Home » Intelligent Design » Ann Coulter weighs in on Darwinism

Ann Coulter weighs in on Darwinism

I’m happy to report that I was in constant correspondence with Ann regarding her chapters on Darwinism — indeed, I take all responsibility for any errors in those chapters. :-)

. . . Though liberalism rejects the idea of God and reviles people of faith, it bears all the attributes of a religion itself. In Godless: The Church of Liberalism, Ann 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 such spokesmen as Cindy Sheehan and Max Cleland)
**And its cosmology (in which mankind is an inconsequential accident)

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

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

31 Responses to Ann Coulter weighs in on Darwinism

  1. 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 separate…

  2. I’ve always thought that a good book to be written would be called “Secular Mythology” and document all of the ways that certain stories have lost their connection to truth and have become a set of mythologies for the secular world (Gallileo, Scopes, etc.).

  3. Fantastic book by Ann Coulter.
    She shows that Liberalism in general and Darwinism in particular are emperors with no clothes.

  4. Wowzer! Sharp words.

    “Darwinism is nothing but a gap.”

    Ouch!

  5. 5

    “Its clergy (public school teachers)”

    Whoa-oa-oa-oa! Talk about inflammatory! The others are just as hot, but I have to say something about this one. I’d pay to see the outcome if Ann Coulter tried to tell public school teachers in person that they were her equivalent of clergy. They would tear her apart. Public school teachers are the most terribly overworked and under-appreciated professionals in the country. I would be shocked if most of them even had TIME to spout off with partisan craziness, and I’d be even MORE surprised if students in the younger grades would be at all affected.

    ID and evolution is just another example of the predicament that school teachers are in. As I’m sure you’re aware, many teachers give evolution a cursory mention because they are pressed for time and they don’t want to deal with the parental outrage. If any group is a metaphorical clergy, it’s self-righteous parents.

    Public school teachers are the most terribly overworked and under-appreciated professionals in the country.

    Not the ones that I know. My best friend in the world that I’ve known since we were 5 years old, we’re only a month apart in age and even served in the Marine Corps together, has been a public school teacher since he got out of the Corps 25 years ago. His wife also works for the public school system in an adminstrative position. I’d be very hard pressed to name a happier couple in the world. Not many people get vacations that last all summer long. Health insurance and retirement benefits are excellent. They never take work home and their hours are no different than anyone elses. Considering the benefits and enviously long annual vacations the salary isn’t bad at all. Morever, the number of public school teachers that have to be concerned about evolution must be about 1% as only high school biology teachers are required to talk about it and even then only a few class periods are spent on it. Historic evolution just isn’t that important. There’s a wide wonderful world of biology that has nothing at all to do with past evolution. The only important thing that needs to be taught is that all life is related by common structures. How the relationships were established is nowhere near as important as the structures themselves and there isn’t enough time in a hs biology class to even teach the tip of the iceberg outside of historic evolution. -ds

  6. It’s rather easy to equate secularism, of which NeoDarwinism is a component, with Liberalism. But let’s be real here. Secularism is a closed minded philosophy, which simply states, “Man is supreme in the universe. I am a man (or woman), therefore I am supreme.” A more arrogant position I can’t imagine. Much of the scientific community is secular, primarily due to imposed dogma from scientific academia. Righard Dawkins, a man who I admire for his research and dedication to his principles, was once a religionist. He converted over due to outside influences, and from negative impressions of organized religion. He is stuck in the mold of atheism, but I doubt he really believes it.

    But what of so called ‘Liberalism’? Am I speaking to a group out there, that because of your faith in God, and likely disdain for abortion and gay rights feel that you must support the far right? Look what the far right has done, and is doing to your country. Let’s face it; any political extreme is dangerous.

    I am a conservative, but with left leanings. I respect people like Ann, Sean Hannity, and other conservatives who are, in fact, true conservatives. I notice that both Ann and Sean say little these days in support of the current administration.

    I may be part of a new breed. Call it the thinking class, and my dedication is not only to a belief in a purposeful universe, and yes, that embodies belief in a ‘creator’, but one who refuses to give carte blanche authority to those who may claim to be conservatives, but do not honor its principles, and often hide behind their religion.

    I’ll say it again. Christianity, or religion in general is not conjoined to Conservatism. God forbid. And yes, I will read Ann’s book!

  7. This is nothing more then a radical criticizing radicals and has nothing to do with science or the general American public. To say that ET is bogus science will get play among a certain (large)demographic but it is simply not true. The ID movement causes diservice to itself when it insists that ET is bad science. This simply is not true. I think that the more atheistic claims that are purported by Dawkins and the like are indeed articles of faith and not science, but ET itself has not yet been refuted. It may well be at some point in the future but that time is not here yet. I think there are valid points where ET as it stands can be questioned but to call it nothing but a gap is delusional. Whether or not people like to see ET is consistent with everything we know about the spread of life on Earth.

    How life came to be and its early evolution are questions that can still only be answered with pure speculation. I think that it is disturbing when you see a show on the NG channel that tells us how life was formed and does so without the very necessary caveat that such ideas are nothing more than best guesses. This needs to change. Proponents of ET need to be more open about ET’s uncertainties; of this there is no doubt. ID has succeeded in rasing doubts, but has not provided slamdunk evidence except to those that want to believe. I make a design inference but biology does not yet play a role in that. I am not a religion hating atheist with an agenda. I am just a citizen trying to arrive at the most informed world view possible. Most people that still buy into ET (if tentatively) are like that and bear little to no resemblance to the picture An Coulter attempts to paint.

