Secondary Addiction: Ann Coulter on Evolution

Her sashay into matter's scientific

either by investigation critical takes on those sources

Behe's unfamiliarity with relevant technical has continued

Thanks for pointing to typos etc., and apology. I've asked Jim and Talk Reason's managing editor to make necessary corrections and amendments. BTW, you seem to confuse talkdesign.org with talkreason.org. The latter site is where Jim's referenced posts appeared. I hope he'll insert links in the amended post. If you're interested in the debate between Jim and Berlinski, open Index of Letters (which is alphabetical) on Talk Reason site, click on Jim Downard name there, and the links to all his and Berlinski's letters will appear.

BTW, you seem to confuse talkdesign.org with talkreason.org

i thoroughly embarrassed myself in the public library by leafing through coulter's chapter on evolution ...the loud braying guffaw startled everybody ....OMG is she really THAT ignorant..don't bother to correct my punctuation ..... i always type like ee cummings;)

We know that Coulter is wrong just as her fans know she's right.

Thus, the gulf remains.

Behe's slander of the entire scientific community during the Dover Trial is a case in point. He waved away, and continues to wave away, published scientific as "piffle" and "piddling" with no consequence.

Unfortunately, Downard's point is moot, because William Dembski all but admitted writing the chapters for Coulter. And if he didn't write them he approved them. And if any parts escaped his review, he seems not to be the least bit upset of a screed that is embarrassingly bad compared to standard DI fare, which has in the past been at least clever. It has been suggested that, having lost their best shot at Dover, the DI has nothing to lose by pandering directly to the "I don't come from no monkey" crowd - as long as they let someone else take the fall for such cartoonish writing.

Also, like too many ID critics, Downard bends over backwards to do the usual "innocent until proven guilty" line, even with DI personnel, such as calling Michael Behe's writing "almost willful misunderstanding." C'mon now. Behe, Dembski et al have undoubtedly been reading and understanding the primary sources for more than a decade. Even if Coulter is just sloppy with her "research", one way or another this is a case of willful (not "almost") misrepresentation (not "misunderstanding"), by many, if not Coulter herself.

Coulter says "evolutionist say...a bear fell in the water and that's how whales evolved. no joke"

Wow, are her readers that dumb, or is she just playing them for fools. Is there any way we can get proof of her garbage into the mass media.

Jim Downard has done an excellent job on Coulter's pseudoscience.

As Dembski has said, "Critics may say that they are unimpressed, and, in their heart of hearts, they may feel that ID truly is nonsense. But it is pernicious nonsense." (Dembski, 2005)

bears becoming whales was one of darwins conjectures on the origins of whales .....darwin was wrong (shrugs)...no life scientists believes that anymore ....and we have the fossil and genetic info that shows that whales and artiodactyls share common ancestry

coulter's "facts-of-evolution" are what lead to my loud guffaw ..if i'd have been at home ......i woulda been on the floor LMAO

We know that Coulter is wrong just as her fans know she's right.

One more minor point, it's Ann Coulter, not Anne Coulter. :-)

Which once again proves my thesis, Creationists will listen to the most qualified person who's saying exactly what they want to hear.

In her book Coulter defends the book "The Bell Curve". This book claims blacks are genetically inferior. (as in racist). I gave a coulter fan a few accounts of the Bell Curve being faulty. He immediately threw it in the trash. I accused him of being a racist since Coulter supports a book proving black inferiority, his supporting Coulter means he is a racist too. It turns out he read the section on the bell curve but had no idea what the Bell Curve is. I told hem if you don't know what Coulter supports you are an idiot, if you do know you are a RACIST. And he will NOT check!!!!!
He told me he knew who Marva Collins was but had no idea that the Bell Curve denounced Marva Collins. And he won't check!!! it's all a lefty thing, whatever that means. Stupidity is the root of all EVIL.

we have to stress the stupidity of this crowd because the dumbing down of America will hurt us all.

Also, he starts out saying:

# [...] Coulter's tome landed in my crosshairs on account of the nearly one third of her book (the last 3 of 10 chapters) devoted to assailing the Liberal's Creation Myth, Darwinian evolutionary theory. #

That should be "the last 4 of 11 chapters".

Oy.

I highly doubt that any of the usual contributors to PT are going to comment on the train wreck so pardon the OT comment:

http://evolutionanddesign.blogsome.com/

McNeill's little attempt to "educate" Cornell's IDEA Club morons is being converted into ID propaganda in real-time by his "honest" "intelligent" ID peddling students, with the gleeful assistance of our old pal, Lyin' Slaveador Cordova.

