Search Archives:

Custom Search

Saturday, June 03, 2006

Coulter's New Book get's Evolution all Wrong

(Keywords: , , , whacko 's an ary scientist now) has a typically fawning article about Ann Coulter's new book, Godless: The Church of Liberalism. In an article titled, Coulter exposes liberals' 'Godless religion': New book launching 6-6-06 her most controversial, they say, "Set to launch on 6-6-06, best-selling author Ann Coulter throws open the doors of the "Church of Liberalism" in her latest and most controversial book to date.

"'If a Martian landed in America and set out to determine the nation's official state religion, he would have to conclude it is liberalism, while Christianity and Judaism are prohibited by law,' Coulter writes in 'Godless: The Church of Liberalism.'"

Right... If he took a look at the president, the House, the Senate, and the Supreme Court and came to the conclusion that liberalism was the state religion, then this would be one seriously stupid martian. But here's the part I love - unintentional humor is the best kind:

In her new book, available now through the WND Book Service at a discount of 32 percent, Coulter takes on what she calls the liberal creation myth: Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.

For liberals, evolution is the touchstone that separates the enlightened from the benighted. But Coulter neatly reverses the pretense that liberals are rationalists guided by the ideals of free inquiry and the scientific method. She exposes the essential truth about Darwinian evolution that liberals refuse to confront: It is bogus science.

Writing with a keen appreciation for genuine science, Coulter reveals that the so-called "gaps" in the theory of evolution are all there is – Darwinism is nothing but a gap. After 150 years of dedicated searching into the fossil record, evolution's proponents have failed utterly to substantiate its claims. And a long line of supposed evidence, from the infamous Piltdown Man to the "evolving" peppered moths of England, has been exposed as hoaxes. Still, liberals treat those who question evolution as religious heretics and prohibit students from hearing about real science when it contradicts Darwinism. And these are the people who say they want to keep faith out of the classroom?

Geez, how uncritical can a review be when you're hawking the book in the middle of the review? And a 'keen appreciation for genuine science'? Yeah, Ann Coulter's a regular Stephen Hawking - excuse me while I go laugh for about a half an hour. One thing you need to use in science is logic - and Coulter isn't using it here. A series of hoaxes doesn't automatically mean the theory is wrong. There have been medical hoaxes. Does that mean the entire field of medical science is a scam?

When they say, "Still, liberals treat those who question evolution as religious heretics and prohibit students from hearing about real science when it contradicts Darwinism," I have to ask, what real science? What experiment can you conduct to show that god did it? None.

In fact, in a letter to the Kansas Board of Education, thirty-eight Nobel laureates wrote, "Logically derived from confirmable evidence, evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection. As the foundation of modern biology, its indispensable role has been further strengthened by the capacity to study DNA. In contrast, intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific; it cannot be tested as scientific theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent."

Of course, thirty-eight Nobel Prizewinning brains pale in comparison to the towering intellect of Ann freakin' Coulter. The problem with creationism and intelligent design is that there's nothing there. All these 'theories' contain are a laundry list of criticism regarding evolution - remove those and you have nothing. That's not a theory of anything. Again, the logic test is failed - even if they managed to concretely disprove evolutionary theory, it wouldn't do a damn thing to prove their central claim, that living things were designed by a deity, true.

But then, it is Ann Coulter we're talking about. By all accounts, she's an intelligent enough woman when it comes to creating a rightwing fantasyland were conservatives are the noble victims of lefty fascism. But when it comes to the subject of reality, the woman's about as sharp as a sack of wet feathers.



NewsBlog 5000 said...

She's got nothing on this woman.

Sevi Regis said...

Ann Coulter may not be the most credentialed messenger, but her message is correct. It is pure arrogance and prejudice to discount a statement simply because you feel superior to the bearer of it. The truth is that evolution has gaping leaps of assumption tethering it together, and it fails miserably to provide any cohesive explanation for all the inter-related facts of life, and all the various scientific frontiers. Therefore it fails to adequately explain the past and it certainly cannot predict the future. However, all of these questions are answered by the Bible and the future is also foretold, part of which, includes this entire debate. It's all part of the story. Therefore I don't believe in hushing up worthy discussions that have mounting and historical evidence, and no one should be afraid to bring his "truth" to the table for examination. Because truth will always survive honesty inquiry, and so there is nothing to fear.

