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

No, she's not. Look, if you want to assert that, you actually have to provide some evidence. About right what? What interview has there ever been with Ann Coulter where she says she's just kidding, and that her detractors can't take a joke?Be specific, please. A transcript would be helpful. I don't know. But tell me this - how many times would I have to ask you if you were serious, and you replied "yes, totally serious", before I was allowed to conclude that you were, in fact, serious? That's another nemesis_juggernaut "fact", I guess - that is, something that doesn't actually happen. Well, I am actually trained in the field of literary analysis, and in the recognition of different genres and techniques in writing.How about you? What training in literature have you had? Any? Do you think Coulter feels that way? Can you cite specific evidence that she does?

She's not funny?

Tell me if you find this satirical: Hey, by your standard, I'm satirizing creationism. If you don't like it, it must be your lack of humor!

This doesn't make any sense. That is how you refute an opponent when their conclusions are based on false premises - you inform them of the true premises.The conclusions of science are not democratic. They're evidence-based, and as such, there are correct conclusions and incorrect ones.Any time a person in possession of correct information chooses to share that with someone in possession of no information, or incorrect information, that interaction is going to take the form of teacher/student - because that's exactly what teachers do (or are supposed to do,) disseminate correct information to people who lack it.I'm sorry you view that as "dishonest." But realistically, because the conclusions of ID and creationism are wrong at every step, the interaction can take no other form. Evolutionists and creationists are not equals, in regards to being in possession of the facts. Their interactions are not ever going to be able to take the form of equals sharing opinions, or whatever you would prefer, because of that. Because of the inherent inferiority of the creationist position.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

It doesn't mean anything. For people like Herpeton, no matter what happens, it proves creationism.Evolutionists can't present contradictory factual evidence? Proves creationism, obviously. Evolutionists present contradictory factual evidence? Proves creationism, obviously, because if creationism wasn't so correct, why would evolutionists be so rude and arrogant as to presume that they know better?

Yeah, for real. I mean it's not like expertise actually exists, right? A lifetime of devoting yourself to study in a field? Meaningless, of course.

Because evolution is science, and ID is not.Look the reason that we immediately jump to these conclusions is that they're always true. Either the guy's degree has nothing to do with biology, or it's from an unaccredited school. What, you think we don't know which schools are accredited and which are not? You can look it up, you know.With the evidence known at this time, it's simply impossible to follow the scientific method and arrive at the conclusion of ID. It's not possible. The scientific method doesn't take you there with the evidence that we have. Therefore anybody who concludes ID either is not starting from the evidence - the majority of cases - or is not following the method. Probably because the things he was saying were so absolutely stupid that intelligent people were taken aback, temporarily stunned by his ignorance. It happens. For Hovind and you? I believe it. Bush does not have a doctorate in any biological fields. I'm intimately familiar with the process of getting such a degree and let me assure you that, while it's possible to do it while being somewhat sheltered and naive, it's not possible to do it while being an idiot. It's simply not. The requirements are very stiff, assuming that we're talking about a real Ph.D. from an accredited school.But I realize that it's much more convinient for creationists to deny that expertise actually exists. Herpeton did exactly the same thing a few posts ago. Really? When?No, really. When? Specifically, when have any of us leveled challenges against her understanding of the law? I'm simply not familiar with whatever situation you're talking about. That's the only way anybody wins the Nobel prize, or gains any sort of noteriety as a scientist. They don't give out prizes for repeating what everybody already knows - they give them out for proving everybody else - including yourself - wrong.You have to know that about science. You didn't know that? You don't have much experience in the science community, then?

