subscribe to our mailing list:
|
SECTIONS
|
 |
|
|
Letters
[Write a Reply]
[Letters Index]
| Title |
Author |
Date |
| What about it? |
Paul |
Jul 14, 2006
|
Well, OK, Tom's answer is not in scholarly form or tone.
Nonetheless, what about evolution being non-falsifiable. That is Coulter's big point, and it is, isn't it?
|
| Related Articles: |
Secondary Addiction: Ann Coulter on Evolution
|
| Title |
Author |
Date |
| What about it? |
TalkReason , |
Jul 15, 2006
|
Paul:
The question of falsifiability (or the lack thereof) of the evolution theory (ET) has been extensively discussed, including relatively recent posts on the Panda's Thumb blog (where you can use the Search facility to locate the pertinent entries). Also, you may make an excursion into Google.
The well known example (by no means the sole one) is about a find of a fossil of a rabbit in certain geological strata where, according to ET, it should not be found. Coulter does not offer any argument about this point, which has not already been refuted many times over. We leave to Jim Downard a chance to suggest a more detailed reply if he chooses to submit one.
|
| Related Articles: |
Secondary Addiction: Ann Coulter on Evolution
|
| Title |
Author |
Date |
| What about it? |
[email protected] |
Jul 16, 2006
|
While part of the Intelligent Design mantra is that evolutionists insulate their maerialistic philosophy from pontential refutation, this isn't really Coulter's argument.
She is convinced that evolution is plainly confuted by the scientific evidence. She is astoundingly wrong in this belief, as I have noted and will continue to explain in subsequent posts.
And one may note a new wrinkle: Bill Dembski's non-reply to my Coulter inquiries, posted at his Uncommon Descent blog site.
|
| Related Articles: |
Secondary Addiction: Ann Coulter on Evolution
|
|
|