Anyone here from Cornell? I'd be concerned, frankly.

bears becoming whales was one of darwins conjectures on the origins of whales .....darwin was wrong (shrugs)...no life scientists believes that anymore ....and we have the fossil and genetic info that shows that whales and artiodactyls share common ancestry

In North America the black bear was seen by Hearne swimming for hours with widely open mouth, thus catching, like a whale, insects in the water. Even in so extreme a case as this, if the supply of insects were constant, and if better adapted competitors did not already exist in the country, I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale.

Coulter: "In other words, River Out of Eden is the Darwiniacs' version of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion."

I had to bring this up somewhere. This is just...just..."ridiculous" isn't strong enough. "Mean" isn't either. "Sick" comes close, but it still doesn't convey the utter dispicableness of it. She's comparing a "fabrication" of scientific data -- that maybe about one person in a thousand is even aware of anyway -- with vile anti-semetic propaganda that fueled mistreatment and violence and pogroms and probably contributed to the atmosphere of hate that lead to the eventual mass murder of six million people!!! Fer cryin' out loud!

(Oh, or maybe she's saying that we Darwinianismistas are villianously responsible for ever man, woman and child who has suffered blindness since "Origin of Species" was published?)

Many pardons for the typos. Sometimes my fingers are behind my brain, and I was chomping at the bit regarding Coulter. Corrections are afoot.

One important point though: the scholarly methods approach to writers like Behe or Coulter suggests something far more interesting about how they can be so wrong without accusing them of mendacity. Such people have a genuine ability not to think about things they don't want to think about. The pattern is so monotonously consistent, across all lines (from Roswell saucer crash groupies to Holocaust deniers), that it requires us to reevaluate people who happen to believe things that are true as well as those who entertain twaddle. I suspect far more people than we should be sanguine about arrive at their belief systems based on such slipshod reasoning.

Coulter says: "As I understand the concept behind survival of the fittest, the appendix doesn't do much for the theory of evolution either. How does a survival-of-the-fittest regime evolve an organ that kills the host organism? Why hasn't evolution evolved the appendix away?"

So are we to take it that a designer thought it'd be a good idea to lumber humanity with an appendix that can kill?

Also, Coulter has a basic reading comprehension problem. Fittest does not mean perfectly fit.

I was all set with a nice snarky comment like -- Ann Coulter is outsourcing her lying.

Seriously though, all of this fact checking rests on the false assumption that Coulter even cares about facts or that her approving readers care.

I think Coulter only cares about how angry she can make the lynch mob.

I have the terrible premonition that someday someone will take her inflammatory words and turn them into action. Someone will die, and Coulter will be "so surprised" that this could happen.

I had to bring this up somewhere. This is just...just..."ridiculous" isn't strong enough. "Mean" isn't either. "Sick" comes close, but it still doesn't convey the utter dispicableness of it. She's comparing a "fabrication" of scientific data --- that maybe about one person in a thousand is even aware of anyway --- with vile anti-semetic propaganda that fueled mistreatment and violence and pogroms and probably contributed to the atmosphere of hate that lead to the eventual mass murder of six million people!!! Fer cryin' out loud!

McNeill's little attempt to "educate" Cornell's IDEA Club morons is being converted into ID propaganda in real-time by his "honest" "intelligent" ID peddling students, with the gleeful assistance of our old pal, Lyin' Slaveador Cordova.

How many IDers has he converted?

For that, you will need a reference to a text with mytholgy.

The blind leading the blind.

He who conquers others is strong;
He who conquers himself is mighty.

~Lao Tzu

In academia we have a saying: "tell a lie often enough and it becomes the truth" (and many an otherwise fine colleague has been its victim at tenure time). The real problem with Coulter's drool is that most real biologists fail to recognize that her arguements are not about truth and honesty - they are about laying enough doubt and drivel in the layperson's mind that it becomes their truth. Until we recognize this and devise better ways of educating the general population about evolution and science we will, sadly, lose the voting war....

Coulter is also typical of many anti-evolutionists in that she's capable of busting the stoutest irony meters. The Protocols of Zion comparison is far more applicable to her book - she's the one promoting a conspiracy theory about all those evilutionists.

