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 There did not seem to be anything new; only tired and outdated antievolution arguments involving moths, finches, and fruit flies.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 ...
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.