Quite wrong. Evolution is a theory of biology; in fact, it's the central organizing principle in biology. It's like the biological theory of relativity. Contrary to their statement on the website, the ICR is not accredited by the California Department of Education. Rather, their accrediation is from an accrediting body for which Henry Morris, the founder of the ICR graduate school, serves on the board of directors.That conflict of interest, as well as their little web-site shell game, essentially invalidates the ICR's accredation. Their accrediting body has been suspended several times due to such conflicts of interest, and their accredations cannot be held to be legitimate. I don't have time to go through these all right now, so could you narrow it down for me? Which of these individuals do you assert holds a Ph.D. in biology? Or biochemistry, perhaps? I did. The scientific method does not arrive at ID starting from the evidence we have.That's why it's impossible. It doesn't go there. He gets tripped up all the time. Most of the time he's lecturing to screened audiences. And he's renouned for being presented with rebuttals to his points and never having a response. (Bullfrogs, anyone?)People kick this guy's ass all the time - most recently the US Government for failure to obtain building permits - it's just that you're never allowed to see. Or never bother to find out. If you're trying to hold this guy up as some kind of paragon of creationist intelligence let me prepare you for some significant disappointment. You've seen glow-in-the-dark people? Sorry but what you've written here makes no sense. Right. Which one of us challenged Coulter on the law? Specific thread and post, please. That has nothing to do with Coulter, it has to do with Jerry Coyne. If there was a better theory than evolution, people like Coyne - biologists - would be the first lining up to prove it. Overturning the Darwinian model would be the coup of the century. The kind of thing that they give out Nobel prizes for.Coyne and the rest of the biological community don't have a vested interest in defending evolution. Quite the opposite - there is considerable fame and money to be had for the person or group that can prove evolution wrong. If evolution were obviously wrong, people like Coyne would be the first to say so. The medical community is not the scientific community. They don't employ the same standards of evidence. I doubt it. The fact that you appeared completely ignorant of the basic point I made above is essentially proof of that. Further, your consistent misunderstandings about what the ToE basically is, and the evidence that props it up, are even more evidence that you actually know pretty considerably less about science than most people here. No. It's like saying that if you don't know that computers run on electricity, you aren't a network administrator, no matter what you claim. And that just is true.

ICR isn't accredited by the CA Dept. of Education, because state educational departments don't accredit institutions. They authorize accrediting bodies.ICR is accredited by the Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools. ICR founder Henry Morris serves on the board of directors of that organization. As I asserted, that organization has had its credentialling suspended by the Department of Education on numerous occasions:

quote:

---

In 1995, a federal review was conducted and resulted in probation which gave TRACS eighteen months to improve or be removed from the list of official accreditors. These improvements were made, including eliminating the 'associate schools' category and changing chairmen[5].
In 2002, Timothy Sandefur argued that TRACS is "establishing criteria for accreditation which go beyond those standards arguably connected with the educational mission of a school." He cites the 1991 incident when Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools required racial diversity as a criteria for accreditation.[6] Sandefur argues that TRACS goes beyond the educational accredition mission, when they expect people to believe in some of their biblical foundations. He argues that if MSACS had to drop non-educational criteria TRACS should too.

