Ann Coulter on UK BBC Newsnight interview with Jeremy Paxman<
YouTube - Ann Coulter on UK BBC Newsnight interview with Jeremy Paxman
Blogged with Flock
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
What's with the name "Superfly". Yeah, yeah. I used to use it as my "entertainment" email so I could get on potential spam sites without getting flooded with spam. Anyway, I stumbled across FARK.com...joined up...the rest is history. FARK, BTW, is no spam site. Shiat, I don't recall any email whatsoever from FARK
Ann Coulter on UK BBC Newsnight interview with Jeremy Paxman<
YouTube - Ann Coulter on UK BBC Newsnight interview with Jeremy Paxman
Blogged with Flock
10 comments:
Eh, Jazza gave the subject more seriousness than it deserved. Now, Coulter was a mess. Illogical, arrogant, avoided answering the questions with more than sound bites. Honestly, if this is the level of political discourse over there, no wonder America's such a mess.
Now I know that we Americans are backward and we have our quaint old-fashioned beliefs. However, I do have questions about the undeniable, scientifically proven account of the origin of life that you Europeans have discovered and revealed to the world. There are a few things that I just can’t resolve in my unsophisticated, colonial mind about Darwinism. But, I know that you “sons of the Enlightenment” across the pond will be able to illuminate me on these matters. Let’s just start with what’s probably my most basic question. How does Darwinism explain the development of irreducibly complex organs such as the eye, or ear? That is, those organs that if reduced by any one of its components would cease to function as a whole. For instance, the eye. Which of its components evolved first? The retina, rods and cones, or the optic nerve? In the case of the ear, was it the tympanic membrane, cochlea, or the cochlear nerve? I have learned that the twin engines of Darwinism are random mutation and natural selection. That a beneficial mutation gives an organism survival benefits over those of its kind that it will replace through natural selection. Darwinism also tells us that genetic mutations happen on a very small scale and that many would be required over time to build complex evolutionary advances. It’s just the chronology that is puzzling to me. That is if, as regards the eye, one of our ancestors was born with a mutation of light sensitive cells somewhere on its body, how would that have given it survival advantages over those of its kind that didn’t have the mutation? You see, if there wasn’t an optic nerve to carry the sensor information to the brain from these light sensitive cells, what advantage exactly was it that this ancestor had over others in its family? What use could this ancestor have made of the light information being received if it never made it to its brain for processing? How would this mutation have benefited the propagation of this mutant’s offspring, while others of its kind without the mutation died off? This question could be asked of any macrosystem within an animal such as the immune, or blood clotting systems. Just as well, it could be asked at the cellular level. There are so many interdependent components of a cell, that it seems in order to form just a one-celled organism would be impossible. This is just one question I have regarding Darwinism. Since I know that this is science and not just based on mere conjecture, but hard fact; you’ll easily be able to help me put down the challenges of religious idiots like Ann Coulter. I also know that questioning authority is a guiding principle of enlightened people; I see the bumper sticker all the time. For some reason here in America, the obvious answers to the proven facts behind Darwinism are not being communicated to us. It’s probably George W. Bush and his ilk that are keeping the truth from us. To keep us ignorant and pliant so that he and his cronies can hoard the world supply of oil for themselves. Please help by arming us with the necessary ammunition to combat this hatred of science. Sophisticated people such as you Europeans love intellectual debate, so this should be fun. Especially since you have the facts of science on your side. Oh, and when you answer this question, I have many others to follow.
Thanks,
Your friend in the American Theocracy
krimp, if it makes no sense that a creature would have evolved an array of sensing cells without a system to transport information, then assume the system to transport came first. this is what science does. it asks a question, then looks at examples and uses logic to postulate an answer. i am no biologist, and i do not speak for all scientists, but i do have an understanding of what the scientific process is. the reason why science is better than religion is that science has a system which demands constant questioning and revision of held beliefs. you would say that people who hold a darwin-derived belief of the existance of complex life have stopped questioning its validity, and this is simply not true. but it is true that logically some version of evolution makes more sense than any intelligent design theory.
my question to you would be: if we were/are intelligently designed and mutation serves no good purpose, why does spontaneous mutation happen at all?
thanks,
your friend in science
agentzero, thank you for your very civil and thoughtful response.
