Ann Coulter's latest essay against evolution

[quarky]

i'll bet that if he had been exposed as a pot smoker, it would have done him much more damage.

Absolutely.
The need for pain relief implies pain, which brings out some empathy, I guess.
Smoking pot is for hippies and liberals and losers.

Abortion is the real deal-breaker in the new morality game.

 

[Chris L]

Ann Coulter would lift up her skirt and show her private parts in live tv to get attention, except she's too intelligent so she realizes that this would only work once. Don't feed the troll.

Yeah, that sounds about right.

 

[catsmate]

Someone has finally taken Myers challenge, to take a paragraph about evolution from Coulter's book Godless and intelligently defend its accuracy. Alas it's Michael Egnor.

Ann Coulter is a horrible, ignorant person who once wrote a whole book accusing liberals of being Godless, as if that were an insult, and advancing arguments against evolution that made the standard noisy creationist look like a veritable scholar. I looked at her arguments, and I made a public challenge back in 2006 for any defenders to pick one paragraph from the book and we'd discuss it in detail — there have been no takers, not one person willing to stand up and support in detail any claim she had made.

 

[fls]

More brilliant satire!

Linda

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Egnor is a Poe, right?

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Wait. Ann disses Scientology as well? Is there no end to her perfidy?

 

[Paradox74]

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.

Here's the wikipedia article about the reactions that critics had to Crick's work on creationism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Crick#Creationism

It has been suggested by some observers that Crick's speculation about panspermia "fits neatly into the intelligent design concept."[70] Crick's name was raised in this context in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial over the teaching of intelligent design. Crick was, however, a firm critic of Young Earth creationism. In the 1987 United States Supreme Court case Edwards v. Aguillard, Crick joined a group of other Nobel laureates who advised that, "'Creation-science' simply has no place in the public-school science classroom."[71] Crick was also an advocate for the establishment of Darwin Day as a British national holiday.[72]

I'm skeptical of the part about Crick advocation Darwin Day, but I am really interested in the Edwards v. Aguillard case. Anyone has a link to that case?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....
We still have a lot of work left to do, but from a historic perspective, there is no reason we can't continue making progress as long as we are willing.

Just like the Sun centered solar system could not be denied, neither can evolution theory. The evidence wins in the end.

The timing of the facts prevailing is another matter.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Also, note the age related trend in the poll linked above. A higher percentage of younger people accept evolution...

Of course. Because now kids are learning a lot more about evolution theory earlier before as many of them can be indoctrinated otherwise.

I don't recall ever being specifically taught in grade school that evolution theory was in doubt. But I have two memories from that time period.

One was a teacher who voiced some kind of reservation that some people were bothered by the materials when the topic was addressed. I don't remember her exact words, but the memory of her worrying about offending someone is there.

The second thing I recall is going to the Los Angeles Museum of Natural History and seeing a display of evolving primate skulls from our ancestors to modern human. I remember thinking, "looks convincing to me."

Now along with the fossil record, I would hope kids are at least introduced to genetic science as well. It's pretty hard to believe evolution deniers if good educators get to the kids first.

 

[Moon-Spinner]

Whoa, One week after Ann Coulter's essay that started this thread, she posts another doozy essay about evolution. In this essay she writes:

"Intelligent design scientists look at the evidence and develop their theories; Darwinists start with a theory and then rearrange the evidence"

Yes, can it get more twisted than this?? Just read her essay...

Those Whacky Darwinists

Beware again, the comments are just as bad...
​

 

[Chris L]

Yeah, that's right. The ONLY evidence for Darwinism is a 9 year old boy. No actual evidence (like say, the fossil record and DNA analysis) exists to support such an outlandish idea as natural selection. Nope, none at all.

The creationist on the other hand, have this big book of bronze age tales to support their claim. Who could possibly compete with that?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Yet another article by our favorite loonmuffin:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=339845

~~ Paul

 

[Moon-Spinner]

Yet another article by our favorite loonmuffin:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=339845

~~ Paul

I beat you by two posts

This new essay is just as loony as last weeks, and full of lies and twisted logic, which is par for Ann. Her followers think she's really sticking it to those Darwinists. Yep, Ann can certainly runs circles around all the worlds scientists, or as she sees them - LIBERALS!

 

[Roadtoad]

I beat you by two posts

This new essay is just as loony as last weeks, and full of lies and twisted logic, which is par for Ann. Her followers think she's really sticking it to those Darwinists. Yep, Ann can certainly runs circles around all the worlds scientists, or as she sees them - LIBERALS!

What galls me is that Coulter doesn't even have the decency to correctly state what the Theory of Evolution actually is. She simply assumes we're going to go along with her on this one, and operate on her level of ignorance. And that's not happening, and certainly not here.

