Re: [asa] The New Episcopal Church

This 'Godless liberal' (Myers) was able to demolish most of Coulter's
arguments because they were fundamentally flawed, misleading or
erroneous. Her treatment of the peppered moth is just outrageous, her
understanding of evolutionary theory is minimal.

And PZ has a challenge for all those who think Coulter's chapters on
evolution have much of any redeeming quality

<quote>Here's the simple summary. Ann Coulter has written this long
book full of creationist gobbledygook. I can't possibly take the
whole thing apart, so I'm asking the Coulter fans to get specific in
their support. Pick a paragraph that you agree with and that you
believe makes a strong, supportable point about science—anything from
chapters 8-11 will do. Don't be vague, be specific. I'll reply with
details of my disagreement (or heck, maybe you'll find some innocuous
paragraph that I agree with—I'll mention that here, too.)

Because the letters I am getting suggest that those fans have some
comprehension problems, I'll spell it out.

    Read Coulter's book, Godless. (uh-oh, I may have just filtered
out 90% of her fans with that first word.)
    Pick ONE paragraph from chapters 8-11 that you think is just
wonderfully insightful, and that you agree with entirely.
    Open up your email software, and compose a message to me. You can
use a pseudonym, but please do use a valid email address. I won't
publish your address, but I'm not going to reply to people I can't
contact.
    Type in the paragraph that you think is solid and believable.
Yeah, it's a tiny bit of work, but it'll save me the trouble of
typing it in myself. You're a believer, it's worth it, right?
    Explain briefly why you think this paragraph is good stuff. If
you want to explain a little bit of the context in justification,
that's good too.
    Send it to me.
   That's not so hard now, is it? I'm finding that Coulter fans are
fervent and enthusiastic and insistent, so asking them to take baby
steps with me and show me the simplest first fragments that will lead
to my comprehension of the wit and insight of the faboo Ms Coulter
shouldn't be too much to ask.
   I promise to post any submissions that meet those criteria, with
my reply, as long as I don't get too many cut&paste jobs at once.</
quote>

There is your chance Janice... Somehow I doubt that Myers will get
much of any uptake on his challenge.

Myers demolished the 'science' chapters in Coulter's book in his
posting http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/06/
ann_coulter_no_evidence_for_ev.php

So can someone explain why Coulter's treatment of evolution is done
so poorly, even though she seems to have gotten IDers to look over
her shoulder? Why is her treatment of the peppered moth flawed in so
many aspects?

Coulter could have upstaged these liberals by discussing evolution in
an accurate manner, educating her audience at the same time. Instead
she chose to give more ammunition to these 'Godless liberals'. Makes
you almost believe Ann is a closet one...

Compare this to PZ Myers' posting

<quote>
As a scientist and an Episcopalian, I cherish the prayer that follows
a baptism, that the newly baptized may receive "the gift of joy and
wonder in all God's works." I spent the early years of my adulthood
as an oceanographer, studying squid and octopuses, including their
evolutionary relationships. I have always found that God's creation
is "strange and wonderfully made" (Psalm 139). ...
  The vast preponderance of scientific evidence, including geology,
paleontology, archaeology, genetics and natural history, indicates
that Darwin was in large part correct in his original hypothesis.
  I simply find it a rejection of the goodness of God's gifts to say
that all of this evidence is to be refused because it does not seem
to accord with a literal reading of one of the stories in Genesis.
Making any kind of faith decision is based on accumulating the best
evidence one can find what one's senses and reason indicate, what the
rest of the community has believed over time, and what the community
judges most accurate today.</quote>
It's a good thing that article is loaded with Bible quotes and other
religious nonsense, or I'd be tempted to become an Episcopalian. Oh,
well, even with all the wacky mythological stuff, she still looks
like one of the good ones. Congratulations, Dr Jefferts Schori! While
I'm not about to join a church, you do exhibit the kind of sensible
perspective on the real world I'd like to see much, much more of in
religious leaders…although, looking at the comments here, some
Christianists are less than thrilled with the election of a
rationalist to head a church, while others seem to be enthusiastic.
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/06/the_episcopalia.html

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Jun 20 16:52:58 2006