---

Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools - WikipediaAre you sure you didn't just cut and paste the entire list? I mean, your first guy - Stephen Meyer - is a theologian with an undergraduate degree in geology. Kurt Wise is famous for being the paletontologist who openly asserts that all the physical evidence known to science supports evolution - he's just a creationist because that's what the Bible tells him to believe.But, sure. Plenty of guys on your list with degrees in biology, biochemistry, etc. But none of them are practicing scientists. They don't do any research; they just run the creationist roadshow in courtrooms and sound stages. They have degrees in science but they're not scientists, at least not any more, because none of them do any science. I'll grant you that. He's just not a very honest one. You think Hovind's gonna post that on his website? Or that Answers in Genesis will? You obviously don't do research on Hovind from the evolutionist side, or else you'd already know about such incidents. As an English major, I have to tell you that your attempt here at a neologism isn't very successful at communicating your meaning. "Illuminous" is not the opposite of "luminous", no more than "inflammable" is the opposite of "flammable." "Illuminary" sounds too much like "illuminate", which obviously means "to light up; to pass on wisdom."I'm not trying to argue, just saying. Your word didn't communicate your meaning very well. I knew what you meant anyway but I thought I'd poke a little fun. No, you're mistaken. The personal reasons are the ones that motivate creationists. Goo ahead, prove me wrong. Show me one atheist creationist. No? Show me one creationist who was convinced by the evidence, not by religion.You can't. Even your creationist biologists are all people who first became Christians, and then moved over to creationism. Not a single one of them ever promoted creationism before they were religious. And I'm asking you which one of us has. Specific thread and post, please. Makes perfect sense to me. Coulter has a law degree. From what basis would I challenge her interpretation of the law and expect to be taken seriously, except from an understanding of the law equal to or better than hers? And how would I obtain that understanding besides a serious, guided study of the subject? Such as one recieves for a law degree?You seem to think this is nonsensical. Me, I know that I don't put health advice from a mechanic on the same level as health advice from a doctor, because I believe in the idea of "expertise". You, apparently, do not. Do you eat food? I'm an assistant researcher with the USDA. Believe me when I tell you that if there is any corn for you to eat in 20 years, it will be a practical benefit of our understanding of evolution. Absolutely. Unlike you I'm completely willing to consider the possibility that I'm wrong; that evolution is wrong. In fact I'll even come right out and say that if evidence that completly disproves evolution is presented and verified, I'll be among the first to repudiate the whole idea. As vocally as I can. It wouldn't be a big thing for me; I was a creationist once, because that's what was supported by the evidence that I was aware of.But when I learned about more evidence, as a result of education, I saw that creationism was quite wrong, and that evolution was the most accurate model. But I'm still learning. Hundreds of times I've asked for compelling evidence against evolution but everything presented so far has failed because it wasn't true, or it didn't support that conclusion, or any number of other faults. But I'm still learning. If you have evidence that I haven't seen, I urge you to present it. But understand that I've been researching this issue for several years, now, and I doubt there's a creationist argument that I haven't already personally refuted. That number over there under my avatar isn't my score in Asteroids. In fact, what we have is a majority of Americans under the mistaken impression that creationism is just as scientific a theory as evolution, and that there's an equal amount of evidence for both.That's just not so. The overwhelming weight of the evidence is in favor of evolution, and the proof of this is that scientists working within an evolutionary paradigm are responsible for every biological advancement in the past 100 years, and scientists working in creationism are responsible for no advancements whatsoever. They don't even do science. They just waste time in courtrooms.

We know that that's false, however. There is no variation among haploid organisms that isn't the result of genetic differences. And there is no genetic difference in asexual organisms that is not the result of mutation.Because some of the bacteria were different from the rest, we know that they mutated to do so. And because they survived in an environment where their brethren did not due to those differences, we know that natural selection occured.So, in this case, what you say is absolutely false. Mutation did occur, new genetic sequences did arise - it's the only explanation - and therefore, evolution did occur.

