Critique of Ann Coulter's The Church of Liberalism: Godless

Where did he mention it? I'd genuinely like to see it.

Thanks for presenting something Brenna. Just looking at these from our vantage point, they are baseless allegations. These are claims that she plagiarized, but why hasn't anyone transcribed her literature from the alleged material that she plagiarized from?From the Rude Pundit: In other words, show her words in comparison to the words of the article(s) that she allegedly plagiarized from. The first chapter is 22 pages long. That's a lot of paragraphs, sentences, and words to narrow down. What, on the first chapter of Godless, did she plagiarize from? Which 60 Minutes transcript? 60 Minutes has been airing for over 30 years. That's miles of potential transcripts. Where are the specifics? What did she plagiarize from? Court documents? Another book on Willie Horton by another author? What on pg. 37 did plagiarize and whom did she commit the alleged plagiary against? What did she plagiarize and to whom she commit it against? Where was the source of the original list that she plagiarized, and which book or article of hers is the alleged act contained? These are baseless assertions at this point without a lick of specifics. I mean, if it was so clear to Barrie that she plagiarized, why hasn't anyone posted that information? Why couldn't anyone at least give the sources of plagiarized material so we could compare and contrast ourselves? Like I said, baseless.In any case, I appreciate yoo providing something more than hearsay.

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

Even if you don't agree with her political flavor, its a good read. Besides, she's funny. Al Franken is funny, even though I think he's an idiot. Its kind of like "The Family Guy." The writers are very liberal and I obviously pick up on the satire against conservatives... but its still the funniest show on the planet.I say you buy it cheap on eBAY.

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

I went to Rude Pundit and you just copy and pasted what I already addressed. It gives no specifics whatsoever. No, it doesn't. Here are the links. Ot of three of the four, they're broken and the last one is irrelevant.Ann Coulter: Biography and Latest Articles
Latest news from around the world | The Guardian
WordPress › ReadMe
Praxagora Your link was bare and gave no specifics for how or where to referrence any of the claims it made. And being that the same information you gave me is being parroted on other leftist blogs, it gives me no basis to do any homework of any kind. I'd like nothing more than to investigate the matter, but I have nowhere to start! This is the only site I found in a search engine other than the regurgitated blog you sent me.Editor and Publisher I even copied and pasted what your link said. Again, it gave no specifics. and the sublinks bring up error 404 tags. So yes, plagiarism at this point is unfounded.

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

Yeah, I just clicked on your links. Most of Rude Pundit's linksI only found one thing specific. And it was about her alleged plagiarism of a list of beneficially medical procedures due to Adult Stem Cell research. So, I checked her sources in the back of my book, and they are as follows:52. Michael Fumento, "The Adult Answer" National Review, December 20, 2004
54. Hankook Ilbo, "Stem Cell Research May Be Money Game," Korea Times, July 8, 2005
56. Michael Fumento, "Adult Stem Cells Provide New Life For Livers," Scripps Howard News Service, October 20, 2005
59. See gnerally, Michael Fumento, "Why the Media Miss the Stem-cell Story," Citizen Magazine, May 2005, http://www.fumento.com/sustemcell.htmlNaturally, every one the claims that comes from Coulter are predominantly backed up by Michael Fumento. There is no plagiarism, I have the book in my lap as we speak reading the index. There was only one other referrence that was even questionable, but there are only so many ways you can reword the facts about the case, which she did.also understand that published books are held to a higher standard than message board posts, tv appearances, et

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

The fact that she has you so riled up allows you to play yourself right into her hands. And yes, there is satire all throughout all of her books. Its called being witty, and liberal pundits do it all the time. I can only assume that it no longer becomes satire if you just so happen to disagree with the message.

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

Okay, so this is where she is said to take all of the information from according to Raw Story:Page not found - Illinois Right to LifeAnd this is what they say about it:In an endnote, Coulter indicates that the information on her list was taken from the work of fellow Townhall contributor and author Michael Fumento, and provides a link to a page of his website devoted to articles he wrote on "understanding stem cells."

​

A RAW STORY examination of the numerous articles by Fumento linked at the address provided by Coulter found no comparable list. Articles by Fumento that did contain lists of adult stem cell "breakthroughs" (articles from 2001, and 2004,) employed far different language.

​

However, the first item on Coulter's list - which isn't mentioned at the Illinios Right to Life website - does appear to be derived from the opening lines of an article written by Fumento last October."But all of the compilation of works for the Illinoisrighttolife derive from Fumento's work and Hankook Ilbo, which Coulter cited. So what is the controversy? That she placed the facts concerning Adult Stem Cell benefits in the same order as the Illinois website?Far be it from me to point out the obvious, but this quibbling is much-ado-about-nothing in a presumed attempt to detract from the actual points of the argument - which is Adult Stem Cells have yielded far more benefits than that of Fetal Stem Cells. In other words, abortion isn't somehow justified over Fetal Stem Cells.

