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]

For your lists :-)

[Tribune7]

Your list too.

[mlc9852]

Again I agree with Ann.

[PatrickHenry]

Archive

[wallcrawlr]

Interesting stuff from Ann:

. . . Though liberalism rejects the idea of God and reviles people of faith, it bears all the attributes of a religion itself. In Godless: The Church of Liberalism, Ann Coulter throws open the doors of the Church of Liberalism, showing us:

**Its sacraments (abortion)
**Its holy writ (Roe v. Wade)
**Its martyrs (from Soviet spy Alger Hiss to cop-killer Mumia Abu Jamal)
**Its clergy (public school teachers)
**Its churches (government schools, where prayer is prohibited but condoms are free)
**Its doctrine of infallibility (as manifest in the “absolute moral authority” of such spokesmen as Cindy Sheehan and Max Cleland)
**And its cosmology (in which mankind is an inconsequential accident)
Then, of course, there’s the liberal creation myth: Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution.

^{Revelation 4:11}Intelligent Design
Constantly searching for objectivity in the evolution debate...
See my profile for info

[atlaw]

Oh my. This is embarrassing.

[RunningWolf]

Well thats what people have been saying. I really doubt if Ann really cares what a few anonymous freepers have to say about her either.

W.

[PatrickHenry]

Oh my. This is embarrassing.

Yeah. Well, conservatives aren't necessarily science literate. Opinions vary all over the place:

Limbaugh on the Dover Ruling. Rush is no evolutionist, but he sees the fraud of ID.
Charles Krauthammer: Phony Theory, False Conflict. "... so anachronistic and retrograde as to be a national embarrassment.."
Cal Thomas: INTELLIGENT DESIGN: Teaching children the truth. "... sham attempt to take through the back door what proponents have no chance of getting through the front door."
George F. Will: Grand Old Spenders. "... religion, in the guise of 'intelligent design' theory ..."

[DaveLoneRanger]

You have been pinged because of your interest regarding matters of Creation vs. Evolution - from the young-earth Creationist perspective. Freep-mail me if you want on/off this list.

---

Now THIS could be good. Another conservative disproving the lie that "creationism is not conservative."

[Kenny Bunkport]

It's one thing for the Darwinists to doubt the creator, now they're opposed by Ann Coulter!

[Manic_Episode]

First Rush, now Ann.

Darwinism = DU liberalism.

Schadenfreude.

[Kenny Bunkport]

More evidence that the Darwinist philosophy (because it's more of a philosophy than it is a science), is contrary to a conservative worldview.

[wallcrawlr]

Some Freepers certainly do have their DU supporters/admirers.

No doubt about that.

[Kenny Bunkport]

Interesting that you lead off your links with a quote from Rush Limbaugh. I thought you guys only appealed to "science."

[Blzbba]

"I really doubt if Ann really cares what a few anonymous freepers have to say about her either."


Nor does science really care about the uninformed opinions of a blonde anorexic!

100 years from now, evolution will still be accepted as the best explanation, whereas Ann Coulter will be relegated to the dustbin of history.

[wallcrawlr]

[svcw]

Well, conservatives aren't necessarily science literate...

Interesting statement .. as a conservative and a (gasp) religious one at that ... its hard to type this note out as I am floating around the room ... because I do not get gravity.

A little sarcastic I know, but I am baffled by the fact that there are those who believe that religious conservatives are "science illiterate".

[Sam Cree]

So, does Ann say that only the Left believes in evolution, or believes it a credible theory?

[RunningWolf]

Despite what you have been mislead to believe, a few anonymous freepers are not the voice of science.

W.

[DaveLoneRanger]

In one corner, we have Paul Krugman and Howard Dean.

And in the other corner, we have Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, President Bush, David Limbaugh, and Bill Frist.

[Blzbba]

"Despite what you have been mislead to believe, a few anonymous freepers are not the voice of science."


Nor is an 80-pound anorexic looking to sell her latest book.

[driftdiver]

Best way to get lots of angry and insulting responses on FR is to knock evolution. This should be interesting.