The sort of shuffling you're referring to doesn't occur in haploid organisms. It's a feature only of sexually-reproducing diploid organisms. The bacteria we're talking about are asexual haploids.The only source of genetic variation in these organisms is mutation. The only source. Obviously not all of the bacteriums, because so few of them survived. The source of this resistance is natural selection promoting organisms with a certain mutation and eliminating those without. That change in the population is evolution. I'm absolutely not doing that. That's an old creationist canard, and it's 100% false. There's no confusion about what evolution means on my side - it's all on your side. You simply don't know what we're talking about when we use the word "evolution." We're talking about the change in allele frequencies over time that leads to new morphologies within species, and new species from old populations. The source of both of those kinds of changes are selective forces operating on genetically diverse individuals within a population. Not really. Speciation happens when populations are seperated, by one of a few different mechanisms, into genetically seperate reproductive communities. Typically we recognize these events long after the fact because of the genetic divergence that occurs between the two populations, but it is a significant mistake on your part to assert that the genetic divergence caused the speciation. The reverse is the truth - speciation causes genetic divergence. Mutation is the source of completely new genetic information. This has been consistently observed in the lab and in the wild. 100% wrong. Speciation has been observed thousands of times, within the lab and out in the wild. It's a well-understood process that we've seen happen over and over again. How does that question even make sense? Bacteria are in the form we find them today because today, that's the form they're in. The form we find them today, however, is very different, in many ways, from the forms we find them in as fossils from the past. Do you find it weird that both you and your father could be alive at the same time? No? Then what's weird about two different populations taking two different directions? Your problem is that you need to stop thinking of evolution as a telological process. Evolution is not driven by the future; it's driven by the present. The reason that one group of organisms gave rise to mammals is because that group, unlike others, found itself in environments that promoted those kinds of changes. Other organisms that did not give rise to mammals obviously found themselves in different environments. Like, perhaps, a well-organized fossil record that shows exactly that kind of change over time, as captured in static "snapshots" for every epoch of the Earth's history?Like, perhaps, a nested hierarchy of decendancy, as inferred from the same genetic tools that are used in courts of law to establish paternity?How much more proof of your origin as a prokaryote do you need than the simple fact that the only reason you can even breath oxygen is because simplified prokaryotes indwell within your very cells?

Sexual reproduction is common, sure, but it's hardly the mode of reproduction for the majority of living things - which are asexual bacteria. In organisms with a long generation time, you can't rely on mutation to provide enough phenotypic variation. Chromosome shuffling provides a way to generate phenotypic variation without suffering the downsides of increasing the mutation rate.In bacteria, which can reproduce a new generation every 40 minutes, they can rely on mutations for all the new phenotypes they need. Mostly. Almost all bacteria have some means of exchanging portions of their genome with other individuals, but that's not sexual recombination of chromosomes, like in you or me. Lol! Boy, you've just got no idea what you're talking about, do you?Human cells have 46 chromosomes and are diploid for 23 homologous chromosomes. Other organisms have different numbers.Bacteria don't have chromosomes at all. They have one main nucleic molecule, organized in a ring (instead of in a chain like in eukaryotes), and potentially several smaller genetic rings called "plasmids." And because they only have one copy of every gene in their genome - half as many as you or I have - they're called "haploid." This doesn't make any sense. A change in a nucleotide - from A to C, let's say - is not shuffling, it's a mutation. Rearrangement of single base pairs doesn't really happen, it's not a common mutation."Shuffling" refers to the fact that sexually reproducing organisms donate one of each pair of homologus chromosomes to their offspring. The result is that individual chromosomes in the population get shuffled together and paired off.That doesn't happen in haploid, asexual organisms, because each offspring is a clone of the parent. There's no shuffling, there's just mutation. Which can't happen in bacteria! Seriously, this is not a difficult point to grasp. Bacteria don't have the chromosomes to shuffle. They have one closed ring of DNA that is duplicated in its entirety for each offspring. The only source of variation in bacteria is the changes that might occur to that ring during the duplication process - those changes are called mutations. The definition has never changes. The Theory of Evolution is "the scientific model that explains the history and diversity of life on Earth as changes in allele frequencies due to random mutations and natural selection." That definition covers all changes, from "macro" to "micro", because all those changes are essentially changes in allele frequency. I'm not referring to hybrids or "subspecies." I'm referring to new species from old ones, which has been observed thousands of times.Here's a few instances where it has happened: Observed Instances of SpeciationThe idea that speciation has never been observed is nonsense. No major creationist organization puts forth that position. I don't know who told you that we've never observed new species from old ones, but whoever did misinformed you. New species are observed all the time. Whatever was unique to its environment, over that time, that caused those traits to be selected for. Different environments, different selection. Selection is environmentally determined. Well, bacteria can generate a new "step" every 40 minutes. How many periods of 40 minutes have existed in 4 billion years? You do the math, you want to know so bad. I don't see it as an important question. That is exactly what we do see, which is how evolution is proved. If God created life to look as though it evolved, to act like it had evolved, to expect to be treated like it had evolved, isn't that a pretty big hint that we should damn well do what God clearly wants us to do, and explain life as though it had evolved?If the best you have is "God is trying to fool us", I'm not very impressed. If God created living things to be treated as though they evolved, who are we to argue? If you didn't come from prokayotes, why would God build you out of prokaryotes?I understand that we're dealing with concepts in genetics that you know absolutely nothing about, and I apologize if my post isn't much clearer. But there's really no simple way to describe these concepts, and your ignorant antagonism certainly doesn't give me much opportunity to correct your misunderstandings. Maybe if you were asking questions in order to learn, instead of making ignorant statements thinking you can win a debate, you'd have an opportunity to learn. Why is that something you're determined to throw back in people's faces?

