| September 2010 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |||
| 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |
| 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 |
| 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 |
| 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | ||
As you may have heard, Ann Coulter's new book, Godless, rejects Darwinism. When I first found out about this from an early review of the book, I fully expected this to prove an embarrassment to Ann. Even as I read the book, as I began those chapters (chapters 8 - 10), I expected them to be specious.
But in the storm of criticism of the book so far, there has not yet been one word from the scientific community, objecting to Ann's views (at least that I have seen). How is this possible?
The astonishing answer is that Coulter has founded all of her views on the published work of prominent scientific experts, and presented them in a very compelling and persuasive manner. In short, it appears possible that she may be right.
She begins by discussing the Darwinian assumption that the intricate structures of an organism evolved gradually, via one random mutation at a time:
[Lehigh University biochemist Michael] Behe produced various "irreducibly complex" mechanisms, of which there are thousand -- complex cellular structures, blood-clotting mechanisms, and the eye, among others. A bacterial motor, called a flagellum, depends on the coordinated interaction of 30-40 complex protein parts. The absence of almost any one of the parts would render the flagellum useless. An animal cell's whiplike oar, called a cilium, is composed of about 200 protein parts. Behe compared these cell parts to a simple mousetrap, with far fewer necessary components than a cilium or flagellum. Though there are only a few parts to a mousetrap, all of them have to be working together at one time for the contraption to serve any function whatsoever. If one of the parts i s missing, Behe says, you don't get a mousetrap that catches only half as many mice: you don't get a mousetrap at all. Behe then demonstrated that it is a mathematical impossibility for all 30 pats of the flagellum (or 200 parts of the cilium) to have been brought together by the "numerous, successive, slight modifications" of natural selection. Life at the molecular level, he concluded, "is a loud, clear piercing cry of design."
Coulter goes through the responses from the scientific community to Behe's work, and notes that while many said that "more research is needed," no one even attempted to disprove it.
The evolutionist's answer is Assume that each one of the hundreds of mutations necessary to create the final product is itself "fit" in ways we don't understand but must accept on faith because it's Holy Scripture.
...Evolutionists believe -- purely as a matter of faith -- that individual, unrelated mutations facilitated the production of all 200 necessary parts, completely by chance, and thus created the flagellum. And then they tell us they want to keep "faith" out of the classroom. Okay.
Coulter then details something I did not know about -- and I suspect most of those reading this did not either -- namely that there is no evidence in the fossil record to support the theory of the slow transformation of species into other species. Such evidence would be expected based on Darwin's classic work, "The Origin of Species."
It was a nice yarn Darwin had spun, but there was absolutely nothing in the fossil record to support it. Far from showing gradual change with one species slowly giving way to another, as Darwin hypothesized, the fossil record showed vast numbers of new species suddenly appearing out of nowhere, remaining largely unchanged for millions of years, and then disappearing (almost like there was a big flood or something.)
Coulter quotes David Raup, a geologist at Chicago's Field Museum of Natural History, who wrote in 1979:
[W]e are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of he fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information -- what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic.
Coulter comments:
Darwin's disciples simply assert that evolution led from this species to that by the process of random mutation -- with cruel nature striking down th genetic losers -- and to hell with the fossil record's showing nothing of the sort. At some point, it's not even pseudo-science anymore, it's just a crazy religious cult.
Coulter provides a massive amount of facts, examples, and evidence along these lines.
I've got a lifelong interest in the advances of science, and a couple of Master's Degrees (although neither is in science), and I'd never heard about this in my life. Coulter gives many examples of why this might be. Schools which attempt to discuss these facts in class are sued by the ACLU; scholars who attempt to publish on these items have been fired.
At this point, I can only consider this mind-blowing. It's too far-reaching for me even to feel comfortable stating at this instant that I am convinced Coulter is right (although I'm mighty close being convinced.) I have to hear the response from the scientific community.
Which makes the silence to date from that community, deafening.
Can it possibly be, that we are in the exact same state as our ancestors, who condemned Galileo for saying the Earth traveled around the sun? Can we be as ignorant as they were, punishing anyone who disagrees with an official view of the world which is without basis in fact?
We know that we as humans can find "the unknown" to be frightening; can it possibly be that we are still so far from understanding enough about how we can have come into existence on this earth, that we must use lawsuits and firings to prevent people from discussing that lack of understanding, out of an inability to face that (irrational) fear?
Update: See this follow-up post, Follow-Up on Ann Coulter and Darwin: Scientists Admit There is No Proof of Darwin.
#2Vik Rubenfeld asks, "But in the storm of criticism of the book so far, there has not yet been one word from the scientific community, objecting to Ann's views (at least that I have seen). How is this possible?"
My posited response is that the overlap of the "scientific community" and "Ann Coulter readers" is vanishingly small -- I propose that, as there hasn't been any serious treatment of her book's claims on this subject (reviews and publicity are focused on other parts of the book), pretty much everyone qualifed to respond is unaware of the claims.
I am squarely among those not personally qualifed to respond. However, I know of some responses from people who are, so I'll forge ahead with those.
As it happens, lack of attention is something which is *not* characteristic of Behe's claims -- he has indeed received much attention from the scientific community. You can find links to some of the responses and critiques of his work in the Talk:Origins FAQs.
The other claim you reference from her book (I have also not read the book itself, so I cannot comment on anything other than your excerpts) is actually something of a controversy in the biology community. A real, scientific controversy with real disagreements based on science. It is basically a disagreement between gradualism and punctuated equalibium, a thesis advanced by Steven J. Gould and Niles Eldridge in 1972. It's easy for a non-expert like myself to incorrectly characterize that controversy (indeed, I made just such an error immediately above -- can anyone find it?), so I'll again refer you to Talk:Origins on the subject.
Found this as a link from Pajamas Media, btw. Cheers, and happy reading.
#3Coulter goes through the responses from the scientific community to Behe's work, and notes that while many said that "more research is needed," no one even attempted to disprove it.
I don't think most scientists view ID as falsifiable...but they have definitely provided critical reviews of Behe.
If you are interested you should read his book. Here are some useful links to further discussion...
Review of Behe - Darwin's Black Box
I'm a Coulter fan but she's in over her head on this subject. I prefer Charles Krauthammer.
#4Welcome, all, to the site, and thanks for participating in this discussion.
#5Wildmonk, Coulter discusses at length the response of various scientists to Behe.
Also, whenever an intermediate species *is* shown, the critique tends to be “what about the two between the first and the last”? In other words - there’s no winning with some folks because the fossil record is simply too sparse to show every intermediate form.
This would be good if there were an abundance of intermediate forms to point to; however, per Coulter and the scientists she quotes, there are none certain and only a small number of possible intermediate forms in the fossil record. If species all originated via random mutation, there should be a massive amount of evidence in the fossil record; but there is not.
Coulter discusses in detail how the majority of today's species appear suddenly in the Cambrian period of the fossil record, with no antecedents to them visible in the fossil record of previous times. Evidently scientists had at one time claimed that the antecedents must have been soft-shelled and non-fossilizable, until Chinese scientists did find fossils of soft-shelled creatures pre-dating the Cambrian -- none of which were even remotely possible as ancestors of the creatures of the Cambrian period.
The problem with any form of creationist explanation is that it makes it far too easy to lay down the tools of science and just say “well, God did that part.” In other words, it kills further attempts to explore and explain. Indeed, many scientists suspect that is really the whole point of the creationist attacks to begin with.