Why is everyone paying so much attention to a peripheral loony like Coulter? This sort of attention is precisely what she wants (and pumped-up book sales, of course); and giving her what she wants makes me feel dirty. When she outlives her usefulness, the far right will simply disown her and pretend -- quite plausibly -- that she was never really relevant to them.

We really ought to be focusing our attention on a far more central and powerful loony, like Sun Myung Moon, whom the far right will have a much harder time disowning. Check out Ed Brayton's archives on this guy for starters. (If we want to stay on-topic here, I'm sure Moon must have said something deranged on at least one scientific issue.)

Why is everyone paying so much attention to a peripheral loony like Coulter?

Because if we DON'T pay attention to her, it becomes so much easier for a more subtle and sinister liar (like Moon) to insinuate themselves into the public debate.

It isn't either/or.

Show me the PROOF! says an Ann Coulter fan. People of good conscience try to show the proof or show links to the proof, but you know full well the proof needer won't look and in fact doesn't want the proof. Showing them anything is a waste of time for after shown the proof that they will refuse to see, they will again say "show me the proof"

the "I don't believe in evolutuion" people are
intellectually lazy. I don't go through life
saying "show me the proof", I analyze, search and
find. We have a generation of people that don't
know the basics of their own jobs. You will often
hear them say "...nobody showed me that" when you correct their error. As a
technical consultant, I would be embarrased to say
that. Go out and learn something dummy!!!

On a recent blog, a troll was demanding that someone
show him he's wrong. His query was much too stupid
for any intelligent person to respond to, so no one
responded. To the troll "...no one responded so that proves I'm right". Reasoning like this STUPID, then they say "why do they insult me", because you are stupid.

Actually, gwangung, paying attention to the least relevant loonies is what allows the more central ones to get away with -- to take one example -- crowning themselves "King of Kings" in a Capitol Hill ceremony, and making themselves indispensible by financing right-wing campaigns. The fact that Moon is more "subtle" than Coulter makes it all the more necessary for us to focus sustained attention on him, and expose what slithers beneath the subtlety. The wolf's howl sounds dangerous, but don't let it distract your attention from the rattlesnake at your feet.

And yes, it really is "either/or:" the public have a limited span of attention, therefore we must encourage them to pay attention to the most dangerous loony, not the flashiest. To do otherwise benefits both Coulter AND Moon. Do you think Moon and his supporters aren't conscious of this?

The appendix apparently doesn't do much for the theories of Ann Coulter either:

http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/060530_bad_appendix.html

Maybe it's not quite as useless as she thought.

I have the terrible premonition that someday someone will take her inflammatory words and turn them into action. Someone will die, and Coulter will be "so surprised" that this could happen

— Jim Ramsey

someone gets killed

On visiting my daughter in San Gabriel, CA I often stopped in at a 7-11 store near her house. An Indian Sikh ran the store, very pleasant and friendly. My daughter moved out of state so I stopped going to that 7-11 store. Shortly after 9-11 I read the news that this kind and friendly person was murdered by someone shouting "raghead". An Indian is not an Arab, a Sikh is not a muslim, but they do wear turbans. The only other person at the time using the term "raghead" was the hate filled Ann Coulter. Ann is actually proud of saying "raghead" and so are her followers. As for that Sikh in San Gabriel, he can't complain, he's dead.

Ann is a mole from our side, and she's doing an excellent job, so don't blow her cover.

I was just looking up something Behe said during Kitz. vs. Dover and come up with this site...

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/177/story_17774_4.html

It's a transcript of him saying that astrology should be considered a theory along with ID. There is a survey on the page "Should intelligent design be taught in public schools?" At the moment it's at Yes-49%, No 51%. It's sad that people can be presented with the firsthand evidence for how silly ID is and 49% still think it should be taught in schools.

To be fair, a good number of that 49% Pro-ID probably also thinks that Astrology is a science or open to scientific rigors.
So yes, it is sad.

One important point though: the scholarly methods approach to writers like Behe or Coulter suggests something far more interesting about how they can be so wrong without accusing them of mendacity.