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

I only know who Swift is, but I've never read his works. So is Ann. Yup, that sounds about right. I can't remember some of the off-the-wall humor she uses. One thing that comes to mind is somethig about how liberals paint the picture of Intelligent Designers sitting at home somewhere in the Bible-belt "speaking in tongues while watching NASCAR." Why did she mine by that? She was using satire to elucidate the point that some liberally-minded folks have a misguided perception about ID'ers. Her books are full of similar notions. To say that she doesn't use satire, when its so obvious when she uses it, is utterly ridiculous. So, you honestly believe that she wants all people from the New York Times dead? So do I. Now, am I being serious? Do I really want all the people from the New York Times dead, or did I just say that because its satirical? That's only because the silver-tongued starlett makes your beliefs look silly and you don't like that. She's witty. Some of them are very good at it. And for however crass they can be, I still get the humor. I'm not crying over it like you. I think you need to get some thicker skin. Your delicate sensibilities get hurt all too easily. You know, some people put their aborted fetuses on display, or a crucifix in a jar of their own urine, or a pile of their own feces on display, all in the name of art. You know, making a parody on someone being "pysched" about an abortion is a far cry from someone who actually dismembers babies. Again, develop some thicker skin. I guess its only satire when you like it. You're the go-to-guy to decide what is or what isn't satire. Enjoy your opinon and be thankful that you live in a country where that freedom of speech can be expressed.

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

All that means to me is his parents were well off. Georg Bush is a Yale graduate, but that doesn't stop people from calling him an idiot. Cripes, I know a man who graduated from MIT and CalTech, but you'd be hard pressed to hear him compose a coherent sentence or have him tie his shoes. Though going to an Ivy League school does not mean that you are neccessarily bright, I would say that he's bright. He's just an idiot as far as politics go. Heh. Yes it does. So how is Ann any different? That would require some effort. I really don't feel like going down to Barnes and Nobles right now being that its 2100 hours.

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

If you go back and read what I actually wrote, I was denouncing the connection of Harvard students somehow inexplicably being uber-intelligent. To me, going to Harvard bespeaks more of being born into the privaleged-class than it does intelligence. But to be sure, I even said that Al Franken was intelligent. Its his political views that horrify me. I was simply dismissing the your coveted connection ot him going to Harvard somehow meaning, by default, that he's intelligent. No. Bush IS one of those privaleged kids that I speak of, and I make no apologies for it. As well, he's a horrible orator. I make no apologies for that either. However, I find myself in agreement with most of his policies, certainly not all, and for this reason I chose him over Senator Flip-Flop and Vice President Internet. "Last Monday, after my debate with Coulter at the Universal Amphitheatre in L.A... Ann continued: “I haven’t seen so many agitated Mexicans since the World Cup Soccer Games were in L.A.” As offended as the diners were, the waiters were pissed." -Al FrankenNow, see, first he demonizes Ann for making fun of Mexicans, which she didn't do. She merely said that she hasn't seen so Mexicans so agaitated before. That was satire. Then Franken proceeds to actualy make fun of Mexicans by insinuating that all of the waiters are Mexican. Was that satire? Yes, it was. I got it. Was it offensive? It was certainly more suspect than what Ann had said, but I don't get all butt-hurt over things like some of the people here on EvC. In any case, it was pretty stupid to try and point out that Ann was being offensive, when right after he nullified his own point by being more offensive. Yeah, but hon, like I said, that would require effort on my part.

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

Wow, those guys are talented.

---

“If chance be the father of all flesh then disaster is his rainbow in the sky. And when you hear of, state of emergencies, sniper kills ten, youths go looting, bomb blasts school, it is but the sound of man worshipping his maker” -Steve Turner

I thought Coyne was a professor of Biology at the U of Colorado, Boulder. Who am I thinking of? Anyone know? He's supposed to be an eminent professor of evolutionary biology...?