On the contrary, Coulter states:
Contrary to the cult members' description of science as requiring the exclusion of God, until the last few decades the only reason to do science was to understand God. All the real scientists believed their work was discovering God in the universe -- Nicolaus Copernicus, Johannes Kepler, Galileo, Rene Descartes, Francis Bacon, Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Michael Faraday, Gregor Mendel, Louis Pasteur, William Thomson Kelvin, George Gabriel Stokes, James Clerk Maxwell, Max Planck, Albert Einstein, Wolfgang Pauli. I guess they weren't doing real "science."
There is far more in "Godless" than can be summarized in a review.
Wildmonk, it is evident that you are knowledgeable and interested in the subject. I would be most appreciative if you would read Chapters 8-10 of "Godless" and post your thoughts.
#6Greg,
Welcome, and thanks for the links.
Coulter addresses at length the responses of the scientific community to Behe's work. She discusses the work of Stephen J. Gould in detail. She also quotes additional scientists on the subject.
#7mb,
Welcome to the site.
I look forward to checking out the links you provided on responses to Behe. As I noted in previous comments, Coulter goes into such responses in detail.
#8Vik Rubenfeld says, "Coulter addresses at length the responses of the scientific community to Behe’s work. She discusses the work of Stephen J. Gould in detail. She also quotes additional scientists on the subject."
Heh. I bet she discusses Gould. I may have read too much into your comment that "while many said that 'more research is needed,' no one even attempted to disprove it." I shan't be reading Coulter's book; I enjoy a good game of "poke the liberal" as much as the next guy but a whole book of it is too much, and I've found that I don't learn anything new from her stuff. I'll simply note that all scientists say that more research is needed -- that's what science does, after all -- but it's not accurate to state that no one attempted to disprove Behe's work. Indeed his work is widely seen as erroneous on its own merits, without additional research needing to be done. Behe was a featured witness in the Dover "intelligent design" trial, you can find the transcripts which include his testimony and cross-examination here. Of particular interest is the judge's decision, as complete a debunking of Behe's thesis as "science" as has been done by a non-scientist.
And of course my broader point is that the likely reason for the lack of scientific response is probably associated with lack of knowledge of the book's charges. Trust me, Niles Eldredge isn't pacing among his trilobites thinking, "I'd respond to Coulter, but you know, she has a point."
Cheers.
#9First of all you should understand that Charles Darwin was a frustrated Divinity student who could not accept the concept of Virgin Birth and gave up his religious studies.As a result of his "problems" with Christianity, he hit upon the idea of evolution and developed his theory. His followers will use any means at their disposal no matter how irrational or far-fetched because the alternative is too painful to be admissible - that there is a Creator who created the universe with the most cunning plan and purpose and who also provided us with a set of instructions on how to make the best possible use of his creation i.e. The Holy Torah.
#10Greg, Coulter discusses the Dover case, and Judge Jones' decision, on pages 251-253.
#11This shall not stand unchallenged. For the rapid reader, the statements by "greg" sound persuasive. To totally demolish them, simply follow the links, especially the second one. The "judge's decision" is a one-page ruling with no reasoning, and a price tag that shows clearly that those who attempt to bring such issues to a school, or as a byproduct to a court, mainly succeed in making lawyers wealthy.
I received my Bachelor and PhD degrees from MIT and Princeton, respectively, and am familiar with these arguments, having read the sources some years ago. Ann has done her readers a great service by presenting succinct, humorous, well-documented prose for her readers, of which there are happily very many. I agree with her, and think you have well summarized her arguments (and those in her cited literature), Vik.
I have two children in a public High School, and spend a considerable amount of time evenings and weekends making sure (1) that they know the other side if I don't trust what they are being taught, and (2) ensuring that they know to keep their mouths shut so that this knowledge does not have a negative impact on their grade-point averages.
You will seldom hear from (employed) scientists on this subject, because they to not wish to follow, even in a small way, the path of Natan Sharansky in Russia. Consult his "The Case for Democracy" to see where we could be headed without effective voices such as yours, Vik.
Thank you very much for your thoughtful and well-reasoned posts. They are a pleasure to read!
#12Doc, thanks very much for the good words!
Look at what it's come to -- you have to secretly teach your children at home, to remove the errors they've been taught at school, and you have to be careful that they don't let anyone know about it! This is like living in a dictatorship! Your experience is powerful evidence that those running our schools not only don't allow freedom of thought, but even punish it. You are not the first person I have heard say things like this.
#13Doc Duke says, "For the rapid reader, the statements by 'greg' sound persuasive. To totally demolish them, simply follow the links, especially the second one. The 'judge’s decision' is a one-page ruling with no reasoning..."
How embarrassing -- wrong link. The fuller decision, as opposed to the entered judgment, appears here. Thank you to Doc Duke for finding the error.
The fact is that evolution is at this point unchallenged in science and that "intelligent design" is just creationism dressed up for dinner with the adults. It is not science, it is faith. Nothing wrong with faith, of course, except that it is not science and doesn't belong in science classrooms.
And it's worth noting that whilst evolution is unchallenged as a scientific explanation for speciation, that doesn't mean it's "right." I happen to believe that it is. The available evidence (literally all of it) indicates that it is. But there could come along a falsifiable scientific theory which explains the evidence better just as one came along which partially displaced some of Newton's laws. "Intelligent Design" is not that theory.
#14Greg, I really appreciate the opportunity to discuss this subject with you in a civil way, as we are doing.
How do you explain the absence in the fossil record of the massive amount of fossil evidence of random mutation of one species into another, which would appear to be required if Darwinian evolution is the mechanism for the origin of species?
#15I think that there is a fair amount of evidence that mutations are not always random -- for example, there is evidence that when bacteria are placed in a stressful chemical environment, that mutations favoring life in that environment happen more often than when they are in some other environment. (If anyone is really interested, I'll try to find some references to this work.) Some mechanism of "directed mutation" would help explain the jerkness of the fossil record -- mutations accelerate when conditions change.
This is consistant with, but does not prove, intelligent design (there being no actual evidence yet of intelligence in the "directed mutation" mechanism, whatever it is). One would think that replicating the key experiments, extending them, and evaluating this mechanism would be a part of evolutionary study, but there seems to be a bias against any explanation which does not start by postulating that mutations are random and only random. Perhaps scientists are afraid of letting any kind of non-random argument get any purchase for fear that it will encourage religionists.
I think this is a big mistake, akin to the near complete denial of evidence (by mainstream science) for ESP, spirituality, etc. It's a big Universe, and it's not reasonable to think that our current theories completely encompass it (although, I believe that many scientists, for emotional reasons, believe just that).
#16BobC, thanks for this great info. I would be very interested in seeing references to this.
#17vik,
I just did a Google search on "directed mutation" (include quotes) and got about 68,000 hits. I only looked at the first dozen or so, but they indicate that this subject is being actively investigated by some biologists.
Some of the URLs that reference the original papers (by John Cairns in 1982) and reviews of them are:
http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf064/sf064b07.htm
http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf075/sf075b06.htm
These reference articles and reviews in the journals: Nature, BioScience, Genetics, and American Scientist.
An article in Genetics, which argues for the idea that seemingly directed mutations are perhaps the re-emergence of previously active, but now dormant mutations (I think -- I just scanned it, so don't take this as gospel) can be accessed here:
http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/abstract/131/4/783
These papers are fairly old (~15 yr), and I don't yet know if this is still being persued. It may be that it has been explained within the random paradigm to the satisfaction of the biology community (or, maybe just "suppressed" by making it difficult to publish and fund -- hate to sound paranoid, but I have seen this happen in other fields.)
Hopefully, there is still an active group looking at these questions. I'll take another look later, but have to get back to work!
BobC
#18Fantastic. Thanks very much, BobC.
#20vik,
I did a little lunchtime research, found two more recent review articles that are pretty good:
1)Review of possible directed mutation mechanisms and research into same (1992) (Journal of Bacteriology):
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=205770&tools=bot
2) Review article (2001) in Nature on adaptive mutation mechanisms:
http://www.micab.umn.edu/current/roserev.pdf
More recent results are getting overwhelmed by hits on "site-directed mutation" which is a laboratory technique for inducing mutations at specific places on a DNA strand.
It seems that definite mechanisms have been postulated and evidence found for some of them. I'm rather supprised that this has not made it into the public debates, since it seems to supply some arguments for the neo-Darwinians: mainly that evolution proceeding by these mechanisms is both faster and more flexible than possible by random mutations, making it easier to arive at complex structures.
One of the major downsides (for standard evolutionary explanations) is that genetic similarity is no longer a good marker of evolutionary relationship -- pretty much the entire "evolutionary tree" type relationship (what evolved from what) is cast into doubt.
Sorry, no real resolution here, but hey, that's science for you -- the more you know, the more you realize is left to find out!
BobC
#21Excellent. I'm looking forward to checking these out, BobC. Thanks very much.
#22Greg, I notice you have not yet posted a response to my question regarding the fossil record. This is perfectly reasonable, since you previously said "I am squarely among those not personally qualifed to respond."
At the same time, there has not yet been a response to the question from MB or Wildmonk either.
Without a response to this question, an expression of belief in Darwinism, is nothing more than an expression of faith, like that of any religion.
I am keeping my ears open for a response to this question regarding the fossil record, from the scientific community.
#23Vik,
A "directed mutation" mechanism, especially one powerful enough to produce multiple mutations all directed towards a single capability, is a possible explanation of the paucity of transitional fossils (when change is needed, it happens very fast on a geological time scale), and explains the emergence of "irreducably complex" structures as well (multiple synergetic mutations can happen simultaneously -- a nearly impossible occurance if random chance were the only mechanism).
In my previous posts, I listed some links to an apparently robust discussion in the scientific liturature about laboratory experiments that seemed to demonstrate just such directed mutations. This discussion seems to have come to a stop (at least as far as the peer-reviewed literature is concerned) about 10 years ago, for some reason I haven't yet learned -- there doesn't seem to have been a definitive conclusion that I have encountered about these mechanisms.
I am an electrical and optical engineer, and evolutionary biology is not something I am very familiar with, so I would welcome anyone who is aware of this work to comment on it. The papers I read alluded to some nerviousness in the scientific community about this work, apparently because:
1) Speedy, directed mutations significantly decouple past from present, casting doubt on the standard evolutionary tree type description of descent. (If organisms can evolve very rapidly without leaving a significant trail in intermediate forms, then it becomes much more uncertain what evolved from what.)
2) Directed Mutation (DM) is at least consistant with Intelligent Design (ID), unless specific, physical mechanisms are found to explain it. Even if DM is completely explained by such mechanisms, it is unlikely that they all will be found quickly, leaving a logical window open for ID.
3) The whole field has been resolved, and I just can't find any references to it.
I'm kind of leaning toward researchers shying away from this work because of 1 and 2 (and possibly peer pressure), but would like to be enlightened.
BobC
#24BobC,
This is very interesting. I've just done a number of Google searches, along the lines of "Directed Mutation 2000", "Directed Mutation 2001", etc., hoping to find papers of recent date discussing this subject. I turned up this post at "The Panda's Thumb" weblog. The post discusses history of the Directed Mutations theory. According to this post, a way had been found to make the directed mutation experiments fit in with Darwinian theory.
Moving to the home page for The Panda's Thumb, I discovered a blog that is working hard on providing serious scientific responses to the questions raised by Coulter. They have posts here, here, here, and here on this subject, with more possibly on the way.
It looks like this blog is dedicated to the study of Darwinian evolution. These are exactly the people I want to see responses from. I'm going to have a look at these articles today.
#25BobC, I've started to go through the posts on The Panda's Thumb, and I haven't found anything yet that seems to be very conclusive in disproving Ann's view. I'm going to keep looking.
#26I just stumbled across this page on a Google search, and as it happens I know quite a bit about this subject. Please, please, read the Panda's Thumb site, as well as the talk.origins site. The material in Coulter's book is neither new nor original, but is cribbed from all the usual creationist and intelligent design suspects. If a conservative, Bush-appointed jurist concluded that intelligent design is not science, why isn't Coulter persuaded?
Quite aside from scientific errors, I am always puzzled by those like Coulter who see conspiracies everywhere, whether liberal or conservative. "On the Origin of Species" was published in 1859, which means we are only a few years from the 150th anniversary of its appearance. In all that time, the evidence for evolution by natural selection has only grown stronger. In that same time, Franklin's theory of electricity was replaced by Maxwell, Newton's theory was replaced by relativity and quantum mechanics, the static eternal universe was replaced by the Big Bang theory, atoms and nuclei were discovered, and yes evolution was integrated with molecular biology into the new Darwinian synthesis. Does Coulter really believe that, in the midst of all that change, a cabal of scientists has successfully conspired to keep the supposed weakness of Darwin's ideas from the public? If so, she's even more irrational than I thought.
One might also note, in passing that "scientist==liberal" is a false equality. When Edward O. Wilson applied evolutionary ideas to behavior in his book "Sociobiology," it was the left who bitterly attacked him.
#27The full article detailing evidence for evolution, of which Coulter seems blisfully ignorant.
#28Steve, welcome to the site, and thanks for the links. There indeed seems to be a lot of evidence supporting Darwin as a mechanism for evolution within a species, but there appears to be a lack of evidence for Darwin as a means for the origin of species.
From Dr. Schroeder’s book, The Science of God:
The magnificent Natural History Museum in London devotes an entire wing to demonstrating the fact of evolution. They show how pink daisies can evolve into blue daisies, how gray moths change into black moths, how over a mere few thousand years, a wide variety of cichlid fish species evolved in Lake Victoria. It is all impressive.
Impressive, until you walk out and reflect upon that which they were able to document. Daisies remained daisies, moths remained moths, and cichlid fish remained cichlid fish. These changes are referred to as micro-evolution. In this exhibit, the museum’s staff did not demonstrate a single unequivocal case in which life underwent a major gradual morphological change.
If this prestigious museum, in a wing dedicated to Darwin, presents no attempt to prove Darwin as a mechanism for speciation, it seems to indicate that there is little evidence available to do so.
Are you aware of any scientific proof for Darwin as a means of speciation?
(I would like to note that an argument against Darwin is not necessarily an argument for the hand of God as a sole explanation of speciation. My view is that belief in God is compatible with any and all scientific discoveries on any subject.)
#29A new post on this subject is up: Follow-Up on Ann Coulter and Darwin: Scientists Admit There is No Proof of Darwin.
#30in her new book, Coulter defends the book "The Bell Curve". The Bell Curve promotes the view that blacks are genetically inferior to whites. This book has been totally debunked. Google "Marva Collins Bell Curve". You are more than welcome accepting Ann's Bell Curve defense. I call it racism.
scientific reviews of Ann's book put her slightly below a 10 year old kid in science knowledge. As for her comments on Dover, in responce to Ann Coulter criticism of the judge in the Dover case states in an interview the judge says "We have to suffer these arrows because people will disagree with our opinions ... She foments a kind of civic stupidity in my opinion."
if you want to be an idiot, read Ann Coulters version of the Dover case. If you want to be intellingent read the actual trial transcript.
