Pharyngula

If I may point out, a decent single malt scotch provides an ablative layer around the neurons. A few shots of Lagavullin should be able to save at least 50% of the neurons, given that you limit your exposure properly.

Posted by: Graculus | April 26, 2006 2:57 PM

Out with those old dependable neurons, in with the new mindlessness:
My brain is dead, long live Ann Coulter!

Posted by: sdanielmorgan | April 26, 2006 3:10 PM

(One of many good reasons not to subscribe to Human Events.)

Shit like this bugs me because it seems designed to provoke reactionary rightward moves by the Dems. Without tripe like 'Godless' we'd probably see less foolishness like Melinda Barton's column on Raw Story, and most of the stuff Amy Sullivan writes on religion.

Posted by: JP | April 26, 2006 3:12 PM

Think I'll just let MarkCC do a little talking for me, since he's so good with Dembski's bad math:

Dembski, King of Bad Math
One "Last" Stab at Dembski
Q&A Roundup
Dembski and Displacement

Posted by: Bronze Dog | April 26, 2006 3:15 PM

Mumia Abu Jamal? I haven't heard that name since I was about 16. Is that really the best she can do?

Posted by: Meri | April 26, 2006 3:25 PM

If liberalism "bears all the attributes of a religion" then that's good, isn't it? I thought the rightwingers were in favor of faith-based communities. Could it be that when the shoe's on the other foot, they actually recognize that dogma is a poor substitute for reason?

Posted by: PaulC | April 26, 2006 3:26 PM

Excellent observation, PaulC. It's one of those things that's so obvious, I can't believe I missed it.

Posted by: Bronze Dog | April 26, 2006 3:30 PM

I think that Coulter should be a technical unit for neuron loss. Every lost neuron counts as 1Co. You read this book, and you loose 3MCo.

Posted by: coturnix | April 26, 2006 3:40 PM

Sigh. Cornell should just send Will Provine to her house to tear up her diploma.

Posted by: HappyPig | April 26, 2006 3:58 PM

I have a coworker who can't resist needling me about my belief in "astrology" (I'm an amateur astronomer), and every time, like an idiot, I swallow the troll hook and lash out. I feel the same way with AC. I know she can't believe this crap, but I just can't let stupidity slap me in the face unchallenged.

Posted by: aiabx | April 26, 2006 4:04 PM

Shit like this bugs me because it seems designed to provoke reactionary rightward moves by the Dems. Without tripe like 'Godless' we'd probably see less foolishness like Melinda Barton's column on Raw Story, and most of the stuff Amy Sullivan writes on religion.

Moderate that comment up! You're exactly right, JP, and that tactic is most definitely a major part of the right's strategy.

Posted by: Sportin' Life | April 26, 2006 4:05 PM

What the hell is it with right-wingers and blondes?

I saw Ann Coulter in Al Franken's new film, God Spoke. That woman is wound so tight, she carries herself like a compressed bed spring. She came off as tense, humorless, and downright bitter. I don't understand the extreme love-hate that she invites. (Even Franken exulted about her blond locks, during one of those obligatory, Sunday-school-circle questions requiring them to each say what they "like" about the other.)

I wonder, does she talk about her own faith God in her new book, or just criticize the godlessness of others? Because I cannot imagine her praying or asking any deity for anything. Maybe she bitches at God to get His f-ing act together every once in a while, and calls that religion, but for some strange reason I can only imagine her "losing her religion" all the time.

Posted by: Kristine | April 26, 2006 4:15 PM

This is the first time this poor naive sap has seen a book about politics use a religious pseudoscience to proclaim standard science bogus. I guess astrology makes astronomy bogus then. In fact this reasoning makes pretty much all science bogus. Nice going, Coulter.

So I must agree with the brain loss measure coulter [Co]. (Being SI the full unit should begin with a small letter.) Can we sue Human Events since they make the contrafactual statement that reading their crap is "completely risk-free"?

Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson | April 26, 2006 4:18 PM

Paul wrote:

"Are you ready for Coulter?"

First of all, I don't give a rat's ass about anything Ann Coulter says. I agree with Eric Alterman:

""Time's cover story/whitewash of Ann Coulter will make it impossible for serious people to accept what the magazine reports at face-value ever again. It is as if Time had contracted a journalistic venereal disease from Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly and is now seeking to lower itself to their level in pursuit of their ideologically-obsessed audiences."

Why anyone even listens to these morons is beyond me.
But you are using her despicable book to attack your real target: Bill Dembski.

Now I don't give a rat's ass about Bill Dembski either and I certainly do not defend his views on religious creationism.
But "Intelligent Design", is nothing more than a convenient "straw man" for you and other neo-darwinian evolutionists.
You seem to think that if you defeat Behe and Dembski's premises and the thinking of the Discovery Institute that all of your problems will go away.
I do not represent the Discovery Institute, I am not a religious creationist and I do not defend Michael Behe, Bill Dembski or the "Intelligent Design Movement"
And you have been unable to address my criticisms, choosing instead to ignore them.
But they will not go away. There is still no empirical evidence that provides any support for the view that a neo-darwinian mechanism of random mutation and natural selection is the mechanism that was responsible for the emergence of the highly organized structures, processes and systems that are found in living organisms.
At best, we can conclude that changes have occurred over time, that living organisms are related to each other and that there is some evidence to suggest the possibility of a common origin.
But there is not one shred of empirical evidence that a neo-darwinian mechanism was responsible or that this evolution was not simply the unfolding of an algorithm, a set of instructions, that were programmed into the genome when it first arrived on earth.
Since development of the adult organism from its first few cells into a functional entity with countless structures, processes and systems is known to be controlled by a set of instructions embedded in the DNA of the genome, why is it so difficult to envision that the evolution of life on earth is not similarly controlled by a pre-existing set of instructions?
I may pass on to my reward before this issue is resolved, but resolved it will be, unfortunately, not in your favor. My suggestion to you is to think ahead of the curve. Denounce neo-darwinism and learn to live with the fact that at the present time, we just do not know the answer.

OT: From Monday's New York Times:

"Baker, Bush Family Fixer, Will Advise President On Iraq"

http://tinyurl.com/mr43q

Sometimes the most important news is buried on the back pages.

Posted by: Charlie | April 26, 2006 4:25 PM

As with every other time I have to deal with any of Coulter's idiocy, I ask the same thing: "Where the hell are Sigourney Weaver and a forklift when you need 'em?"

Posted by: Paul Riddell | April 26, 2006 4:27 PM

Is it just me, or would being injected with sodium pentothal and pancuronium bromide would be a far more enjoyable and constructive thing to do than read Miss Coulter's book?

Posted by: Stanton | April 26, 2006 4:35 PM

Charlie that was the most reasonable post I've seen yet during the admittedly short period of time I've monitored the wacky world of PZ Myers & Co.

And for that reason I believe you are correct in your assumption that it is destined to be wholly ignored.

Because for all of the work that is done by PZ and his readers to reassure themselves that they are indeed the possessors of THE TRUTH, the amphigory they rely on to convey that message to each other must by it's inherent nature rely on the rhetorical devices more properly employed by THE CONFUSED and THE FRIGHTENED (logical fallacies and most prominently ad hominum for instance).

I really can't add to what you've provided but I thought it was important that you know that it did reach an audience, however small.

Posted by: klystron | April 26, 2006 4:46 PM

Well, you still made Creationist Claim #CA202. Unless you'd like to provide me with a direct link demonstrating value behind that claim, don't bother making me Google for you. It's hard enough sifting through your longer posts for anything that's not inherently fallacious.

Posted by: Bronze Dog | April 26, 2006 4:49 PM

So Charlie Wagner's is the most reasonable post on Pharyngula, while Coulter is smart and good-looking.

I get it--it's Opposite Day!

Posted by: RavenT | April 26, 2006 4:53 PM

And I'm going to have to read it. For I so love the world that I will sacrifice my neurons to bring my people rebuttals.

Properly documenting and rebutting all the lies in this book is going to be a full-time job and will probably result in its own book. You'll have to take sabbatical from your job and a hiatus from blogging for at least a year. See you again in mid-2007!

