Posted on 04/09/2007 6:26:54 AM PDT by SubGeniusX
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 There did not seem to be anything new; only tired and outdated antievolution arguments involving moths, finches, and fruit flies.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.
Coulter has very cleverly written a fake criticism of evolution, much like the way NYU physicist Alan Sokal in 1996 published a fake physics article in a literary journal, an affair that has become known as the “Sokal hoax.” A self-proclaimed “old unabashed leftist,” 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.
Coulter’s aim at antiscience is at the other end of the political spectrum. An equally unabashed rightist, she is apparently disturbed by how factions within the political right abandon their normally rational standards when it comes to the issue of evolution. However, whereas Sokal revealed his hoax in a separate article, Coulter challenges her readers to find out the truth for themselves. Without claiming to do justice to Coulter’s multifaceted and sometimes subtle satire, I will attempt to outline some of her most amusing and salient points...
(Excerpt) Read more at livescience.com ...
brilliant
ATTENTION ALL READERS: Read her book for yourself, and make your own decision. The author of this article just can't "handle the truth!"
please teel me you forgot the /sarc tag ...
The author is making a lame attempt to mock anyone who actually buys into the theory, implying that it is so ridiculous it must be satire.
Does she actually reference Piltdown man?
I agree. I thought her book was devastating, and in plain English. Maybe that’s what has this guy so scared.
The author probably needs to read Steven Hawking, but I suspect he just won’t understand physics.
I haven't read it, but other leftists from Media Matters attacked Coulter's Godless for ommiting discussion of hoaxes like Piltdown.
IIRC, she became with a description as to how Warren-era court decisions led to a complete breakdown in our criminal justice system in the '70s.
I Wonder if these "conservatives" who are objecting to her views think she was joking about that too.
interesting
thought you might find this interesting...
Evolution is the major leftists’ religion. It is the basis of the religion of humanism. It is not a scientific expression of truth if you are to maintain the true definition of science. (The study of OBSERVABLE and REPEATABLE data). It does however, fit the “new” definition of science that is taught in public school. (Any study of knowlege.)
Anyone who can study real science and not admit that evolution does not fit that description is lying to themselves and in denial. Evolution can neither be observed or is it repeatable, end of story. It is a religion and it’s followers defend it as fanatically as any group of religious practitioners.
the fact that we now know about DNA and all the other cellular functions that we can view under a microscope defies the whole belief in evolution. The function of irreducable complexities being the basis of most of our cellular mitosis never seems to phase these religious adherents. There is no doubt that each and every aspect of creation points directly to a creator.
Evolution is another area, like the global warming stupidity, that adherents feel having a “consensus” gives them standing. And, in fact, the various new age religions of the left mostly hold evolution in high place in their creed, including the religions of communism, socialism and other new age religions.
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.
I wonder if his piece is actually the hoax.
I read Godless from cover to cover.
Coulter annihilates the Theory of Evolution. Her primary evidence is the ‘fossile record’. This record shows that new species tend to appear suddenly, live for a period with very minor adaptive changes, and die out suddenly.
And the idea of random mutation is ridiculous, if you think about it...
For example, why haven’t humans generated an eye on the back of their heads? Presumably this would help ensure survival by enabling detection of threats coming up from behind...
“Evolution can neither be observed or is it repeatable, end of story.”
Well if your definition of repeatable and observable are, “I can do it at my own whim in a controlled encironment” then neither can Intelligent Design or Creation is science either.
Of course, if by observable and repeatable we mean it is observed in both in the record of history we see in fossils and in every day lab and nautral settings and that it has happened and will happen again and again, well evolution looks considerably better than ID or Creation.
Creationists are afraid to think and discover, they fear that their dogmatic beliefs will fall if they consider any hard science.
Random mutation happens all the time. Hundreds of speciations have been observed. That’s like calling the sunset ridiculous.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.