Ann Coulter on Evolution - 08-24-11

[kallipolis]

Did you watch the YouTube video in the first post? I think its analysis of the bacterial flagellum ought to give you some reinforcement if you didn't already know about it.

I am not one for taking such an aristocratic view of the human person too seriously.

In fact, not at all.

Some might say that I am not sufficiently elitist to look down my nose at the madding crowd.

 

[FirmaFan]

Deductive reasoning encourages me to believe that if the facts were placed before the American people, then Evolutionary Theory would easily trump Creationist theory.

150 years and counting...

 

[T-Rexx]

Deductive reasoning encourages me to believe that if the facts were placed before the American people, then Evolutionary Theory would easily trump Creationist theory.

Deductive reasoning is dangerous to people who want to impose an authoritarian theocracy on America.

That is why Ann Coulter and the Republicans oppose the teaching of evolution. It's not because they are so stupid as to actually believe in creationism.

And, BTW, we are NOT talking about "a tiny, but highly vocal Republican minority" here. Republicans represent about HALF of America.

 

[kallipolis]

Deductive reasoning is dangerous to people who want to impose an authoritarian theocracy on America.

That is why Ann Coulter and the Republicans oppose the teaching of evolution. It's not because they are so stupid as to actually believe in creationism.

And, BTW, we are NOT talking about "a tiny, but highly vocal Republican minority" here. Republicans represent about HALF of America.

It would appear that you continue to speculate.

The Gallop poll informs us that 25 pct of Americans do not believe in evolution.

When I argue the matter of Evolutionary Theory, with Creationists I am obliged not to speculate, relying entirely on supportable facts.

Provide me with supportable facts to support your assertions.

 

[construct]

I agree that many people who lack belief in the theory of evolution are not so knowledgeable as to be able to discuss the bacterial flagellum. And presumably that means that the majority of the population do not hold to her views.

Perhaps there's the rub. Perhaps you will agree that more than half Americans lack belief in the theory of evolution, and that less than half have belief in the theory of evolution.

All I have noted so far is personal speculation driven by a hatred of Coulter and her opinions on Creationist theories.

Deductive reasoning encourages me to believe that if the facts were placed before the American people, then Evolutionary Theory would easily trump Creationist theory.

Then I need to take out "presumably." I do not believe that most people who lack belief in the theory of evolution have any knowledge at all of the bacterial flagellum. In fact, I doubt that most people who do accept the theory of evolution have any knowledge of how the bacterial flagellum has been used in the arguments about the theory of evolution.

And if the American people haven't been presented with the facts about evolutionary theory in high school, then I'm astonished.

Now, did you know that the creationists were using the bacterial flagellum to support their theory and how that argument was easily debunked? If not, you have new reinforcement for your anti-creationism in this thread.

 

[kallipolis]

Then I need to take out "presumably." I do not believe that most people who lack belief in the theory of evolution have any knowledge at all of the bacterial flagellum. In fact, I doubt that most people who do accept the theory of evolution have any knowledge of how the bacterial flagellum has been used in the arguments about the theory of evolution.

And if the American people haven't been presented with the facts about evolutionary theory in high school, then I'm astonished.

Now, did you know that the creationists were using the bacterial flagellum to support their theory and how that argument was easily debunked. If not, you have new reinforcement for your anti-creationism in this thread.

I have several times corresponded with Ken Miller (Kenneth R.Miller) on his take on bacterial flagellum, as proposed by Creationists and he has convinced me that there is no sound basis for believing that Creationists' can provide anything of substance to substantiate their argumentation; even totally meaningless.

 

[construct]

I have several times corresponded with Ken Miller (Kenneth R.Miller) on his take on bacterial flagellum, as proposed by Creationists and he has convinced me that there is no sound basis for believing that Creationists' can provide anything of substance to substantiate their argumentation; even totally meaningless.

Then you've been much more thorough about it than I. I had heard the argument a few years ago, but it didn't stick. I was glad to have it called once again to my attention.

My discussions with creationists have been more theological than biological, and my approach has been more a critique of natural theology--even though the character of God is asserted to be revealed in nature, such observation cannot lead to the Christian God. Observation of a fallen world reveals a fallen god. In this argument, how we got here becomes immaterial. I simply refuse to chase that rabbit.

 

[hotatlboi]

It is a mathematical impossibility, for example, that all 30 to 40 parts of the cell's flagellum -- forget the 200 parts of the cilium! -- could all arise at once by random mutation. According to most scientists, such an occurrence is considered even less likely than John Edwards marrying Rielle Hunter, the "ground zero" of the impossible.

