Talk:Godless: The Church of Liberalism/Archive 1

message: I remind anyone who comes here that the point of talk pages is not to espouse a point or beef with the book or article, really, at hand. This is an encylopedia and while the talk pages aren't mean to be NPOV, using them to just make a point is not why they exist. Complain on a forum about the book or go tell your friends how awesome it is. Just don't do it here. --OMG LAZERS 22:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Purpose of Talk Pages 

message: The section discussion the 'tenets' of the book need a citation otherwise, they must go. Any volunteers? Citing the book would be simple enough if done properly. An online prof would be better. --OMG LAZERS 22:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Tenets' Citation Requirement 

message: So how does this poem apply to Ms Coulter's work:
Arthur Guiterman :
First dentistry was painless.
Then bicycles were chainless,
Carriages were horseless,
And many laws enforceless.
Next cookery was fireless,
Telegraphy was wireless,
Cigars were nicotineless,
And coffee caffeineless.
Soon oranges were seedless,
The putting green was weedless,
The college boy was hatless,
The proper diet fatless.
New motor roads are dustless,
The latest steel is rustless,
Our tennis courts are sodless,
Our new religion--godless.
Or this quote from G. K. Chesterton :
"But the new rebel is a Sceptic, and will not entirely trust anything. He has no loyalty; therefore he can never be really a revolutionist. And the fact that he doubts everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything. For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind; and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it."
"Thus he writes one book complaining that imperial oppression insults the purity of women, and then he writes another book (about the sex problem) in which he insults it himself. He curses the Sultan because Christian girls lose their virginity, and then curses Mrs. Grundy because they keep it. As a politician, he will cry out that war is a waste of life, and then, as a philosopher, that all life is waste of time. A Russian pessimist will denounce a policeman for killing a peasant, and then prove by the highest philosophical principles that the peasant ought to have killed himself. A man denounces marriage as a lie, and then denounces aristocratic profligates for treating it as a lie. He calls a flag a bauble, and then blames the oppressors of Poland or Ireland because they take away that bauble. The man of this school goes first to a political meeting, where he complains that savages are treated as if they were beasts; then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes on to a scientific meeting, where he proves that they practically are beasts."
"In short, the modern revolutionist, being an infinite sceptic, is always engaged in undermining his own mines. In his book on politics he attacks men for trampling on morality; in his book on ethics he attacks morality for trampling on men. Therefore the modern man in revolt has become practically useless for all purposes of revolt. By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything."   ( Orthodoxy, Ch. 3) 
:Sounds like the sort of thing Coulter would say, if she were more eloquent (and a lot smarter) than she is. Chesterton, like C.S. Lewis, had little patience for people who used falsehoods to attack goodness. But both were far more polite than Coulter, who is so shrill and combative I wonder if she feels she's fighting a lost cause. --Uncle Ed 00:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevant Poem and Quote

message: This is identical to the 2nd paragraph of Intelligent design, except for the first word:
:The overwhelming majoritySee: 1) List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design 2)  Kitzmiller v. Dover page 83. The Discovery Institute's Dissent From Darwin Petition has been signed by about 500 scientists. The AAAS, the largest association of scientists in the U.S., has 120,000 members, and firmly rejects ID.  More than 70,000 Australian scientists and educators condemn teaching of intelligent design in school science classes. List of statements from scientific professional organizations on the status intelligent design and other forms of creationism.  of the scientific community views intelligent design not as a valid scientific theory but as pseudoscienceNational Science Teachers Association, a professional association of 55,000 science teachers and administrators in a 2005 press release: "We stand with the nation's leading scientific organizations and scientists, including Dr. John Marburger, the president's top science advisor, in stating that intelligent design is not science  or junk science. "Biologists aren’t alarmed by intelligent design’s arrival in Dover and elsewhere because they have all sworn allegiance to atheistic materialism; they’re alarmed because intelligent design is junk science." H. Allen Orr. Annals of Science. New Yorker May 2005.Devolution—Why intelligent design isn't.  Also, Robert T. Pennock Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism.    The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions and propose no new hypotheses of their own. National Academy of Sciences, 1999 Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition 
No need to have the same text in two places. Better to link and/or summarize. 
Anyway, what specifically did Coulter say about evolution? Shouldn't we quote the author before refuting her views? --Uncle Ed 17:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Duplicated text from ID