Wisco said...

As an atheist, I couldn't care less what's in the bible.

You do get one thing right, though. When you say, "no one should be afraid to bring his "truth" to the table for examination," you describe creationists and IDers to a T.

There has been no peer reviewed publication of either hypothesis. Apparently, they're afraid of risking peer review, because they know it won't stand up.

Neither creationism nor ID have a scientific leg to stand on and, I'm sorry, only a prize chump would fall for either.

Anonymous said...

Sevi, great satire.

Sevi Regis said...

I have never dialogued on a blog before, but okay, I'll make one retort to the replies left regarding my comment.

First let me say, that the only thing I acknowledge that Ann Coulter got right in her childish book is that God exists and that He is the Creator or the universe, including my little, atheist colleague who wrote his response.

As far as what Ann unfortunately wrote about the 911 widows, and others, it demonstrates that although Coulter speaks on behalf of the Gospel and its Star, Jesus Christ, she doesn't know Him or comprehend what she has read in the ancient text. Jesus would certainly not refer to those heartbroken widows the way she did. In fact, widows and orphans are given high priority for social compassion in the Scripture.

That's why the Bible says that "the love of money is the root of all evil." It tempts people to do evil then put the stamp of God on it, which is a form of blasphemy. And no one who behaves like this will be happy on the day they are called to face up.

There is a verse in Scripture that says: "Many will come to Me in that day and say, "Lord, have I not done great works for you..." And I will say to them, "Get away from Me, you workers of iniquity; for I never knew you." Those are the words of Jesus warning imposters that they will be unmasked and reckoned with. It's not any place I'd like to find myself.

As far as the atheist who wrote back, I'm happy for you that you have found something to identify yourself with, something I once came close to as an agnostic. But as the mind matures, if it is honest within itself, it must admit to itself that the nuts and bolts explanation for life is as meaningfully dry as the Sahara during a global warming induced draught in a place that never had its own water to begin with.

I've been uniquely fortunate to have had God prove His existence to me, some thing most folks courageously take on faith. I'm one of the people walking around who actually KNOWS that God is real, rather than only believing. Believing is great, it is the door to knowing. And though I still live for a while longer, I am blessed to have walked through that door.

I have a science background and have found some of the greatest pleasure in discovering God's mysteries through the natural world around us, in space, and also in mathematics and the various pursuits in physics.

Sevi Regis said...

Note correction of a typo, 2nd paragraph, 3rd line should read: "God is the creator OF (not 'or') the universe.

And regarding one question emailed to me, yes, I am the author of the twenty-four novella series called: Seasons Of The Son that deals with science, prophecy, and Scripture. Hope you enjoy it.

Wisco said...

Your "little, atheist colleague who wrote his response" is also the author of the article.

As far as this goes; "But as the mind matures, if it is honest within itself, it must admit to itself that the nuts and bolts explanation for life is as meaningfully dry as the Sahara during a global warming induced draught in a place that never had its own water to begin with." Who ever said that life had some inherent meaning?

I'm with Sartre here, we choose our own purpose through our actions. If you don't actually do anything positive, then your life is meaningless. If all you do is sit around and contemplate the almighty, then that's a wasted life.

If you try to improve this world and reduced the sum total of human misery, that is not a meaningless existence.

Sevi Regis said...

Hi Wisco:

You assumed incorrectly many things, but specifically two clearly stated: that life has no inherent meaning which disconnects one's feet from the ground upon which he stands, as meaning and purpose are right and left legs used for the locomotion of time.

And second, that a person of faith, such as myself, has never performed a charitable act and only sits around contemplating the deep myseteries of the universe, as if that was bad, both ridiculous notions on your part.

If someone was uniquely gifted to unravel such mysteries for the public's consumption, then that alone is performing a massive human social service. And I hate to point out that Satre, whom you admire, has no record of being a humantarian activist, only a philosophical egghead. In fact, he had a troubled life with difficult relationships.

