Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8942 total)
27 online now:
DrJones*, ICANT, xongsmith (3 members, 24 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: John Sullivan
Happy Birthday: Anish
Post Volume: Total: 863,468 Year: 18,504/19,786 Month: 924/1,705 Week: 176/518 Day: 50/52 Hour: 0/2


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 3317 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 yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 454 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 227 of 298 (340876)
08-17-2006 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by Cold Foreign Object
08-17-2006 3:38 PM


Re: Critique by Jerry Coyne
quote:
You are mistaken. Coyne and Coulter are opponents - neither person is a teacher or student in the context that we found them.

Either one may be a teacher or student in their private or professional lives, but, like I just mentioned, the context of their union are worldview and debate opponents.


The context as I see it is that Coulter wrote large parts of her book as a criticism of Biology.

Coyne wrote his critique of those above-mentioned parts of her book in the context of his being a professor of Biology.

He was, as an expert and instructor in Biology, correcting Coulter's, a layman, errors and blatant misinformation.

I have no idea what Coyyne's "worldview" is, only that he is an expert in Biology and Coulter is clearly not.[quote]

quote:
We know Coyne teaches at the university level. We also know that Coulter teaches her knowledge in the books that she writes and speaking lectures.

Are you actually presuming that Coulter knows as much about Biology as a tenured professor of Evolutionary Genetics at a major US research institution?

quote:
I am sure both persons admit to being students of the secrets of knowledge until the day that they die.

In the context of her book, however, she cannot be considered a teacher of Biology, being an utter layperson.

In the context of a review of the science she attempts to present in her book, Coyne the Professor of Biology is very much the teacher and Coulter the layperson is very much the student.

quote:
In addition, your question assumes Coullter needs correcting when in fact Coyne disagrees.

He disagrees because she is wrong, ray.

In the same way you would "disagree" with me if I said that it was a known fact Christians enjoy raping babies as a sacrament of their faith.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 08-17-2006 3:38 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-17-2006 7:56 PM nator has responded
 Message 245 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 08-18-2006 2:54 PM nator has responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5826
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 228 of 298 (340911)
08-17-2006 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by nator
08-17-2006 4:51 PM


Re: Critique by Jerry Coyne
The context as I see it is that Coulter wrote large parts of her book as a criticism of Biology.

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.

Coyne wrote his critique of those above-mentioned parts of her book in the context of his being a professor of Biology.

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 have no idea what Coyyne's "worldview" is, only that he is an expert in Biology and Coulter is clearly not.

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).

Are you actually presuming that Coulter knows as much about Biology as a tenured professor of Evolutionary Genetics at a major US research institution?

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.

In the context of her book, however, she cannot be considered a teacher of Biology, being an utter layperson.

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.

He disagrees because she is wrong, ray.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by nator, posted 08-17-2006 4:51 PM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by Brad McFall, posted 08-17-2006 8:13 PM Hyroglyphx has responded
 Message 231 by crashfrog, posted 08-17-2006 8:34 PM Hyroglyphx has responded
 Message 240 by nator, posted 08-18-2006 9:57 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 275 by Chiroptera, posted 08-19-2006 1:40 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3317 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 responded

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

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5826
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 230 of 298 (340918)
08-17-2006 8:28 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by Brad McFall
08-17-2006 8:13 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.

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.

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.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Brad McFall, posted 08-17-2006 8:13 PM Brad McFall has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by Brad McFall, posted 08-17-2006 8:48 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 231 of 298 (340920)
08-17-2006 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by Hyroglyphx
08-17-2006 7:56 PM


Re: Critique by Jerry Coyne
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?

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.

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.

Probably because the things he was saying were so absolutely stupid that intelligent people were taken aback, temporarily stunned by his ignorance. It happens.

It was an embarassment.

For Hovind and you? I believe it.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by MangyTiger, posted 08-17-2006 8:50 PM crashfrog has not yet responded
 Message 234 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-17-2006 9:22 PM crashfrog has responded

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3317 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 yet responded

  
MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 4638 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004


Message 233 of 298 (340926)
08-17-2006 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by crashfrog
08-17-2006 8:34 PM


Re: Critique by Jerry Coyne
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.

Probably because the things he was saying were so absolutely stupid that intelligent people were taken aback, temporarily stunned by his ignorance. It happens.

You may be right but I suspect there's a good chance that despite (presumably) lecturing as part of their jobs they were simply unequipped to deal with a professional con-artist like Hovind.

It's like the shell game and other tricks - knowing it's a con doesn't necessarily mean you can beat it.


Oops! Wrong Planet

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by crashfrog, posted 08-17-2006 8:34 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5826
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 234 of 298 (340932)
08-17-2006 9:22 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by crashfrog
08-17-2006 8:34 PM


Re: Critique by Jerry Coyne
Because evolution is science, and ID is not.

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.

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.

Tell me which of these is not accredited? Cripes, even ICR's university is accredited and has to be continually updated to stay accredited.

http://www.icr.edu/accreditation.html

But 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?'

http://www.discovery.org/fellows/
http://www.discovery.org/csc/fellows.php
http://www.icr.org/discover/index/discover_faculty/
http://www.reasons.org/about/biographies.shtml
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/bios/default.asp

Nope.... Not real scientists. :rolleyes: Its just some of those 'sudo sientistz that hate evilution!'

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.

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.

Probably because the things he was saying were so absolutely stupid that intelligent people were taken aback, temporarily stunned by his ignorance. It happens.

Not quite. Have a look-see.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMpk7WerFWw

quote:
It was an embarassment.

For Hovind and you? I believe it.

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.

Bush does not have a doctorate in any biological fields.

And he doesn't write books on ID either so that's irrelevant.

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.

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.

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.

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, 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.

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.

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.

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.

You have to know that about science. You didn't know that? You don't have much experience in the science community, then?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by crashfrog, posted 08-17-2006 8:34 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by Brad McFall, posted 08-17-2006 9:56 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 236 by MangyTiger, posted 08-17-2006 10:06 PM Hyroglyphx has responded
 Message 237 by MangyTiger, posted 08-17-2006 10:27 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 239 by crashfrog, posted 08-18-2006 8:51 AM Hyroglyphx has responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3317 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 yet responded

  
MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 4638 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004


Message 236 of 298 (340940)
08-17-2006 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by Hyroglyphx
08-17-2006 9:22 PM


Re: Critique by Jerry Coyne
Not quite. Have a look-see.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMpk7WerFWw

According to the timer that video is over two hours long. Care to point us at the times for any particular bits that illustrate your point rather than us having to sit through it (or rather not bother to :))?


Oops! Wrong Planet

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-17-2006 9:22 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-18-2006 11:38 AM MangyTiger has not yet responded

  
MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 4638 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004


Message 237 of 298 (340950)
08-17-2006 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by Hyroglyphx
08-17-2006 9:22 PM


Re: Critique by Jerry Coyne
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.

Tell me which of these is not accredited? Cripes, even ICR's university is accredited and has to be continually updated to stay accredited.

http://www.icr.edu/accreditation.html

But 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?'

http://www.discovery.org/fellows/
http://www.discovery.org/csc/fellows.php
http://www.icr.org/discover/index/discover_faculty/
http://www.reasons.org/about/biographies.shtml
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/bios/default.asp

Nope.... Not real scientists. :rolleyes: Its just some of those 'sudo sientistz that hate evilution!'

Look carefully at what crash said (bolding mine):

Either the guy's degree has nothing to do with biology, or it's from an unaccredited school.

Now how many of the people listed in your links have biology related degrees?

I can go through and do the counting if you really want but the answer for the Discovery Institute, ICR and Reasons To Believe is 'not many'.

As for the Answers In Genesis list, well again lots of non-biology related folks. I suppose the remainder of the list could be compared to Project Steve for a laugh.