message: Ed
Coulter devotes approximately one-third of the book to criticizing evolution, which, Coulter brands "Darwinism." Coulter devotes the last 80 pages to her full-scale attack on the theory of evolution and the utter dishonesty of what she calls the "Darwiniacs" Ann Coulter: Exposing Liberalism's Theology of Lies Phil Brennan, NewsMax.com. Tuesday, June 6, 2006
Blagger Arturick wrote: "Anyone going to read "Godless" expecting a hysterical, ignorant assault on Darwin's Theory of Evolution, replete with Genesis quotes, will be disappointed. Shockingly, she lays out a case against evolution that relies heavily on logic, information presented by scientists, and examination of the motives and history of Darwinian scientists." One More Time: Coulter, Godless, and Evolution Jun 12 2006 05:07 PM
Blogger PZ Myers, to Coulter's claim that there is no evidence for evolution, points to the scientific literature that contains hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of articles about various aspects of evolution. He also argues Coulter has it backwards: The issue is not whether there is evidence that supports evolution, but whether there is evidence that is explained by evolution, since theories are explanations for data.Ann Coulter: No evidence for evolution? PZ Myers. Pharyngula, scienceblogs.com June 18, 2006 Myers also argues that readers should disregard her anti-evolution arguments on the grounds that she herself is not a scientist, pointing out that Coulter turned to tutors in writing this section of the book: "I couldn't have written about evolution without the generous tutoring of Michael Behe, David Berlinski, and William Dembski..." John M. Lynch in his Stranger Fruit science blog
 Original
Coulter devotes approximately one-third of the book to polemical attacks on evolution, which, in keeping with the religious right, Coulter terms "Darwinism." Admittedly having no background on the science of the subject herself, Coulter says she turned to tutors in writing this section of the book: "I couldn't have written about evolution without the generous tutoring of Michael Behe, David Berlinski, and William Dembski..." Behe, Dembski and Berlinski are all fellows of the Discovery Institute, the hub of the intelligent design movement. 
The overwhelming majoritySee: 1) List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design 2)  Kitzmiller v. Dover page 83. The Discovery Institute's Dissent From Darwin Petition has been signed by about 500 scientists. The AAAS, the largest association of scientists in the U.S., has 120,000 members, and firmly rejects ID.  More than 70,000 Australian scientists and educators condemn teaching of intelligent design in school science classes. List of statements from scientific professional organizations on the status intelligent design and other forms of creationism.  of the scientific community views intelligent design not as a valid scientific theory but as pseudoscienceNational Science Teachers Association, a professional association of 55,000 science teachers and administrators in a 2005 press release: "We stand with the nation's leading scientific organizations and scientists, including Dr. John Marburger, the president's top science advisor, in stating that intelligent design is not science  or junk science. "Biologists aren’t alarmed by intelligent design’s arrival in Dover and elsewhere because they have all sworn allegiance to atheistic materialism; they’re alarmed because intelligent design is junk science." H. Allen Orr. Annals of Science. New Yorker May 2005.Devolution—Why intelligent design isn't.  Also, Robert T. Pennock Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism.    The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions and propose no new hypotheses of their own. National Academy of Sciences, 1999 Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition 
Coulter's reliance on controversial sources for science prompted critics of the intelligent design movement to analyze her claims. PZ Myers, to Coulter's claim that there is no evidence for evolution, points to the scientific literature that contains hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of articles about various aspects of evolution.  He also argues Coulter has it backwards: The issue is not whether there is evidence that supports evolution, but whether there is evidence that is explained by evolution, since  theories are explanations for data.Ann Coulter: No evidence for evolution? PZ Myers. Pharyngula, scienceblogs.com June 18, 2006 
===Analysis===
(Since Ed has not chosen to explain his edits, I am forced to speculate)
Opening:
Ed changed "Coulter devotes approximately one-third of the book to polemical attacks on evolution, which, in keeping with the religious right, Coulter terms "Darwinism." to "Coulter devotes approximately one-third of the book to criticizing evolution, which, Coulter brands "Darwinism." [1]"
Presumably he takes issue with the term "polemic" and the phrase "in keeping with the religious right".  