Most of Ann's book is really bad, now is she that stupid or does she hold her readers in contempt because they are stupid. There is absolutely no valid science in the book. It is beneath most scientists to respond. I gave a Coulter fan a detaled report on the Bell Curve, he threw it in the trash without looking. (He should have followed in the trash can). That my friends is a typical Coulter fan.
#31A kindly Indian Sikh ran a 7-11 store in San Gabriel Calif that I stopped in often as my office was nearby. Shortly afer 9-11, this kindly man was murdered by someone shouting "raghead". An Indian is not an Arab. a Sikh is not a muslim, but they wear turbans.
The only other person using the term "raghead" at the time was Ann Coulter. I don't like her! You may admire the hate she spouts, I resent it. Ann doesn't have to worry about that Sikh complaining, he is dead.
#32It seems you assume that a popular book should somehow demand a response fromt the scientific community or else the book is deemed true by default. Should scientists stop any and all research to debate a political pundit's view? In time, Coulter's arguemtn's will be sufficiently debunked. In fact, here is Savillo's point by point:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200607070010
You state:
"Coulter has founded all of her views on the published work of prominent scientific experts"
This may be true in some small way, but Coulter clearly is only interested in opponents of evolution. Her analysis is in no way balanced as she devotes her time to explaining evolution opponent arguments and attacking those who support evolution. Case in point the quotation you provide:
"Darwin's disciples simply assert that evolution led from this species to that by the process of random mutation -- with cruel nature striking down th genetic losers -- and to hell with the fossil record's showing nothing of the sort. At some point, it's not even pseudo-science anymore, it's just a crazy religious cult."
Notice the loaded language. "To hell with the fossil record," for instance, implies that the fossil record shows one thing and the scientists push it aside. Yet, evolutionary biologists are practically the only people who are interested in fossils. These fossils, which Coulter arrgues are swept under the rug, are prominently displayed in museums and univerisities and substantiate a great deal of the evidence for evolution. Coulter implies that the scientists are dishonest--knowing what is true but prefrerring a falsehood for some unstated (by Coulter) reason or grudge. Coulter is not honest enough to argue that they are mistaken; she attacks them as frauds.
But this attack is easily seen as false when we look back at the statement about revising our notions of the evolution of horses in North America. Why, if these evolution scientists are frauds, would they "discard or modify" projections that showed evolutionary progress in more detail?
Notice, also, the direct insults. Evolution is worse than "pseudo-science." It is "crazy." It is a "cult."
This blog's assertion that Coulter's work is "persuasive" and "compelling" is not borne out by a simple examination of the text provided.
#33Hi ThroatWobbler,
We've been hashing this all out in a lot of detail in the comments for this later article, to which you have recently posted a useful comment.
Re: the fossil record, what do you make of Dr. Schroeder's observations regarding the London Museum of Natural History, quoted in comment #28 in this thread?
#34vik,
My point was more to show that Coulter does not approach the issue fairly or with an open mind, and, in fact, she misstates evidence and does not seem interested in discovering the truth, but in presenting her own preformed version of it.
That said, I don't find Dr. Schroeder's trip to the museum to be of any real scientific value. Fossilization is rare, so we can't expect the record to be even close to perfect. But the scientific case for evolution is not contained in a museum exhibit, and Dr. Schroeder's effort to characterize it as such is more of a rhetorical tool than an analytical one.
#35Re: the fossil record, what do you make of Dr. Schroeder’s observations regarding the London Museum of Natural History, quoted in comment #28 in this thread?
[Insult deleted.] A museum exhibit is not a scientific argument, nor does it represent all that is known to science. A museum exhibit is influenced by decidedly non-scientific factors (availability of items, visual appeal, commercial considerations) and geared toward an audience of non-scientists.
Dr. Schroeder undoubtedly knows this. His desire to make his case against a museum exhibit suggests he is unable to make his case against actual science.
#36ThroatWobbler,
That said, I don’t find Dr. Schroeder’s trip to the museum to be of any real scientific value. Fossilization is rare, so we can’t expect the record to be even close to perfect.
In your previous post, you relied on the fossils as evidence:
Notice the loaded language. “To hell with the fossil record,” for instance, implies that the fossil record shows one thing and the scientists push it aside. Yet, evolutionary biologists are practically the only people who are interested in fossils. These fossils, which Coulter argues are swept under the rug, are prominently displayed in museums and univerisities and substantiate a great deal of the evidence for evolution.
As soon as I noted the absence of expected evidence in the fossil record, you expressed a view that appears to be different from the view you had expressed previously: "Fossilization is rare, so we can’t expect the record to be even close to perfect."
It appears that you did push aside the fossil record as soon as it was shown that it didn't match your argument. This is just what Ann's talking about.
#37Vik,
You said:
"It appears that you did push aside the fossil record as soon as it was shown that it didn’t match your argument."
No I didn't, actually. I said the fossil record is imperfect. This is common sense. If every living organism fossilized upon death we could expect a perfect and complete record. Obviously that's unreasonable. But I know of nothing in the fossil record that is evidence against evolution, and I know of much that is, including transitional species such as Tiktaalik. (Ironically, it is Coulter who claims there are no transitional species, and then she ignores Tiktaalik, calling it merely a fish with "weird appendages.") Do you have some specific evidence that is being "push[ed] aside"?
#38I said the fossil record is imperfect.
You said, "we can’t expect the record to be even close to perfect," which I'm sure you'll agree does sound a bit like pushing it aside.
The fossil record is a primary source of evidence for Darwin as a theory of macroevolution, and as such it is, as you note, far from perfect.
It's important to distinguish between evolution, and Darwins' theory as a possible mechanism for it. From TalkOrigins:
Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.
I'm only saying that Darwin's theory as the mechanism for macroevolution, hasn't been proven.
#39"I’m only saying that Darwin’s theory as the mechanism for macroevolution, hasn’t been proven."
Is that what you are arguing? Your review of Coulter's book states that you are "mighty close to being convinced" that her arguments are valid. I see nothing about Darwin's theory as the mechanism of evolution in your post. But surely Coulter does not limit herself to Darwin.
Do you think that Coulter "pushes aside" such fossil discoveries as Tiktaalik to further her own political agenda? Why does she insist on being shown a transitional species and then scoff at exactly the evidence she has requested?
#40"I’m only saying that Darwin’s theory as the mechanism for macroevolution, hasn’t been proven.”
Is that what you are arguing? Your review of Coulter’s book states that you are “mighty close to being convinced” that her arguments are valid. I see nothing about Darwin’s theory as the mechanism of evolution in your post. But surely Coulter does not limit herself to Darwin.
She doesn't limit herself to Darwin, but the review is limited to the Darwin chapters in her book.
Yes, all I feel comfortable arguing at this point, is that Darwin's theory of the origin of species hasn't been proven. At this point it appears to me that this isn't a controversial point of view among scientists. Lots of scientists feel the same way.
Do you think that Coulter “pushes aside” such fossil discoveries as Tiktaalik to further her own political agenda? Why does she insist on being shown a transitional species and then scoff at exactly the evidence she has requested?
The point she's making is that fossils such as Tiktaalik aren't conclusive as proof of Darwin.
#41Actually, her point is to decry evolution.
