Skip to comments.The Coulter Hoax: How Ann Coulter Exposed the Intelligent Design Movement
Posted on 03/31/2007 1:48:09 PM PDT by EveningStar
In the summer of 2006, I heard that a new book called Godless presented an insightful and devastating criticism of the theory of evolution. Although I learned that its author, Ann Coulter, is not a scientist but a lawyer turned author and TV pundit, she nevertheless appeared to be an intelligent and well-educated person, so I started reading. At first I was puzzled. There did not seem to be anything new; only tired and outdated antievolution arguments involving moths, finches, and fruit flies. But it wasn't until Coulter dusted off the old Piltdown man story that I suddenly realized: it was a hoax! And it was brilliant...
(Excerpt) Read more at talkreason.org ...
I say we need a picture!
(who is your counterpart, DLR?)
I don't see it.
Misc ping list
I think he is deperately trying a bit too hard to attack those who don't buy into macro-evoloution. His points sound pretty weak to me.
The evo's are getting desperate, they know their pseudo science is nothing but junk, and that Coulter has put another nail in the coffin.
Actually, I hate to say it, but this piece is virtually unreadable. He's a lousy writer (maybe because English isn't his primary language). And there's really no argument at all. Just faked up astonishment that ANYONE could possibly question the General Theory of Evolution.
There's nothing here to argue with, because there's no argument to refute. Just mush.
'What say all of you?" - Say of what, or of whom? of Peter Olofsson? - sounds interesting, could be nice to meet some day. Of ID'ers? - good for laughing at, otherwise, per Dante, "They aren't worth a word. Just glance - and pass".
"they know their pseudo science is nothing but junk"
I'm sure they dont see it that way.
The earth is 4 billion years old. Lots of time for changes.
Mr. Olofsson is either himself satirizing Coulter's inane nonsense or he's fallen into the trap many rational people fall into: Thinking that ID is so patently ridiculous that its proponents don't actually believe such nonsense.
I'll go with the former.
Sorry, that happens not to be the case.
Here is a nice link for the lurkers: Index of Creationist Claims.
Hmmm...Let's see...Watch Ann say something or watch Rosie say something. I think I just made up my mind.
I do agree with the general theme presented here. Coulter is an astute businesswoman and probably doesn't believe half the stuff she spouts. She has just found a nice niche market for herself.
Ann also has said that the best way to deal with Islam is to turn them into Christians.
He gives Coulter a huge amount of credit for some very thorough subtlety. Not that she isn't capable, but I think she was just throwing red meat out there for her readers who she knows want to read this.
As for her own views, well I tend to have a lot more respect for those who just espouse out and out creationism rather than try and redefine science to meet their political goals.
The West spent the last 500 years developing and teaching by the scientific method. Islam spent that last 500 years teaching religion in schools. Enough said.
My whole theory about evolution is although most mammals, fish and whatnot have two eyes, legs, arms, and similar gentialia, there is no way to prove that any of these beings are connected unless you were there to witness it.
Sure you can do DNA tests and find similarities, but in the end it all comes down to having humans suddenly appearing out of seemingly nowhere with these incredible inventive genius minds.
It`s like having dolphins and all of a sudden there is this mutation of dolphins that can understand and invent math and physics, it just doesn`t happen, it`s impossible. It`s never happened in any species, there is no evidence it ever happened other than humans.
The primates that are around today, Gorillas, Chimps, Orangutans, seem to have all survived when Cro-magnon, Neaderthals have not yet Cro-Magnons and Neaderthals were supposedly smarter than all those primates yet they died off.
Maybe I`m writing a foolish post, but to make it brief, it seems quite impossible to me that humans could "evolve" from all that. It just doesn`t happen. If it did, we would have quite a number of other species with the mental abilities of humans. Bears, cats, dogs all have claws.. Yet only humans have this mental ability.
You would think at LEAST one other species would have the same, but no. None exist.
Here are some better links for the thinkers.
I think of Ann as an excellent comedic entertainer, who uses political topics.
Rather like Carlos Medicino who uses ethnic topics.
To neither would I go for science.
He thinks he's making a brilliant observation about Coulter which everybody else is not getting, except we are all rolling our eyes trying not to be embarrassed for him
He's definitely wearing his "I'm a geek button"
I think it is satire, it's an anti-creationist site but the author didn't call Ann a Nazi which is the standard leftie tactic, but is friendly and well done ...