So is her work "criticism" ("The action of criticizing, or passing judgement upon the qualities or merits of anything; esp. the passing of unfavourable judgement; fault-finding, censure." (OED) or is it a "polemic" ("A controversial argument or discussion; argumentation against some opinion, doctrine, etc.; aggressive controversy; in pl. the practice of this, esp. as a method of conducting theological controversy: opposed to irenics. (OED  )
Coulter has no background in biology, and displays a deep ignorance of the subject in her work.  Not only is she not qualified to criticise the work, she also doesn't analyse it - instead, she borrows freely from other sources (attributed or unattributed).  No, this isn't an "analysis", it's a "controvertial argument".  Polemic is more accurate (and thus more NPOV) than criticism.
Ed move  "Admittedly having no background on the science of the subject herself, Coulter says she turned to tutors in writing this section of the book: "I couldn't have written about evolution without the generous tutoring of Michael Behe, David Berlinski, and William Dembski..." Behe, Dembski and Berlinski are all fellows of the Discovery Institute, the hub of the intelligent design movement." further down the page and deletes  "The overwhelming majority[6] of the scientific community views intelligent design not as a valid scientific theory but as pseudoscience[7] or junk science. [8] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions and propose no new hypotheses of their own.[9]" 
This is information that is useful to the reader.  The fact that she has no background in the subject and that she admits that she was "tutored" by Behe, Berlinski and Dembski is crucial to a fair and unbiased presentation of the information.  This is useful information (from Coulter herself), and does not belong buried as a "critics say"
While it isn't essential (from the point of view of NPOV) to include the explanation of who these people are, it's very useful to the average reader who doesn't want to have to click through the links and read three articles, and then have to click through links on those articles to figure out what intelligent design is).  So this is information useful to the reader.
Ed then adds: "Blagger Arturick wrote: "Anyone going to read "Godless" expecting a hysterical, ignorant assault on Darwin's Theory of Evolution, replete with Genesis quotes, will be disappointed. Shockingly, she lays out a case against evolution that relies heavily on logic, information presented by scientists, and examination of the motives and history of Darwinian scientists." [2]"
I'm not sure what he means by "blagger" means, but since Ed reinserted it I presume it isn't a typo for blogger.  I'm not sure what makes him/her a reliable or notable source - presumably Ed will explain this.
He then replaces "Coulter's reliance on controversial sources for science prompted critics of the intelligent design movement to analyze her claims. PZ Myers, to Coulter's claim that there is no evidence for evolution, points to the scientific literature that contains hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of articles about various aspects of evolution. He also argues Coulter has it backwards: The issue is not whether there is evidence that supports evolution, but whether there is evidence that is explained by evolution, since theories are explanations for data.[10] In response to Coulter's citing of Jonathan Wells' arguments concerning peppered moth evolution, Ian Musgrave, argues that Coulter misrepresents the significance of the peppered moth experiments, makes a number of factual errors, and a "wildly ignorant misrepresentation of evolution."[11]"
with 
"Blogger PZ Myers, to Coulter's claim that there is no evidence for evolution, points to the scientific literature that contains hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of articles about various aspects of evolution. He also argues Coulter has it backwards: The issue is not whether there is evidence that supports evolution, but whether there is evidence that is explained by evolution, since theories are explanations for data.[3] Myers also argues that readers should disregard her anti-evolution arguments on the grounds that she herself is not a scientist, pointing out that Coulter turned to tutors in writing this section of the book: "I couldn't have written about evolution without the generous tutoring of Michael Behe, David Berlinski, and William Dembski..." [4]"
Characterising University of Minnesota Morris associate professor of biology as "blogger PZ Myers" is clearly misleading, apparently intentionally.  It appears to be calculated to balance "blagger Arturick" with "blogger PZ Myers".  Myers is a notable writer on the subject, and is well qualified to speak on the matter.  This change is very misleading.  Guettarda 21:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All that to say that his edits were seriously POV?  ;)  •Jim62sch• 00:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Analysis of Ed's changes

message: (Since Ed has not chosen to explain his edits, I am forced to speculate)
Opening:
Ed changed "Coulter devotes approximately one-third of the book to polemical attacks on evolution, which, in keeping with the religious right, Coulter terms "Darwinism." to "Coulter devotes approximately one-third of the book to criticizing evolution, which, Coulter brands "Darwinism." [1]"
Presumably he takes issue with the term "polemic" and the phrase "in keeping with the religious right".  
So is her work "criticism" ("The action of criticizing, or passing judgement upon the qualities or merits of anything; esp. the passing of unfavourable judgement; fault-finding, censure." (OED) or is it a "polemic" ("A controversial argument or discussion; argumentation against some opinion, doctrine, etc.; aggressive controversy; in pl. the practice of this, esp. as a method of conducting theological controversy: opposed to irenics. (OED  )
Coulter has no background in biology, and displays a deep ignorance of the subject in her work.  Not only is she not qualified to criticise the work, she also doesn't analyse it - instead, she borrows freely from other sources (attributed or unattributed).  No, this isn't an "analysis", it's a "controvertial argument".  Polemic is more accurate (and thus more NPOV) than criticism.
Ed move  "Admittedly having no background on the science of the subject herself, Coulter says she turned to tutors in writing this section of the book: "I couldn't have written about evolution without the generous tutoring of Michael Behe, David Berlinski, and William Dembski..." Behe, Dembski and Berlinski are all fellows of the Discovery Institute, the hub of the intelligent design movement." further down the page and deletes  "The overwhelming majority[6] of the scientific community views intelligent design not as a valid scientific theory but as pseudoscience[7] or junk science. [8] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions and propose no new hypotheses of their own.[9]" 
This is information that is useful to the reader.  The fact that she has no background in the subject and that she admits that she was "tutored" by Behe, Berlinski and Dembski is crucial to a fair and unbiased presentation of the information.  This is useful information (from Coulter herself), and does not belong buried as a "critics say"
While it isn't essential (from the point of view of NPOV) to include the explanation of who these people are, it's very useful to the average reader who doesn't want to have to click through the links and read three articles, and then have to click through links on those articles to figure out what intelligent design is).  So this is information useful to the reader.
Ed then adds: "Blagger Arturick wrote: "Anyone going to read "Godless" expecting a hysterical, ignorant assault on Darwin's Theory of Evolution, replete with Genesis quotes, will be disappointed. Shockingly, she lays out a case against evolution that relies heavily on logic, information presented by scientists, and examination of the motives and history of Darwinian scientists." [2]"
I'm not sure what he means by "blagger" means, but since Ed reinserted it I presume it isn't a typo for blogger.  I'm not sure what makes him/her a reliable or notable source - presumably Ed will explain this.
He then replaces "Coulter's reliance on controversial sources for science prompted critics of the intelligent design movement to analyze her claims. PZ Myers, to Coulter's claim that there is no evidence for evolution, points to the scientific literature that contains hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of articles about various aspects of evolution. He also argues Coulter has it backwards: The issue is not whether there is evidence that supports evolution, but whether there is evidence that is explained by evolution, since theories are explanations for data.[10] In response to Coulter's citing of Jonathan Wells' arguments concerning peppered moth evolution, Ian Musgrave, argues that Coulter misrepresents the significance of the peppered moth experiments, makes a number of factual errors, and a "wildly ignorant misrepresentation of evolution."[11]"
with 
"Blogger PZ Myers, to Coulter's claim that there is no evidence for evolution, points to the scientific literature that contains hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of articles about various aspects of evolution. He also argues Coulter has it backwards: The issue is not whether there is evidence that supports evolution, but whether there is evidence that is explained by evolution, since theories are explanations for data.[3] Myers also argues that readers should disregard her anti-evolution arguments on the grounds that she herself is not a scientist, pointing out that Coulter turned to tutors in writing this section of the book: "I couldn't have written about evolution without the generous tutoring of Michael Behe, David Berlinski, and William Dembski..." [4]"
Characterising University of Minnesota Morris associate professor of biology as "blogger PZ Myers" is clearly misleading, apparently intentionally.  It appears to be calculated to balance "blagger Arturick" with "blogger PZ Myers".  Myers is a notable writer on the subject, and is well qualified to speak on the matter.  This change is very misleading.  Guettarda 21:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All that to say that his edits were seriously POV?  ;)  •Jim62sch• 00:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Analysis