— Jim Downard

If we want to stay on-topic here, I'm sure Moon must have said something deranged on at least one scientific issue.

the rattlesnake at your feet

SANTA BARBARA, June 30 /Christian Newswire/ -- In a full-page ad in the July 3-9, 2006, national edition of the Washington Times, Dr. Dennis Jarrard accuses "far-left ideologues" on American campuses of practicing "scholastic Stalinism." "Thousands of U.S. universities, colleges and professors should be sued for malpractice, because they're knowingly teaching millions of young people outright scientific falsehoods," states the California educator and father. "Worse yet, they're exporting these academic frauds worldwide, thus deceiving and damaging young people, families and nations, from Russia to Rwanda." The ad cites examples such as these: --- Professors routinely hide crucial scientific discoveries about the universe from students because they "would tend to validate Christianity, and therefore the Ten Commandments" --- American students have never heard of "the brilliant Catholic priest, mathematician and physicist who explained the universe to Einstein" --- Professors cover up the work of scholars who have shown that it is mathematically absurd to say life developed by chance --- The whole field of "sexology" and "sex education" was built not only on a massive academic fraud by famed sex "researcher" Prof. Alfred Kinsey, but on "data" he got from active pedophiles whom he oversaw ... To access the text of the ad, go to http://www.drjudithreisman.com

Their indoctrination tactics must be very good if people actually BELIEVE this claptrap.

American students have never heard of "the brilliant Catholic priest, mathematician and physicist who explained the universe to Einstein

Well

This is the Washington Times.

Does anybody here know from reading Coulter's book whether she claims to be a Christian or not? I refuse to buy her book or even be caught thumbing through it at the local Barnes and Noble.

MS

Does anybody here know from reading Coulter's book whether she claims to be a Christian or not? I refuse to buy her book or even be caught thumbing through it at the local Barnes and Noble.

The only reason a lot of Christians reject evolution is that we are taught to abjure big fat lies. You can look it up---we have an entire commandment about the importance of not lying.

Although my Christianity is somewhat more explicit in this book, Christianity fuels everything I write. Being a Christian means that I am called upon to do battle against lies, injustice, cruelty, hypocrisy---you know, all the virtues in the church of liberalism.

Who is this renaissance Catholic, and why was he explaining things to a young Jewish patent clerk? (I am assuming this explanation happened before Einstein published anything.)

— John Marley

Who is this renaissance Catholic, and why was he explaining things to a young Jewish patent clerk?

These kids have never heard of Georges Lemaitre, the brilliant Catholic priest, mathematician and physicist who explained the universe to Einstein. After hearing him speak in 1933, Einstein stated, "This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened" ("A Day Without Yesterday," Commonweal, March 24, 2000). Dr. Lemaitre was the first physicist to show that the universe was created out of nothing, that time and space had a beginning, and that the universe expanded from an infinitely small point. This was ancient Judeo-Christian thinking, of course. But Dr. Lemaitre didn't have a secularist worldview blinding him to these facts. Einstein, like most scholars, at first rejected Dr. Lemaitre's ideas, but by the end of the 20th century, the Belgian priest-scientist had been proven right. Science conceded that the "Big Bang" had happened, that it was a one-time event, that the universe wasn't going to collapse inward, and that its expansion was actually speeding up. These discoveries, obviously, have enormous implications for our school curricula. Why not tell them to our kids? Because that would tend to validate Christianity, and therefore the Ten Commandments.

Speaking of discoveries, all doctoral candidates must learn to calculate probability, which lets scholars determine mathematically the likelihood of something being true. At a Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Physiology seminar in the late 1970s, mathematicians showed biologists that all probability calculations debunk the idea that random events caused life to develop. But, says scientist Gerald L. Schroeder in The Hidden Face of God, the biologists simply assumed the math must be wrong.

Get a FREE bombshell DVD that exposes a monstrous academic fraud... Mail the coupon today, plus your tax-deductible gift of $30 or more, to Dr. Judith Reisman's Institute for Media Education, ... Scottsdale, AZ ... You'll receive your FREE copy of this shocking DVD as her thank-you gift.

The assertion that the name of Lemaitre has been hidden from "kids" (or from anyone to that matter) is preposterous. His name is perfectly well known and has been mentioned in numerous publications. In many of those publications the fact of Lemaitre being a Catholic priest was indeed often not mentioned, but this was because of this fact's irrelevance. Rather than "mathematician and physicist" Lemaitre is often referred to as "Astronomer." Whether he was "brilliant," (which may be true) is again irrelevant, but his ideas has never been suppressed (although not accepted either). To assert that he "explained to Einstein" what the universe is, to put it mildly, is an exaggeration. Einstein's work has practically no traces of being influenced by Lemaitre. The idea of big bang (without yet using this term) was indeed expressed by Lemaitre but remained largely beyond mainstream science for decades, until astrophysicists discovered the data pointing to the Big Bang and came up with the BB theory ndependently of Lemaitre's suppositions. This does not mean to denigrate Lemaitre in any way as he indeed was a respectable and well qualified scientist (albeit not of Einstein's caliber, but very few are). Regarding the quality of the reference to Schroeder's book, it is drivel pure and simple. Schroeder, with his PhD in physics, displays an amazing ignorance of seminal concepts of physics - for example see here and here.

