance! Don't let it slip by.

hmmmm

[Coyoteman]

Science is accountable. Cosmology, archeology, paleontology, antrhopology...none are sciences. All can be interesting, but they create scenarios which at worst are merely replaced with newer and more interesting scenarios. Conjecture. Plausibility.

They're not sciences? Coyoteman will be upset to hear that. BTW, who appointed you arbiter of what is and is not science? I forgot, it doesn't matter that you have absolutely no understanding of what you speak as long as it sounds good to you.

An archeologist is never wrong the way a simple lab technician can be wrong.

Coyoteman, I'll let you field this one as it's your field of expertise.

Mamzelle's comments in blue, above, reflect a deep misunderstanding of what archaeologists do.

I don't have the time or inclination to bandy words with someone such as she right now--I am too busy "creating newer and more interesting scenarios." That's all we ever do, or so I'm told.

[Right Wing Professor]

I take it you haven't read "Treason" which was drop-dead brilliant.

Yes, I have read Treason. I started out liking it; then about half way through I started to realize she was going way over the top, and by the end I had concluded it was just a rant.

You know, the Darwinists sure have a streak of mysogyny going on!

How interesting that you think criticism of a woman is misogyny.

[svcw]

Angry are we not?
I never said "evo is junk science".
Having looked all those people you said were, what was it, stupid or ignorant, can not remember but I read all their bios and they are all in the scientific field. Yet, they disagree with you, huh ... goes back to my original statement, anyone who disagrees with you is stupid, ignorant, an idiot or whatever word you use on any given post.
You see I am very confident in what I believe, you can agree with me or not, no skin off my nose, the chose is yours.
You on the other hand are trying way to hard to convince me you are right, usually done by people who are not that sure in what they are espousing.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"How interesting that you think criticism of a woman is misogyny."

Some people need to be the victim. It's a leftist thing mostly.

[Mamzelle]

re: How interesting that you think criticism of a woman is misogyny.))

How interesting that you think her "fading looks" are relevant to her opinions. Do you really think someone like Ann would do anything but laugh at an argument like that?

[Right Wing Professor]

Coulter's looks are relevant because she makes them relevant. If you're going to trade on your appearance, your appearance is fair game.

[Echo Talon]

Here

[Mamzelle]

Ah, "trades on her looks"? And that's not mysogynistic, either?

Ann would be the first to say that there are many far prettier than she that could trade, but somehow they don't manage to accomplish what she has.

[js1138]

placemarker

[Coyoteman]

Humans were and always have been humans.

And, in the photo below, where do you draw the line between human and non-human?

Between C and D, perhaps? Between I and M (ignoring the Neanderthals)?

Figure 1.4.4. Fossil hominid skulls. Some of the figures have been modified for ease of comparison (only left-right mirroring or removal of a jawbone). (Images © 2000 Smithsonian Institution.)

(A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
(B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
(C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
(D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
(E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
(F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
(G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
(H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
(I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
(J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
(K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
(L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
(M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
(N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern