RE: [asa] Coulter, and science

The controversial issues labeled as "science" in Coulter's book dwell with "applications" of scientific findings, which are based on particular moral views. The findings of experimental science are never is disagreement with the Christian faith. It is some aspects of historical science and uses of scientific findings that are "attacked" by Coulter. I have ordered her book for our library and look forward to reading it but have seen her often on TV.

 
Moorad

________________________________

From: Pim van Meurs [mailto:pimvanmeurs@yahoo.com]
Sent: Sun 7/9/2006 3:48 PM
To: Alexanian, Moorad
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Coulter, and science

If her 'insights' into liberals matches her 'insights' into science,
then things would be even more worrisome but that is not really the
issue here. In this case, her understanding of science is not limited to
'some claims' but permeates her book.
That should be of significant worry to anyone interested in good science
education. Ann Coulter seems to be doing much harm to science, religion
and even her main cause 'conservatism'.

On talkereason James Downard continues his exploration of Ann Coulter's
'confusions' when it comes to scientific fields. What surprises me is
how many (out of context) quotes Coulter seems to be using, many of
which have been discussed on the various groups.
For instance she quotes Raup, as Downard observes

<quote>As those familiar with the apologetics of creationism will
already know, Coulter's authority quoting of Raup falls well within
standard operating procedures for antievolutionists who prefer lifting
opinions from people rather than evaluating data. Examples for just the
Raup case run from Young Earth creationist Duane Gish (1993, 77-79;
1995, 350-351) to ID patron saint Phillip Johnson (1991, 170-171) and
Old Earth "progressive creationist" Robert C. Newman, "Conclusion," in
Moreland & Reynolds (1999, 154).</quote>

http://www.talkreason.org/articles/coulter2.cfm

As Wikipedia points out

<quote>Admittedly having no background on the science of the subject
herself, Coulter says she turned to tutors in writing this section of
the book: "I couldn't have written about evolution without the generous
tutoring of Michael Behe <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe>,
David Berlinski <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Berlinski>, and
William Dembski <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Dembski>..." Behe,
Dembski and Berlinski are all fellows of the Discovery Institute
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute>, the hub of the
intelligent design <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design>
movement, which Coulter endorses in the book.</quote>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godless:_The_Church_of_Liberalism

Seems even more worrisome that her comments were based on tutoring by
well known ID activists.

Personally, I could care less about Coulter's political leanings, what
IS my concern is the level of science expoused in her book and the
damage she may inflict on (conservative) Christians who take her
comments seriously.

Alexanian, Moorad wrote:

>I have not read her book and I do believe that there may be some disputed claims being made on the issue of evolution. However, I am sure those who are attacking her are using her scientific views as a venue to attack the real target, her political views and insights into liberals.
>
>
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Jul 9 18:44:56 2006