Re: [asa] The scientific vacuity of Ann Coulter

>At 06:44 PM 6/18/2006, Pim van Meurs wrote:
>
>On Panda's Thumb, PZ Myers reports his review of Ann Coulter's
>ghastly ignorant book 'Godless'. ...That claim is that there is no
>evidence for evolution. ......if creationists or conservatives
>believe that Ann Coulter's musings are anything more than scientific
>ignorance, then they will be in for a big surprise as PZ Myers has
>so clearly shown.

@ Which theory of evolution is he talking about? Which theory of
evolution is she talking about?

  "...What is the significance of such a theory? To address this
question is to enter the field of epistemology. A theory is a
metascientific elaboration distinct from the results of observation,
but consistent with them. By means of it a series of independent data
and facts can be related and interpreted in a unified explanation. A
theory's validity depends on whether or not it can be verified; it is
constantly tested against the facts; wherever it can no longer
explain the latter, it shows its limitations and unsuitability. It
must then be rethought. Furthermore, while the formulation of a
theory like that of evolution complies with the need for consistency
with the observed data, it borrows certain notions from natural philosophy.

And, to tell the truth, rather than the theory of evolution, we
should speak of several theories of evolution.

On the one hand, this plurality has to do with the different
explanations advanced for the mechanism of evolution, and on the
other, with the various philosophies on which it is based. Hence the
existence of materialist, reductionist, and spiritualist
interpretations. What is to be decided here is the true role of
philosophy and, beyond it, of theology. Consequently, theories of
evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them,
consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or
as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter are incompatible with the
truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the
person. ..." - John Paul II October 22, 1996 Excerpted from:
Theories of Evolution
<http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9703/articles/johnpaul.html>http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9703/articles/johnpaul.html

Ann Coulter seems to be talking about the specific theory of
evolution that "liberals think disproves God". In her own words:

  "..Liberals' creation myth is Charles Darwin's theory of evolution
[*], which is about one notch above scientology in scientific rigor.
....We wouldn't still be talking about it but for the fact that
liberals think evolution disproves God.... Although God-believers
don't need evolution to be false, athiests need evolution to be true.
..No science is ever frightening to Christians. Religious people
don't need the science to come out any particular way on IQ or AIDS
or sex differences any more than they need the science to come out
any particular way on evolution... Of course it's possible to believe
in God and in evolution [because] if evolution is true, then God
created evolution" ~ Ann Coulter in her book, Godless (265, 277).

[[ * "Metaphysical Darwinism"
[<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/metaphysics.htmlackbib.html#Ruse1992>Ruse<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/metaphysics.htmlackbib.html#Ruse1992>
1992] (as opposed to "scientific Darwinism") ..a metaphysical system
akin to a worldview, and which has expressed itself in numerous
extra-scientific philosophies, including Spencer's, Teilhard's, and
Haeckel's, or even the quasi-mystical views of Julian Huxley. These
must be considered separate to the scientific theory, and are often
in contradiction to the actual scientific models.
~ <mailto:john@wilkins.id.au>John S. Wilkins
http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:02zk66Fs1xoJ:www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/metaphysics.html+Ruse+metaphysics&hl=en

More of Ann's comments and quotes - reflecting the "ghastly ignorant
musings " of those who have rejected the law of non-contradiction:

"Because of liberals druidical religious beliefs, they won't allow us
to save the Africans dying in droves of malaria with DDT because DDT
might hurt the birds." -- P.4-5

"Liberals are more upset when a tree is chopped down than when a
child is aborted. Even if one rates an unborn child less than a
full-blown person, doesn't the unborn child rate slightly higher than
vegetation?" -- P.5

"Liberals use the word science exactly as they use the word
constitutional. Both words are nothing more or less than a general
statement of liberal approval, having nothing to do with either
science or the Constitution." -- P.3-4

"A year after Eisenstadt, the malleable "right to privacy"
metastasized from a right to contraception for married couples to a
right to destroy human life in Roe v. Wade. What about the poor
little tyke's privacy? The question misses the point. "Constitutional
right" means "Whatever Liberals Want." Society cannot legislate what
goes on "in the bedroom." But if we can't legislate what goes on in
the bedroom, why can't I hide money from the IRS under my mattress?" -- P.9

"The New York Times and the rest of the mainstream media will only
refer to partial birth abortion as "what its opponents refer to as
partial birth abortion." What do its supporters call it? Casual
Fridays? Bean-with-bacon potato-chip dip?" -- P.79

"During a January 15, 2005 conference call with reporters, (Howard)
Dean, being a raving lunatic said, "No doctor is going to do an
abortion on a live fetus. That doesn't happen. Doctors don't do that.
If they do, they'll get their license pulled as well they should."
(Yes, you're reading that right.)" -- P.87

"One begins to appreciate why [some] aren't wild about any political
system that permits people to vote. Liberals would have no chance of
advancing their bizarre policy agenda if Americans were allowed to
have a say in the matter. So they manufacture phony "constitutional
rights" in which the Constitution always sounds suspiciously similar
to the ideological agenda of the ACLU." -- P.89

"In 1987, Oprah Winfrey said, "Research studies now project that one
in five -- listen to me, hard to believe -- one in five heterosexuals
could be dead from AIDS at the end of the next three years. That's by
1990. One in five. It is no longer just a gay disease. Believe me." -- P.177

"After a decade-long epidemic with more than a million infections, in
November 1992 the Centers for Disease Control listed only 2,391 cases
of AIDS transmission by white heterosexuals -- and that included
hemophiliacs and blood transfusion patients." -- P.177

"A year later, Koop admitted under oath in congressional hearings
that only about 4 percent of adult AIDS transmissions worldwide could
be traced to heterosexual contact, and that in the United States only
2.3 percent of AIDS cases came from heterosexual contact, "and most
of that is in sexual partners of IV drug abusers." In other words,
the entire, years-long AIDS Threatens Straight People Too PR campaign
was a total lie from start to finish." -- P.181

And being bound and determined to prove Coulter right, is this guy:

"Coulter worries about atheism, because she believes that morality is
impossible without belief in God's commands as the source of
morality. "If God is dead, everything is permitted" (277). This
completely ignores Darwin's account of the "moral sense" as rooted in
the evolved nature of the human animal, which would support a
morality of natural law. Apparently, Coulter would reject this
natural morality because it is not based on divine command. By
contrast, she declares, "religious people have certain rules based on
a book about faith with lots of witnesses to that faith" (281). ..."

posted by Larry Arnhart @
<http://darwinianconservatism.blogspot.com/2006/06/battle-of-titans-charles-darwin-versus.html>Saturday,
June 10,
2006
http://darwinianconservatism.blogspot.com/2006_06_01_darwinianconservatism_archive.html

~ Janice :)

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Jun 18 23:01:28 2006