Coulter's specific assertion here is correct.

Unfortunately, she thinks this means she has disproved evolution, when she has not.

Ignorance of the subject matter is the problem with these people.

 

[kallipolis]

Then you've been much more thorough about it than I. I had heard the argument a few years ago, but it didn't stick. I was glad to have it called once again to my attention.

My discussions with creationists have been more theological than biological, and my approach has been more a critique of natural theology--even though the character of God is asserted to be revealed in nature, such observation cannot lead to the Christian God. Observation of a fallen world reveals a fallen god. In this argument, how we got here becomes immaterial. I simply refuse to chase that rabbit.

I won't go there either knowing that nothing constructive can come of it.

 

[kallipolis]

Coulter's specific assertion here is correct.

Unfortunately, she thinks this means she has disproved evolution, when she has not.

Ignorance of the subject matter is the problem with these people.

This is not the case. They know their subject very well.

It is their interpretations that reveal their ignorance.

 

[kallipolis]

Forty per cent of Americans still believe in creationism, says a Gallup Poll published Feb. 19, 2011.

According to the poll, 52 per cent of Republicans believe in creationism, while 34 per cent of Democrats and independents do.

A quick reading of this Huff Post article - which I will read as factual, despite there being no link to the Gallop results - confirms that the majority of Americans do not support Creationist theories.

 

[bankside]

Ann Coulter is not rejecting scientific views of evolution, she is rejecting the straw man conjured up by creationists who've realized the have no arguments to make against actual evolutionary theory.

When I saw Kirk Cameron waving around some sort of taxidermied duck lizzard prop, I realized he had joined the long line of religoius pious charlatans who see only the opportunity to profit from gullible free men.

Idiots are allowed to spend their money as quickly as smart men, and Cameron wants to be first in line when they open their wallets. That's probably a good career move for a failed, unconvincing actor. It's a little harder to understand why Ann Coulter has joined the same queue of charlatans. The usual career choice for a person of her ilk was not religious agitator, but whore.

 

[opinterph]

Various polls and studies show that most people either completely reject or only partially accept biological evolution and modern geology and cosmology. Hence all the young earth creationists that keep trying to ruin our education system.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/114544/darwin-birthday-believe-evolution.aspx

Here's another link to the same source, but including poll results over time along with other data and details ...

http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/evolution-creationism-intelligent-design.aspx​

 

[bankside]

Let me google that for you:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/evolution-creationism-intelligent-design.aspx

Far too many words are being expended in debating the precise percentage of Americans who do not understand that evolution is a real phenomenon going on around us all the time, and that it is the path taken by our ever-mutating lineage over billions of years as one species cascades into another.

Sometimes I think that kind of diversion is deliberate.

Bottom line is, a shockingly large number of respondents to that poll are wallowing in abject ignorance, and often quite proud of it too.

The trend line is such that a few more people appear to understand evolution is real, and a few fundamentalists are exchanging their "Abracadabra!" view of creation for a newly-invented fable that is much more subtle in its offence to the facts.

 

[kallipolis]

Here's another link to the same source, but including poll results over time along with other data and details ...

http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/evolution-creationism-intelligent-design.aspx​

The Gallup poll indicates that Creationist beliefs among Americans is gradually declining.

 

[kallipolis]

Here's the poll on Gallup's site, with the questions asked.

Edit: Posted before seeing opinterph's post.

Thank you for your post.

 

[bike10]

She make great poster child for Condoms.

 

[kallipolis]

The trend line is such that a few more people appear to understand evolution is real, and a few fundamentalists are exchanging their "Abracadabra!" view of creation for a newly-invented fable that is much more subtle in its offence to the facts.

The numbers are moving in the right direction for common sense and proven science.

I am never worried by the subtlety of an opposing argument; as you are well aware.

 

[hotatlboi]

This is not the case. They know their subject very well.

Negative, that is the case, as evidenced by this quote from Coulter.

She does not know what the theory of evolution is or what it describes.

She thinks of it in the "monkeys with typewriters" terms, which is a common pitfall for many that dismiss it without learning the first thing about it.

 

[kallipolis]

Negative, that is the case, as evidenced by this quote from Coulter.

She does not know what the theory of evolution is or what it describes.

She thinks of it in the "monkeys with typewriters" terms, which is a common pitfall for many that dismiss it without learning the first thing about it.

Coulter knows her subject very well. Her interpretations are flawed.

Never underestimate your opponent with elitist observations that presume to read the mind of those who are very persuasive in persuading their carefully selected audiences.