Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
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: 12-20-2001


Message 226 of 298 (340874)
08-17-2006 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by Omnivorous
08-16-2006 10:19 PM


elite positioning and indiffernt malingeration at work
Q's link
quote:
Enamored of ID, and unable to fathom a scientific reason why biologists don't buy it, Coulter suggests that scientists are an evil sub-cabal of atheist liberals, a group so addicted to godlessness that they must hide at all costs the awful "truth" that evolution didn't happen. She accuses evolutionists of brainwashing children with phony fossils and made-up "evidence," turning the kids into "Darwiniacs" stripped of all moral (i.e., biblical) grounding and prone to become beasts and genocidal lunatics. To Coulter, biologists are folks who, when not playing with test tubes or warping children's minds, encourage people to have sex with dogs. (I am not making this up.)
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Omnivorous, posted 08-16-2006 10:19 PM Omnivorous has not replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 229 of 298 (340916)
08-17-2006 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by Hyroglyphx
08-17-2006 7:56 PM


Re: Critique by Jerry Coyne
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-17-2006 7:56 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-17-2006 8:28 PM Brad McFall has replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 232 of 298 (340925)
08-17-2006 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by Hyroglyphx
08-17-2006 8:28 PM


Re: Critique by Jerry Coyne
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-17-2006 8:28 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 235 of 298 (340937)
08-17-2006 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by Hyroglyphx
08-17-2006 9:22 PM


Re: Critique by Jerry Coyne
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-17-2006 9:22 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 257 of 298 (341187)
08-18-2006 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by Hyroglyphx
08-18-2006 7:16 PM


Ok- what happened...
I hope every one has their thinking caps on
quote:
Scientific Realism How Science Tracks Truth by Stathis Psillos
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-18-2006 7:16 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-18-2006 9:50 PM Brad McFall has replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 271 of 298 (341322)
08-19-2006 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 262 by Hyroglyphx
08-18-2006 9:50 PM


Re:clarification of background
Sorry NJ,
I was showing how your
quote:
through Gregor Mendel, also not a Darwininiac, but rather a creationist who wrote his thesis years before Origins was being written. Aside
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-18-2006 9:50 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 296 of 298 (342846)
08-23-2006 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 295 by Hyroglyphx
08-19-2006 11:15 PM


Re: 5th time Cornell Sun did not better
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-19-2006 11:15 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024