|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Critique of Ann Coulter's The Church of Liberalism: Godless | ||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5032 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
Q's link
quote: Well this might well NOT, be made-up and even incline to Ann's purview. I have seen her on TV, but when science issues came up, she quickly was 'stepping' into saying what was liberal vs what is clearly to be heard on Christian Radio etc. ( apparently not RECOGnized by the host(s)). That said, IF Ann was only pointing to the POLITICAL aspects, which is all I ever saw her decline to, on TV, then it is not ALL THAT unusual that this paragraph "was not made up." Why, well- there is indeed an elite reading of evolutionary theory which insists that mendelian genetics and natural history was only well combined in Russia and there are academic Marxists who are in possesion of any equilibrium between opposed mutation rates intellectually as dialectical. This it is not(it would take a good reading of Derrida on Marx to show how and why). It takes something other than politcs which COULD be dialectical and liberal as it is today, when-while academics DO step outside to speak of the "popular" and creationist controversy. Specifically the current generation of students(ontogenetically) to whom the dogs were walking the people of, must dodge a very narrow paternal path, not dog excrement, that these more liberal scholars than exists in the Christian community in general insist on, by malingering diffusion is adaptive socially, iF made soft first is. Thus there is placed a temporal junction on Earth, not outer space where it was, where rather instead and oppostie wise biologists could "buy" some kind of design by artifical selections of natural selection. This is already happening in nanotechnology whether we have the correct functional alogrith to approach any traits involved or not. This seems to be where evos wont go, continually (but inscribe around it) but there must be a bipartisan divide (constitutional at a station on Earth by law in USA) over which this is a maxim when not a "leap of faith" but ^that^ as a legislative form rather than an executive might (Coulter's or any other) }this{ is a place not a "species" and thus we have the marxism failing but nothing to pick up the slack of a combined mendelism and natural history intellectually as of yet. Mu grandfather and the community of evolutionary biologists at an inferior state univeristy did BOTH without the reds. ID need not create this. It is a secular institution where the difference currently is. Edited by Brad McFall, : Freud
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5032 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
If she intended that ID must ursurp all the errors in the thought about the structure of evolutionary theory she is wrong but all I ever got from her myself was the politcal end which does have some life beyond eugenics and CAN be devolved from her admitted wrong use of the bell curve but to do so will probably require such things as macrothermodynamics mediated counteractive niche construction.
It was in the contemplation of things like this or neutral vs strict Fisherianism that I take a teacher of biology to posses more of than a laywer. Johnson saw the problem with the fast rise of cladistics but so did many biologists who were not lawyers.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5032 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
It is not an objection if the counter proposal deals only with restricting a consequence to vital statistics or in the lingo of politics, (to) the result of a poll.
But there are ways of understading a population but only using the stats as summary judgments rather than constiutive events. From what I saw of her on TV, there was nothing I could disgree with, but I do not see it as true that atheist scientists do so divorce as you indicated. Rather I find that they defend a rather unusal event with the predilication of lawyers without as you also noticed haveing all of the laws of nature on that side. They have a probablism instead. But I did note that ID implies a probablism as well and it remains to be shown what this is. There are populations without this however. Population thinking is relatively new but the objections do not divide in this level of thought but concept by concept tend to cut against it. This will continue as long the analysis remains confounded without a synthesis. ID will not bring this. It can only further the analysis. I am happy with mine and if Ann is simply saying what ICR has said over and over then I see nothing especial in her message except her eyes when others miss her point.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5032 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
Ok---
I am probably on the same page. Thanks for the video link- Ho simply said "seriously wrong" in Lewontins' "fact." That I understand. Ann could easily object broadening out from there.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5032 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
I hope every one has their thinking caps on
quote:becuase what had happened philosophically was that Mendel's name was being slipped in under the determination of Darwin's. The realists were placing the secular world on notice that they could argue to an "underdetermination" that was vocally ONLY "overdtermined." That is how the false reality of Mendel in place of Darwin came about and thus why a politcal resolution is no soulution but the breach that no digital divide seals and thus Ann had (use vs time) to discuss. Edited by Brad McFall, : reference Edited by Brad McFall, : reference try two
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5032 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
Sorry NJ,
I was showing how your quote:is not incorrect. In truth Lewontin, who's "fact" you video linked considered investigations of Mendel and Darwin to be really all there was seriously to investigations he was involved in. I was trying to indicate that on the top secular philosophy level they use the example of evolution but get away lignguistically by overdetermining darwinism and underdetermine mendelism to remove objections not even one's to "miracles." Because this has been done philosophically and not biologically ( I doubt it biologically but that is an empirical issue not one that can be argued out right for and against)it provides the foreground into which looks... Ann etc.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5032 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
Cornell only saw "her mind." It appears the biology was not "controversial?" arrgghhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Click for full size image I can not "respond"/talk (even with my tuition $) to Will Provine without him feeling offended. He knows I know. Same difference as Ann. After this there is only the "state of mind."
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024