[Kenny Bunkport]

Intelligent Design Links

The Vise Strategy: Squeezing the Truth Out of Darwinists

Molecular Machines: Experimental Support for the Design Inference

Peer-Reviewed, Peer-Edited, and other Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design

Whether Intelligent Design is Science

Michael Behe On The Theory of Irreducible Complexity

Intelligent Design: The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories (Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington)

The Origin of Intelligent Design: A brief history of the scientific theory of intelligent design

The Problem With Darwinian Solutions

In Defense of Intelligent Design

Design Inference

Uncommon Descent (William Dembski’s blog)

”Intelligent Design: The Future” blog

”Evolution News & Views: News Analysis of Media Coverage of the Debate Over Evolution” blog

Recommended Reading

Uncommon Dissent. If you’ve never heard the term "post-Darwinian," welcome to the world of thinkers who reject evolutionary theory and its reliance on the notion of chance (i.e. "random mutation"). In this provocative volume, biologists, mathematicians and physicists as well as theologians and other intellectuals argue, as editor Dembski writes, that "the preponderance of evidence goes against Darwinism." The contributors invoke mathematics and statistics to support their theory that an "intelligent cause is necessary to explain at least some of the diversity of life." In other words, the degree of diversity and complexity in life forms implies the need for an intelligent designer. The nature and identity of this designer is not discussed by all the writers; others call this intelligence God. Supporters of intelligent design differentiate themselves from creationists, but they, too, argue that their theory should be taught in high school biology courses. Anyone interested in these debates and their implications for education will find this collection to be important reading.

Doubts About Darwin: A History of Intelligent Design. Woodward's account shows that the problem with the template of "religion versus Darwin" is that it simply doesn't fit the ID movement, although many detractors try to insist otherwise. The founder of the movement, Phillip Johnson, was, until his recent retirement, a Professor of Law at the University of California at Berkeley. While on sabbatical in the late 1980s, he studied the scientific case for and against Darwinism and concluded that the empirical case for Darwinism was surprisingly weak. He then presented his findings at a symposium held through his law school and was further encouraged to pursue his criticism of Darwinism. As Woodward documents, the proponents of ID argue that Darwinism lacks crucial evidence, begs important questions, and often caricatures alternatives unfairly. They make their case against Darwinian evolution by pointing out flaws in the arguments and gaps in the evidence, not by citing religious texts.

There are a growing number of books defending and criticizing ID, but Woodward's book is unique in that it assesses the history of this movement of the past decade from the perspective of the classical discipline of rhetoric. Given the book's rhetorical angle, the reader is treated to both the straight arguments for and against Darwinism, as well as an inside look at the personalities and persuasive strategies used on both sides of the debate. (For example, when noted Darwinist Stephen Jay Gould first met Phillip Johnson, he dispensed with pleasantries and said, "You're a creationist and I've got to stop you.") In Woodward's account, Johnson emerges as the rhetorical mastermind of ID, who, though an outsider to the scientific guild, nevertheless mastered the scientific case against Darwinism and helped develop a consistent strategy for the ID movement. His simple charge is that Darwinism is driven more by a commitment to a materialistic worldview than by the actual evidence of biology. This book details the rise of the intellectual, scientific, and philosophical challenge to Darwinism.

Darwinian Fairytales. Philosopher David Stove concludes in his hilarious and razor-sharp inquiry that Darwin's theory of evolution is a ridiculous slander on human beings. But wait! Stove is no creationist nor a proponent of so-called intelligent design. He is a theological skeptic who admits Darwin's great genius and acknowledges that the theory of natural selection is the most successful biological theory in history. But Stove also thinks that it is also one of the most overblown theories of science and gives a penetrating inventory of what he regards as the unbelievable claims of Darwinism. Darwinian Fairytales is a must-read book for people who want to really understand the issues behind the most hotly debated scientific controversy of our time.

Darwin’s Nemesis: Phillip Johnson and the Intelligent Design Movement. This book honors Phillip Johnson, the Berkeley law professor whose 1991 publication Darwin on Trial and later books helped intelligent design emerge as a highly visible, and highly controversial, alternative to Darwinism. While it may be premature to hail Johnson as "Darwin's Nemesis," these essays reveal him as an influential strategist and mentor within the ID movement. Contributors to the 2004 symposium that spawned this collection include leading ID advocates Michael Behe, Stephen Meyer, Jonathan Wells and Scott Minnich, as well as Darwin defender Michael Ruse, who has engaged Johnson in debate. Other contributors address cultural and political questions beyond evolution itself, such as Francis Beckwith's timely review of legal controversies over ID in the classroom, J. Budziszewski's discussion of naturalism and the Natural Law tradition and editor William Dembski's commentary on the professional—and often personal—"backlash" against ID advocates. Readers who are familiar with the basics of ID and curious about the movement's development and inner workings will find much of interest, although for an account of the most recent and current controversies over ID, they will need to consult other sources. Forward written by Sen. Rick Santorum.