---

“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal

I've read the book and what I gathered was that she criticized one aspect of theoretical biology, namely, the theory of evolution. She did not criticize the whole of biology. That's absurd. Why is that when an evolutionist uses their credentials to back them up, they are alright, but when an ID'er does the same, he must not know anything about science or he must have recieved his diploma from a diploma mill? I've seen Hovind take on a panel of three professors of biology and wiped the floor with them. I don't particularly agree with much of what Hovind says, but he sure shut them up. It was an embarassment. I felt bad for the men because I knew their own students were watching in silent horror as. By the middle of it they were stammering and making non-sensical remarks that bore no revelence to the topic. The point is, being a professor of biology may or may not be impressive. Some of the world's biggest morons are those with college degrees. (I'm sure those of you who disagree might change their minds when I point out George W. Bush as an example). Coulter knows more about the histroy of evolution than evolutionists do. And by that, I'm referring to the frauds and distortions that everyone wants to forget about. I've read her book and it was surprisingly eloquent. The last half of her book was devoted to evolution, its demonstrable frauds, and ID. It was well written. Aside from which, you do realize that we all must apparently be biology professors to discuss the ToE according to the way you describe things. I think we all are screwed, save two or three EvC'ers at most. She is a lawyer and I see plenty of people on this forum that don't know anything about law challenge her, and yet, they have the temerity to give their jurisprudence as if it meant a thing. I guess what's good for the goose should be good for the gander. Either that or someone who has wrapped up their livelihood in the theory of evolution, one could scarcely believe that someone could betray all of their life's work, watching it dismantle before their eyes. Nay, they would be more inclined to make countless excuses for a theory that already has countless excuses.Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : typo

---

“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal

Well, look, she has a silver tongue and rapier wit... Most of her writings are edgy and politcally satirical. What she presents concerning evolution is the standard objections that all evolutionary defectors understand. She also makes the marriage between the theory and its inherent pro-atheist stance, even in spite of many of them seeking divorce themselves from science and atheism. I see it the way she does. I don't think anyone could possibly get as possible as she has in the last few years or have her books number one bestsellers everytime without her having at least a few marbles upstairs. Granted, but Coulter didn't invent these objections. Other professors of biology, paleontology, cytologists, botonists, geneticists, etc, have expressed their disdain with the current paradigm. Coulter simply expounds on what they've already uncovered. I find it rather devisive that people should even object to this because we all do that on some level. Everything we know has been taught to us, either by experience or by authority. This isn't as ridiculous as some would like it to be. There is a reason why there is such a polarization. And its because the texts of ID and all their examples are very persuasive, whereas her detractors would assume it to be pervasive. Lastly, I'm willing to bet that those of her most scathing critics haven't read a word of hers. They simply heard another pundit who shares their ideology bash her and they just jumped on the bandwagon.

---

“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal

Neither evolution or ID are apart of a scientific field. Both are theories that employ science to corroborate their claims based on the merits of science. Tell me which of these is not accredited? Cripes, even ICR's university is accredited and has to be continually updated to stay accredited.Not Found | School of Biblical ApologeticsBut you feel that is biased, so which of these proponents of ID has a 'paper-mill degree, as opposed to a legitimate BS, Masters or PhD?'Fellows | Discovery Institute
Fellows | Center for Science and Culture
Faculty | The Institute for Creation Research
Page not found - Reasons to Believe
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/bios/default.aspNope.... Not real scientists. Its just some of those 'sudo sientistz that hate evilution!' Explain why it is simply impossible? You do understand the principle that ID is an inference in the same exact way that evolution is an inference, right? Both camps are looking at the same evidence they are just interpreting the evidence differently. Not quite. Have a look-see.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMpk7WerFWw

quote:

---

It was an embarassment.

---

Yeah, that's it. Hovind uses the same arguments everytime in the same format. You think someone like Michael Shermer would have come prepared to do battle. I'm shocked that no one trips him up in his own game. And he doesn't write books on ID either so that's irrelevant. Sorry, but I've been to college and have seen the worlds illuminous people pass through with ease. It is true, however, that recieving a PhD is not a simple journey. Surely I'm not referring to most Post Doctorates. I don't doubt Coyne's credentials or his sincerity. What I'm callinf into question is how people ahve arrived at the notion that Coulter couldn't possibly have done her homework. No, don't you understand? She has a degree in law. Therefore, by your argument, no one that doesn't have a law degree must never challenge Coulter because they couldn't possibly know a thing or two about law without having a degree in it. So how is it any different that she defers knowledge to those proponents of ID? Its not like she makes the stuff up. All the arguments she uses are already well-established arguments in support of Intelligent Design. What does that have to do with Coulter? She isn't out for a Nobel, and even suposing that she was, she is far to brash to ever be considered. I probably have more experience in the field of science than the average layman on EvC. However, a few months ago I was just a lowly assistant researcher assigned to augment, not lead the team. The project I was on had to do with medicine and not anything related to evolution. So either way it bears no relevance. But, even my nominal experience is more than the average person on EvC has. But we don't flame them over that, nor should we. Its ridiculous to assume that unless someone is currently working in a specific field, they couldn't possibly know anything about the debate. That's like saying unless you are a Network Administrator, you don't squat about computers. Its just not true.

---

“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal