This Christopher Hitchens character is just too much. But ultimately here, Coulter is correct. Christians and conservatives alike couldn’t care less about Christopher Hitchens and ultimately it will be God who will deal with him in the end, it’s out of our league and is not worth pondering.
However; I would like to make an objectional observation. Last year when Ann Coulter released Godless: The Church of Liberalism, Christopher Hitchens wrote for Vanity Fair and wrote the review for Coulter’s book.
A year later, he puts out a book called God is Not Great? In the book he makes many statements that would be perceived by the whining left as provactive if they were being said about liberalism, the Jersey Girls, or Obama. (The only difference is, conservatives couldn’t care less.)
It seems to me that this man cares less about his position as a Godless liberal and more about his sad attempt to adopt Ann Coulter’s writing style to cash in on Coultermania.
He should have went all the way by growing his hair long and wearing a black sports-dress on the cover of the book, too.
Liberals are such clones.
steveflesher
Philip
Mel Maguire
Mark Ciavola
Comments
That is precisely what Liberals don’t get about Christians. I think Ann’s answer was great! She makes me smile.
First, I think you meant to say, “couldn’t care less”, unless you really mean you could care less, so why don’t you (care less)?
Second, Coulter didn’t actually respond to the Hitchens quote. Is it not true that some “people of faith” are planning your destruction? The British were just recently reminded of that.
Thanks for catching that. Perhaps I’ll have you edit my posts. (It has been corrected)
Yes Coulter did respond to “Hitchens quote” (shouldn’t there be an apostrophe in there to properly reflect his ownership of the quote? Shame on you, Robert) by making fun of it.
The point she made is basically what I said. Christians really do not care. Hitchens could never spark anger among Christians or Conservatives as Ann Coulter does with liberals.
Ahhh, Hitchens did not say “some” people of faith as to describe Muslim fanatics. He implies that God and those who worship altogether are planning his destruction.
His broad brush has been curiously followed by your description of one group of religious fanatics to do damage control for him.
We really don’t care what he says and we have a military right now and an administration keeping the Islamic fanatics in check. Thank God! Can you imagine if the job were left to John Edwards?
Learn about them apostrophes and get back to me.
It’s a minor quibble. But is it true that Hitchens could never spark anger among Christians or Conservatives? That they don’t really care what he says? I think that’s pretty dubious.
Coulter, at least, wouldn’t be able to tolerate it.
Actually, no. I wrote “the Hitchens quote”. No apostrophe needed since I’m using Hitchens in an adjectival sense. Now if I hadn’t, then you’d have a valid point. But what would be the proper form? Hitchens’s or Hitchens’? I’ve always been a bit unclear on that one.
Ooops. One of the links didn’t come out quite right. The word “pretty” is supposed to link to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doKkOSMaTk4
I saw that before, Robert. I watch H&C every night and it’s a sad world when someone like Falwell who did so much for humanity is the subject of scrutiny like this just for having a belief, especially after his death.
I guarantee, liberals would have been crying if Ann Coulter were to make a remark about a passed away liberal pioneer. Talk about rage!
Liberals are like the Muslim botherhood. They are fanatically adherent, dominance oriented sterilized from reason and deaf to the voices of their fellow citizens .
Robert,
For some reason I had to approve the first comment. I believe because there were links in it. Sorry it didn’t show up before.
In any case, we aren’t enraged at Hitchens’ point of view or opinion on religion. As Coulter said, the Creator will be dealing with him, that isn’t our job.
What conservatives thought was that is was a tadbit innapropriate for him to use such unkind words about Falwell after his death (Falwell never killed or hurt anyone.)
Actually, it was an opportunity for Conservatives to also display how unhappy and extreme atheists are. If they want to convince the people of a position, they should at least wrap it in a nicer package.
Have you studied Hitchens’ disposition? Would you want that? At least Coulter smiles, laughs, makes jokes. Hitchens storms off the stage in anger over a simple debate.
Maybe I’m missing something.
Shawmut,
Your point falls in line as well with France after the election of Sarkozy.
There were two groups of people violently protesting:
1.) Muslim fanatics
2.) Extreme Leftists
I’m anxious for the liberal reaction of the court decision today to overturn the decision of a Detroit court to attempt to stop Bush on domestic spying.
The original judge in the case was Anna Diggs-Taylor and was appointed by none other than Jimmy Carter.
I’m guessing the judges that overturned her decision watched the news last weekend on Muslim doctors living in our nation planning to carry out jihad violence.
But I’m just guessing.
O what a brilliant piece!
You are so right. I used to get so angry at anti-theists like Hitchens. After I watched Richard Dawkin’s “The Root To All Evil” I felt threatened by radical atheism. *giggles* silly me eh?
Then I saw Dawkins in an interview where he explained that he became a Darwinist because he couldn’t handle the morality that came with God. All my fear of him went away.
Then there are the other crazies like Briant Sapient and this guy:
http://www.youtube.com/user/greydonsquare
But what exactly is there to fear?
I don’t know what planet you people are from. Ann Coulter is an A-grade, 100 carat, natural-fibre quack. She promotes herself as a genuine rightist intellectual (and whether such a thing is possible is itself highly dubious). But what are her main themes? She has expressed her desire to convert the Middle East to Christianity by force if necessary (and you might tell me when you’ve been persuaded of a higher-end belief on account of the threat made against you); she has manufactured facts to suit her own lobotomized theories (take for instance her insistence that Canada committed troops to Vietnam: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84EjWeTMBZs)
And then there’s “intelligent” design, the most jejune disingenuous reinvention of archaic creationism. No doubt some of you here will be itching to explain to me this, for instance:
http://bluerat.wordpress.com/2007/07/11/what-to-show-someone-who-believes-in-intelligent-design/
Now, before you leap to the conclusion that I’m defending Hitchens: I’m not. Hitchens is a pompous and arrogant man, but at least there’s grey matter between his ears and that’s something to engage with. Coulter’s repost that the creator is planning Hitchens’ downfall tells you something about the morality of that kind of God. And Dawkins, for that very reason, the malevolence of the Abrahamic God, is right to reject the Bible’s morality. Incidentally, the claim that Coulter’s “creator” is planning Hitchens end comes how? By what channels is she connected to the almighty will that she can interpret these things for us mere mortals? (And I would ask the same question of any religious “authority ” figure too.) Not to mention that God disliking Hitchens constitutes no answer to the charge that religious believers the world over are inherently dangerous to others around them, which is what Hitchens was contending to begin with.
BlueRat,
Very simply, believers don’t owe you an explanation of their beliefs. The objectivity required to understand this is not that hard to obtain.
First, intelligent design is an alternative to Darwinism, nothing more nothing less. Darwinism has countless documented flaws and has been scientifically refuted many times. In fact, much of what Darwin said would be there is not there now.
It’s either one of the other with me. Either allow the alternative theory to be taught in public schools or remove ALL theories. My tax dollars should not support Darwinism, just as yours should not support Intelligent Design.
Second, Ann Coulter was correct. It’s hilarious and helps our cause when liberals have to dig back to an interview that is three-years old but I thank you, because it makes my rebuttal so much easier.
John Cloud of Time Magazine confirmed Coulter’s accuracy. Canada sent non-combative troops to Vietnam. Moreover; thousands of Canadians crossed U.S. Borders to fight with out military during Vietnam while the worst Americans ran to Canada to dodge the draft.
Of course that was the part of the interview that the YouTube clip fails to show.
Glad I could be of service.
A good scientific theory makes scientifically testable predictions. What predictions does Intelligent Design make?
It doesn’t.
It is not a theory. It is creationism masquerading under the same ridiculous arguments you’ll find in Paley’s Natural Theology.
Who is stuck in the past?
So, not only is it NOT a theory, because it makes NO testable predictions, I’ve still to meet an “intelligent” designer able to explain to me the fusion of chromosomes the mapping of the primate genomes reveals took place in the development of humans from apes. What is the response from you to THAT?
What is the “intelligent” design explanation?
Come on! Don’t be shy now! Repeating ad infinitum that ID is a theory really doesn’t persuade anyone, least of all peer-reviewed science. I have access to academic peer-reviewed literature. Show me a reference where ID is published in a recognised journal. I don’t think you can. Because it hasn’t been. And if it had, the entire underpinnings of the biological sciences would have to change. Just like they did when Galileo and Copernicus showed the Earth moves round the sun. ID is incapable of such a thing.
As for Coulter’s interview, I wasn’t aware that something being 3 years old makes it irrelevant or embarassing to critics.
And what a surprise she has found a supporter amidst the staff at Time Magazine. No, I’m sure John Cloud’s credentials are utterly sound.
Cloud is making quite a stretch to prove that Coulter was correct– Canada was officially neutral during the Vietnam War, so if any noncombat troops were sent (none are mentioned in a detailed 1975 U.S. Army history, Allied Participation in Vietnam), they would not have been sent to support U.S. forces there. Again, Cloud went out of his way to cast doubt on statements made by Coulter’s critics, applying no such scrutiny to Coulter herself– the ostensible subject of his article.
But don’t let facts, either on this or on biological science get in the way of how you perceive the world. As you say, religious believers don’t owe me an explanation of their beliefs. Except when they come into schools and use tax money to teach their idiocy.
So. Don’t dodge the question. Chromosome #2. How does ID predict that? How does it explain it? And what concrete, scientifically testable theories does ID make?
Perhaps you failed to understand my opening statement – nobody owes you an explanation.
Besides, since you’ve set up some pretty big roadblocks for intelligent design (which has been confirmed by super “intelligent” folk like William Dembski), I think I will take this opportunity to talk about Darwinism’s MAJOR flaws.
#1. It does not consider the Cambrian explosion.
#2. Darwin says nothing of the Chinese Fossil Bed.
#3. As you seem so fond of bilological sciences, I think I will remind you that Darwinism IS NOT a study of biology.
Science in and of itself is the observation of facts or when facts aren’t 100% available (as is the case with Darwinism) – assumptions are made.
Factual sciences like natual science and biology are in a league of their own. DO NOT clump Darwinism or any atheist’s theory in with natural or bilological sciences. Darwinism has NO empirical probabality required by mathematical measurement to make a 100% bonafide determination and prediction.
What Darwin did was make a bunch of phony observations on what he THOUGHT happened and told his story based on fabrications, not on empirical probability.
So, we’ll stop there for now. Would you agree with me now, that you as an American have free will to dissent from the 76% of Americans that believe in God and Creation and that Christians and believers have a right to dissent from a pseudo-science like Darwinism. Thus; BOTH THEORIES should be ripped from government schools and not be taught at the taxpayer’s expense.
As for John Cloud’s assertion, yes it’s a fact that Canada sent non-combative troops to Vietnam and it is a fact that Canadians crossed borders to join our military.
Coulter’s OVERALL point was that Canada supported us during Vietnam with the above mentioned facts ALONG WITH the fact that they provided us with $2.7 billion in war materials.
As opposed to today where they just provide us with whining.
Get it?
It is obvious that you have very little idea what science is about. I am a PhD research chemist, so I should know something about it. We might compare qualifications in this regard, but that is not the real point. The point is the collection of misgivings you have about what the mechanism by which science functions actually is.
Let’s correct your obtuse remarks about evolution first (or Darwinism, as you like to call it – I’ll leave it to you to learn the distinction).
1. Of course the Cambrian explosion is “considered”. Evolutionary theory – in its biological sense – concerns itself with the Cambrian explosion. This constitutes the first of your misgivings: that science somehow discards uncomfortable observations when it is inconvenienced by them. This, I fear, is your projection. The Cambrian explosion enjoys a theory of composites: environmental factors (such as oxygen levels and glaciation), mechanisms postulating the acquisition of complex genomes and the natural consequences of metazoan ecology all feature.
2. How in your opinion was a 19th century Englishman to comment on the Chinese fossil bed? If that’s your argument, you should note that the book of Genesis mentions nothing about the marsupials; the authors obviously were ignorant about Australasia in general. God of course, might have said something, but… oh well.
3. Darwinism is not a study of biology. Finally you’ve managed to get something right. But evolution underpins the entirety of modern biology, which is not the same thing at all. And without it, biological sciences have no explanatory power. You might take care to explain this to you doctor next time you see him. Presumably his entire education comprises of mere falsehoods from start to finish!
Then you wrote:
“Science in and of itself is the observation of facts or when facts aren’t 100% available (as is the case with Darwinism) – assumptions are made.”
That betrays a complete lack of knowledge about what science actually does. Assumptions (or axioms) come PRIOR to any theory (or in fact any human system of understanding, including, for example, basic geometry). There is no human system of thought that is not positioned on axioms. What you mean by “when facts aren’t 100% available” is just vague piffle. Either a fact is observed (in which case it is available for consideration) or it is not (in which case it isn’t). From available facts, inferences are made and a theory is postulated. Tests of that theory are then undertaken. Falsification of that theory leads to either its modification or abandonment. A positive results means the theory survives. A strong theory is one that has survived many tests. I recommend you read Karl Popper’s Conjectures and Refutations to clear this up for you. That, by the way, is an entry-level text into the subject.
“Factual sciences like natual science and biology are in a league of their own.”
What are “factual science” that natural science (as distinct from biology themselves) is their subset? I think you’re getting very confused over terminology here.
As for your later statements, quickly: mathematical probability is not empirical by definition. Take a course in statistics to learn this if you need to.
So in summary, you’ve managed to offer a completely misinformed critique of Darwinism, (which is different to the evolutionary information BlueRat was offering), you’ve managed to confuse yourself wildly about science, and on that basis try to butress the unworkable hypothesis that “God did it”, when it comes to speciation. I’d take more care before advancing such arguements in the public sphere; for one, they betray your lack of expertise, and the speed with which you come to rely on “intelligent” authorities like Dembski who know more than you and manage to be wrong all the same.
Your insecurity here is further evidenced by your complete lack of an answer to Kenneth Miller’s presentation on the fusion of primate chromosomes in the evolution of mankind, an observation of a testable hypothesis with predictive power – evolution. That you should neglect this direct question from BlueRat, and instead offer badly constructed rebuttals against science in general shows something of the level of intellectual rigour with which you are comfortable (and I’m sure we’d differ as to its magnitude too).
You should note that where you find out about facts or observations science is yet to explain or be confident about, that is not an indictment of science; it is a recognition of the fact that theories take a great amount of meticulous development, and an acknowledgement that hubristic assertions of omniscience are out of place in any system with true explanatory power. Consider, for instance, Intelligent Design, which sharply contrasts with this. The assertion “God did it” explains nothing, not to speak of its arrogance is purporting to have discovered some ultimate truth, no matter what pseudo-intellectuals of Dembski’s class publish in unrefereed texts. If Dembski’s demolition of Darwinism is so convincing, where are his academic publications demonstrating the fact? Why is his academic post at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, whose mission is “to provide theological education for individuals engaging in Christian ministry”? Let’s face it, Dembski has nothing to do with science. He is a religiously motivated quack, and associate of those other propagandists Philip Johnson and Michael Behe.
Fistly, Steve, I do think “believers” owe an explanation to others when their irrational beliefs influence public policy decisions. All and any beliefs, in fact, ought to be open to criticism, not drowned under the coward’s retreating call “I don’t owe you anything!”
Secondly, no I don’t agree that as an American I have the right to dissent from 76% of anything or anyone because I am not an American.
For your information, the rest of the world is laughing at your pseudo-intellectuals like Dembski and Coulter, obnoxious solipsists the pair, Coulter especially.
And look at your answer to chromosome number 2: an amateurish attempt to hack at Darwin, rather than offer any reasoned or informed reasons against scientific evidence.
To begin with – (to the alleged chemist):
Darwinism IS NOT Evolution and Evolution is not Darwinism.