Posted by: Binky | April 26, 2006 5:02 PM

If I may point out, a decent single malt scotch provides an ablative layer around the neurons. A few shots of Lagavullin should be able to save at least 50% of the neurons, given that you limit your exposure properly.

Are you still waiting on a certain someone to pay off on a bet?

Besides, you must understand that in the present issue before us (Coulter) the fact that there is a woman who is so much smarter and more successful than they (not to say better looking) has to be an especially bitter pill for these folks to swallow.

Yes you've nailed it on the head. Great job Dr. Laura.

Posted by: BigDumbChimp | April 26, 2006 5:12 PM

Besides, you must understand that in the present issue before us (Coulter) the fact that there is a woman who is so much smarter and more successful than they (not to say better looking) has to be an especially bitter pill for these folks to swallow.

Considering that she relying on Bill Dembski's dodgy, deliberately obfuscating math says that she's not "much smarter" and/or very dishonest herself. Unless Bill's come up with some new, honest, and airtight attempt at a smackdown I haven't seen yet, that's where I'm standing.

And, of course, this whole "they're jealous" thing is just a red herring designed to distract people from the arguments and make them focus on the completely irrelevant topic of the arguers.

Posted by: Bronze Dog | April 26, 2006 5:19 PM

udargo wrote:

"Ok, is it just me, or are there some contradictory assertions in this paragraph? Which is it, buddy? Do we know the answer or not? I think you think you know the answer, but since you can't substantiate that, you're only going to assert that the rest of us don't know the answer. Or something. Sort it out and come back and explain it to us."

I thought I made that perfectly clear. We do NOT know the answer to the question "what is the mechanism of evolution. We have many hypotheses however, cosmic ancestry, neo-darwinism, "god did it" etc. No one mechanism has accumulated sufficient empirical evidence to be considered "most likely".

Posted by: Charlie Wagner | April 26, 2006 5:24 PM

To quote a devilishly pretty friend of mine, "If liberalism is a church, somebody owes me an altar boy."

Posted by: Blake Stacey | April 26, 2006 5:30 PM

"How many lies can you count in that?"

How many words were there?

Posted by: Mike | April 26, 2006 5:34 PM

If you want a refutation of one thing you've just said, klystron, click here.

Of course, I have a gut feeling you'll be raising the standards of "definitive proofs" to mean of pure mathematical certainty, in which case, you might as well become a solipcist, since you can't prove your computer's existence to such a degree.

Posted by: Bronze Dog | April 26, 2006 5:36 PM

Bronze Dog wrote:

"Well, you still made Creationist Claim #CA202. "

I did not. This claim is that evolution cannot be proven.
You fail to distinguish between the process of evolution, which is strongly supported by the evidence and therefore highly likely and the purported mechanism of evolution, variation and selection, leading to new structures, processes and systems which is unsupported by any convincing evidence.
I make 2 claims:
1. The process of evolution has occurred
2. variation and selection (neo-darwinism) is not the mechanism.

Posted by: Charlie Wagner | April 26, 2006 5:39 PM

should have read doesn't provide anything to disprove..

Posted by: klystron | April 26, 2006 5:48 PM

2. variation and selection (neo-darwinism) is not the mechanism.

Okay. What do you propose is the mechanism and what is the date supporting it.

Further, the response I read defended the theory of evolution, but doesn't anything to disprove the theory of intelligent design.

Well, that's because, having no evidence or date to support it, intelligent design cannot by any stretch of the imagination be called a "theory" in scientific terms. Therefore, biologists and those serious about scientists aren't required to "disprove" a claim that gives no evidence to back it up, nor provides any area of falsibility. There's absolutely no way to prove an unseen "intelligent designer" had any hand in the development of life on earth. You simply can't prove or disprove something like that, so it doesn't fall under the heading of "science".

Unless you have evidence to the contrary that there was an intelligent designer - and not just questions within the theory of evolution itself, but something concrete - I'm not real sure why intelligent design should be considered anything but rather dodgy theology.