Alert the quote mining crew at talkorigins.org that it's time for them to open a physics department.

A follow up to my earlier poll on ID post where it was almost 50/50 for/against...

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/has-noahs-ark-been-found/20060629173309990001?cid=2194

An ABC news article at AOL about a team of Biblical Archeologists haven't found the Arc...again.

There is a poll with the article...
"What do you think about the story of Noah's Ark?" It's fact - 69%, It's fiction - 31%.
"Do you think the object that this team found is Noah's Ark?" No - 52%, Yes - 48%.

This is on a more general site, rather on beliefnet.com.

I have two questions, possibly OT, so please redirect if necessary. First, I was intrigued by the comment up top that states that "Dembski all but admitted writing the chapters for Coulter." Dembski has repeatedly touted this book on his own website, and I'm curious as to what's in it for him. It's quite possible that there is no rational explanation for Dembski's behavior, but one that makes the most sense is that he's a charlatan cashing in with his groundless critiques of evolution. Does anyone know what his financial stake in Godless is?

Secondly, has anyone taken up PZM on his challenge to find a single defensible paragraph in the evolution chapters of Godless?

Many thanks.

"I can't imagine what it could be if it is not the Ark," said Arch Bonnema of the Bible Archaeology Search and Exploration (B.A.S.E) Institute, a Christian archeology organization dedicated to looking for biblical artifacts.

— Avery's link

has anyone taken up PZM on his challenge

not yet, I forwarded his challege to 4 "love ann" sites, no response.

Thanks, Rich

Coulter proves that, er, money talks and bullshit walks,where once it flapped around in the primordial ooze.

http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/4656/coultertv3nr.gif

Re "and that the universe expanded from an infinitely small point. This was ancient Judeo-Christian thinking, of course."

Say what? When did either Jewish or Christian ancient thinking ever say things started at a single point, whether infinitely small or not? I must've missed that verse.

Henry

Ann Coulter defends the Bell Curve a debunked racist book. to see who funded this book check:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickliffe_Draper

I put that link into a Coulter fan's blog
any mention of draper has been blacklisted. They don't want the nazi ties out there.

Dempski claims responsiblity for all in Ann's Book. On Red state Rabble http://redstaterabble.blogspot.com/
there is a poster, left side, showing Important scientific discoveries, there were no entries under the ID side.
so I asked Dempski could he please put a few things in there, just a few or even one.
message deleted
logon deleted
Good answer?

richCares at Comment #109393 attacks Murray and Herrnstein's book The Bell Curve, "This book claims blacks are genetically inferior. (as in racist)."

TBC does no such thing. Its thesis, briefly, is that if comparing whites with whites, and separately blacks with blacks, the effect of individually measured IQ on life outcomes (good or bad) is significantly stronger than the effect of familial socioeconomic status. That is not racist (and it hasn't been debunked, either; it is widely cited, including by Nobel Prize winner James Heckman in a recent paper).

TBC acknowledges that African-Americans on average score approximately one standard deviation below white Americans (which is why the authors treated them separately) but that is an empirical observation well established in psychology. It is no more racist to accept empirical evidence, however much we may wish the world other than it is, than it is sexist to accept that men are better at certain math-related skills than women.

M&H do not claim that blacks are inferior, let alone genetically so. While IQ is highly heritable, that is a within-group measure and not necessarily the cause of a between-group difference. Whatever the cause may prove to be, it is not germane to the book's argument.

In a proposal outlining the book "The Bell Curve", author Murray wrote that there is "a huge number of well-meaning whites who fear that they are closet racists, and this book tells them they are not. It's going to make them feel better about things they already think but do not know how to say."
The Bell Curve does indeed tell closet racists that they aren't racist, and makes them feel better by saying that their prejudices are grounded in science.

the Bell Curve has been totally debunked, notably by a 60 minutes special featuring Marva Collins, a great teacher (black) www.marvacollins.com. Marva Collins was politely denounced by name in the Bell Curve book. which is why 60 minutes revisited Marva Collins and her original 33 students. 33 poor getto students, one possibly retarded,after 16 years all doing very well, most college graduates and the little retarded girl - she recieved her masters degree.

so you say the Bell Curve is not racist.