Nevertheless, you would curl up into a little embarrassed ball of spikes if you knew what percentage of my fifty years has been devoted to one-on-one benevolence, humanitarian causes, environmental preservation, and protection of various species including any stray animal crossing my property line. But this is only because I am driven by the generousity of love and not by selfishness of "survivalism."

Those who believe that everything begins and ends with their prized, yet twisted, "consciousness" are just foolish downhearts lacking in upward directed inspiration. They are missing the "upward" force, able to navigate only in three directions along the Cartesian plane of existence.

I spent the majority of my earlier life that way and can firmly attest, my friend, there is an immeasurable difference to the positive side of living. You see the answer that Darwin missed, the very thing he misinterpreted when making his terrifying, and he wrote that he was terrified by the findings, was that all things are interrelated and interconnected, not that they have morphed into each other. Yes, there is a lineage, but it's not a time line, though adaptation follows a time line, it's a design line established by a designer working over time.

Okay, I apologize but I won't be able to write back anymore because I'm extremely busy. But there is a lot of evidence to support, scientifically, the "theory" that everything was purposefully created. Why don't you check it out more and not let your emotions or prejudicial thinking get in the way of finding something higher than chemicals and brain cells, though you'll need them to come along on the journey.

Peace and blessings be your companions.

Sevi Regis said...

Oh, just one more thing...

Those who believe in the Lord are not permitted to sit around and soak up mysteries without returning favor. Jesus said, when asked what the greatest commandments were, that they are: "to love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, and deeds," basically with your whole self and life, and then: "to love your neighbor as yourself."

We are also taught that "faith without works is dead" and that we are not to hoard our talents, but rather to use them to multiply God's kingdom of goodness and righteousness on earth. And there are many other requirements set forth by Scripture regarding giving.

Lastly, it is well established that people who believe in the God of the Bible tend, on average, to be far more charitable than those who do not. This is a statistical fact noted by all non-profit organizations.

So if that's your yardstick, that should tell you something if you're honest enough to recognize and admit it, at least to yourself. And if you want to know the meaning of life, I can tell you. It is LOVE. And guess what? It's the glue that holds it all together. Wait till you see what comes out of scientific exploration over the next few years and decades! That's if the dark vagrants of earth don't destroy it all beforehand. Let's pray not and work toward preventing it. But just in case the storm forms with a large dark eye, unresponsive to our efforts against it, just remember to call God and not Sartre, when it starts blowing across your roof.

Wisco said...

One hell of a lot of nothing there, Sevi.

You wrote, "Okay, I apologize but I won't be able to write back anymore because I'm extremely busy. But there is a lot of evidence to support, scientifically, the "theory" that everything was purposefully created. Why don't you check it out more and not let your emotions or prejudicial thinking get in the way of finding something higher than chemicals and brain cells, though you'll need them to come along on the journey."

I'm not doing your legwork for you, fundie. You had plenty of opportunity to put some of this 'evidence' in that essay you just posted, but you didn't. You seem to believe that the more words you use, the truer something becomes.

But the truth is you're just burying bullshit in a pile of logorhea. There is no evidence at all that anything was created or designed. The reason you didn't post any is because you don't know of any.

Sevi Regis said...

Okay, my associate prodded me to respond one last, last time...

The reason I didn't put any equations of photos of non-transitional life forms is because the answer has become evident from discoursing with you.


Whereas, I was created by God.

You see, that's the answer to the whole problem and why we don't see eye-to-eye. Because your theory fits your temperament and mine fits my gracious being.

Have a nice day apeman, gorilla-boy, knuckle-scrather. Go beat your chest a little more, I enjoy that hollow sound!

I reserve my facts for people who can comprehend them; but you haven't evolved enough to discuss anything without reverting to your moronic natural selected condition. You're still beasty which is why you identify with non-homo sapiens, well, maybe just the "sapien" part.

Wisco said...

LOL! Check out my profile; "I'm an irritated guy in Wisconsin. Give me a chance - I'll irritate you, too..."

Mission accomplished there, huh?

