We have some interesting events coming up on TV and radio: two interviews that pit the wise against outrageous fools.
- Tonight (Wednesday), Jay Leno is having two special guests on his show. Ann Coulter, who is plugging her new anti-evolution, anti-freethought, anti-thought book of hate, is going to be on, and most wonderfully, with her will be George Carlin, of the famous irreverent irreligiousness and sharp, searing wit. Let's hope for fireworks.
- Friday, at 3:15 ET, on NPR's Science Friday…it's Chris Mooney, author of The Republican War on Science and advocate of good science, will be paired up with Tom Bethell, author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science, who most infamously said, "Darwin's theory, I believe, is on the verge of collapse…Natural selection was quietly abandoned, even by his most ardent supporters, some years ago."
These could be great fun. Tune in!
You can listen to Coulter here claiming that solar and wind power do not create new energy, but nuclear power does! She’s such a brilliant scientist that Richard Dawkins is afraid to debate her, but she’s a little weak on advanced concepts like the conservation of energy.
You can read Coulter on evolution here:
http://www.rightwingnews.com/archiv[…]1.PHP#005875
It’s fascinating to see how “I’m not listening, nahanhanhanhanhanha” is considered a legitimate political and scientific opinion by some.
Having been drawn introduced to Coulter via a seedy discussion on UD I am interested to hear this. Is there some way someone from the UK can listen via the Internet?
Bethell quote: “Natural selection was quietly abandoned, even by his most ardent supporters, some years ago.”
We abandoned natural selection??? I didn’t get the memo…
On the other hand…Coulter has produced no offspring, so sexual selection appears to be intact. :)
secondclass – Just to point out, Dawkins hasn’t been willing to debate Creationists since they got such a large showing even at Oxford, with well over 1/3 of the Oxford audience voting with the Creationists.
I agree that it is silly to think that Dawkins should debate Coulter, or that he even cares who she is, but I do find it odd that he refuses to actually engage in any public dialog with Creationists.
Jonathan, I personally don’t find it the least bit odd. Eye of the beholder, I guess.
Coulter is just a publicity whore. She likes to sell books. Look for her to pick up some other cause once the book sales peter out.
She sure is laughing all the way to the bank.
On the Harpie vs. Hippie match, I call Harpie by UD. Good chance of a work, however.
LOL!
By all means, Jonathan, let’s run science by opinion polls.
Perhaps Dawkins realizes that “debates” only give undeserved credibility to people who want their religious opinions taught as science?
There’s a lovely Southern saying for why Dawkins shouldn’t debate Coulter:
“Never debate an idiot. They drag you down to their level, and beat you with years of experience.”
Coulter is not a pundit, she is an attention-getter. She will not debate, and in all the times I’ve seen her on TV, she has not debated any issue. She will attack, using ad-hominem and emotional arguements. (Evil scientists and the ACLU taking away our religon is her latest thesis). Worse, no matter what the outcome, in the media follow-up, 30 second snippets will be extracted, making it look very balanced.
from rightwingnews:
Honestly, how do you even begin to debate with that? She summed up her 3 points in 15 words!!! That’s about all there’s time for on TV. You can’t even begin to talk about heredity, natural selection, mutation, exaptation &c. in that time.
Stuff like this makes me think the end is near.
GuyeFaux
Laser –
I never suggested we should.
Never fear. Dembski’s now riding the Coulter diatribe like a rented mule: Coulter’s promotion of intelligent design “will propel our issues in the public consciousness like nothing to date.“
Re “Honestly, how do you even begin to debate with that?”
How about: 1. It’s perfectly logical - complex life comes from ancestors. 2. There’s no significant evidence against it. 3. There’s lots of places where contrary evidence should have been found if the theory were wrong.
Jonathon, I think that you are playing coy. Exactly what did you mean then, by “with well over 1/3 of the Oxford audience voting with the creationists”?
If Dembski wants to tie himself and his “movement” to Coulter, then by all means let him. However, his quote could more appropriately be, “She will drag us into deeper levels of muck than even I ever imagined.”
Can I assume, then, that none of you have actually READ the book?
Can I assume, then, that none of you have actually READ the book?
Actually, no.
But perhaps you have. Care to give a spirited defense?
Randy, since criticisms of Coulter here are about things she has publicly said on her book promotion tour (and in the past), why is reading her book relevant? Is it necessary to read her latest book to criticize her public statements? If you look closely at the comments, nobody criticized her book. They criticized statements that she has made that are in the public record. (They even provided links!)
That’s been my opinion of her for a while now. No wonder Dembski finds his views being “promoted” by her. I think he should be less enthused about the company ID keeps.
I have.
Enjoy!
Yes, I read it and enjoyed it.
I don’t agree with everything she says, nor do I always like some of the hyperbole.
Nonetheless, she does a good job making her case. It’s a footnoted book, and many of the sources can be found in published material on the web. There were a couple of times I was reading the chapters on evolution and thought “No *WAY*!! She must be taking this out of context” and then I went and found the citation and realized she wasn’t.
She does a good job gathering materials to make her case that Darwinism is the liberal state religion…and of course I expect that much of this crowd is composed of its true believers, I am sure that the ‘contempt’ that Ann attributes to ‘Darwiniacs’ will undoubtedly be thrown in my direction.
But rather than reading ABOUT her book. Maybe some of you should try an exercise in intellectual honesty and read it…in context, read the footnotes, absorb what she’s saying, and ask yourself if there isn’t some truth to it? It’s called self-reflection. I try to read sites with which I disagree for that very purpose. It’s a very good habit to get into.
I’d love to read some refutations of her thesis about the history of evolution, but that would in fact require someone to actually read the book.…and not just pluck quotes from editorials.
Randy
There have been, over the past 40 years, a number of *very* public dialogues and debates with ID/creationists. In all of these instances, the ID/creationists were given as much time as they wanted to present whatever evidence and witnesses they cared to, and even given the opportunity to cross-examine every single one of the “evolutionist” witnesses to point out any flaws, dishonesty or evasions that they thought they could find.
Those “public dialogues” were called: Epperson v Arkansas, Daniel v Waters, Maclean v Arkansas, Edwards v Aguillard, Segraves v California, Peloza v New Capistrano, Freiler v Tangipahoa, Selman vs Cobb County, and Kitzmiller v Dover.
The ID/creationists lost all of them. Every single one. Without exception.
Nope. But since ID/creationists haven’t come up with any new “arguments against evolution” in 30-some years, I’m pretty sure that Coulter presents nothing — nothing at all whatsoever — that wasn’t already dragged out decades ago by ICR, and hasn’t already been killed somewhere in the T.O “index to creationist claims”.
Could you point out an original argument made by Coulter in her book? One that’s not already 30 years old?
I see. So, since Coulter isn’t a biologist and odesn’t know a prokaryote from a pachyderm, she instead engages in that most favorite of all creationist pastimes — quote-mining.
Let me guess ——– she triumphantly cites Stephen Jay Gould’s statement about the “trade secret of paleontology”, right?
And Patterson saying there are “no transitional fossils”?
(yawn) Seen it all before.