First off, let me say that with the arguments you’ve listed, you would have made the very point that Ann Coulter has put forth. That is, that Darwinism is far from proven science, and is taken by its adherents on faith. This you did when you asked me to “assume”, for that “is what science does”. It is true that part of the scientific method involves assumption(formulating a hypothesis). But, that is only the first stage. It is followed by gathering observable, empirical, and measurable evidence, subject to the laws of reasoning. Unfortunately for Darwinism, there has been precious little empirical evidence gathered in the more than 150 years since it was popularized. What little evidence that has been gathered in the process can easily be used against it. A priori assumption without the facts is simply faith. Belief in something unproven.
Furthermore, when you requested I “assume” the transport system(optic nerve) came first in the development of the eye, you’re simply playing a shell game. Reversing their chronology does not make the problem for Darwinism go away. You see, what benefit would an optic nerve be to an organism without the useful sensor information of the photosensitive cells? It’s is like having a computer and Ethernet cable without the Internet connection. Useless for observing the outside world. Darwinism contends that random mutations are responsible for evolutionary progress only when they give an advantage to one species member over another. Natural selection will enable this mutant’s offspring to out-populate its non-mutated cousin. In addition, you’ve black-boxed the evolutionary development of the complex optic nerve and its interface to the brain. This is very common among Darwin’s adherents…details are not important.
You stated “science is better than religion”. I concur that “true” science is more trustworthy than religion. Unfortunately for Darwinism, it appears to be more of a religion than “true” science. All assumption(faith), and no empirical evidence. There are growing numbers of scientists who believe its going the way of its predecessor, Spontaneous Generation. Yet, pop culture and the education community are lagging behind. The free thinkers today with the best arguments are questioning the very foundations of Darwinism. Like Gallileo, it takes courage to confront the Church of Darwin. It is very powerful, with its ability to stifle dissent through the awarding of tenure and grants in the scientific community.
You postulated that “logically some version of evolution makes more sense than any intelligent design theory”. Really? Can you give me solid proof you have(empirical evidence) behind this statement? Just give me an example of a very simple system, machine, plant, or animal, that just came into being without the intervention of a designer with intelligence. All technology and inventions require a designer with intelligence to come up with the initial idea and then fabricate and implement that idea. The watch, airplane, automobile, computer…whatever. These are also, by the way, very crude and simple when compared to the human being. Yet, you ask me to believe that these things could be created out of randomly connected events without any guiding intelligence? Where is the logic in that? It has never been observed as far as I know.
Finally, as to your last question, “if we were/are intelligently designed and mutation serves no good purpose, why does spontaneous mutation happen at all?” This is a non sequitur. I’ve never said mutation cannot serve a “good”, or beneficial purpose. Clearly, there are some genetic mutations that are beneficial in the proper environment. For instance, the sickle cell trait helps those in malaria infested regions of the world propagate better than those without it. However, it is devastating to populations outside of malaria prone areas. Natural Selection does take place, no doubt. However, its only ever been observed within a species, never trans-species. Those with or without the sickle cell trait are still humans. Genetic manipulation has been practiced since the beginning of time to breed beneficial characteristics in organisms. Of course, it almost always takes intelligence to breed a beneficial gene pool. Random genetic mutations happen all of the time; most are detrimental. Transmission of genetic material is not perfect. But it’s a great “leap of faith” to think that genetic mutation has brought life to its ultimate form in human beings. My question to you would be…when have you observered a new species created through random mutation without intelligent intervention?
thanks,
your friend in determining the difference between science and faith
To Krimp,
There are valid scientific responses to the 'irreducable complexity' argument. You are unlikely to find them by posting on blogs, as most of us alas, have not spent years of our lives learning about biology. Luckily for us, some people have and as part of the scientific method they publish their results for peer review, and so we can find out about them.