Creationists do not discount the theories of certain evolutions overtime. Darwinism SEPARATES from the open door of Evolution to make bogus claims of what was there.
According to the fast progress of Darwin’s theory, you and I should be sprouting new wings and tails by now.
Science is observation and testing hypothesis, conducting research to draw conclusions that have factual standing. Darwinism is not this kind of science – it is a pseudo science that has been debunked repeatedly over the years.
Second, your being a chemist has nothing to do with Darwinism – Darwinism is not a natural or biological science (the kinds of scientists that indeed have true and tested theories.)
Your entire rant was a sad attempt to create a divisive wall between believers and science. We do not dislike science. We do not mind natural and biological science being taught in public schools at our expense.
Finally, as I have said 75 million times – NO THEORY should be taught in a public school. Creationists and Darwinists alike have their right to believe.
Bluerat: Criticism is fine. However; YOU and CHRISTPHER HITCHENS are the ones trying to force your beliefs down the throats of others and you (by proof of the government) are happy to use my tax dollars to support teaching it to children in public schools. You can criticize all you want, and as Coulter lightly brushes Hitchens’ remarks aside, I lightly brush the theories of any atheist aside because in the end of things to me – it just does not make sense. The majesty and beauty of the planet is not something that JUST HAPPENED.
If you don’t believe that, fine. But the evidence is on my side in the general disposition of atheists and non-believers. They are generally very unhappy, un-enlightened folks that are crying out for attention.
Also, Hitchens is trying to sell books using the writing style of someone he claims to disagree with – Ann Coulter.
“As for your later statements, quickly: mathematical probability is not empirical by definition. Take a course in statistics to learn this if you need to.”
I passed statistics in college with an A and am about to graduate with a 4.0 (but that’s beside the point). I learned all about finding the mean, graphing correlation measurements, and learned that by 2023, 95.4% of commerce will be done online, so your job at Toys R Us will soon be worthless.
My statement illustrated the fact that there is no empirical probability in science alone and that one of the only elements containing empirical probability is indeed (say it with me) MATHEMATICS. Therefore my phrase of “mathematical probability” may have been used incorrectly, but being the chemist you are, I just assumed you would have figured that out.
What part of Darwinism contains that same probability? That’s the part I’d like to hear Dawkins or Hitchens answer.
As for Hitchens copying Coulter: I think you’ll find the former was a published author first.
And ah, bless, you took a college course and “learned” that 95.4% of commerce will be done online by 2023. Well, that is a testable hypothesis, not a probability. Please stay online the remaining 16 years so you can blush as strongly in public as you proclaim the coming of nonsense.
Do tell, what else did you “learn”?
No theory should be taught in schools? That’s a new one indeed. Perhaps schools ought to be disbanded altogether. An empty curriculum seems to be what you prefer best. Your wild assertions reflect this.
And nonsensical is your working definition of Darwinism, which, incidentally is a term describing the theory underpinning Darwin’s ideas and conclusions (which were for the most part correct, though a few errors there indeed were).
Your attack on Darwinism, whatever its merits and drawbacks (mostly the latter), is out of context, since it is intelligent design that I was crticisising above, and evolution that I was supporting (along with Ken Miller, and every other peer reviewed scientist). So why are you attacking Darwinism, rather than explaining ID?
And STILL NO ANSWER TO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE. You can guff all you like, but when all is said and done, primate chromosomes fused during the evolution of humans, irrespective of William Dembski, your 4.0 at college, and your ardent dislike of Christpher Hitchens.
BlueRat has it on the nose: You’ve answered nothing at all.
Nobody, incidentally, was conflating Darwinism with evolution, and so your offering of the distinction, as beautifully helpful as it is, makes no difference to the fact that biological speciation is evidenced, and the untestable crack hypothesis of ID is not. The former is science, the latter isn’t. The former is testable, the latter isn’t. The former underpins the biological sciences, the latter doesn’t. Biological evolution is an observable fact and has had a gigantic amount of supporting data published in peer-reviewed literature. ID, and its silly campaigners, have not.