More to the point, it's this kind of nonsense that has even turned what should have been moving essays regarding a friend she lost on 9/11 into something bordering on the farcical. If you can't even be bothered to read the Wikipedia entry on Evolution and link to something as comprehensible as that, why should we believe you about anything else?

 

[bikerdruid]

coulter is a hateful bitch.
it's hard to believe that anyone gives her any credence.
there must be a lot of stupid people in the abysmal right.

 

[Roadtoad]

coulter is a hateful bitch.
it's hard to believe that anyone gives her any credence.
there must be a lot of stupid people in the abysmal right.

I'm very certain there are as many stupid, hateful, self-congratulatory types on the left as well, willing to give credence to the more bigoted, egotistical, and closed-minded members of the liberal side of the political spectrum.

Coulter brings in readers, some because they wish they could say what she does any where near as well, and some because it's like watching a train wreck in slow motion. I was surprised to learn that Michael Medved actually enjoys her work, which I thought would have infuriated him no end given his more egalitarian views and her more racist ones. But, to each his own, I guess.

Personally, I can't stand to read her, and only do so when I have no choice. Her books are sickening, leaving me thinking there has to be something better on TV, even if it is Jerry Springer. I'd like nothing better than to ignore her entirely, but you simply can't do that; you almost have to respond if for no other reason than to say, "I'm to the right of center, and I don't accept your hate." I can't help but think she's simply a better dressed Ilsa Koch, and the only thing missing is the riding crop and a couple of thugs with submachine guns.

But I've also heard enough from the left that makes me nauseous enough to find myself reaching for the Tums, or on worse occasions, the Mothersills. Even people I might ordinarily enjoy tend to come across with some truly bizarre statements, and I wonder where such absurdity comes from. I mean, come on! Ever heard Sheryl Crow going on about toilet paper? Mr. Whipple, where are you when we need you!

The Right has no corner on the stupidity market; there's plenty of it to go around. I could wish that both sides were honest about it and dealing with it.

 

[fls]

I'm very certain there are as many stupid, hateful, self-congratulatory types on the left as well, willing to give credence to the more bigoted, egotistical, and closed-minded members of the liberal side of the political spectrum.

Coulter brings in readers, some because they wish they could say what she does any where near as well, and some because it's like watching a train wreck in slow motion. I was surprised to learn that Michael Medved actually enjoys her work, which I thought would have infuriated him no end given his more egalitarian views and her more racist ones. But, to each his own, I guess.

Personally, I can't stand to read her, and only do so when I have no choice. Her books are sickening, leaving me thinking there has to be something better on TV, even if it is Jerry Springer. I'd like nothing better than to ignore her entirely, but you simply can't do that; you almost have to respond if for no other reason than to say, "I'm to the right of center, and I don't accept your hate." I can't help but think she's simply a better dressed Ilsa Koch, and the only thing missing is the riding crop and a couple of thugs with submachine guns.

But I've also heard enough from the left that makes me nauseous enough to find myself reaching for the Tums, or on worse occasions, the Mothersills. Even people I might ordinarily enjoy tend to come across with some truly bizarre statements, and I wonder where such absurdity comes from. I mean, come on! Ever heard Sheryl Crow going on about toilet paper? Mr. Whipple, where are you when we need you!

The Right has no corner on the stupidity market; there's plenty of it to go around. I could wish that both sides were honest about it and dealing with it.

Can you give a better example? All I can find about Sheryl Crow and toilet paper is that, as a joke, she suggested we limit ourselves to x number of squares. Even if she hadn't been joking, it's way, way, way less stupid and intolerant than the subject of this thread. I want to believe you. I just need some help here.

Linda

 

[Roadtoad]

Can you give a better example? All I can find about Sheryl Crow and toilet paper is that, as a joke, she suggested we limit ourselves to x number of squares. Even if she hadn't been joking, it's way, way, way less stupid and intolerant than the subject of this thread. I want to believe you. I just need some help here.

Linda

I'll have to do some digging. And, no, I don't think Crow was joking. I'm operating off memory, and right at this very moment, it's a bit addled. (I'm not feeling well, I'm on a 34, and I'm supposed to be preparing for a funeral.) Apologies, I should have been better prepared.

 

[Roadtoad]

Linda:

Just recalled: Ward Churchill's claim that 9/11 was justified by American foreign policy. There's others, as I said, I'll need to dig a bit, as I'd rather get it right and in context rather than rely on my very fallible memory.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Linda:

Just recalled: Ward Churchill's claim that 9/11 was justified by American foreign policy. There's others, as I said, I'll need to dig a bit, as I'd rather get it right and in context rather than rely on my very fallible memory.

Hmm. Somehow I doubt that Linda was claiming there were no left wing idiots. I'd never even heard of this guy and apparently his books and articles don't sell well at all.