If you genuinely want to know why 'irreducable complexity' is not regarded as a problem for evolution for Scientists then I suggest you do some reading. Here are a few websites to get you started in the right direction, but here has been alot of work on evolution so you could literally spend a lifetime reading all the all the evidence and studies that support it. If you seriously want to study this you would have to start looking at books and scientific journals, not just websites.
http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/icdmyst/ICDmyst.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/04/evolution_of_ic_1.html
Rest assured, scientists have looked into these issues. I suggest rather than putting the rest of your questions here, you take the time to research them and discover the answers are already out there.
As an American, I figured I'd pop in and mention that not all of us are as dense as Coulter, or, despite his loquacious manner, krimp.
Science has determined that Darwinism is intelligent enough to base our current beliefs on. Maybe, one day, a shall-we-say evolution of the idea might occur. For now it's as good as we got and it's better for understanding our world than saying our big invisible friend made it in six days. Maybe you're like Coulter and choose not to believe either, well, either come up with a new system or deal with the one we have. Simply challenging without giving another idea is petulant and meant only for a grab at attention. You can throw all the half-assed science at it that you want, until you come up with a feasible replacement it's all worthless.
So Coulter, krimp, whoever else, hit the books and the laboratory and grab a ticket aboard the Beagle or whatever the hell you have to do - I'm looking forward to seeing what you come up with.
As an American, I figured I'd pop in and mention that not all of us are as dense as Coulter, or, despite his loquacious manner, krimp.
Science has determined that Darwinism is intelligent enough to base our current beliefs on. Maybe, one day, a shall-we-say evolution of the idea might occur. For now it's as good as we got and it's better for understanding our world than saying our big invisible friend made it in six days. Maybe you're like Coulter and choose not to believe either, well, either come up with a new system or deal with the one we have. Simply challenging without giving another idea is petulant and meant only for a grab at attention. You can throw all the half-assed science at it that you want, until you come up with a feasible replacement it's all worthless.
So Coulter, krimp, whoever else, hit the books and the laboratory and grab a ticket aboard the Beagle or whatever the hell you have to do - I'm looking forward to seeing what you come up with.
I figured I should say that not all Americans double post, either. It happens.
Educate Yourself,
Thanks for your thoughtful response. However, your so-called “valid scientific responses”(I only had time to read the first of your URL’s) to the 'irreducable complexity' argument seems only to contain hypothesis upon hyposthesis based on a priori assumptions. Unless I missed it, I saw no empirical evidence supporting the man’s assertions. He admittedly assumed without any proof(absense of a fossil record) that six genera in a family of carnivorous plants were linked through evolution. So, right there, without any proof, he builds upon that assumption with all of his other assumptions. Now, I know that formulating a hypothesis is part of the scientific method, but it also is only the beginning part. Empirical evidence, observable and measureable must follow. That seems to be the problem with Evolution. For 150 + years it hasn’t been able to get out of the starting blocks. That would place Evolution in all of its forms, as well as Intelligent Design in its forms, at the same stage of maturity. Unless you have incontrovertible evidence to the former, I believe at this point they are equally valid. That has to be particularly galling to the giant intellect known as “anonymous”. His definintion of science appears to be whatever he believes, or whatever he’s told to believe. Anyone who questions it is dense. I’m thankful Gallileo didn’t have that attitude.
When you said “Rest assured, scientists have looked into these issues”, that plays into Coulter’s accusation of Darwinism being a religion. Rest assured is another way of saying “take faith”. Blind trust in those with the title scientist and deferring to them on all matters is analogous to the masses of illiterate people in the Middle Ages relying on the Catholic priesthood as the sole oracles of God. Whatever happened to the “Question Authority” mantra for those on the left.
