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
click here to read article
I don't understand your post.
LOL. The whole thing is completely over my head, Jo.
I don't think Coulter is smart enough to write convoluted satire.
It would certainly be lost on her target audience.
"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."
And we're supposed to believe that only one tribe of apes started evolving after migrating out of the woods of Africa and into the grasslands hundreds of millions of years ago. And of course, this process never repeated itself at a later point in time. In reality, the process should be ongoing. We should see transitional Ape-Like creatures today from Apes that migrated to grasslands, say, 10 million years ago. At some point over the course of hundreds of millions of years the process would repeat itself at a later point in time.
Like my brother was telling me, it all comes down to memory. The amount that humans can memorize is insane, it`s just impossible. There is something else at work there. There are tons of animals who have bigger brains, more "folds" yet you don`t see them memorizing to the extent of humans. By the time you finish reading this, it will be one more in billions of things you have memorized, yet the brain you have is a tad larger than your clenched fist. It`s impossible, there is something else involved. Like you said, it`s the soul, something that is out of phsyical limitations that is responsible.
In actuality they regularly interact with letters and papers that are negative...and they are posted.
Thank goodness you did not pick a picture of Johnny Winter.
>> "Intelligent Design and Mathematical Statistics: A Troubled Alliance. Submitted, 2007"
It gets better when mathematicians engage in satire. Of course Olofsson's foundation of reason is based on the theories that underpin the ideal discipline of mathematics. Is it any coincidence the tools of mathematics are to us disposed or is the science of numbers something that evolves and is merely a petal to the fruits of one's ego?
Unfortunately for Olofsson, nothing exists in his scientific realm that provides the methods to either prove or disprove any theory of state other than the one he's currently experiencing or expressing.
Cute ... :-) ... but the organization of it with a claim counter-claim was quite effective. Maybe we need a media-wiki site to crate such a debunking mechanism.
"It is unfortunate that some people are so insecure in their faith that they fear their own intellects, especially as the concept of man's free choice is central in Christian theology, making it perfectly logical that God has created the world so that we can explain it without assuming Him as a hypothesis."
I say I just don't care but I'll look at the pictures.
Ann's writing on evolution is satire. That is what Ann does. She writes satire. This is obvious to all but those she poking fun at. If does not matter if she is poking fun at the "witches of Eastwick" or ID. It is all satire. That is what makes Ann so great (besides being beautiful).
I posted a link to a website which is based on science. Your links lead to websites based on apologetics, not science.
But since you mention the Institute for Creation Research, check out their Tenets of Scientific Creationism (excerpts below).
They are doing pure apologetics, not science.
Tenets of Scientific Creationism
- The physical universe of space, time, matter, and energy has not always existed, but was supernaturally created by a transcendent personal Creator who alone has existed from eternity.
- The phenomenon of biological life did not develop by natural processes from inanimate systems but was specially and supernaturally created by the Creator.
- Each of the major kinds of plants and animals was created functionally complete from the beginning and did not evolve from some other kind of organism. Changes in basic kinds since their first creation are limited to "horizontal" changes (variations) within the kinds, or "downward' changes (e.g., harmful mutations, extinctions).
- The first human beings did not evolve from an animal ancestry, but were specially created in fully human form from the start. Furthermore, the "spiritual" nature of man (self-image, moral consciousness, abstract reasoning, language, will, religious nature, etc.) is itself a supernaturally created entity distinct from mere biological life.
- The record of earth history, as preserved in the earth's crust, especially in the rocks and fossil deposits, is primarily a record of catastrophic intensities of natural processes, operating largely within uniform natural laws, rather than one of gradualism and relatively uniform process rates. There are many scientific evidences for a relatively recent creation of the earth and the universe, in addition to strong scientific evidence that most of the earth's fossiliferous sedimentary rocks were formed in an even more recent global hydraulic cataclysm.
- Processes today operate primarily within fixed natural laws and relatively uniform process rates, but since these were themselves originally created and are daily maintained by their Creator, there is always the possibility of miraculous intervention in these laws or processes by their Creator. Evidences for such intervention should be scrutinized critically, however, because there must be clear and adequate reason for any such action on the part of the Creator.
- The universe and life have somehow been impaired since the completion of creation, so that imperfections in structure, disease, aging, extinctions, and other such phenomena are the result of "negative" changes in properties and processes occurring in an originally-perfect created order.
- Since the universe and its primary components were created perfect for their purposes in the beginning by a competent and volitional Creator, and since the Creator does remain active in this now-decaying creation, there do exist ultimate purposes and meanings in the universe. Teleological considerations, therefore, are appropriate in scientific studies whenever they are consistent with the actual data of observation. Furthermore, it is reasonable to assume that the creation presently awaits the consummation of the Creator's purpose.