The Pioneer Fund provided the funding for the Bell Curve
Wickliffe Draper, the founder seems to contradict your statements
check this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickliffe_Draper

also details on the Bell curve
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve

Some of you may not know Marva Collins
Charles Murray, in his book The Bell Curve, cited Marva Collin's program specifically, pointing out that such programs could not possibly improve academic achievement or cognitive functioning. Basically trying to improve blcks would be a waste of time.

Having documented Ms. Collins successes 16 years earlier, Sixty Minutes went back after Murray's book came out and checked on those 33 children. Those students were roaring successes and thoroughly proved Murray's thesis was racist nonsense.

for info on Marva Collins:
http://www.search.com/reference/Marva_Collins

linda seebach said "That is not racist (and it hasn't been debunked, either; it is widely cited, including by Nobel Prize winner James Heckman in a recent paper)."

here is what Heckman actually says "The Book fails for five main reasons."

1. The central premise of this book is the empirically incorrect claim that a single factor - g

or IQ - that explains linear correlations among test scores is primarily responsible for

differences in individual performance in society at large. Below I demonstrate that a single

factor can always be constructed that "explains" all correlations in responses to a test or

correlations in scores across a battery of tests, but in general this g is not constructed by

conventional linear methods. There is much evidence that more than one factor -- as

conventionally measured -- is required to explain conventional correlation matrices among test

scores. Herrnstein and Murray's measure of IQ is not the same as the g that can be extracted from

test scores available in their data set. They do not emphasize how little of the variation in

social outcomes is explained by AFQT or g. There is considerable room for factors other than

their measure of ability to explain wages and other social outcomes.

2. In their empirical work, the authors assume that AFQT is a measure of immutable native

intelligence. In fact, AFQT is an achievement test that can be manipulated by educational

interventions. Achievement test embody environmental influences: AFQT scores rise with age and

parental socioeconomic status. A person's AFQT score is not an immutable characteristic beyond

environmental manipulation.

3. The authors do not perform the cost-benefit analyses needed to evaluate alternative social

policies for raising labor market and social skills. Their implicit assumption of an immutable g

that is all-powerful in determining social outcomes leads them to disregard a lot of evidence

that a variety of relevant labor market and social skills can be improved, even though efforts to

boost IQ substantially are notoriously unsuccessful.

4. The authors present no new evidence on the heritability of IQ or other socially productive

characteristics. Instead, they demonstrate that IQ is more predictive of differences in social

performance than a crude measure of parental environmental influences. This comparison is

misleading. It fails to recognize the crudity of their environmental measures and the

environmental component that is built into their measure of IQ, which biases the evidence in

favor of their position. Moreover, the comparison as they present it is intrinsically

meaningless.

5. Finally, the authors' forecast of social trends is pure speculation that does not flow from

the analysis presented in their book. Most of the social policy recommendations have an ad hoc

flavor to them and do not depend on the analysis that precedes them. The appeal to Murray's

version of communitarianism as a solution to the emerging problem of inequality among persons is

a deus ex machina flight of fancy that is not credibly justified.

Re Frank J. post 109494, the issue he brings up regarding the tactical skills antievolutionists exibit regarding selective quoting, etc, relates to the culture of apologetics. The vast majority of IDers are in fact conservative Christians, who learn the method of defending the faith quite early on, soaking it up from apologetic religious literature and the methods of the people they buddy with.

Couple that with an innate aptitude for not thinking about things they don't want to think about, and you have a sure-fire recipe for intellectual recalcitrance. There appears no solid evidence that any ID thinks about the issues deeply enough to be in a position to actively ignore that data.

As for Dr. Dino, Coulter has stepped perilously close by association: she has effused in previous works over Phyllis Schlafley, who (most likely unbeknownst to Coulter) heartily recommends the creationist "science" lectures of "Dr." Hovind.

BTW, I'm prepping the next installment of my critique of Coulter's tome. Hope you all enjoy it too.

richCares finished with a lovely quotable quote.
It could be equally applied to Creationism/ID.

...a deus ex machina flight of fancy that is not credibly justified

I would add

...a deus ex machina flight of fancy that is not credibly justified, except in the context of conservative political propaganda disguised as religion and or science.