Privileged Planet. Is Earth merely an insignificant speck in a vast and meaningless universe? On the contrary. The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos Is Designed for Discovery shows that this cherished assumption of materialism is dead wrong. Earth is more significant than virtually anyone has realized. Contrary to the scientific orthodoxy, it is not an average planet around an ordinary star in an unremarkable part of the Milky Way.

In this original book, Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay W. Richards present an array of evidence that exposes the hollowness of this modern dogma. They demonstrate that our planet is exquisitely fit not only to support life, but also gives us the best view of the universe, as if Earth-and the universe itself-were designed both for life and for scientific discovery. Readers are taken on a scientific odyssey from a history of tectonic plates, the wonders of water, and solar eclipses, to our location in the Milky Way, the laws that govern the universe, and the beginning of cosmic time.

Review of The Privileged Planet (The Royal Astronomical Society)

What Darwin Didn’t Know. This book has to do with medical facts and how they conflict with the theory of evolution. Darwin may have made a sincere effort to explain the life around him in the nineteenth century, but he knew little, if anything, about the human cell, heredity (why a child resembles his parents), immunity, hormones, blood pressure and scores of feedback loops that tell the body when it's too hot or too cold, hungry or full, sick or well, and tired or refreshed. These examples and many more are discussed. They all speak clearly for Intelligent Design, a discussion that needs to re-enter mainstream American dialogue. "There is a tide of data mounting against the Darwinian concept that randomness can explain the wonder of life. In What Darwin Didn't Know, Geoffrey Simmons converts the tide into a tidal wave of evidence." Gerald Schroeder, Ph.D.

[BJClinton]

I may have just lost some respect for Ann but rules are rules!

[Oztrich Boy]

So Kenny, pushing Libertarian Party propaganda now?

[driftdiver]

"100 years from now, evolution will still be accepted as the best explanation, whereas Ann Coulter will be relegated to the dustbin of history."

Is it scientific to predict the future?

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

I will definitely purchase her new book. I have all the others, and my favorite so far is Slander, though the others are good too. Slander was just soooo funny and satisfying.

[Tribune7]

:-)

[wallcrawlr]

Even though critical thinking skills arent thought of highly by certain Freepers...we arent totally/completely indoctrinated yet by the liberal NEA/ACLU.

there is still some freedom to question

[Right Wing Professor]

Oh my. This is embarrassing.<

Only if you take Coulter seriously, instead of thinking her a loudmouthed ditz who gets away with outrageous rants only because of her blonde hair and rapidly fading good looks.

[Kenny Bunkport]

I've said it here before, and I'll say it again...

One of the most curious things about these evolution threads on FR are the ardent defenders of Darwinism who show up. Despite their protests that "Darwinism is science!" Darwinism is today as much a political/social/theological movement as it is a scientific theory. The Darwin defenders here are clearly highly organized and dedicated to promoting their viewpoint, to such an extent that I wonder what their agenda really is. It also makes me wonder...what draws these Darwin-apologists to a conservative discussion site? I mean, when you consider that the most ardent defenders and believers in Darwin's theory (for its social implications) in the last century were atheistic Marxist and eugenic fascist regimes, and when one considers that Darwinists' most powerful allies today are the leftist media and the ACLU, how can these folks on FR be so dedicated to defending a viewpoint that is embraced by the left?

The kind of "enthusiasm" we see from the Darwin-apologists here on FR can only be described as *religious fervor*. As Robert Koons, a Professor of Philosophy at the University of Texas has said, "The evidence for evolution seems far from compelling. It seems compelling only to those with a prior commitment to metaphysical materialism, for whom Darwinism is practically the only reasonable explanation available for life as we know it." I suspect the prime motivation for such rigid dedication to this "theory" has less to do with science, and more to do with adherence to a particular view of morality.

Upon meeting Phillip Johnson (author of DARWIN ON TRIAL) prior to their formal debate, Stephen Jay Gould dispensed with the pleasantries and said, "You are a creationist. I am here to stop you." Note that Gould didn't say, "You are not a scientist; you are out of your realm. I am here to stop you." Gould's main concern was his impression of Johnson as a creationist. That was the rub -- not science, but the idea that God exists -- and in so responding to Johnson, Gould unwittingly betrayed the real concern of Darwinists.