Nothing about my “rant” was to create division, sir. My “rant” was so that you might be pushed in a direction of understanding what science actually is. Theories, by the way, have no intrinsic “factual standing” as you put it; they are provisional explanations confidence in which is a function of evidence. That you find the planet “majestic” and “beautiful” is fine, but does not hold up as evidence in and of itself for the work of a creator. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and an aesthetic faculty developed in the evolved mind, not conferred by a divine being (for which there is also no evidence). Saying “God did it” is an assertion, not even an argument.
As for Darwin saying we should be sprouting wings, why don’t you channel that great mind of yours at tackling modern-day evolution, if you’re so convinced of its ills, rather than 19th century straw men? I could go on about William Paley, but it would be a waste of time.
Go and read a basic introduction to the Philosophy of Science, rather than the demented ravings of Ann Coulter.
To the alleged chemist: you were the one conflating Darwinism with Evolution by beginning this fun exchange with the idea that I was doing so by saying the following:
“Let’s correct your obtuse remarks about evolution first (or Darwinism, as you like to call it – I’ll leave it to you to learn the distinction).”
You were the one drawing a conclusion there – I have ALWAYS noted the difference whereas evolution relies on true science (which is not an enemy of the creation theory by the way) and Darwinism which makes that stretch based on NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF. The same proof that Hitchens and Dawkins fail to produce.
Atheists are the ones who attempt to draw the line between Christians and Science. By doing so, they overstretch the importance and meaning of what Darwin did and what Dawkins is saying by pretending that there is something there that proves “where it all began” and then use the same boring argument they have always used:
“Science is on my side, Christians hate science!”
I’m tired of that. That is such a lie and individuals like yourself can keep going to bed at night and waking up in the morning pretending that there is no meaning of life or no God because I’m failing to show you the scientific tangible proof to his existence simply because I do have the faith to believe in him (along with 76% of the country btw.) I don’t owe you an explanation to any theory (none of which I have promoted by the way) to point how what a ridiculous and flawed theory that Darwinism is.
If you want to support Darwinism, do so out of your own pocket. I would think you would know who Richard Dawkins is – aren’t you aware that he admits these major flaws? I will post the interview with O’Reilly today.
Bluerat: If he was a published author before Coulter then we finally see that copying Ann Coulter actually makes him one that SELLS books…not one that just writes them. Moreover; he was SUCH an important writer and intellectual that he worked for years as a book reviewer for the deep-thinking Vanity Fair! He wrote the review for “Godless: The Church of Liberalism” one year before his book was published.
What you have both proved through the tone of your message is what I have said all along about atheists. Hitchens in particular shows how depressed most of them are. In all debates between Christians and atheists, the vitriol and unhappy positions always lie on the side of atheism.
If you’re trying to sell it, at least wrap it up in a nicer package.
Bluerat said:
“And ah, bless, you took a college course and “learned” that 95.4% of commerce will be done online by 2023. Well, that is a testable hypothesis, not a probability. Please stay online the remaining 16 years so you can blush as strongly in public as you proclaim the coming of nonsense. ”
Actually, it was quite simple – you take the growth in Commerce in the last 10-years and the growth in E-Commerce and correlate the two to get the conclusion. It was a determination. I only brought it up to illustrate to the chemist that one of us in this discussion actually did take a college class on statistics, passed it with an A, and will be graduating soon with a 4.0.
Why do the ones who suggest education seem to be the ones that need it the most?
What was your class Blue? Conclusion-Jumping 101?
Furthermore, it was the chemist that stated the importance of taking a statistics class, not me.
You may not buy this, but I have found the back and forth dialogue rewarding in a way.
Neither side has challenged faith as either a gift or a curse, nor have I observed either side challenge the ethics. (Surely, who published first and what, even back-tracking to epiphanies, would be fair. But you haven’t. We could take this rumble all the way back to Aquinas and get lost in measuring the number of angels that would fit on the head of apin, still a humane ethic survived that (albeit somewhat altered).
Share my kudoes for civility.
Trackbacks
One Trackback