C.E. Cupp is Ann Coulter before the bottle-blond crap is poured on her head, but maybe slightly less vile.1 She just came out with a new book: Losing Our Religion: The Liberal Media's Attack on Christianity
Well, Steve Levingston of Political Bookworm on the Washington Post web site has reviewed the book, and seeing as how he does not have a lot of background in the Creationism vs Reality struggle, he interviewed Joshua Rosenau of the NCSE and Scienceblogs.com. So, Josh has a byline on that blog which you should go and read. A sample:
Cupp presents evolution -- and science more generally -- as the enemy of religion. Reporters' "propping up of science," she writes, is an "attack on Christianity." If anything, it is Cupp's approach which insults Christians. Research detailed in Elaine Ecklund's forthcoming "Science vs. Religion," shows that many scientists are religious themselves and do not generally regard science and religion as enemies.
Tell all your friends to read it.
__________
1Yes, yes, a reference to how a woman looks in a post denigrating her. I promise to make fun of Mit Romney's hair at the next available opportunity, and I assure you that I have already.
- Log in to post comments
"Many" is such a nonspecific word. According to Ecklund's data, as , "elite scientists" are much less theistic than the general American population.
I saw Ecklund speak recently and was not impressed. There are her data, and there are her conclusions, and there is a gap between the two. Regarding the biology textbook battle in Texas, she says both sides are too arrogant.
Virgil-
Your link does not work.
Her name is S.E Cupp.
Link test Razib's article
I presume Comrade Laden's readership is familiar with recent polls on belief in creationism and evolution. Here's a USA TODAY/Gallup poll from 2007 showing that 39% of respondents say Young Earth Creationism is 'definitely true' and another 27% chiming in with 'probably true.' Subculture indeed.
So S.E. Cupp is a fundagelical who lies about science and particularly evolution. This is not a surprise.
This is a person who contributes to Tucker Carlson's crap fest. The low conspire with the low, also not a surprise.
See - even the religiotards think the accommodationists are full of it! I see Mooney has been very effective at framing the issues with Cupp. Give that Cupp a D-. What a waste of trees; how can anyone print one long bitch about how the majority is being persecuted? It's nothing but more religious bullshit with no evidence and no substance - you've just got to believe.
Her wikipedia page says she is an atheist, but then throws in a fathiest quote about only being moral because she repects Judeo-Xtian values.Oh, yes, and you may be asking yourself about her education bona fides to be arguing against science? Art History B.A. and currently in a Masters program. Probably for comparative religion.lolThe conservatives need any young people they can get their hands on, no matter how stupid, just look at Ben Shapiro.
Why is there an evolution-creation debate? In spite of the fact that the evolution hypothesis is stuck in step 3 of the 7- scientific method and there are 4 gaps in the hypothesis that evolutionary scientists admit cannot yet be explained, Evolutionists have already won. Evolution is taught in public schools, creationism is prohibited. Evolutionists have won in the courts. The media unanimously supports evolution. Why donât Evolutionists simply ignore the Creationistsâ objections? Or, why not point out that Creationism is not within the purview of science because God is not a falsifiable hypothesis nor can he be proved by science?
Consider the fact that of the 6 major theological positions on creation, 3 allow for evolution, albeit with a divine influence of some sort, such as to fill those 4 gaps that scientist are struggling with. There are 2 reactions when a Creationist proposed theistic evolution as an answer to the incomplete hypothesis testing and the 4 gaps. An evolutionary scientist would respond by admitting there is no scientific explanation for the gaps, as yet, and dismiss the influence of God as something outside the purview of science. The Evolutionist philosopher, however, becomes extremely agitated at the mention of God because Evolutionism is about atheism, not science.