From Godless:
"But every few years, the Darwiniacs find some odd creature that looks a little like another creature, and it is triumphantly announced that evolution has been "proved true." Thus, for example, on April 6, 2006, the New York Times gave prime front-page, above-the-fold space to an article headlined, "Fossil Called Missing Link from Sea to Land Animals." The article quoted unnamed scientists as saying that this discovery "should undercut the argument that there is no evidence in the fossil record of one kind of creature becoming another kind." So they found an odd-looking fish with weird appendages and pronounced the missing link between fish and land animals. But only if evolution is assumed to be true is there any basis for assuming that the fish is related to fishes without appendages or to land animals -- much less for assuming that each step was produced by a brutal battle of survival of the fittest. And there is no reason to assume evolution is true until, among other things, the Darwiniacs can produce a whole glut of transitional animals -- i.e., a [sic] entirely new fossil record."
Here Coulter asys that "Darwiniacs" claim "evolution" has been proved true. So she does not limit herself to saying that Tiktaalik is not proof of Darwin; she says clearly that evolution is not real. What Coulter wants is a photo quality fossil exhibition with every single species in the history of the world to "prove" evolution, but this is a standard that cannot be met in any science. Then she claims that evolution (not Darwin or Darwinism) needs to be assumed true to assume that Tiktaalik is related to earlier fish and to tetrapods. She avoids specificty ("weird appendages", "looks a little like") and does not comment on the protowrists in Tiktaalik, or any of the other attributes that make it a perfect transitional species.
In fact, a paraphrase of Coulter might read "Evolution is unproved because evolutionists do not show any transitional species. And the trnasitional species they do show are only transitional if you assume evolution in the first place."
#42There's no reason my views and the views of Coulter have to be identical.
In fact, a paraphrase of Coulter might read “Evolution is unproved because evolutionists do not show any transitional species. And the trnasitional species they do show are only transitional if you assume evolution in the first place.”
I don't think that's quite an accurate paraphrase. Coulter is making a point similar to one made by Darwin himself. Darwin was the first to note this argument against his theory. From Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, Chapter IX:
But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.
But here we are about 150 year later, with a quarter of a million fossil species found, and only a small number of potential candidates for transitional species.
It is surely true that since Darwin, much work has been done to explain why such fossils have not been found. But that’s all it is—possible explanations for why this fossil evidence is missing.
#43There’s no reason my views and the views of Coulter have to be identical.
That's true. However, you have stated that you agree with Coulter "on most things" and are "mighty close [to] being convinced" by the Darwin chapters on her book, saying that she "has founded all of her views on the published work of prominent scientific experts, and presented them in a very compelling and persuasive manner."
If you disagree with significant portions of Coulter's views on evolution, it is odd that you would offer such a broad endorsement of her views and continue to write on the subject for three weeks before offering any clarification. Even now you have allowed only an ambiguous remark suggesting that you could disagree with Coulter, rather than actually taking a stand one way or the other.
#44"But here we are about 150 year later, with a quarter of a million fossil species found, and only a small number of potential candidates for transitional species."
Here's the problem. Anti-evolutionists want to limit what is or is not a "transitional species." (Hence Coulter's dismissal of Tiktaalik.) Would the hominids be tranisitional species?
At any rate, what is impressive is that the scientists who discovered Tiktaalik knew exactly what they were looking for. They described it, and then they found it. It's hard to parse words like "transitional" and "small number" in that particlar instance.
#45Ruth,
If you disagree with significant portions of Coulter’s views on evolution, it is odd that you would offer such a broad endorsement of her views and continue to write on the subject for three weeks before offering any clarification.
In this article, I asked for feedback from the scientific community. A lot came in, I read it, and have taken it very seriously. It would be odd if my views didn't take some of this information into account.
In terms of clarification, you've participated in the comment thread for the follow-up article, in which I discussed my views in quite a bit of detail.
#46ThroatWobbler,
I'm not sure we disagree on anything. Are you arguing that Darwin as a mechanism for macroevolution has been proven? If so, you disagree with TalkOrigins.
#47Vik,
Perhaps we do agree. I'm not really arguing anything about Darwin as a mechanism for macroevolution--I'm not even sure what that means exactly.
Would you agree that Coulter's arguments are not persuasive, given what she omits or distorts?
#48Would you agree that Coulter’s arguments are not persuasive, given what she omits or distorts?
I think she's pretty persuasive. I'm not willing to go whole-hog and argue here that Darwin as a mechanism for macroevolution has been disproven; but she certainly makes a good case.
Perhaps we do agree. I’m not really arguing anything about Darwin as a mechanism for macroevolution--I’m not even sure what that means exactly.
Well, then we aren't talking about the same thing yet. Macroevolution means, the origin of new species, as opposed to microevolution, which is evolution within a species.
#49Steve, I read through the first 20 or so responses in your, "The full article detailing evidence for evolution, of which Coulter seems blisfully ignorant," but didn't find a single piece of evidence.
What the article did do is everything Ann Coulter said it "darwiniacs" do. List of bunch of scientists who do believe in evolution but not introduce a fossil supporting evolution of a new species. Perhaps it depends on what the definition of species is.
Also, what much of the article you sighted did was call her names and accuse her of fraud or a con, but not provide evidence. Makes for great reading but misses the point entirely.
One of the points in her evolution chapters was that creationist can accept evolution easily as a mechanism God used to create species, and that was partially the point of her listing a bunch of scientist wanting to discover God through science. The point of her book was to suggest that liberals, being Godless, promote evolution as evidence there is no God, or as a mechanism to push God from public life.
Ultimately, it matters little to Ann how many scientists support evolution as long as there's evidence that scientists that do not are silenced--and even that misses the point of her book entirely in the same way the hoopla surrounding her comments about the Jersey Girls misses the point of that chapter.
She points out over three chapters how science has become a belief system. Though scientists may not see it that way, politicians and the media do. Politicans and media have an agenda the theory of evolution supports, and that's the comfortable one-size-fits-all politics of moral relativism.
I noticed no one here has yet discussed how the logical extension of Darwinism and survival of the fittest influenced Stalin and Hitler and how both justified their slaughter of innocent, "less-fit," humans (including Christians) on Darwinism.
How compatible is Darwinism with social policy? Welfare policy? Racial tolerance? Multi-culturalism? These are the ideas she explores in her uniquely informed and inflammatory way.
#50Thomas,
Steve, I read through the first 20 or so responses in your, “The full article detailing evidence for evolution, of which Coulter seems blisfully ignorant,” but didn’t find a single piece of evidence.
Anyone can read it for themselves and see why you're mistaken...
What the article did do is everything Ann Coulter said it “darwiniacs” do. List of bunch of scientists who do believe in evolution but not introduce a fossil supporting evolution of a new species. Perhaps it depends on what the definition of species is.
...but here's one obvious reason. There is more evidence than fossils alone.
She points out over three chapters how science has become a belief system. Though scientists may not see it that way, politicians and the media do.
They are wrong. Scientific theories change in light of new evidence.
Politicans and media have an agenda the theory of evolution supports, and that’s the comfortable one-size-fits-all politics of moral relativism.
That statement is wrong in so many respects that it's hard to know where to begin. Perhaps you can state what you think "moral relativism" is and why "the theory of evolution" supports it, then people can explain to you why you're mistaken on both counts.
I noticed no one here has yet discussed how the logical extension of Darwinism and survival of the fittest influenced Stalin and Hitler and how both justified their slaughter of innocent, “less-fit,” humans (including Christians) on Darwinism.