[Right Wing Professor]

Dembski wrote: 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. :-)

Then I expect the book is particularly awful.

[Sam Cree]

Do you have to be a Christian to be a conservative?

[driftdiver]

Very well said. Bravo

[atlaw]

It appears that Kenny Bunkport firmly believes that you have to be Kenny Bunkport to be a conservative.

[gdani]

Ann should write a book exclusively on the scientific evidence for ID. It would be even thinner than her.

[atlaw]

Indeed. Science is an evil conspiracy of the left, and we must staunchly defend the conservative virtue of scientific illiteracy lest we unwittingly fall prey to the darwinian-nazi-capitalist-fascist-communist conspiracy to steal our vital fluids. Long live astrology!

[Tribune7]

Do you have to be a Christian to be a conservative?

No, but you do have to believe that our rights God given -- that state power is not the final arbiter of right and wrong.

[BJClinton]

Next time don't make me remind you. ;-)

[RunningWolf]

100 years from now we will all be in the dustbin of eternity. And whether some individual's chose evolution as the best explanation will ultimately be a personal thing, and they will will their follow choices to their destinies.

W.

[Tribune7]

:-)

[RunningWolf]

Bump

[RunningWolf]

will will

[Right Wing Professor]

Despite their protests that "Darwinism is science!" Darwinism is today as much a political/social/theological movement as it is a scientific theory. The Darwin defenders here are clearly highly organized and dedicated to promoting their viewpoint, to such an extent that I wonder what their agenda really is.

Speaking only for myself, my agenda is protecting science, and biological science in particular, a pursuit on which I've spent most of my working life, from political attacks by religious fundamentalists, who seem to think we're still in the Middle Ages and that the Enlightenment never happened.

I mean, when you consider that the most ardent defenders and believers in Darwin's theory (for its social implications) in the last centur (for its social implications) in the last century were atheistic Marxist and eugenic fascist regimes, and when one considers that Darwinists' most powerful allies today are the leftist media and the ACLU, how can these folks on FR be so dedicated to defending a viewpoint that is embraced by the left?

This is simply a lie. Stalin rejected Darwin; Hitler had no clue what evolution meant, and embraced it only to the same extent he embraced Roman Catholicism. The 'leftist' media are by-and-large ignorant of science; the ACLU defend separation of church and state, which is one of the bulwarks against teaching religious ideas of creation is school. The ACLU also defends the freedom of children to bring Bibles to school and to disseminate religious messages. Since this poster is likely on their side on those matters, I guess, by his own logic, that makes him a leftist.

The kind of "enthusiasm" we see from the Darwin-apologists here on FR can only be described as *religious fervor*.

Apparently defending a position vigorously is in the mind of this poster 'religious'. How sad that apparently nothing in his life is worth defending vigorously, except a set of superstitious beliefs. One would have hoped, at least, he would consider his country worth defending vigorously; but apparently, not, since he does not describe the defenders of evolution as having patriotic fervor.

I suspect the prime motivation for such rigid dedication to this "theory" has less to do with science, and more to do with adherence to a particular view of morality.

I suspect this poster doesn't understand science and therefore is clueless why one would be interested in promoting a scientific view of the world, and protecting it from backward superstition.

[Sam Cree]

"No, but you do have to believe that our rights God given -- that state power is not the final arbiter of right and wrong."

Yeah, that phrase "endowed by our Creator" is pretty essential to the American ideal of liberty; it's what separates us from the rest of the world, where specific rights are granted by authority. Here, we have our rights at birth. I even have it posted on my homepage.

I'm not very religious, but I do believe that many who are believe that the theory of evolution is the correct one. As far as I'm concerned evolution and ID aren't necessarily exclusive of each other. But I think I'm right in saying that quite a few on this board agree.

These crevo threads produce heated emotions, but I suppose lots of the posters find them enjoyable anyhow.

[driftdiver]

A perfect example of the mind boggling hostility that Darwinists display anytime this issue is discussed.

[wallcrawlr]

nice post

good point in the 1st paragraph

good summary in the 2nd

accurate statement in the third

[mlc9852]

Well, now that you know you won't have to waste your money on it.

[mlc9852]

You think believing in God is superstitious. You are a moron.