As a philosophy, Evolutionism is not held to the rigor of hard science â the scientific method can be ignored. As a philosophy, Evolutionism can object to theism whenre hard science cannot comment. Evolutionism is a major cornerstone of Marxism and Human Secularism because is supports those philosophies built on atheism. Twenty-five percent of the Humanist Manifesto is devoted to opposition to religion and theism, and the establishment of evolution and atheism. As long as there is a God, those philosophies fail. But Darwin supplied the âmissing linkâ to their philosophies,; a way to explain how we got here â without a God.
Science and faith are not mutually exclusive, but theism and atheism are. So when a supporter of evolution attacks creation (and usually the Creationist), he does so as a philosopher, not as a scientist. And, when a Creationist opposed evolution, he must do so as a philosopher/theologian â not as a scientist.
Did you actually read the book. In that book Cupp acknowledges that there are scientists who support intelligent design. She didn't say that science was the enemy but points a finger at reports like this. Funny how you seem to take her documentation in which Christianity is attacked and defamed and you turn it on its head. Quoting her but purposely doing it in such a way that it appears to say the opposite. The only thing one can assume is that the news media is either to ignorant to understand what she is saying or purposely attacking her because they can't refute the content. As usual when you can't defend a viewpoint one sinks to persoanl attack. Your doing exactly what she documentated is happening in the way the media is attacking and defaming Christianity.
Have you even read the post? It should be clear that this is a post pointing to a book review. It is not a book review. No, I have not read the book.
Some might suggest that there could be an evolution of languages from apes to human languages. Discuss.
Refer to the website address for the derivation of modern English as follows:
http://www.englishclub.com/english-language-history.htm
No doubts English language has its derivation from Germanic languages due to their invasion during 5th centurary A.D., many of the modern English words have the same written and spoken words from old English. Or in other words, modern English words might turn up to be the mixture of native languages and Germanic languages as a result of invasion. However, no matter how English languages change, it has still been from human languages since it is the mixture of English languages and Germanic languages. American languages might well be mixed with Latin words and some of their words might have the prefix or roots words to be derived similarly from Latin words. Thus, English languages have not been evolving instead, they tend to borrow from foreign human languages to form part of their languages so that the languages would be changed from time to time. No matter how it changes, it still adheres with the principality that one language might adopt foreign human languages to be added to be part of their languages. The same is in Malaysia. Some like to use Allahmad to be part of their English word and it means Oh! My God. since Allah is the God of Muslims. They simply borrow word from other foreign human language to be part of their English.
The same as Spanish. Refer to the website address for the derivation of Spanish as follows: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_language
Spanish has its derivation from Roman languages and many of Spanish words are quite similar to Roman languages.
From the extracted examples, it gives a clear picture to us that human languages have not been evolved themselves. The reason why there would be change of languages has been merely due to one countryâs language has adopted words from another country to form part of their languages so as to cause the change. However, bear in mind that despite there could be change of human languages, it is simply due to one countryâs language adopts another country to be part of their languages. Or in other words, no doubt how the human languages have been transformed, it would still be human languages since it tends to use foreign words to form part of their languages so as to create new languages.
All the apesâ languages, whether they are in Africa, Eastern Countries or Western or etc., sound alike and none of them sound like human languages. Even if there would be change of apesâ languages from Africa due to the influence of apes from Eastern Countries, the change could be within the spoken apesâ languages since none of them could speak human languages. As apesâ languages are entirely different from human languages, how could apes be evolved from human beings then?
Even if you would try to train any apes in any region to speak in human languages, none of the apes could be able to learn that type of skill to speak in human languages. As that is so, how could human beings be evolved from apes unless there would be a proof that apes could be trained to speak human languages?
If human languages could be evolved from apesâ languages, some spoken words from human languages would have identical sounds as apes due to the borrowing of words from apes from another from other regions or countries for the transformation. As none of the spoken words from human languages would have the identical sounds as apes, how could human beings be evolved from apes?
If human languages cold be evolved from apesâ, many languages should have certain similarity with apesâ languages. Not only that, some human beings might understand apes languages due to the similarity of their languages with apes. Why is it that none of the human beings could understand apesâ languages? As that is so, how could human beings be evolved from apes?