Stranger Fruit

Bill and Ann sitting in a tree …

Ann Coulter’s new book Godless: The Church of Liberalism will apparently deal (in part) with evolution:

Then, of course, there’s the liberal creation myth: Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution.

For liberals, evolution is the touchstone that separates the enlightened from the benighted. But Coulter neatly refutes the lie that liberals are rationalists guided by the ideals of free inquiry and the scientific method. She exposes the essential truth about Darwinian evolution that liberals refuse to confront: It is bogus science.

Writing with a keen appreciation for genuine science, Coulter reveals that the so-called “gaps” in the theory of evolution are all there is — Darwinism is nothing but a gap.

After 150 years of dedicated searching into the fossil record, evolution’s proponents have failed utterly to substantiate its claims. And a long line of supposed evidence, from the infamous Piltdown Man to the “evolving” peppered moths of England, has been exposed as one hoax after another. Still, liberals treat those who question evolution as religious nuts and prohibit students from hearing about real science when it contradicts Darwinism. And these are the people who say they want to keep faith out of the classroom.

Liberals’ absolute devotion to Darwinism, Coulter shows, has nothing to do with evolution’s scientific validity and everything to do with their refusal to admit the possibility of God as a guiding force. They will brook no challenges to the official religion.

More rational argument from the woman who thinks “the government should be spying on all Arabs, engaging in torture as a televised spectator sport, dropping daisy cutters wantonly throughout the Middle East and sending liberals to Guantanamo.”

Best part is that Dembski seems quite proud of being “in constant correspondence with Ann regarding her chapters on Darwinism”. Coulter is an embarrasment to conservatism, and frankly, Dembski associating with her will probably not increase his intellectual credibility (whatever that may be).

Comments

  1. #1 J-Dog
    April 26, 2006

    OMG! I thought the “Bill” you refer early in the article was Bill O’Reilly, until you bring on the “Dembski” late in the article! How funny is that!

  2. #2 BigDumbChimp
    April 26, 2006

    Coulter speaking on evolution is like Behe speaking on the immune system.

  3. #3 hogeb
    April 26, 2006

    Anne Coulter is to liberals what the Reverend Farrakhan is to conservatives. The sooner she fades into obscurity, the better, but of course another shill willing to abdicate reason for the strokes of the herd will emerge. I do think that she has become essentially inconsequential, however. I don’t see her used as a source much any more. When she first appeared she was simply conservative, but as she began to get attention she took extreme positions. As she begins to fade, she is becoming more and more strident and ridiculous.

  4. #4 Orac
    April 26, 2006

    Oh, this has the potential for great hilarity. There’s no way on earth I would ever purchase an Ann Coulter book, but I’d be tempted to borrow it from the library or buy it secondhand just to read the evolution chapters.

    Behe’s got to be out of his mind to want to associate with Coulter. I tend to lean conservative in my politics, and I find her to be an utter embarrassement. She and her ilk (not to mention the utter incompetence Bush has shown in so many areas) are the big reasons my politics have drifted to less conservative over the last 5-10 years or so…

  5. #5 Bruce Thompson
    April 26, 2006

    I guess, if you can borrow a copy, it’s worth reading her comments on evolution and critiquing Dembski’s help, since he accepts “all responsibility for any errors in those chapters.”

The site is currently under maintenance and will be back shortly. New comments have been disabled during this time, please check back soon.