- Although people are finite and scientific data concerning origins are always circumstantial and incomplete, the human mind (if open to possibility of creation) is able to explore the manifestations of that Creator rationally, scientifically, and teleologically.
"Sokal was disturbed by the sloppily antiscientific, postmodernistic mentality that had started to replace reason and rationality within the academic left and ingeniously made his point by managing to get his nonsense article published by the very people he wished to expose."
Sounds like this guy's got a case of projection to me.
What is intelligent design?
It's the missing link between creationism and religious instruction masquerading as biology.
Bruce Bower, Science News, vol. 168 (Nos 26 & 27), 2006, p. 414.
However, I see now reason why evolution could not take the brain to a level where it can generate or attract a soul.
I do a lot of radiocarbon dating.
Do you have any specific problems you can share with us?
Hope all is well.
Thank you for the kind comments.
These threads have changed a lot in the past few months since a lot of the science-oriented folks gave up and left, but I'm still hanging on!
Ann Coulter = leanest meanest RINO exposer.. RINOs are really democrats in drag.. Liberals could care less about AC but RINOS despise her..
Actually, I'd say liberals pretty much despise her as much as anyone.
Plenty of time for changes, But that is beside the point. Change from what to what? Do you believe in the concept of species? Darwin was talking about changes in forms, but are the forms real or simply a matter of appearances? The debate is really philosophical, and it has been going on since the time of the Greeks.
Ann Coulter is an equal opportunity traitor basher whether democrat or RINO..
It's actually kind of funny to watch. The Left and RINOs HATE this woman so much...it's like they feel so threatened by her. They are foaming-at-the-mouth insane over Ann and the things she says. Like I said...it's actually kind of amusing.
One might guess that Bruce Bower is not an ID advocate...so you're turning to critics of a view for the definition of that view? So I assume when you need a definition of something conservative you immediately run to liberals to provide it if you're consistent...is that correct?
Well I have respect for people who make compelling arguments and Ann did a great job.
He said: "Ann Coulter, is not a scientist"
EVOLUTION IS NOT A SCIENCE .. IT'S A THEORY!!
Or .. it's just the opinion of someone .. not a scientific revelation.
They have, but the humans were smart enough to eliminate them.
He said: "Ann Coulter is not a scientist"
EVOLOTION IS NOT A SCIENCE - IT'S A THEORY!!
Why focus so much on the brain? Shouldn't we take the body as a whole and consider what role the each organ plays?
You don't think critics of a particular viewpoint should attempt to define that viewpoint?
Boy, a lot of creationists on this site are going to be after you!
If they can't come up with strawman definitions of evolution what will they do?
This idiot has a PHD in Mathematics and mathematics itself proves that evolution could not happen. My tag line once more comes into play.
You mean the the other hominids. It seems off, however, that these "others "were not capable for finding some refuge somewhere.
I think it's possible to disagree with a person once in a while and not be a RINO or traitor.
The science supports creation and not evolution as is clearly shown.
Are you sure you want to go there? There are some South Park Republicans on this thread. :)
Actually it's monkey intellect. (see tag line)
Piling up facts is not science--science is facts-and-theories. Facts alone have limited use and lack meaning: a valid theory organizes them into far greater usefulness.
A powerful theory not only embraces old facts and new but also discloses unsuspected facts.
Expanded Universe: The New Worlds of Robert A. Heinlein, 1980, pp. 480-481
Well, uh...so do I.
Are you talking about anyone in particular? Me personally, I was just referring to RINOs and the Left in general. Read a typical DU thread on Ann Coulter or a whole chapter in some hysterical liberal book entirely dedicated to her and you'll see what I mean.
Well, the portion of Godless dealing with the theory of evolution is rather small to begin with. The way the darwinists here were rending their garments over it, I thought the whole book was about it (but I should have known better). When she does write about it, it is about mostly the legal issues surrounding it. I thought it was a great book.
Is this news or activism?
Yup, fake astonishment that anyone could question the THEORY of evolution. And definitely hard to follow.
"There's nothing here to argue with, because there's no argument to refute. Just mush."
Then of course it gets put in the news activism section.
It's just an article. I saw it posted elsewhere. It looked like an interesting take. I thought people on all sides would like to read it.
No thank you! I was just commenting on the fact that the author thought Ann couldn't have an opinion because she wasn't a scientist .. but evolution is NOT A SCIENCE .. so Ann doesn't have to be a scientist to comment!!
That was my point!
Well, Coyoteman tends to cut and past the same quotes and soundbites over and over again rather than stick to the issue. It gets old.
CyberAnt doesn't want to see my list of definitions. Can I assume from your comment that you don't want to see it either. I have it all ready to cut and paste!
How many of you evos are anti-abortion? And, if so, why?