message: by editing this bage so biasedly in favour of views against this ladies views dont you simply further enforce her views? Proving that liberalism is just as fanatical as a religion. tsk, tsk. (an unsigned comment from )
: Wikipedia can be edited by anyone.  If you have something useful to add, let us know.  --Zagsa 00:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, all contributions to an article to improve its quality are welcome at Wikipedia.  However, talk pages are and should be reserved for discussions of this nature alone, while debates about the substance of an article belong in blogs rather than on Wikipedia.  If you wish to improve the article, please make edits that do so.  I am primarily concerned with the accuracy and representation of the science aspects of her book so if you have any particular suggestions regarding those I would enjoy seeing them. Cheers, Astrobayes 23:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proving her theory 

message: This is not a classified ad, and I don't think it's appropriate for us to be linking to the book's Amazon listing. I'm gonna go ahead a get rid that link, but if you all think its really alright to have that there, go ahead and put it back.B1oody8romance7 06:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amazon listing 

message: I'm reading this book now, and I must say that its Wikipedia article seems more like a collection of gripes from bruised victims than an article about the book. Shouldn't it maybe be renamed or something? Or at least if somebody voices criticism, shouldn't the criticism be preceded by a long quotation or an honest summary of what Ann Coulter said about the subject? Lou Sander 23:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reading It Now 

message: *"Liberals love to boast that they are not 'religious,' which is what one would expect to hear from the state-sanctioned religion. Of course liberalism is a religion. It has its own cosmology, its own miracles, its own beliefs in the supernatural, its own churches, its own high priests, its own saints, its own total worldview, and its own explanation of the existence of the universe. In other words, liberalism contains all the attributes of what is generally known as 'religion.'" 
*Though liberalism rejects the idea of God and reviles people of faith, it bears all the attributes of a religion. In Godless, Coulter throws open the doors of the Church of Liberalism, showing us its sacraments (abortion), its holy writ (Roe v. Wade), its martyrs (from Soviet spy Alger Hiss to cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal), its clergy (public school teachers), its churches (government schools, where prayer is prohibited but condoms are free), its doctrine of infallibility (as manifest in the "absolute moral authority" of spokesmen from Cindy Sheehan to Max Cleland), and its cosmology (in which mankind is an inconsequential accident). 
Would it be appropriate to add either of the two passages above to the article? If they are relevant, would it be better to add them as direct quotations from the Amazon Book Description (Editorial Review) or to summarize them? The latter would look nice with bullet points. --Wing Nut 14:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like 'em as they are, and I think it would be good to put 'em in. IMHO, one reason that there's so much "anti" stuff in articles like this is that there's a lot of work in finding and posting stuff that's actually in the book, or that summarizes it, while it's a flick of the keyboard to react to stuff that jabs one's sacred cows. Lou Sander 14:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, actually it's just that Coulter substitutes rhetoric and cyphers for broader understandings and ideas making any covering of her writing an exercise in decoding and providing balance by means of the majority viewpoints on those topics. Favoring the narrow viewpoint of the author here over the broader perspective flies in the face of the WP:NPOV policy. 02:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm reading the book right now, and it's extremely easy to read and understand. The author is very direct in making her points, and she's a master of logical argument. It shouldn't be a big challenge to put what's in her book in an article about her book. It just takes a little work. Lou Sander 02:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Being easy to read and understand is not really the point. I've read it as well and representing her viewpoint in the article is not difficult. The issue is that in her book she demonstrably misrepresents many significant points and ideas, particularly about science. That requires balancing  statements that represent the majority viewpoint, in this case the scientific community's. Considering she freely admits she relied upon for her understanding of science three individuals who have made careers misrepresenting science in the furtherance of their own religious pov, Dembski, Berlinski, and Behe, it's not surprising really. FeloniousMonk 03:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, by all means, place them in the article. FeloniousMonk 02:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Quotes