So crash was a bit OTT by suggesting there were no biology related degrees but he wasn't far off the mark.


Oops! Wrong Planet

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by kuresu, posted 08-17-2006 10:46 PM MangyTiger has not yet responded

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 797 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 238 of 298 (340957)
08-17-2006 10:46 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by MangyTiger
08-17-2006 10:27 PM


Re: Critique by Jerry Coyne
yeah, and notice how the IRC is accredited because of a state exemption:)

In 1995 the Council confirmed that ICR/GS met the terms of California Education Code 94303(B)(2) for exemption from state approval. This exemption was retroactive back to 1992 and extended to the end of calendar year 1996. Since that time, a new education law was enacted in 1997. The exemption continues under the new organization, Bureau for Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education under the Department of Consumer Affairs through 2007.

since '95 it's been accredited, but by exemption from state approval for accreditation. go figure


All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by MangyTiger, posted 08-17-2006 10:27 PM MangyTiger has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 239 of 298 (341024)
08-18-2006 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 234 by Hyroglyphx
08-17-2006 9:22 PM


Re: Critique by Jerry Coyne
Neither evolution or ID are apart of a scientific field.

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.

Tell me which of these is not accredited?

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.

But 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?'

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?

Explain why it is simply impossible?

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.

I'm shocked that no one trips him up in his own game.

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.

Sorry, but I've been to college and have seen the worlds illuminous people pass through with ease.

You've seen glow-in-the-dark people? Sorry but what you've written here makes no sense.

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.

Right. Which one of us challenged Coulter on the law? Specific thread and post, please.

What does that have to do with Coulter?

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.

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.

The medical community is not the scientific community. They don't employ the same standards of evidence.

But, even my nominal experience is more than the average person on EvC has.

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.

That's like saying unless you are a Network Administrator, you don't squat about computers. Its just not true.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-17-2006 9:22 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-18-2006 2:06 PM crashfrog has responded

nator
Member (Idle past 454 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 240 of 298 (341036)
08-18-2006 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 228 by Hyroglyphx
08-17-2006 7:56 PM


Re: Critique by Jerry Coyne
quote:
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.

The whole of Biology is underpinned by the Theory of Evolution.

If the ToE is wrong in the way Coulter says it is, then most of what we claim we know about modern Biology is wrong.

quote:
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?

The issue I was addressing with ray was his criticism that Coyne and other science defenders inappropriately "frame" themselves as "teachers".

My continued point is that much of the time no "framing" is needed, as they are, quite literally, teachers. As in, they teach at the University level as part of their professional occupation.

quote:
I've seen Hovind take on a panel of three professors of biology and wiped the floor with them.

That might be true from a rhetorical standpoint, especially if one doesn't know enough about Biology to observe that very nearly every claim that Hovind makes is false.

I don't blame Biology professors, who are used to people debating in an honest and informed fashion, for being caught out.

Remember, Hovind is the Creationist that even other Creationists don't want to be associated with because he is a complete loon.

quote:
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.

To what are you referring, exactly?

quote:
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.

And Coyne's review explains her errors and distortions.

Care to respond to his critique and explain how he is incorrect and Coulter is spot on?

quote:
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.

This discussion has nothing to do with EvC.

This discussion has to do with ray's claim that Coyne was inappropriate to correct Coulter as a teacher would, even though he is, in fact, a teacher.

Are you actually presuming that Coulter knows as much about Biology as a tenured professor of Evolutionary Genetics at a major US research institution?

quote:
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.

You do realize that scientists are lauded and made famous by overturning long-held pradigms, don't you?

You do realize that you are essentially claiming either a worldwide conspiracy among hundreds of thousands of scientists to maintain an utter falsehood, or that all of those same scientists are so stupid that they cannot see that even an utterly uninformed layperson like Coulter was able to deduce what they could not?


"Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends! Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!"
- Ned Flanders

"Question with boldness even the existence of God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." - Thomas Jefferson


This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-17-2006 7:56 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019