Ann Coulter's latest essay against evolution

[Tatyana]

Holy crap.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Poe's law.

That's my feeling about Coulter in general. It could very well be Coulter is a calculating sensationalist who knows how profitable it is to say and write outrageous things. She hasn't gotten a lot of attention recently (or maybe I've just not been channel surfing past Fox News as much lately), and this looks to be a pot stirring piece.

 

[Hellbound]

Holy crap.

No.

Unholy crap.

 

[uk_dave]

Your post is confusing. Are you defending Coulter? Is it hard for you given you buy her political views which she presents with equal ignorance (not commenting on left or right political positions, just on the garbage that Coulter spiels when she presents her views)?

Perhaps Mhaze is suggesting that evolution only applies to humans.

(Stop laughing!)

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Coulter cites Ray Comfort.

 

[Nogbad]

I quite liked the comments

Completely barking but kind of cute in a B movie script sort of way. No one takes this lady very seriously though do they? I mean she is a Faux News contributor of the Glenn Beck stripe.

 

[Complexity]

I didn't know any part of her was still alive.

 

[KingMerv00]

Your post is confusing. Are you defending Coulter? Is it hard for you given you buy her political views which she presents with equal ignorance (not commenting on left or right political positions, just on the garbage that Coulter spiels when she presents her views)?

I can't believe I'm saying this but...Ann Coulter made a good point. Considering her track record I'm assuming it was an accident. She said:

Despite Matthews' obsessive fixation on the topic, manifested by his constantly asking elected Republicans if they believe in evolution, in a one-hour interview with me on "Godless" – the very book that is chockablock with attacks on Darwinism – Matthews didn't ask me a single question about the subject.

I am not familiar with the interview in question but there is a valid comment buried in that paragraph.​

Journalists and politicians attack others for not believing in evolution but rarely bother explaining why they're wrong. The evidence shows that evolution is undeniably true but is treated as an afterthought; on TV, the primary goal seems to mock rather than educate. Honestly, I think a large number of "Darwinists" believe in evolution because "smart people think so" and undercut their rhetorical effectiveness.

Ann Coulter and much of the public will deny the truth of evolution on religious grounds but we need to fight for the merely ignorant. If Matthews asked Ann to explain geographic distribution, nested hierarchies, or the patterns of endogenous retroviruses, he'd come off looking a whole lot better IMO.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Her commentary is a poorly disguised re-hash of Behe's discredited "irreducible complexity". She has stooped to taking credit for other people's garbage. This would make a most interesting court case.

Definitely a rehash of the disproved Behe hypothesis of irreducible complexity. Confirmation bias is an interesting phenomena when people latch on to something they like and ignore anything that comes after discrediting the thing. I think in this context Coulter may very well be spouting what she believes with sensationalism tossed in there because she gets rewarded for that (money and attention), rather than Coulter consciously making the whole thing up.

 

[dasmiller]

If you realize that Ann Coulter is perpetrating an elaborate hoax, it all makes sense.

http://www.livescience.com/7275-coulter-hoax-ann-coulter-exposed-intelligent-design-movement.html

The closing line from the linked article really says it all, I think:

Considering how wonderfully multilayered Coulter’s writing is, I am sure there is a perfectly logical explanation.

 

[carlitos]

The arrogance of this statement is astounding:




Yes. That's what happened. You, Ann Coulter, successfully and definitively disproved the work of Francis Crick, one of the most influential and well recognized scientists of the past century. And no one noticed this but you and your readers.

I suspect she's checking the mailbox daily for notification of her Nobel prize.

At the risk of defending Ann Coulter, she said "disputed" not "disproved."

I too enjoyed the comments; the sad thing is I see stuff like that posted by facebook friends all the time.

 

[Moon-Spinner]

At the risk of defending Ann Coulter, she said "disputed" not "disproved."

I too enjoyed the comments; the sad thing is I see stuff like that posted by facebook friends all the time.

But are they YOUR Facebook friends?

 

[Biscuit]

Thanks to advances in microscopes, thousands of such complex mechanisms have been found since Darwin's day. He had to explain only simple devices, such as beaks and gills. If Darwin were able to come back today and peer through a modern microscope to see the inner workings of a cell, he would instantly abandon his own theory.

NO NO NO! This perfectly demonstrates how little she understands about the scientific process.

bolding mine.

 

[Biscuit]

Thanks to advances in microscopes, thousands of such complex mechanisms have been found since Darwin's day. He had to explain only simple devices, such as beaks and gills. If Darwin were able to come back today and peer through a modern microscope to see the inner workings of a cell, he would instantly abandon his own theory.

NO NO NO! This perfectly demonstrates how little she understands about the scientific process.

bolding mine.

 

[KingMerv00]

NO NO NO! This perfectly demonstrates how little she understands about the scientific process.

bolding mine.

Antonie van Whowenhoek?

Dear God, should I be laughing or crying? Make it stop.

 

[Pardalis]

One would have thought that between her previous book and this one, she would have picked up a biology book or two, and learnt something.

But I guess that would have been asking too much of her.

 

[Biscuit]

Antonie van Whowenhoek?

Dear God, should I be laughing or crying? Make it stop.

NO!

This shows Darwin to be a skilled and sophisticated microscopist. In combination with his renowned talent for slide preparation, Darwin can be understood as a more practical man of science, using instruments and undertaking important experiments. He owned and used microscopes and was fascinated by both their working and what they revealed of the natural world.

here

 

[Resume]

If you realize that Ann Coulter is perpetrating an elaborate hoax, it all makes sense.

http://www.livescience.com/7275-coulter-hoax-ann-coulter-exposed-intelligent-design-movement.html

Linda

That link is very clever.

 

[Paul2]

By the way, the comments section is . . . interesting.

What understatement!

Those comments are *so* horribly ignorant and arrogant, pitiable and infuriating, all at the same time.

If you want your mind blown, check out those comments. Yikes.

 

[C_Felix]

I'm starting to think Ann is a type of performance artist. She spews what she spews and watches the way the human condition responds to it.