Your comment is what's known in forums as a 'flounce'. Basically, it's a way to back out of an argument you can't logically support without admitting you're slinking off.

Again, you had the opportunity to present this 'evidence' you've been lying about and again you've failed to provide it.

Have fun with your delusion and don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.

Scott Allan said...

I'm a conservative from Alabama who likes Ann Coulter, but I agree with you on this. Ms. Coulter is dimissing valid scientific evidence since it contradicts her personal beliefs just as she accuses liberals of the same thing. She offers no alternative to evolution based on science.

As I have written in my own blog, here and here:

1. The Catholic Church disagrees with her. Pope Pius XII in 1950 and Pope John Paul II have both ackowledged the validity of evolution. As Stephen Hawking pointed out, the Catholic Church condemned Galileo for his theory that the earth revolves around the sun since it contradicted their theology. Oops.

2.Scientists are great detectives. You don't need to see the pink elephant in the room to prove that it was there. In other words, you don't need to discover every missing link to prove evolution happened. Evidence of evolution is all around us. It's hard to miss.

Sevi Regis said...

Galileo believed strongly in God, as seen in his writings. He based his insights on the Scriptures which he took to be infallible. The Bible says that the earth is round and that the Lord "hung it on nothing" which means that it wasn't supported by any physical structure, as other cultures believed.

The church was against him because they had adopted a paganizeed misinterpretation of Scripture. And throughout history, corrupted religious leaders have persecuted and denied those with the greater revelation of understanding, and the greater faithfulness to God, such as Galileo.

Wisco said...

No. The bible says the earth is a circle. A circle is not the same as a sphere - what the bible describes is a dinner plate. This is why the idea of a flat earth persisted until the rennaissance.

The Church wasn't opposed to Galileo because he said the earth was round, they opposed him for saying the earth orbited the sun, which they saw as contradicting this:

"Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up
the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight
of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the
valley of Ajalon.

"And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had
avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day."

Sevi Regis said...

I appreciate your efforts to quote Scripture and determine a reasonable seeming explanation to the dilemma that faced Galileo.

But the verse you quoted is completely misapplied. That miracle was a one-time event, not a formula for universal order.

Another error is to use the word "circle" in accordance with the Bible's revelation of the spherical earth. The ancient Hebrew/Aramaic in no way suggests a perfect "dinner plate" or 360 degree circle with equal diameters throughout. It merely conveys the concept of "roundedness" versus "rectangularity" or "squareness."

I've had many personal revelations of God's existence and personhood, as well as awesome miracles that science can't answer in this present age. So I don't require too much convincing anymore. But I still enjoy reading of all of the early scientific geniuses and their passionate devotion to the Creator whom they all claimed to have, in various ways, known personally.

Wisco said...

Hebrew and aramaic are moot points, Sevi. The NT is written in greek - which makes a distinction between a circle and a sphere. It's common for primitive people to mistake the earth for a circle, since the horizon is a circle around you - it looks like a circle.

The event in the bible is completely impossible. Pope Pious saw that and concluded that Galileo, not the bible, was wrong. But the truth is, the bible must be wrong on this point. The sun can't stop in the sky unless the earth stops turning. And the earth can't stop turning without everything on it flying forward, carried by inertia, at just a little over a thousand miles an hour. It would be the end of life on earth.

There's no way for the bible to be correct on either point.

I'd point out that any explanation of how these verse could be true are inherently unbiblical. They're simply rationalizations used to get the bible to fit the facts.

Sevi Regis said...

I appreciate that you desire to unravel the mechanics of mystery and to distinguish between reality and fiction.