Posted by: Matt T. | April 26, 2006 5:55 PM

One can only hope that while the trolls are wasting electrons here, they aren't doing anything to screw up human civilization elsewhere.

Posted by: Blake Stacey | April 26, 2006 6:00 PM

Coulter, the Bella Abzug of the right, but without the brains, or charm, or looks.

Posted by: Ed Darrell | April 26, 2006 6:17 PM

In fairness it must be pointed out that there is really not much room to go anywhere else at this time when debating "creationism vs. Darwinism" since both sides lack any definitive proofs.

For your sake, klystron, I hope you're just being disingenuous and you're not really that stupid.

But, uh, I'm not holding my breath.

Incidentally, klystron, by any chance are you the same person as JMcH or Swiftee? You sound just like them.

Its doctrine of infallibility (as manifest in the "absolute moral authority" of spokesmen from Cindy Sheehan to Max Cleland)

This is especially amusing, given the hordes of republican winged monkeys that automatically sail forth in defense of Bush, Coulter, Malkin, et al whenever anyone says anything negative about any of them.

Posted by: George Cauldron | April 26, 2006 6:26 PM

Between Tom Delay whining about how he was being persecuted for being a Christian and this...

I really think the religious right is at least approaching the shark. They may well have jumped it.

Posted by: AdamIerymenko | April 26, 2006 6:39 PM

Hey, Klystron and Charlie - why are you posting comments about ID here in Coulter's thread, rather than a few posts down in the DI thread, where they would actually be on topic? Unless you really do want to fit the troll mold, that is...

Posted by: Carlie | April 26, 2006 6:45 PM

Ahh, ad hominum, right on time. I guess this concludes the civil discourse portion of our program; in any case it does for me.

Good evening all.

....

Charlie that was the most reasonable post I've seen yet during the admittedly short period of time I've monitored the wacky world of PZ Myers & Co.

And for that reason I believe you are correct in your assumption that it is destined to be wholly ignored.

Because for all of the work that is done by PZ and his readers to reassure themselves that they are indeed the possessors of THE TRUTH, the amphigory they rely on to convey that message to each other must by it's inherent nature rely on the rhetorical devices more properly employed by THE CONFUSED and THE FRIGHTENED (logical fallacies and most prominently ad hominum for instance).

I really can't add to what you've provided but I thought it was important that you know that it did reach an audience, however small.

Besides, you must understand that in the present issue before us (Coulter) the fact that there is a woman who is so much smarter and more successful than they (not to say better looking) has to be an especially bitter pill for these folks to swallow.

Pity.

An interesting choice of metaphor Az., since it is in fact Coulter's detractors who, after having had their ears pinned back (rhetorically speaking) have been reduced to throwing things.

No one could accuse Coulter of subtlety, but it is not often that she has been knocked from her position by attempts to debate it rationally..hence the childish fits of anger.

I can understand why you might want to preempt any use of mathematical certainty BD..it scotches your refutation pretty completely before it even gets out of the gate:

Anyone whose previous statements oozes arrogance and petulance--not to mention contains as many sneering personal jabs at one's opponents--the way yours do crosses the line into bad comedy when they criticize others' supposed lack of civility. Also, identifying you as a troll isn't an ad hominem attack, it's a convenient classification based on your behaviorm, which perfectly matches the dictionary definition below (for it to qualify as an ad hominem fallacy, the "he's a troll" thing would have to be deployed as an argument against your position rather than as an unconnected criticism of your delivery thereof or a caution to others about responding to it in the fashion you're obviously hoping for).

2. An individual who chronically trolls in sense 1; regularly posts specious arguments, flames or personal attacks to a newsgroup, discussion list, or in email for no other purpose than to annoy someone or disrupt a discussion. Trolls are recognizable by the fact that the have no real interest in learning about the topic at hand - they simply want to utter flame bait. - Jargon File 4.2.0, via dictionary.com

Posted by: Azkyroth | April 26, 2006 6:58 PM

Don't waste your time. Wait and see if it has any influence. If it does, there is time enough to shoot it down. If it is ignored, don't give it free publicity by trying to refute it now.

Posted by: Arun Gupta | April 26, 2006 7:27 PM