The vast majority of IDers are in fact conservative Christians, who learn the method of defending the faith quite early on, soaking it up from apologetic religious literature and the methods of the people they buddy with.

— Jim Downard

Among the ID leaders, there's David Berlinski, who claims to be agnostic.

— Frank J

richCares continues to parade his obsession with race; it doesn't seem to have been part of his education that calling people racists, and attacking their motives, does nothing to refute their arguments. I am well aware that Murray considers it a regrettable necessity to give a certain amount of comfort to some very unpleasant people. He recently published an article in Commentary pointing out that there are also negative consequences for refraining from speaking.

The Heckman block quote seems very familiar, but I think I read it a long time ago -- perhaps in one of the instant books rushed out immediately after The Bell Curve was published. If so, he wouldn't be the only person whose views have shifted over the past 12 years as the explanatory power of genetics has grown.

I admire Marva Collins but her remarkable achievements are counterexamples to statistical conclusions, not refutation. John Ogbu's study of African-American students in Shaker Heights is, unfortunately, more representative.

I meant to add earlier that I have no use for Ann Coulter and I am not going to waste my time reading what she has to say about TBC, evolution or anything else. However, there are conspiracy theorists all across the spectrum -- and anyone who drags in Draper is keeping company with them -- so I should also add that I was a grad student at Minnesota 1988-92, so I know all the twins people, financed,as I am sure richCares will hasten to tell you, by the dastardly Pioneer Fund. And I know Arthur Jensen and Phillippe Rushton, too, so make of that what you will.

(And if you should be moved to Google what I've written, please note that there is another person named Linda Seebach who writes New Agey stuff about the emerging spirituality of the cosmos and how she and her mother Alice Bryant were abducted by aliens. Please don't mix us up.)

(And if you should be moved to Google what I've written, please note that there is another person named Linda Seebach who writes New Agey stuff about the emerging spirituality of the cosmos and how she and her mother Alice Bryant were abducted by aliens. Please don't mix us up.)

— Linda Seebach

richCares continues to parade his obsession with race; it doesn't seem to have been part of his education that calling people racists, and attacking their motives, does nothing to refute their arguments.

(And if you should be moved to Google what I've written, please note that there is another person named Linda Seebach who writes New Agey stuff about the emerging spirituality of the cosmos and how she and her mother Alice Bryant were abducted by aliens. Please don't mix us up.)

When did either Jewish or Christian ancient thinking ever say things started at a single point, whether infinitely small or not? I must've missed that verse.

— Henry J

Glad you said "vast majority" and not "all". Among the ID leaders, there's David Berlinski, who claims to be agnostic. Plus many, if not most of the general public who are seduced by ID, creationism or "it's only fair to each 'both sides'" are not conservative Christians.

But in an e-mail message, Berlinski declared, "I have never endorsed intelligent design."

Among the ID leaders, there's David Berlinski, who claims to be agnostic.

I have never endorsed intelligent design in any way, and I have written a long essay in Commentary ('Has Darwin Met his Match') taking issue with all of the intelligent design arguments --- those of Johnson, Behe, Dembski, and anyone else I could think of. I have been since the publication of 'The Deniable Darwin' on record as a critic of intelligent design. Every time I publish a serious piece, I go out of my way to affirm my skepticism."

Mmm-hmmm. That's why Berlinski is listed as a Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture

Coulter's point is that the "cultists" refuse to consider any alternative viewpoints on evolution (or global warming for that matter). Those who disagree are portrayed as idiots or morons for daring to question the enlightened among us. Her detrators make her point for her when they digress into such tactics. I seldom hear a spirited defense of evolution from its supporters, only the denigration of its doubters. Plenty of notable scientists, not just right-wing preachers, have well-founded doubts regarding evolution. Until these doubts are adequately answered (which they can never be), the debate will continue. Darwinists need to respond to the debate, not stamp their collective feet like little children who don't get their way.

Darwinists need to respond to the debate, not stamp their collective feet like little children who don't get their way.

Coulter's point is that the "cultists" refuse to consider any alternative viewpoints on evolution

Darwinists need to respond to the debate

Coulter's point is

I know of many scientists who appropraitely question various aspects of evolution. If you apply the same scientific standards to evolution that you do to alternative theories, you'd see it exposed. How exactly has evolution been "proven"? Through fossil evidence? Have the mathematical improbabilities been reconciled? As evolution been tested? Have you considered your own pompous and arrogant we-are-the-smartest-people-in-the-room prejudices?

