But that just higlights another concern implicit in Coulter’s complaints that should be noted even by those who don’t share her interest in the particular issues of Darwinism or homosexuality: what I call Conservative Tribalism. The force of Coulter’s criticism is that Huckabee is willing to express the proper Evangelical pieties on such issues, but his “convictions” don’t seem to translate into actual policy positions. What Huckabee supporters seem to want is not someone who will do what is right, but someone who is from the right tribe. This has been a problem in Southern politics since the Civil War, though it has usually been more characteristic of the Democratic party than the Republicans. Coulter is quite right to point out that this is “bad for Evangelicals”.

I guess Huckabee is one of those pro-sodomy, pro-gay marriage, pro-evolution evangelical Christians.

Yeah, that sure sounds like Huck.

NOT

I believe that they find her use of ridicule unseemly for such a lovely woman. I have no such aversion.

She did call Huck a dumb hick, though.

RW Wacko on December 20, 2007 at 12:47 PM

No, she basically just called him unprincipled. He could be unprincipled because he’s stupid or because he’s uneducated or because he’s just full of it.

Did you even read the article or a re you simply being lead into your reaction?

TheBigOldDog on December 20, 2007 at 11:19 AM

Yes, I read it, but I was being sarcastic. Sorry, will use the /sarc next time. She did call Huck a dumb hick, though. But not the rest of us, at least I don’t think so. Don’t recall her saying that about Bush, so I won’t consider her some sort of Northern elitist just yet.

In the case of the flagella engine, the component parts have independent uses, such as the needle-like structure that is useful for injecting material into other cells.

dedalus on December 20, 2007 at 11:51 AM

Then maybe I’m thinking of the eyeball.

The mathematician Coulter often cites is Bill Dembski.

I don’t remember it being someone she used throughout the book, just someone she mentioned in one paragraph of one chapter of her book. But that could be the guy.

That’s a pretty sad attempt to explain what’s wrong with our government schools. Our government schools are very successful, they have dumbed down our students so they will not have enough information to question our government. Moral relativists, like huckabee, are the tools the government uses to accomplish this goal. Our students are failing because our government schools no longer emphasize academics.

It isn’t an attempt to explain the current problem at all, rather I’m identifying something that would make biology class even less effective. By introducing multiple creation myths into the curriculum, in order to satisfy each religious group is exactly the type of “moral relativism” that you are criticizing.

Render unto God what is God’s, to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to Darwin what is Darwin’s. Theology and biology are different disciplines.

I thinks she’s great.

In the word’s of Michael Corleone,

“Hot Air, you’re conservative and I love you…but don’t ever takes with anybody against the family. Ever.”

A creature wouldn’t seek out another that had only one part of something that could be really awesome if only it was mixed with two other things three generations later.

Right. It would be a cheat to say that animals or cells planned several generations in advance.

In the case of the flagella engine, the component parts have independent uses, such as the needle-like structure that is useful for injecting material into other cells.

The mathematician Coulter often cites is Bill Dembski.

Esthier on December 20, 2007 at 11:33 AM

Like i said earlier, anybody who can read at an 8th grade level or better can easily understand exactly her point. Dork did a very good job summarizing it above (as did you). Heck, you can even just skim it and understand it.

I just don’t understand how some people are interpreting the article the way they have.

This will help you understand it. It’s called pathological hatred:

Maybe Huck’s right. Maybe there is a collection of east coast douchebag conservatives who hate Huck just because he’s a little earthier than they’re used to.

If Huck turns this into a “me vs. Coulter” thing, he could win me over.

Allahpundit on December 19, 2007 at 10:56 PM

See, this is from a guy who has a problem with Ann using the “F” word but has no problem calling a woman a douchebag. Where I am from, calling a woman a d-bag is right up there with the C-word and usually gets you beating.

American high school students already lag European and Asian students in science, turning biology class into a competition for religious agendas doesn’t help.

That’s a pretty sad attempt to explain what’s wrong with our government schools. Our government schools are very successful, they have dumbed down our students so they will not have enough information to question our government. Moral relativists, like huckabee, are the tools the government uses to accomplish this goal. Our students are failing because our government schools no longer emphasize academics.

TheBigOldDog on December 20, 2007 at 11:29 AM

Maybe he did. I don’t know. Coulter can rub people the wrong way, which is largely her fault for basically trying to rub people the wrong way.

I just don’t understand how some people are interpreting the article the way they have.

She was addressing specific issues where Huck is either a hypocrite, a liar, or uneducated on the issues. It’s not a comment on Christians, Southerners or anyone else but the MSM and Huck.

Esthier on December 20, 2007 at 11:21 AM

I’d bet he didn’t even read it (or he’s being obtusely sarcastic). He read AP’s tortured analysis and reacted which, I suspect, is a trap many people here fall into these days.

I have a Southern accent, too, so I guess I’m a stupid hick.

RW Wacko on December 20, 2007 at 11:17 AM

What? How did you get that out of the article? Are you being sarcastic?

RW Wacko on December 20, 2007 at 11:17 AM

Did you even read the article or a re you simply being lead into your reaction?

To pursue scientific study, using the tools of science is not incompatible with a belief and reverence for God.

dedalus on December 20, 2007 at 11:00 AM

She agrees with that.

And yes, she does cite Behe, but I’m fairly certain that he isn’t the mathematician I was mentioning. I don’t have the book in front of me, so I can’t say for sure.

Behe doesn’t himself disprove evolution, just points out that there are gaps that are hard to explain.

He doesn’t disprove evolution, but he does make Darwin’s theory highly unlikely. Darwin’s claim was that every evolution would have to make the creature better, or else natural selection wasn’t at play.

With the flagellum we have a thing that must have evolved without all of its parts helping a creature without the benefit of its other parts.

A creature wouldn’t seek out another that had only one part of something that could be really awesome if only it was mixed with two other things three generations later.

Feel free to disagree that Darwin’s theory has been discreditted, but she is correct in saying that mathematicians have done the math and claimed that evolution is so mathematically improbable that there is no number to even show how improbable it is.

It depends who her sources are. She has cited Michael Behe frequently, whose observations about irreducible complexity with regard to bacterial flagellum have scientific explanations. Behe doesn’t himself disprove evolution, just points out that there are gaps that are hard to explain.

Coulter misunderstands or misrepresents evolution and what natural selection, common descent, and modern genetics actually address. To pursue scientific study, using the tools of science is not incompatible with a belief and reverence for God.

American high school students already lag European and Asian students in science, turning biology class into a competition for religious agendas doesn’t help. It also doesn’t help conservatives to have a media figure like Coulter coming across as a Luddite.