Re: [asa] Coulter, and science

I haven't read Coulter's book either, but the reason I simply can't read it
isn't so much about her culture war stance on faith-science issues. Rather,
it's because of her attack on 9-11 widows. Maybe (probably) it's true that
some people bereaved on 9-11 have come to use that tragedy in cynicaly
self-serving ways. Tragedy doesn't erase the darker sides of human nature
even in those touched by it. But, I live near NYC, saw the smoke rising
from the twin towers when I evacuated my New Jesey office on that day, and
led worship the following Sunday in a church in which real 9-11 widows,
members of our church family, had just begun grieving -- probably the
hardest thing I ever had to do in my life. Anyone so crass as to pick on
9-11 widows in order to score book-hyping publicity points is beyond
contempt in my view. I don't care if everything else she says is spot-on
(which I'm sure it isn't) -- may she share the darkest circles of Dante's
vision with the all the other great hypocrites and pompous asses of history.

On 7/10/06, Michael Roberts <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>
> I get rather frustrated by those who don't seem to be able to accept the
> validity of historical science and pit it against experimental science.
> Those who argue this simply don't know what they are talking about and
> should learn a little bit about science before they sound off.
> I am sorry to say this Moorad but you have rabbited on about historical
> science far too often. You need to learn a little geology.
>
> Michael
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Alexanian, Moorad" <alexanian@uncw.edu>
> To: "Pim van Meurs" <pimvanmeurs@yahoo.com>
> Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Sunday, July 09, 2006 11:44 PM
> Subject: 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.
> >
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Jul 10 09:33:03 2006