It did NOT justify any such thing. Only a half-baked caricature of "Darwinism" does. "Darwinism" says that bacteria, cockroaches and ants are as evolved, as adapted, and as fit, as humans.
Notice also that Hitler claimed to be a Christian and justified genocide by claiming to do "the work of the Lord". That has nothing to do with whether Christianity is valid or not.
How compatible is Darwinism with social policy? Welfare policy? Racial tolerance? Multi-culturalism?
Completely compatible. Look up naturalistic fallacy to find out why your argument here is wrong.
#51"Look up naturalistic fallacy to find out why your argument here is wrong."
An appropriate definition! Doesn't naturalistic fallacy support what I said in the question, "How compatible is Darwinism with social policy..." The answer is, "not!" At least in the sense that survival of the fittest should be used to influence public policy.
#52Thomas,
Doesn’t naturalistic fallacy support what I said in the question, “How compatible is Darwinism with social policy..."
That's right, it doesn't.
An example of a naturalistic fallacy in this sense would be to conclude Social Darwinism from the theory of evolution by natural selection, and of the reverse naturalistic fallacy to argue that the immorality of survival of the fittest implies the theory of evolution is false.
#53Your bloggers may find my series of criticisms of Coulter at Talk Reason.org useful, as I will be examining point by point all of her claims in due course.
Coulter's primary problem is that she overly relies on flawed secondary sources. The fossil and genetic issues are explored at great length in the actual scientific literature, but neither Coulter nor her limited tutors (Behe, Dembski and Berlinski) have delved into the relevant points.
#54Very good, Jim. Please post links.
#55Frank,
RE your response:
"That statement is wrong in so many respects that it’s hard to know where to begin. Perhaps you can state what you think “moral relativism” is and why “the theory of evolution” supports it, then people can explain to you why you’re mistaken on both counts."
This is taking the "art" of non-response to new heights. Perhaps, in the future, when you wish to say something like this, you can save time by replacing it with the shorter (and logically equivalent) statement:
"I'm am too right! So There!"
Thomas was talking about people using evolution to support political and social agendas -- an activity that obviously takes place and whose participants are likely not waiting for a "stamp of logical approval" from you (or anyone else).
If you don't know that evolution (along other parts of science) is being used as a marker in a wider cultural debate -- and has been since it was first publicized -- then you haven't been paying very close attention. These cultural debates (which Coulter's book was mostly about, by the way) are largely based on things which are unknown (and maybe unknowable) and so are not likely to be decided by anybody's setpiece logical argument.
Until we start looking at culture and society as an experiment that must be analyzed empirically (What works, what doesn't, what's the evidence?) the culture wars will continue with each side making "gottcha" arguments that only convince those already behind them. (Aw Heck! They'll continue anyway -- who am I kidding!)
I may be an optimist, but I think the empirical view is gaining ground. Certainly the Progressive conceit, that the rules of society can be usefully remade with nothing more than rationalization and good intentions, has taken a bloody beating over the last century. On the other hand, the pure Conservative view, that only what worked in the past should be allowed, while fairing much better (as determined by results) than Progressive ideas, still seems too limited in a rapidly changing World for many people. The idea that we should experiment carefully when sufficiently necessary (with due respect for tradition) and be guided by the actual results is taking hold. (That's what the matter with Kansas, BTY -- it's filled with practical people who care about results and are unswayed by wishful thinking.)
In this debate, considered rationally, the truth or falisity of evolution (or any scientific theory) is peripheral (unless, of course, an actual scientific theory of Society were to emerge -- but this is not very likely until we start paying much more attention to the empirical evidence).
#56bobc,
RE your response:
"That statement is wrong in so many respects that it’s hard to know where to begin. Perhaps you can state what you think “moral relativism” is and why “the theory of evolution” supports it, then people can explain to you why you’re mistaken on both counts."
This is taking the “art” of non-response to new heights. Perhaps, in the future, when you wish to say something like this, you can save time by replacing it with the shorter (and logically equivalent) statement:
“I’m am too right! So There!”
Um, no. That is not logically equivalent at all. I am merely expressing an opinion that anyone who makes such a statement doesn't understand any of the terms they are using. Therefore I asked the speaker to confirm that suspicion by attemtping to define them.
For a kickoff, one is a theory about ethics and one is a theory of how things are, so the speaker very obviously commits the naturalistic fallacy (and indeed confirms this in his followup).
Furthermore in my experience nobody who uses the term 'moral relativism' as a pejorative turns out to have the first clue about what it actually means or what it implies. Asking them to define it and explain their problem with it usually proves as much. Usually what they mean is something like moral equivalence, a different thing.
Thomas was talking about people using evolution to support political and social agendas—an activity that obviously takes place and whose participants are likely not waiting for a “stamp of logical approval” from you (or anyone else).
He clearly states that "the theory of evolution" supports "moral relativism". That is false and furthermore it has zero bearing on whether "the theory of evolution" is correct. As explained above, it is unlikely that Thomas understands either term given the way he uses them and the conclusions he draws.
#57This isn't the place to discuss moral relativism and I apologize for bringing it up.
I re-read what I wrote and the section I'm accused of naturalistic fallacy and believe the accusation is misdirected. I was arguing that Hitler and others used Darwinism to justify some of their actions, then rhetorically asked how compatible the two are. The section I think the criticism came from was:
I noticed no one here has yet discussed how the logical extension of Darwinism and survival of the fittest influenced Stalin and Hitler and how both justified their slaughter of innocent, “less-fit,” humans (including Christians) on Darwinism.
How compatible is Darwinism with social policy? Welfare policy? Racial tolerance? Multi-culturalism? These are the ideas she explores in her uniquely informed and inflammatory way.
Those two paragraphs were intended to support my argument on how people misuse science, not asserting Darwinism should influence social policy. I thought the sarcasm was sufficiently obvious in the second paragraph but was mistaken. That's what happens when I don't run postings past my editors.
In Coulter's book she builds the case the theory of evolution has become a belief system presented as fact. A belief system that requires even its proponents to ignore holes in their own arguments. Ms. Coulter isn't a scientist but her forensics are excellent and she can find a hole in an argument and rip it open. Unfortunately, her rhetoric sometimes draws attention away from the point she's trying to make, which I think has happened here. Even we have fallen victim to debating evolution when that's not really what those chapters are about.
#58Coulter builds nothing, any high school science student would fail science class following her science (creationist)
for a good review for her science chapters see:
PART1 http://www.talkreason.org/articles/coulter1.cfm
PART2 http://www.talkreason.org/articles/coulter2.cfm
People accepting her science fall victim to ignorance
#59For what it is worth, one alternative to the TalkOrigins.org site, mentioned more than once as by Steve would be http://www.trueorigin.org.
#60"Thomas was talking about people using evolution to support political and social agendas—an activity that obviously takes place and whose participants are likely not waiting for a “stamp of logical approval” from you (or anyone else).
If you don’t know that evolution (along other parts of science) is being used as a marker in a wider cultural debate—and has been since it was first publicized—then you haven’t been paying very close attention. These cultural debates (which Coulter’s book was mostly about, by the way) are largely based on things which are unknown (and maybe unknowable) and so are not likely to be decided by anybody’s setpiece logical argument. "
1. I don't see how the fact that people misuse evolution pertains to its accuracy. That's like blaming the theory of gravity when someone pushes someone else off of a bridge.
2. Coulter's book is decidedly not about the cultural debate. She is attacking the science itself, and quite poorly, as a quick perusal of any of the rebuttals posted here will affirm. See my posts on Tiktaalik for a good example.
#61Vik said:
"I think she’s pretty persuasive."