"In conclusion, Coulter has written a biting satire over the trend of anti-intellectualism that clouds part of the conservative ideology, which is otherwise based on principle and reason. If I have any objection to Coulter's piece, it would be that it is a bit lengthy, but perhaps this too is part of the satire, as some antievolution pieces tend to be pretty verbose. There are also some things I don't fully understand, for example several references to bestiality and some seemingly nonsequitur remarks about Cher and Elton John. Considering how wonderfully multilayered Coulter's writing is, I am sure there is a perfectly logical explanation."
If only marxism and other phony theories were as dismissed as creationism was in the Academy.
He reminds us that we can believe in God and evolution at the same time.
I thought the article was about ID...you appear to think it's about creationists. Was there 2 articles?
To me evolution does exist but for animals, but when it comes to humans there was something else involved. You cannot get the human mind from evoution, it`s impossible. It`s too far out there, too far from the norm. To me what the bible says is true, it came from God.
Initially ID appealed to me as a believer, but as I read it I was less than impressed with the rigor with which it was presented. Some of the presentations reminded me of stories that liberals tell to gain sympathy for a particular cause.
It would be nice to see a similar debunking site:
"Index of Liberal Claims"
When another species other than human can come up with this, then I`ll believe humans did evolve.
Why is it so hard for "scientists" to accept that?
the trend of anti-intellectualism that clouds part of the conservative ideology
Oh really, then why is this piece by Prof. Olofsson the only response to Ms Coulter that is not screaming Racist! Bigot! Homophobe!
IOW, why do the self-appointed "intellectual" liberals make Ms Coulter the "issue" instead of responding to what she postulates?
Whoops, here is the video....
My brain is in a twist!
Is this guy saying Coulter busts creation/ID
by busting evolution? (scratching head)
That is pretzel logic.
It's certainly not an argument someone confident of their science would make.
It's evo logic. (same thing)
Any monkey can pound out a bad url on a keyboard. ;^)
Evo Logic? Oh good. I thought my dna had misfired.
Peter Olofsson, Visiting Associate Professor
Education 2002 Docent (Swedish post-graduate degree) mathematical statistics, Chalmers Institute of Technology, Gothenberg, Sweden
1994 Ph.D. mathematical ststistics, Gothenburg University, Sweden
1989 M.S., mathematical statistics, Gothenburg University, Sweden
"Intelligent Design and Mathematical Statistics: A Troubled Alliance. Submitted, 2007"
[...Any monkey can pound out a bad url on a keyboard...]
How old is the earth?
When they start reading what's out there about c14 dating methods, geologocal columns, circulart dating (rocks date fossils, fossils date rocks) and and poly-strat fossils as well as hundreds of "out of place" fossil finds, the real leading edge studies will be discussed.
Until then there are few who are studied enough to present it (self included). The problem is not that enough evidence is available to leave macro-evolutionary theory in shambles, it's that if any one of science talks about it they lose their jobs and have their grants withdrawn.
my two cents.
Hope all is well.
Actually he doesn't - the whole piece is an attack on Coulter's idiocy through satire of his own.
From their site (notice the openness to debate and discussion of the issues)
Call for Papers
TalkReason provides a forum for the publication of papers with well-thought out arguments against creationism, intelligent design, and religious apologetics.
Papers whose goal is to promote creationism, Intelligent Design, irreducible complexity, the compatibility of the Bible with science, and religious apologetics, exegesis or papers arguing against established scientific theories such as the evolution theory will not be accepted.
I'd never heard of this site until today. I saw this posted at another board and thought that people here would be interested in it.
The article was originally published by Skeptical Inquirer.
Gosh, how shocking and evil - a website devoted to promoting a certain point of view.
So I'm guessing if I send papers promoting evolution to http://www.answersingenesis.org they'll be happy to publish them?
I'll actually read a book before I'll go out on a limb and make comments about it. Despite my busy schedule, I had read the entire book during the first week that it was available.
A number of FReepers last Summer were chastising Ann Coulter for expressing her opinions on this matter clearly without ever having read what she wrote.
Anyhow, Ann was not being tongue in cheek with her sections on Evolutionary Theory being taught as if it were Scientific fact in schools.
She was calling people out to defend their views.
Most of the FReepers who disagreed with her back in those threads had obviously not read her book. That was where the irony truly was. People made up their minds without viewing all of the evidence.
I never understood the either-or philosophy either.
I think it's a matter of -- for lack of a better term -- a tipping point. Once the complexity of the brain a certain group of primates reached a certain point, a whole range of mental abilities -- including, perhaps, something to do with the soul -- developed.
I'd say the leanest meanest RINO exposer of all time..
Exposed another one..