Coulter vs Darwin

Godless | 06/06 | Ann Coulter

[stuartcr]

The recipe for good sales...

[stuartcr]

If one doesn't take something literally, does that mean they take it relatively?

[PatrickHenry]

Ya know ... I'm startin' to like you.

[DoctorMichael]

Nice!

For the record, I hadn't encountered this word in awhile so I had to look it up.........

ex·e·ge·sis    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (ks-jss)
n. pl. ex·e·ge·ses (-sz)

1) an explanation or critical interpretation (especially of the Bible)
2) Critical explanation or analysis, especially of a text.

exegete \EK-suh-jeet\, noun:
A person who explains or interprets difficult parts of written works.

exegete is from Greek exegetes, from the verb exegeisthai, "to interpret," and is related to exegesis.

All the things said in this passage are clear and should be paid attention to, without an exegete interpreting.
-- Galen, "Commentary on Hippocrates", On the Nature of Man

He is far more a man of prayer, a witness, a confessor and a prophet, than a learned exegete and close thinking scholastic.
-- Adolf Deissmann, Paul, A Study in Social and Religious History

---

[Greek exgsis, from exgeisthai, to interpret  : ex-, ex- + hgeisthai, to lead; see sg- in Indo-European Roots.]

[Blzbba]

"You can understand how evolution and natural selection work without being terrified of the word 'Jesus' and scared of religion in general."



Not if you're a pandering, anorexic clone of Skeletor!!!

[PatrickHenry]

exegete: A person who explains or interprets difficult parts of written works.

Yes. One place where it's used to great effect is here: The Pope's 1996 statement on evolution. Exerpts:

It is necessary to determine the proper sense of Scripture, while avoiding any unwarranted interpretations that make it say what it does not intend to say. In order to delineate the field of their own study, the exegete and the theologian must keep informed about the results achieved by the natural sciences ...
[snip]

Today, almost half a century after the publication of the Encyclical, fresh knowledge has led to the recognition that evolution is more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favour of this theory.

[smpb]

Ann Coulter is not a scientist. Why in the world should anyone care a whit for her opinions on evolution? People who run around attacking Darwinism on religious grounds do tremendous damage to the cause of religious belief. I have never met anyone who lost his faith because of Darwin. I have met many who lost it because they became convinced that religion was anti-science. These kinds of attacks on Darwin may make some people feel good, but they persuade no one in the scientific community. And as long as the scientific community (which, by the way, includes many devout religious believers, like myself) is convinced that Darwinism is substantially correct, no amount of agitating against it in the popular media is going to overthrow it. If Darwinism is wrong, it will eventually be overthrown by scientists, not by sneering ignoramuses.

[VadeRetro]

Bill Dembski takes responsibility for any of "her" errors. Naive of her to trust him. Not that that's any excuse at all.

If you're going to publish on a subject under your own name, and your ghoster is a crackpot, you have failed in your profession.

[Sloth]

Darwinism has two faces, one as a scientific theory, the other as the secular atheists' creation-myth. Stripping away the second face cannot be done by misunderstanding and mischaracterizing the first face.

Well said.

[wmfights]

Bookmark

[VadeRetro]

The defenders of neo-Darwinism on FR vex me only in that they often cannot distinguish between the perfectly proper attack on the logically and philosophically invalid use of evolutionary biology as a prop for an atheistic secularist world-view and an attack on the validity of evolutionary biology as a scientific theory, and similarly cannot distinguish between the criticism of the polemical defense of neo-Darwinism mounted by atheistic secularists and criticism of the scientific theory.

Given the trouble I had parsing this sentence, it's no wonder I don't always perform the action properly.

[tomzz]

Darwinism has two faces, one as a scientific theory, the other as the secular atheists' creation-myth. Stripping away the second face cannot be done by misunderstanding and mischaracterizing the first face.

Ann Coulter seems to share my own basic opinion of evolution, i.e. that it is junk science and that, unlike scientology and other things which might be called harmless flavors of junk science, evolution is manifestly harmful. On top of all that, it's a basic plank in the liberal/demokkkrat world view. I don't really see how a conservative could buy off on it. Ideas have consequences and the consequences of evolution have been horrific. The basic idea is that your neighbor, rather than being a creation of God, is basically just a cosmic accident or a meat byproduct of cosmic accidents. That idea has to have bad consequences.

[ahayes]

Two problems:

1. Your point of view would justify censoring an idea not because it is untrue, but because it has consequences you personally don't like.

2. The theory of evolution cannot logically have philosophical or moral consequences due to the ought-is conflict. Thus your entire argument is irrelevant. As the initial poster said, if you don't like atheistic philosophy, attack that, don't get confused and attack evolution and think you're going to accomplish anything.

[tomzz]

Ann echos my own view in noting that the theory is so bad that it would have been abandoned as science 100 years ago other than for the fact that libs and atheists use it as a security blanket. The theory has been massively disproven any number of ways; GIVEN that, it is absolutely valid to note the pathalogical consequences.

[ahayes]

Really, what is your scientific educational background? Because I read journal articles on the topic every day and more and more supporting evidence is being found.

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

Ping.

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

I am not making it personal and I'll thank you to butt out.

That probably wasn't a good idea of what to say to the Religion Moderator.

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

Ann echos my own view in noting that the theory is so bad that it would have been abandoned as science 100 years ago

And her basis for saying this is . . . ?

[PatrickHenry]

Ann Coulter is Not Alone In Rejecting Evolution!

In addition to those denominations that follow a literal reading of Genesis, there are people all over the world, of many faiths, who share Ann's deeply-held belief in creationism, creation-science, and Intelligent Design.

To begin with, there are the Raelians, a sect based entirely on ID.

Don't overlook a billion followers Islam. For inspiration, read: Why Muslims Should Support Intelligent Design, By Mustafa Akyol.

The Hare Krishnas also reject Darwinian evolution. Their website has several enlightening articles. For example: The Intelligent Designer.

There is also the Unification Church, founded by Rev. Sun Myung Moon. One of Moon's followers, Jonathan Wells, is a leading intellectual in the ID movement. He is the author of Icons of Evolution, and is a Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute. Wells has written movingly about how Rev. Moon motivated his career in ID: Darwinism: Why I Went for a Second Ph.D.

You're in good company, Ann! Keep up the good work!

[JohnnyM]

I'd rather have the Raelians on my side than the DUmmies

Of course, we all know the Truth is not decided by who has the most crazies.

I'm sure the Raelians and Islam agree that 2 + 2 = 4. Does that make 2 + 2 = 4 any less valid?

JM