So you don't mind that she omits facts or distorts them?
I'd be interested to see your defense of her misrepresentation of the modeling of the eye, as disucssed here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1656301/replies?c=238
She clearly implies that no such model was created. Persuasive? Perhaps until you find the truth.
#62"I’d be interested to see your defense of her misrepresentation of the modeling of the eye, as disucssed.."
Has anyone thought it curious pessimistic models of the eye's evolution ended up with our eye and not something more improved? It fascinates me how biologists fight intelligent design with intelligent models arriving at the same design as, well, the original intelligent one.
Can our eye not be improved? Can it not focus better? Can it not be more resistant to injury? Why only the visible light spectrum and not xray, infrared, or ultra violet radiation? What's the benefit of color over black and white? Who's idea was it to have two eyes instead of one? Is there a benefit to a third eye? Why aren't ours on the side? Why don't mothers /really/ have them on the back of their head? Did the pessimistic model include insect's eyes? Did it include lids? What about the optic nerve and the region of the brain dedicated to interpreting what the eye sees?
If evolution is so powerful and the model so accurate, why did it stop at a pre-arranged result? Was that the limit of the scientist's influence? If was influenced by the scientist, as demonstrated by its lack of innovation, then why wouldn't our own have been similarly influenced? Does the model propose a design for an improved artificial eye like The Bionic Man?
Lots of questions. Maybe you have the answers.
#63Thomas,
Way to dodge the issue. Coulter, in her book, claims that the model doesn't exist, that it is a deliberate fabrication. This is an out and out lie. That's the point I was trying to make: She distorted. She omitted. She misled.
I can't speak to the particulars of the model (and neither can you, incidentally) so I don't know the process. But I know the model exists. And I know that Coulter states it doesn't.
#64Yawn. It's the same old story. Everytime Ann Coulter puts out a book the unruly liberal mob pores over it searching for mistakes and they end up finding one or two minor mistakes. Big deal. The book has thousands of facts they can't dispute and one or two miniscule errors.
The fact that the unhinged moonbats hysterically obsess over a couple of minor errors proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that overall Ann Coulter is 100% right.
Plus Ann is drop dead gorgeous, something no one EVER says of liberal "women." Bow wow!
#65dittohead,
If you read the Talk Reason pieces you'd see that Coulter distorts, misrepresents, misleads and lies on nearly every issue. So your "one or two minor mistakes" is quite the understatement. Pretending real criticism doesn't exist is not much of an argument.
Your statements about "liberal mobs", "moonbats" and liberal women show that you are a solid thinker. Yawn indeed.
#66I had previously followed one of the links from talkreason to another site that discussed the origin of the eye from the Eden book . With all that success over a measly half million years its curious why the evolution seemed to have suddenly stopped.
Toward the end of that page the author mentions a Discover article about the evolution of fins to hands. I wonder why evolution stopped at the hand and didn't evolve into anything more useful. If we were fish I supposed we'd be satisfied with fins, but we're humans so we're satisfied with hands (and our eyes, apparently). Why four fingers and a single opposable digit? Monkeys seem to have useful digits on their feet. Why didn't ours maintain their utility beyond balance? Fins haven't any finger or toe nails. If we can't imagine a use for our hands beyone their current utility, how or why would a fin become something else? If our imaginations can't improve on what exists is evolution more powerful than that? Why only two arms when four might be better? Why not wings? Would't telepathy and clairvoyance be improvements on the status quo? Wouldn't they improve the chances for success and procreation?
At least our weather models can predict within a hundred-miles where a hurricane may go, but our evolution models stop right where biologists' imagination stops. If there were accurate models (not overly influenced by their creators) the models would continue to evolve eyes into something more advanced.
Maybe they can model freckles and find what evolution may have in-store for them? Perhaps they're intended to be human camouflage? What exactly are red-headed freckled people supposed to blend-in with? Can their models tell us that?
If models could simulate evolution there shouldn't be a single human trait we couldn't model to discover what it might evolve into. Instead we start with a known starting point and end-up with a known ending point and skip all the details (nutrients, transparency, tearing, repair, etc.)
In the computer business we find humor (and suspicion) in benchmarks that prove a predetermined result. Why don't evolutionists see as much humor in their own?
#67Thomas,
The Nilsson Pelger model of the eye was undertaken to see how difficult the evolution of the eye actually is. They found that the evolution took only about 2000 steps and that the whole process could have happened in as few as 400,000 generations.
You see, creationists/IDers had argued that the eye was too complex to have evolved. The study shows that supposition to be false.
Now you argue that evolution is bogus because humans aren't clairvoyant (has anyone established that this is even possible? How would one read the electrical activity in another's brain from a distance?) or freckles don't allow us to blend in (Why would humans need camoflage anyway? We are not a species prone to being hunted.)
This is a common tactic in ID. Researchers debunk a point and then anti-evolutionists move on to further and further distractions. Or they say the research doesn't exist, ala Coulter.
#68Throatwobbler what difference does it make whether it's one or two minor errors or three or four minor errors?
[Rude comments/insults deleted]
#69dittohead,
It's not "one or two minor errors" or "three or four minor errors." It's hundreds of major and minor errors.
If you'd care to discuss the errors rather than pretend they don't exist, that's fine. But don't insult our intelligence by characterizing 10,000+ words of detailed, supported rebuttal with "three or four minor errors."
#70the many, many, many errors documented at following links.
PART 1 http://www.talkreason.org/articles/coulter1.cfm
PART 2 http://www.talkreason.org/articles/coulter2.cfm
PART 3 http://www.talkreason.org/articles/coulter3.cfm
please bear in mind that any high scholl student accepting Couler's Science would flunk science. It's That Simple!!!!!
#71Throatwobbler you claim that there are hundreds of errors but you don't offer any proof of even a single error. At this point I'm thinking the original estimate of three or four errors may be too high! If you have actual proof of ANY errors, you need to show us what you got. Otherwise your just engaging in character assination against Ann.
Rich Cares no doubt it's true that a conservative student telling the truth in high school science would flunk because it's no secret that the school board is notoriously liberal and hostile toward conservatives. It is shameful!
#72dittohead
Coulter's book has bad science
nothing to do with liberal/conservative
you [insult deleted] wish to kill the US lead in science by teaching "Creationism". You want all the medical advances and cures resulting from evolution to go away, [insult deleted]
read the previous links to show Coulter's errors and please keep your religious views to yourself and our science classes to science [insult deleted]
#73dittohead,
I don't have time to read the Talk Reason pieces to you or post them here. Let's keep it simple for starters. Take a gander at this explanation of how Coulter misleads her audience into thinking a model of the evolution of the eye does not exist:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1656301/replies?c=238
No Coulter fans seem to want to talk about this. I wonder why.
[Insult deleted] no evasion please.
#74Vik, (or whoever censors comments):
Please explain how what I posted was an insult. I did not mean it as such, so I apologize if it sounded bad. Dittohead expressed an ineterest in details, but he/she has ignored specifics to date.
My comment merely stated that avoidance of a particular specific comment shows an unwillingness to discuss specific comments. Hence my "no evasion please" comment.
#75Throatwobbler,
It was just a personal remark - "Oh, and dittohead, your avoidance of this issue only shows that you are unwilling to discuss specifics, so no evasion please." It's so easy for these threads to degenerate into name-calling, and I'd like people to feel comfortable that they can come here and have a conversation without it becoming that sort of thing.