message: Full Disclosure: I've read the "cosmology" section of the book, and I'm kind of familiar with her arguments. I've also read Origin of Species, but it was a long time ago. I still have both books. Basically, I'm an open-minded skeptic about both evolution and "intelligent design," or whatever it is. I don't love Coulter and I don't hate her, and I try very hard to be fair to her. I think she makes strong arguments, and the other side does, too. I'm familiar with the concept of odium theologicum and I think it swirls around Coulter (is she a shiite or a sunni?). My opinion about controversial matters is that the article is about a book, and not about its critics (or even about the author). Nevertheless, the critics probably ought to be heard. This isn't their soapbox, though, and their voices should be subordinate to hers, even though their position is more respectable than hers, is well-stated and sourced, etc. 
What I think this section should look like is this:
The heading, followed by a brief, fair description of what the author says in the book. (No "this idiot says, against all scientific evidence..." stuff, please. That comes later.)
Some number of subsections, organized by topic or by the chapters in the book. (My own preference is by chapters. There are three of them, and it divides stuff up nicely.) As much as is reasonable, the subsections should include quotes from the book. It's OK to have the outrageous ones, but they're only part of the story. 
Response of critics, where the arguments for the other side are presented. It might start with a summary of the conflict between the notions of evolution and "ID," or whatever it is. Please, no strong words just yet. Then the response of the critics should come. It should be well-sourced (but I don't see any problems with that--her ideas have plenty of articulate published opponents). It would be great if it could be organized along the same lines as the above subsections. It can be as strong and as shrill as it ought to be. Whatever its nature, we should guard against the response being longer than the corresponding material about the book. It should probably be less shrill than the shrill stuff in the book, since it's from real science and doesn't need shrillness for effect. 
That's just my two cents worth. Lou Sander 16:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All of that sounds reasonable. It would help if I actually started reading the book, instead of looking up quotes on the web with a search engine. --Wing Nut 16:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Origin of Species has little to nothing to do with Coulter's actual arguments; as mentioned in the article already she conflates the current understanding of evolution, the modern synthesis, with natural selection, terming it "Darwinsim." If you fail to understand this simple distinction, I doubt your proposed rewrite will be particularly accurate. FeloniousMonk 17:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Wingnut (accidentally) hits upon an important issue.  While it's good to have a read a book about which you are writing, it's a little but incidental - we are supposed to rely on secondary sources, not primary ones.  We need to keep that in mind.  Guettarda 17:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Having thought about this, Guettarda is right, we are supposed to rely on secondary sources. FeloniousMonk 17:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critique of Evolution 

message: *"It's very important for the liberal clergy to force small school children to believe in a discredited mystery religion from the 19th century -- evolution -- in order to prepare them to believe in the nonexistence of God, one of the main goals of the American public education system." 
This is Coulter's POV, not mine. Why delete it (twice) from the article? 
Her point is that Liberalism (which she regards as a "religion" or "church") uses government schools to indoctrinate schoolchildren into atheism. Shouldn't readers know this is her political belief about Liberalism and its support for evolution?
If someone disagrees with her, shouldn't we balance her pov with their pov? --Wing Nut 14:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you should read the edit summary that KC used when she removed the quote.  Using long quotes to illustrate AC's position isn't the same as writing an encyclopaedia article about the topic based on secondary sources.  Quotes should be used sparingly, and should used to illustrate a point, not to make a point.  Find a secondary source that discusses AC's position, and reference it while discussing her position.  Don't stick a quote in and say that you are presenting her POV.  That isn't how you write an encyclopaedia article.  Guettarda 14:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, okay. I was wondering what was meant above by "secondary sources". --Wing Nut 14:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Read WP:RS and Secondary sources. FeloniousMonk 17:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Evolution as dogma

message: "The mainstream scientific community discounts the allegations, such as Coulter's, that the modern evolutionary synthesis lacks scientific rigor, is based on a tautology, is without experimental or physical proof or that it "disproves God." The claim that modern evolutionary theory lacks rigor is emphatically rejected by the United States National Academy of Sciences which says that evolution is one of the most thoroughly tested and confirmed theories in science."
Isn't the above statement a little tautological, modern evolutionary theory is true because so-and-so says it is true? Couldn't we put in specific counterexamples refuting Coulter's examples that she places in her book?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.180.56.241 (talk • contribs) 03:33, 10 July 2006
:The first reference is to Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition (1999), which lays out their refutation of creationist criticism in detail. Is that not sufficient?--RattBoy 09:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expand on this statement 

message: Is it worth noting the coverage at http://www.nowpublic.com/controversial_ann_coulter_theory_embroils_wikipedia_over_racoon_gas_debate ? (on the talk page, I mean, not the article) -- nae'blis (talk) 16:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "media" note 

message: Perhaps the long quote from Crichton could be summarized, leaving behind a single sentence with an internal link. Should the link go to Michael Crichton, to Radical environmentalism or both? --Uncle Ed 19:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crichton and urban atheism 

message: A quote in this article refers to "intelligent design scientists [sic]". [sic] is usually used when the quoted text contains a mistake such as a misspelling which the quoter has not corrected. Assuming that it was Wikipedia that added the [sic], where is the mistake? I don't see one.  DJ Clayworth 22:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sic

message: The main point Coulter is trying to make with her chapters on evolution is that there is no mention of intelligent design in the public school system. Coulter believes students should have the opportunity to debate scientific design vs intelligent design in a classroom setting. Coulter argues that any mention of fallacies in the theory of evolution is immediatly disqualified because it's labelled as being fanatical religious beliefs. This is used as evidence in Coulter's eyes as being a liberal left conspiracy to create a generations of atheists taught through the public school system. --24.84.101.236 18:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment that was removed

