Posts
Ann Coulter on Evolution
Ann Coulter's new book, Godless, has several chapters devoted to bashing evolution. Naturally this has has caused a little bit of rumbling around the science-oriented blogosphere. Many of the commenters are politically left of center, so they already have reason to dislike her based on politics.
William Dembski, of the Discovery Institute, claims to have helped Ann. I briefy perused the book at the store a few days ago and it sure looks like she had input from DI types (which seems to be confirmed.) It has many of the distortions and talking points that the DI has been putting forth--even some old creationist chestnuts like "survival of the fittest is a tautology." I also saw some bold sweeping assertions about, say, the fossil record. Now you and I both know that she isn't any kind of expert on paleontology, and given that evolution is firmly a part of paleontology, the experts wouldn't back her up. But that doesn't stop her from pronouncing the fossil record as devoid of evidence for evolution.
Coulter's angle, of course, is that Darwinism is the religion of godless liberals. Well I suppose it could be, but what to do about folks on her team--Christians and conservatives--that accept evolution? People like George Will or Charles Krauthammer, or any other number of people? Clearly the dichotomy is not how she is drawing it.
If there is value in that part of the book, it may be that it concisely lays out current anti-evolutionary arguments, with spice. But if you read the book, at least read some mainstream science to go along with it. Or easier, visit the Talk.Origins index to creationist claims--I'm confident that you will find much of what she has written has already been dealt with.
P.S. I once had occasion to meet Ann Coulter and sit at her table at a dinner. At the time I had no idea who she was.
11 comments:
'"'Survival of the fittest' is a tautology" is a "creationist chestnut"' is an evolutionist chestnut. Discuss.
BTW, when did Krauthammer convert?
I perused her book last night at the book store, and naturally I jumped to the chapter on evolution. I didn't read more than a page and a half before I realized that she had absolutely no idea what she was talking about, and worse yet had no desire to know more than what she thought she knew on the subject.
I think that biggest complaint which evolutionists have against ID in general is how they have politicized science, as if all sides of every issue should be taught equally and we can vote on what is truth. NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO!
Chris,
There are a number of things which most creationists tend to misunderstand about the statement which you would like elaboration upon.
1) Darwinian evolution is NOT "survival of the fittest." Survival of the fittest is simply a definition of what is considered "fit" in terms of evolution, and definitions are supposed to be tautological.
2) Furthermore, this definition isn't strictly true. Fitness is no longer defined in terms on an animal simply suriving, but rather genetic fitness is defined in terms of how well a gene which is found not only in the animal itself, but in its close kin as well, propogates within a population.
3) Darwinian evolution, as I have said is not "survival of the fittest", but is rather the differential reproduction of organisms.
4) There is a tautological aspect to evolution, just as there is to physics. (F=ma is just as tautological as evolution is.) Science is tautological in the sense that it is known a priori that "if conditions a,b,c,etc. hold then X happens." HOWEVER, as should be clear, it is an empirical matter to see if a,b,c,etc. hold or not.
It is when Coulter doesn't seem to be at all aware of any of this that she simply disqualifies herself as an authority of any kind on the subject.
So "survival of the fittest" is an attempted tautology[1], but it fails because the definitions have changed[2], but it's a moot point because it's not what Darwinism is about anyway[1,3]. Have I got that right?
Why would I listen to Coulter about evolution? At least we should listen to someone who has some credibility in the science.
The truth is, even Intelligent Design folks accept evolution, they simply believe it is directed by God. They are not claiming that the world was created in seven days out of nothing.
As for teaching the controversy? What a joke. So we should teach that the world is flat and the world is round? Or that the earth is the center fo the universe and that it revolves around the sun? Or that matter is made of 4 elements, earth, air, fire and water, or the reality of atoms and molecules?
Saying we need to teach the controversy of evolution is the same as saying we should preach the controversy in any of the above.
Science has clearly shown that evolution is correct. You may wish to discount the science because of religious beliefs, but you can't say that science itself has not been established on the matter.
Jeff,
I was hoping you would show up--I've seen you take on the tautology argument before. Thanks for laying it out.
It's also worth pointing out that "survival of the fittest" was not Darwin's phrase. Perhaps it captures the basic essence of evolution, but simplisticly. Sort of like saying that with gravity, "things fall."
Chris,
Re: Krauthammer, well, the article I linked to is dated Nov 18, 2005. But I hope you mean "convert" in a casual kind of way, because it is clear that Krauthammer does not view evolution and belief in God as mutually exclusive.
Anon,
Pretty much "amen," although you will find a wide range of views in the intelligent design camp. One of the things that is so irritating about them is that although they give some lip service to accepting much of evolution, their rhetoric is constantly directed against it. Instead of modestly trying to establish that their paradigm adds an additional layer of understanding, they engage in grandstanding about how they are overturning the Darwinist stranglehold.
We do teach that the world is flat, and that the world is round.
Every elementary student learns that primitive peoples thought the earth was the center of the universe, though we seem to have little basis for this folklore. In spite of the confusion, most of us seem pretty well aware that the earth revolves around the sun.
We're familiar enough with the classical greek theory that matter is made of earth, air, fire and water. And somehow still reconcile the reality of atoms and molecules.
Some of us can even still envision the subdivision of matter as the old Niels Bohr model, and yet still approach more contemporary theories integrating modern ideas about particle physics.
There are many different ways of looking at things, even within the discipline of science. To ignore the reality of every viewpoint but your own is to miss a lot of interesting opportunities.
Jared:
What I meant by the "convert" reference is that Krauthammer was Jewish, not Christian, the last I heard.
Chris,
I should have been more clear. Certainly I did not mean to imply that all conservatives are Christian, or that all Christians are conservative.
Having said that, I have no idea what Krauthammer's relgion is; you are probably right.
Chris,
You sound like you are 'resolving doubts' with the commitment pattern. ;-)
The main point to make about the "survival of the fittest" is that every idiot can see that it is true, and that is because it is so uninteresting. Darwin's idea, however, was very interesting wherein actual design can come about VERY slowly without any designer at all, but rather by means of the non-random selection of random mutations.
The main issue isn't so much the phrase that Coulter uses, but rather it is the fact that it reveals such a fundamental lack of understanding for the theory which she is criticizing, that's all.
So, to response to your comment,
1) That never really was the definition of Darwinism.
2) Being tautological isn't all that bad, if it were the right definition.
Jim,
You are correct that these ideas (that people thought the world was flat, or that the ancients believed in 4 elements) are taught in school. However they are NOT taught as equal and available alternatives to the current scientific viewpoint. They are taught as myth and history, as interesting ways to understand our ancestors. We don't teach the "controversy".
Those who support ID wan't us to teach ID as a respected and supported alternative to Evolution. This is hugely different from the other examples.
Personally, if ID was treated the same way as the flat earth (i.e. some people believe this, but there is no scientific evidence for it, and it is now regarded as a myth) then I would have no problem.
Post a Comment