#76Vik,
Thank you for the clarification. I'll refrain from personal remarks then if that is the site rule. You, of course, are right that these discussions can devolve (pun intended) rather quickly.
#77Great. Thanks very much, ThroatWobbler.
#78Throatwobbler, although you have posted extensivly requesting others to read talkorigins, you have not given any indication that you have looked at http://www.trueorigins.org., much less considered their take on where the weight of the evidence lies.
Most reasonable people do not believe in spontaneous generation which is the initial assumption of evolution. Self-replicating bio-matter arising out of some unknown set of initial conditions. When it comes right down to it that is where evolution inserts its first "Chance in the Gaps". How do you refute a theory like evolution, that does not what conditions turn inanimate matter into living matter, or where it could have occured, or even when it happened? But according to evolution it "must" have happened and chance explains everthing. No matter how improbable, chance is just a convenient substitute for ignorance that calls itself Science.
#79Throatwobbler you have failed to offer even a shred of evidence that any aspect of Ann's book is in error.
#80I would also like to add that evolutionist do not have a consistent definition of the term "species"; When evolutionary theories (of which there are many) have no consistent way to distinguish one closely related species from another how is it possible to evalute claims about divergence? Or that a particular fossil is a transitional one, as opposed to say the fossil of an extreme example (a Great Dane vs. a Pomeranian)? Scientists working within the creationist framework have at least started to identify the criteria for "kinds" (see http://www.trueorigins.org).
#81Attempted thought conntrol was evident in the Humanistic Social Study classes at the University of Washington in Seattle during the 1950's when some of the Profs thought Communism was the beneficial wave of the future.
A student who took the position in the favor of maintaining the Taiwain independence in lieu of a takeover by Communist China received a failing grade from the Prof who preferred a Communist controlled government.
50 years later your MIT graduate is observing similar treatment for his Public High School students.
The Profs and teachers still have the upper hand!
#82Chad,
I did not suggest taklorigins, but Talk Reason, specifically the well-sourced and informative debunking of Coulter's evolution chapters. No one seems to want to talk about those articles, but if you're willing to respond I'm interested.
As to your point, however, evolution describes the process of speciation, so it doesn't say much about the origin of life. And as to your point about the difficulty of defining a species, I think this argues more for species being closely related by evolution.
But putting labels on natural objects is difficult. For example, we know the mathematical definition of the term "spherical." However, when we apply the term, how far can we go? A lime is surely spherical, as is a coconut. But what about a pear? An avocado? At what point does something that is more or less round cease to be spherical? Would it be logical to doubt geometry because of the difficulty of applying it to the real world?
#83dittohead,
Please demonstrate how Cuulter's misleading section on the evolution of the eye is not "even a shred of evidence." (See link in my post #73.)
#84It is possible that older fossils may have been destroyed by geological processes, such as plate tectonics.
Earth's crust is like 70km thick. I don't know if paleontologists have the means to dig that deep or if they're able to do so without destroying fossils.
#85"Most reasonable people do not believe in spontaneous generation which is the initial assumption of evolution."
Most reasonable people believe an old geezer modeled the first man from clay.
#86Essay on Problems with Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10005310900310.17702-100000@jabba.gl.umbc.edu
#87history of the rise & fall of the Synthetic Euphoria
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1156259059.973810.299560@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com
#88To Chad - Scientists do have a definition of "species". Wikipedia can tell you more: Species - Wikipedia. Logic dictates that evolutionists would use the same definition, and if they don't, then they're wrong.
The only way to really know what is divergent and what isn't would be to actually breed it. That's why it's the theory of evolution. I can't see it happen, and neither can you, but the evidence leads to this as the greatest logical conclusion. I personally feel it's the best we've got so far, but if a deity comes to me personally and tells me that it created the world, then I'll believe that that deity created the world (or I'm a schizophrenic, which I would check out with a medical professional).
A lot of speculation here has been made about the fossil record. Now, here's the problem with the fossil record - it's incredibly unreliable. An article posted on the Scientific American website three years ago goes into greater detail (see it here), but to summarize, the odds of being fossilized are slim to none unless it's in an arid environment or it just happens to get stuck in water sediment. So scientists formulate this theory based on the available evidence - that's what scientists do.
One thing that scientists, and often laypeople who know a little about the sciences, do that they shouldn't is make theology out of theory. When Einstein won his Nobel prize, it was for his explanation of the photoelectric effect, and not for his very controversial theory of relativity. A lot of people couldn't accept something so incredibly different. However, the majority of the scientific community finds too many implausibilities in the intelligent design theory with not enough evidence to back it up. That's why it's taught in classes about religion than classes about science. There's no great conspiracy against intelligent design.
And if you ever need more space wasted in your forums, just send me an e-mail.
#89As Ann aptly and completely describes, Darwin's evolution conjecture supplants atheism as a cover story and uses fraudulent evidence. A conjecture becomes an hypothesis when it can be tested; a successful hypothesis might be a theory; and, a theory is proven when reasonable results are repeated reproduced. Unfortunately, many scientists are also secular humanists who are comfortable with aethism. "Where is the beef?";"Where is the scientific proof?"
On p.263 Ann notes that many scientists want to understand the mysteries of God. Einstein says that "God does not throw dice". Each species is a miracle or marvelous invention. Moreover, the textbook random statistical model of quantum mechanics is inferior to a new classical electomagnetic wave model of atoms/molecules. R. Mills of BlacklightPower.com presents his book on the company web site. In reality Danish Nobel Prize winner Neils Bohr wanted German Werner Heisenberg "uncertain" about the atom and single handedly influenced the outcome of WWII.
Thomas Jefferson founded the Democratic Party, suggested "a wall of separation between church and state", and unleashed scientific exploration in the early years of our nation. Jefferson started Indian resettlement policies for Jackson, began the quibbling over the "Establishment clause" to the first ammendment of the constitution, and planted a seed for more than agriculture on this continent. Ann(p.84) misses this point and probably didn't attend the Jefferson/Jackson Dinner of the Arkansas Democratic Party this year with keynote speaker Hillary Clinton.
Overall, I enjoyed the book.
Please note the above scientific method does not include discrediting, stoning/burning, and attacking the messenger.
#90"But in the storm of criticism of the book so far, there has not yet been one word from the scientific community, objecting to Ann's views (at least that I have seen). How is this possible?"
Simple. Coulter is a total moron with zero scientific qualifications. A scientist ignoring Coulter is the same as you or I ignoring a wino that has passed out in the gutter and wet themselves.
The people that Coulter quotes are almost a bad as her. Behe, Berlinski, et al, are all folks that scientists openly laugh at for the way they just keep repeating assertions that have been totally debunked several million times.
Interesting take but I'd be careful about saying that scientists haven't addressed any of these issues. For example, a number of folks have taken down at least some of Behe's 'irreducibly complex' mechanisms. Also, whenever an intermediate species *is* shown, the critique tends to be "what about the two between the first and the last"? In other words - there's no winning with some folks because the fossil record is simply too sparse to show every intermediate form.
That being said, there are some issues with the rate of change that some biologists have recognized as being problematic. However, I see no real purpose in throwing out years of very productive biological research just because we still fall short of a full explanation. The problem with any form of creationist explanation is that it makes it far too easy to lay down the tools of science and just say "well, God did that part." In other words, it kills further attempts to explore and explain. Indeed, many scientists suspect that is really the whole point of the creationist attacks to begin with.
As far as addressing Coulter's points, I'm pretty familiar with her and I didn't even know she'd written on the topic...figured it was all cultural criticism. I expect that lots of scientists are even less aware.