If I was wrong, as you seemed to imply, in putting the question out there on this blog, I’m sorry. But, when I saw all of the threads on it, I thought it was a discussion, or debating forum. I didn’t realize it was just an echo chamber to attack Ann Coulter without reading the arguments behind what she posits.
It seems Coulter’s also right about people on the left being unable to debate with facts and details. Everything is based on how they feel, not what reality is.
I’m also sorry to Anonymous for being as you say, loquacious. My words may be many, but at least they’re not posted twice.
Anonymous, you also said “Science has determined that Darwinism is intelligent enough to base our current beliefs on.” If that’s true, my “density” puts me in with the same crowd as the late Stephen Jay Gould, professor of paleontology at Harvard. Who, in response to the woeful ability of Neo-Darwinists to answer problems with evidence not fitting the theory, developed his own theory of “punctuated equilibrium”, basically bringing back to life the “hopeful monster” theory of the late 30’s. In addition, there’s the co-founder of the double helix structure of the DNA molecule and Nobel Prize winner, the late Sir Francis Crick. He too, because of the mathematical improbabilities of molecules randomly combining to form the amino acids from which DNA developed came up with his theory of “directed panspermia”. This said that the seeds of life may have been transported to earth by extra-terrestrials. And, at the risk of triggering your Attention Deficit Disorder, how about Francis Collins, the director of the US National Human Genome Research Institute and the scientist who led the team that cracked the human genome. Through his work, he has become a theistic evolutionist.
Forgive me for boring you. You may now proceed with your bashing of Ann Coulter and people who believe in Intelligent Design to make yourself feel smart.
'Rest Assured' is a turn of phrase, which basically means 'I feel you can be confident' and does not mean 'take faith' and certainly does not mean 'you don't have to do any thinking yourself as someone already has'.
I said you should 'rest assured' that the issue had been looked at by scientists, not that you should 'rest assured' in what they have to say. That scientific responses have been generated is a fact that I am asserting which you can easily verify (I don't expect you just to believe me). Whether you choose to agree with their results is another matter altogether.
My statement in context meant that you can be confident that this particular issue has not gone unnoticed by the scientific comunity. That does not mean you should take it on 'faith', it means the information is out there if you are open to read it, and you can make your own informed judgement based on the evidence provided by many different people.
Science does not work on faith, it works by accepting what 'we have most evidence for to be true' at the time. If more evidence comes to light that supports another theory better than that theory is accepted in its place.
I did not know that Ann Coulter supported Intelligent Design, because in this interview when asked what she proposed as an improvment or better alternative to Evolution she claims she doesn't have one, and is simply criticising evolution. The way Science works, you can find all the flaws in Evolution you like, but until you produce a better theory that is supported by more evidence than Evolution, the best supported theory stands.
Inever said that you should not debate here, just that you will learn more and be able to have more informed debates if you research your questions yourself before asking others. I gave you three websites, which I explained could barely scratch the surface of the scientific study you would have to do to fully explore these issues, and you did not even bother reading those, let alone futher study of your own. This implies to me that you are less interested in taking in new ideas, than you are in trying to find people who know less than you, who you will be able to convince with your non-scientific theories. I apologise if this is not true, but it is how it appears to me.
Incidentally, "people on the left are unable to debate with facts and details. Everything is based on how they feel, not what reality is." is a good example of something you feel and not a fact. A few examples of 'people on the left' who have in your opinion showed this trait is simply 'annecdotal evidence', and does not make your statement true.
I have not bashed Ann Coulter's person or opinions so far, mainly because I feel there is no point. Based on the things she has said she is either A) lying for publicity purposes (and she's making good money out of it, remember) or B) She is psychotic. This is not a personal slander or an 'emotional' response, it is the correct psychiatric term for someone who constantly advocates murder and genocide as a way of dealing with others in the world.
I personally believe she is not psychotic but just seizing on political opportunities to make a quick buck and score a few minutes of fame.
Post a Comment