If you apply the same scientific standards to evolution that you do to alternative theories, you'd see it exposed.

— Colin Killian

Have the mathematical improbabilities been reconciled?

As evolution been tested?

Until these doubts are adequately answered (which they can never be), the debate will continue. Darwinists need to respond to the debate, not stamp their collective feet like little children who don't get their way.

Colin, if you have a complaint about evolution which has not been covered here, please email it to Mark Isaak at eciton@earthlink.net.

Re "How exactly has evolution been "proven"?"

(1) Lots of places where contrary evidence should have been repeatedly found if the theory weren't an accurate description of reality,

(2) Without anybody as yet finding a significant amount of contrary evidence despite over a century of looking.

Henry

I know of many scientists who appropraitely question various aspects of evolution.

alternative theories

Um, Colin...

WHAT PART OF LABORTORY OBSERVED AND REPLICATED EXPERIMENTS DO YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH????

Not scientifically tested, my right gonad.....

OK Collin, let's consider an alternative to evolution.

An easy one that features prominently amongst young earthers is the age of the earth. They love to question the age of the earth, and say that there is proof that the earth is too young for evolution to have happened. But is that scientific? No. But we can treat it scientifically.

Hypothesis: the world is 6000 years old.

Prediction: If radiometric dating methods are reliable, multiple methods using isotopes of different half-lifes should yield a series of nonsensical dates that are uncorrelated with stratigraphy.

Answer: ABSOLUTELY FALSE. Proof. Thousands of studies published independently by thousands of researchers in a voluminous literature available at any university library.

Alternative. If radiometric dating methods are unreliable (as claimed by creationists), methods should yield a series of nonsensical dates that are uncorrelated with stratigraphy.

Answer. ABSOLUTELY FALSE. Proof. See above.

Does that prove evolution? No. But it sure as heck renders the creationist position ludicrous in the extreme. And through the scientific method, evolution has emerged as the only viable hypothesis that explains a wealth of biological phenomena. In fact, it has an overwhelming explanatory power and has survived (and continues to survive) every attempt to take it down.

Don't want to believe it? OK, swallow the intellectual drool promulgated by the good folks at the ICR and related places hook line and sinker, and completely ignore the voluminous, detailed critiques dissecting just how bad that stuff is. Then you can claim that scientists don't respond to the criticisms and provide detailed assessments, demonstrating nothing more than your ignorance of the topic at hand.

Now, we can provide you with hundreds of little examples like that above, backed up each in turn by volumes of meticulous analysis. All we await are your specific claims. Of course, you can save a lot of bother by going over to talkorigins for a quick summary. I'm not holding my breath though.

Comment #110075 Posted by Colin Killian on July 4, 2006 12:57 PM (e) Coulter's point is that the "cultists" refuse to consider any alternative viewpoints on evolution (or global warming for that matter). Those who disagree are portrayed as idiots or morons for daring to question the enlightened among us. Her detrators make her point for her when they digress into such tactics. I seldom hear a spirited defense of evolution from its supporters, only the denigration of its doubters. Plenty of notable scientists, not just right-wing preachers, have well-founded doubts regarding evolution. Until these doubts are adequately answered (which they can never be), the debate will continue. Darwinists need to respond to the debate, not stamp their collective feet like little children who don't get their way.

Comment #110162 Posted by Colin Killian on July 5, 2006 11:15 AM (e) I know of many scientists who appropraitely question various aspects of evolution.

If you apply the same scientific standards to evolution that you do to alternative theories, you'd see it exposed.

How exactly has evolution been "proven"?

Through fossil evidence?

Have the mathematical improbabilities been reconciled?

As evolution been tested?

Have you considered your own pompous and arrogant we-are-the-smartest-people-in-the-room prejudices?

Punctuated equilibrium (or punctuated equilibria) is a theory in evolutionary biology which states that most sexually reproducing species will show little to no evolutionary change throughout their history. When evolution does occur, it happens sporadically (by splitting) and occurs relatively quickly compared to the species' full duration on earth. Punctuated equilibrium is commonly contrasted against the theory of phyletic gradualism, which hypothesizes that most evolution occurs uniformly and by the steady and gradual transformation of whole lineages (anagenesis).

Nothing like being a complete and utter toerag

Upon Ann Coulter seeing a fossil in a rock...."Dang that bug musta been going realy realy fast!" nough said