message: *Darwinian evolution has assumed a semi-mystical garb for many of its adherents which prevents them from examining it dispassionately without lapsing into personal attacks. Her exposé on the persecution of Dr. Richard Sternberg for daring to publish an article on Intelligent Design in the peer-reviewed Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington was eye-opening. 
I think Coulter's point about evolution being akin to religious faith should be emphasized more. --Uncle Ed 21:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Her "exposé" of Sternberg's apparent professional misconduct and dishonesty while failing to follow his employer's peer-review prcedures was factually inaccurate and biased, more like. I doubt her opinion that evolution is akin to religious faith is any less biased and more accurate. Coulter's opinion on both topics is just that, opinion. FeloniousMonk 21:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Evolution as religious faith

message: The "Science and Intelligent Design" section begins with a piece that appears to be erroneous:
:Coulter, who has no formal scientific background, nevertheless devotes approximately one-third of the book to attacks on science and evolution, which, in keeping with the religious right, Coulter terms "Darwinism." 
Firstly, the way I understand it, they aren't attacks on science, they're a defense of scientific rigor against what she believes is not science.  If she attacks science in general or even in particular, it ought to be documented here in the article.  
Likewise with evolution.  Evidence from the book ought to be provided that she attacks evolution in general rather than Darwin's presentation of evolutionary theory, or the reasoning of particular kinds of evolutionists.
Next, there is no evidence from the book presented here that Coulter uses "science and evolution" as a synonym for Darwinism, and given the claim that Coulter's goal is to attack science when it appears to be the opposite, there is grounds for skepticism for such a claim of synonymal usage.  Darwinism often refers to the theory of evolution as it was first promulgated by Darwin as well as the philosophical baggage attached to those with a committed belief in the theory.  
Coulter seems to be arguing that Darwin's evolutionary hypothesis in the 19th century and its philosophical projections into the nature of the known universe was based on shaky evidentiary grounds, and yet persons of particular philosophical persuasions clung to it with a religious zeal--and that the same process is happening today with what she believes is a theory (and through it an accompanying philosophy) that remains lacking in rigor.  I may be wrong and her argument may be more anti-science than what I have stated.  But there is no evidence from the book presented here that shows otherwise.
Finally, the lead sentence of the section claims that the said synonymal usage of "science and evolution" with "Darwinism" is "in keeping with the religious right", is in effect a promotion of a stereotype in the writer's mind that conservative religious persons scorn science.
For these four reasons I am rewriting the lead sentence and awaiting documentation to verify the claims that it formerly made.  64.154.26.251 00:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Characterization of Coulter's attacks 

message: Are there any statements in the book or elsewhere that indicate whether Ann is young or old earth? That would be as relevant as much of the info here. Tim Long 05:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Age of the Earth

message: While I cannot find reference to this, should not mention be made (in the section describing it as junk science) that intelligent design can legitimately be taught in public schools as a philosophy? I admit the notion makes me rather ill that any adult could find it valid, but the point of studying philosophies is to expand one's horizons, n'est pas?--Wikidelphia 22:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a book about intelligent design. It's a book demonstrating the religious nature of American "liberalism." Hits a nerve, doesn't it? Lou Sander 04:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Well I know, but it does discuss ID as a central issue of the book. Perhaps this is misplaced; I shall reconsider --Wikidelphia 02:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intelligent Design as a Philosophy 

message: Not only does this section not describe any actual plagerism, but the citations do not meet wiki standards. Everything is biased right down to the existence of the section. I think that we should follow the example of Ann Coulter's bio article and remove this section.
: Why? Just because you happen to like what Coulter writes does not mean that she should be immune from criticism. I would hardly expect an article about another book to remove prominent criticism, so it shouldn't happen here.--NeoNerd 12:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, because the "accusations" are trivial, meritless, and irresponsible. They DO, however advance a certain point of view, so some editors and administrators are reluctant to see them removed. Lou Sander 16:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't want to be drawn into a conflict here, but as far as I can see, the article mentions the criticism, but also the response of Coulters publisher. The article already states that Coulter's publisher considers the accusations trivial, meritless, and irresponsible. Feel free to expand the section on Coulter's response, but entirely removing the section creates the false impression that there have never been allegations about the book's orignality.--NeoNerd 22:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, right. Lou Sander 02:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Accusations of plagiarism, distortions and falsehoods" should be removed