Discussion

Title	Author	Date
James Downard	ertorres	Sep 03, 2006
Sorry James, to rebut Ms. Coulter, such an article is not necessary. A simple bullet proof should be enough. Evolution should stand as a pillar of science and it is not even a baluster. I'm sorry I accepted it for as long as I did without questioning. I failed at science in not doing so. Good theories should stand gladly to scrutiny. Good theories should not need any ad homonym attacks. Instead of being a good soldier to the cause, you should try scientific method as an attempt to find the truth. Evolution is just not that important for humanity to move forward!

Title	Author	Date
Dawkins and the eye model	Patrick	Aug 20, 2006
Has Dawkins ever said anything regarding his mistake concerning the use of a computer in the eye evolution study?

Title	Author	Date
as usual lots of coulds, and ifs from evolutionists...	Tom	Jul 11, 2006
you miss her best point, is there ANYTHING that could disprove your beloved theory (god) of evolution? There is nothing you don't have an answer for, or some chance of explantion, if by man iterations that COULD, just COULD have happened, just so you don't have to abandon your beloved darwinwism!! talk about Darwiniacs....you seem to be one. I have a question that I have never gotten an answer for. What is the mathematical formula for evolution? how do you measure this MASSIVE ALL PERVASIVE POWER that influences all live at all times?? And why hasn't the coelecanth evolved? I expect its reached it perfect niche, whatever that is and no longer needs to evolve to survive. Look like 'evolution' is selective, ie evolution is god. and explain how evolution evolved both sexes about the same time, and evolved both sexes in all sorts of animals, so there would be a male and female of each type...I know, there is a 'chance' anything could have happened.....yeah.....

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?

Title	Author	Date
Ann Coulter	Shokooh, Arsalan	Jul 11, 2006
I am puzzled by your lengthy and detailed response to Coulter's garbage. She says garbage just about every issue including science. You should know that. She is neither a scientist, a journalist, a writer, nor even a woman of religious conviction. She is simply a trash. Do you think she would be making a dime if she was a progressive? Spreading hatred, ignorance and venom, in today's America, will bring fame and money. Of course she didn't write those sections on evolution by herself--she doesn't have enough gray cells to think beyond the most primitive human functions. You write " We await Coulter's insightful observations on these and other questions." Insightfulness? Observation? Don't you know these are of higher level activities of human intelligence far beyond her ability to perform? By responding to her rubbish you legitimize her claims to respectability. I expected more from Talk Reason. I am very disappointed. You will not change her mind and those of vast masses of idiots who take their clues from her. But you've managed to lend her credibility she does not deserve. A truly great pity. Regards, Aris

Title	Author	Date
Coulter	Zickerman, Dennis	Jul 11, 2006
I happened on a John Derbyshire link to your site. Having been one of several of his readers who asked him to deconstruct Coulter, ID, and all the rest of it, I was grateful to discover you. I look forward to the next installment. And while you're at it, perhaps someone will take the time to give George Gilder's "Evolution and Me" article in the July 17 National Review the same treatment--if,that is, anyone can penetrate his prose. Anyway, thank you for your good work. The science is way over my head, but I get enough of it to satisfy my need to see Coulter's views thoroughly debunked.