And it's often hard for us to reconcile things that sound impossible, but the Scripture says: "Nothing is impossible with God.:
I had a tiny version of an unexplainable event happen to me and be concurrently witnessed by someone else. Keep in mind, I was at one time studying to be a physicist, so I also like to know how things work.
One time after studying the book of 1John (the Apostle's 1st of 3 epistles), the part where it talks about God loving us and requiring that we love Him and one another, my friend and I began to meditate on how wonderful this love is. As soon as we finished the short epistle, we closed our Bibles and began to pray thanking God for loving us. When we opened our eyes, and I glanced down toward my right calf which was propped up on an ottoman, I observed the most amazing phenomenon, and so did my friend. One of my long hairs had migrated from my head to my calf, and right on top of my navy blue sweatpants, this stray long hair had taken the shape of a perfect, symmetrical heart, standing straight up in the air, defying gravity, with its two ends held together and looking like it was growing out of my leg. It was standing up vertically, rigid and fixed into place, and it was perfectly formed! We were both amazed with our mouths hanging open. Even more amazing is that I limped to my bedroom, said goodbye to my friend, and laid down to sleep without disturbing the heart, which had remained until the morning when the hair went flat. This really happened, I know, I was there. And it was witnessed by another sober soul. And it withstood my walking through several rooms. Dear Wisco, this world is not so mechanistic as it may appear. There really are mysteries and miracles, and there really is a Master of them all. I know, because my miracles didn't stop there...

Wisco said...

Boy, Sevi, the bar you set for the miraculous is pretty damned low.

I rest my case for atheism.

Sevi Regis said...

I would hardly consider a personal kiss from God to be "low." The only thing low about it is how far down He had to bend in order to deliver it.

Anyway, the reason some people can perceive the presence of God and others, not, is due to the "sensitivity" of their "instruments." Those who are less sensitive are unable to detect, even when presented with a strong indication, the spiritual presence around them. That is why Jesus said: "Even if one rises from the dead, they shall still not believe." He knew that even when presented with the strongest of evidence, that some souls will just not ignite into a spiritual and living flame from the revelation of God.

Is it a stubbornness that dull their senses? Perhaps in some cases. In other cases, it is probably the compilation of disappointments, anger, frustration, confusion about the world's problems, or even a desire to shut God out and deny any authority higher than oneself or those erected by man.

But regarding your statement of "lowness" leading to the reinforcement of your atheism, just know that I accept you as a person and would treat you with the same dignity and respect that I treat anyone else. I have friends of all faith and non-faith backgrounds and I love them just the same. I despise destruction and degrading actions but I always have compassion for the people, as whether or not you believe in evolution or creation, we all had a common beginning and are therefore all related.

Lastly, in the summer of 1996, standing on a jetty on Neponsit beach, I met God face-to-face. He opened the heavens and revealed Himself to me and I saw Him in perfect detail, unlike any artist's rendition or depiction. I studied the carvings of His chair and was awestruck at His facial features, beyond beauty and description. Many people know this story and it is only one of two hundred, all wondrous but different, that I have written about in my books. It is a rare gift, I know, but it is a humbling one most of all, to know that I have been personally carried from faith to knowledge.

So I surely accept your personhood first and foremost, but I am sad for anyone who never finds Him. I've also seen heaven on several occassions. The dreams and visions lasted for seven years between 1990-1996. I have not had another one since. But I also had many prophetic ones that have showed events to come, some of which have happened, some yet to come. Again, I have written and published these years ago because the Scripture says: "these things which I have seen and heard, these I speak unto the world."

There are several Christian denominations who teach that no one can see God or that all dreams and visions have ceased, but they are incorrect. The writing of the Bible is complete, but the Book of Acts continues into the invisible realm until the last day. And that day is coming soon.

May you find His beautiful face and the everlasting peace and fulfillment that only God can offer.

Wisco said...

Drug's'll wreck your life, Sevi.

Sevi Regis said...

You make these hopelessly bankrupt comments. I've never taken drugs, not even aspirin, nor do I drink alcohol. I've been into natural health and fitness since I was 13. Your comments reflect on your own world, not mine.

Jennifer Grinberg said...

Wisco, listen to the wise lady, your eternal life might depend upon what she reveals.

“For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.”

Wisco said...

I'm not going to lose a lot of sleep over it, Jennifer. If God's a tyrant who demands we believe things that aren't true, then morality dictates that people oppose this god, no matter the consequence.

Luckily, that's not the case. I'm heading the same place you are -- after I'm dead I'll be in the same situation I was in before I was born.

I simply won't exist. I don't look at the roman empire with dread because I didn't exist then and I don't look at the post-Wisco world with dread for the same reason.