There's only four genetic "letters." New orders are all that there are ever going to be.The order is the only difference between the genetic codes of, say, you, and, say, octopuses; between donkeys and daffodils; between any organism and any other organism.Every living thing, all the same four letters. Just in different order. If changing the order isn't new information, then new information is not required to go from daffodils to donkeys. No, you don't. The DNA doesn't "mix." It stays in discreet chromosome units. There are 23 pairs of homologous chromosomes in every human cell. For each pair, you got one from mom and one from dad. And when you have children, you'll donate one (at random) from each pair to your child in your sperm.That's shuffling - the fact that, as sexual diploid organisms, we get half of our chromosomes from each parent, and we give half of our chromosomes to each child. Lol! Yes, floods have happened in the past. I can point to one that happened recently in the US.

It's not suboptimal. That's the answer to your question; the explanation about how asexual reproduction is optimal for bacteria. Just as sexual reproduction is optimal in other situations. No, they don't. Everyone's thought of these things, NJ. They're just better at thinking about them than you are. The evolution of sex is not a mystery. It's been studied extensivly, but you've chosen to remain ignorant of those conclusions lest your faith in creationism be challenged. If you're interested in actually learning the scientific facts behind the evolution of reproduction, I suggest you start here: CB350: The origin of sexand pick up a few of the books on this reading list. No, they don't. Chromosomes are linear lengths of genetic material. Bacteria have loops of genetic material. Typically, they have 1 plus a few plasmids. They do not have "46 chromosomes", as you asserted. Which is completely irrelevant. Look, you're not fooling anybody. You've made it abundantly clear that you have no idea what you're talking about. And what is your proof of that? That is, in fact, a perfect example of speciation. Much of the rest of your post is outright false. It's an amazing example of your poor education and reasoning skills. The donkey thing? Please. Did you even know what you were saying when you wrote that part?Like, I don't even know where to start. You don't even seem to know what a species is. That's not what "eukaryote" means. The reason we know that eukaryotes evolved from prokaryotes is because their cellular organelles - the defining character of eukaryotes - are made out of prokaryotes.NJ, at this point, I have to say that you're the most ignorant creationist I've ever met. You have absolutely no grasp of the scientific principles at work here. And this thread, about Ann Coulter's book, is not the place to correct them. If you have specific questions about what you don't understand, then I invite you to ask them in more appropriate threads.

I told you already. Sex is advantageous in species with such long generation times, because it increases phenotypic diversity without the disadvantage of out-of-control mutation rates.Were you just not paying attention, or what? You're not going to help your ignorance problem if you don't make an effort to read my posts. Those are not the same thing. Show me one quote where evolutionists have posited intent behind natural selection. That's the position of the Intelligent Design camp, not the theory of evolution, which does not speak to the issue of "intent" in the biological world. No, you said that all living things have 46 chromosomes. This claim is incorrect. Now you're just making up nonsense. That's exactly what I said. What you are ignorant of is the fact that those organelles are actually devolved prokaryotes that, billions of years ago, began to indwell within other cells. That's why things like mitochondria have their own DNA.You really need to be paying more attention, NJ. You're simply not understanding what I'm communicating to you in plain language because you're not taking the time to read closely and think about it.