  8. “I think that it is disturbing when you see a show on the NG channel that tells us how life was formed and does so without the very necessary caveat that such ideas are nothing more than best guesses.”

    In many cases they aren’t even best guesses. They’re default guesses given the materialist constraint.

  9. leebowman

    Secularism just does not mean what you say it does. Check Webster, secularism: indifference to or rejection or exclusion of religion and religious considerations

    It has nothing to do with believing “Man is supreme in the universe. I am a man (or woman), therefore I am supreme.”

    I almost guarantee that the nut Pianka is a secularist yet certainly does not believe that man is a supreme being. Being politically secular actually says nothing about your religious life or any other personal beliefs. It simply means that you believe religion should be kept out of governance.

  10. ultimate175

    Good point
    They are the best guesses of people who have a largely or entirely materialistic view of the universe.

  11. thank you leebowman! I am flat out frightened by the way everyone has to be put into a tidy box these days, “liberals this” “liberals that”. Its so unsubtle, and it becomes a habit of speech, after which it becomes a habit of mind. The flipside of this tendency to label is of course the wonderful ego-service it provides. Every line of the argument might as well read “I am a conservative and therefore embody all that is good and pure, in contrast to those awful ‘liberals’!” The problem is that although criticisms are necessary, the truly powerful way to change the world is to change onesself first: when Christ said “Behold not the mote in thy brother’s eye, but the beam in your own”, he meant much more that “be lenient in your judgement of others” Motes and beams are composed of the same substance! Therefore, the admonition could read “when something about your brother really drives you nuts, its probably because you have the same fault to a far greater degree, a fact which should concern you greatly”. The mudslinging and oversimplistic pre-categorization of everyone just feels so much like ‘beholding motes’ instead of ‘beams’. Of course, both sides do this to a nauseating degree. I guess I just figure true conservatives, who claim allegiance to religious principles, ought to know better.

  12. ftrp11,

    You do make a good point. I would say that this analysis is based on the dominant form of secularism: secular humanism. Pianka would represent extreme secular environmentalism. On the religious side of things there is a full spectrum as well, including religious humanism and a multitude of other options.

  13. ftrp11

    I know I’m overgeneralizing. This does not define mainstream secularism, but is an attitude I’ve detected in some secularists. It’s probably not fair to chacterize all who are atheist or agnostic as ‘arrogant’. To do so probably shows my bias. But when you discuss design, purposefullness, and order in the universe, and you receive in return ad hominem attacks and inferences of ‘blind faith’ and stupidness, you do detect an arrogant stance.

    Also, when you read quotations from famous atheists, you kind of get that impression somtimes.

    “All thinking men are atheists” Ernest Hemmingway
    “Religion is a byproduct of fear … “ Arthur C. Clarke
    “By the year 2000, we will, I hope, raise our children to believe in human potential, not God.” Gloria Steinem

    Bertrand Russell, in his writings, has displayed not only arrogance, but contempt for those be believes are below him, i.e. anyone who ‘believes’. “Religion is based … mainly on fear … fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand. … My own view on religion is that of Lucretius. I regard it as a disease born of fear and as a source of untold misery to the human race.”

  14. You lucky dawg!

  15. I don’t think partnering with Coulter can help ID. She is very extreeme in her views and often speaks just to give shocking soundbites:

    “We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren’t punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That’s war. And this is war.”

    Not really a pro-science, non-theistic standpoint.

    Keep dreaming. Coulter has four books that made the New York Times best seller list. At least one, Treason, made #1. She’s an icon on political commentary shows such as Bill Maher, Bill O’Reilly, and Hannity & Colmes. She’s a Cornell graduate and board certified lawyer. Now she’s going to be on all those shows answering questions about evolution with the polished acid tongued rhetoric that made her so popular. This is big. I’ve been telling Bill for a year he should hook up with her on the evolution controversy as it’s right up her alley and she’s got more name recognition than Hillary Clinton. I can’t imagine better publicity for ID than this. -ds

  16. ftrpp: “It simply means that you believe religion should be kept out of governance.”

    That would be one belief system. However, it is neither a requirement constitutionally nor is it desirable in this republic of ours. Religion is, at base, a group of people with a common set of beliefs and morality. Excluding those beliefs from governance is not only unconstitutional but silly.

    Read another way, your sentence seems to state that only those views not grounded in religion are acceptable for passing laws. Of course all laws have a moral component so if we eliminate those whose morality is based in religion from governance who are we left with, where do they derive their moral views from and why do those views trump religious based views?

  17. I’ve yet to meet this picture perfect liberal that Anne describes. I know a couple of godless atheists. One is a republican who loves listening to Rush. I know lots of liberals, but they all go to church on Sunday. I have a couple of creationist friends, and both voted for Kerry and Gore.

    I think it’s a huge stretch to try to make the evo/I.D. debate fit into the conservative/liberal debate. HUGE stretch!

    I’m surprised that under I.D’s big tent strategy that they’d be so eager to help Anne Coulter out on her book.

  18. Well I don’t know where a lot of these ppl are from, but wherever I’ve gone ID/EVO polarization = the conservative/liberal polarization is most def. real. Yea you might find some here and there, but to flat out deny that it exist is just false. Its real.

    Also I’d like to “edit” one of Ann’s obseravations:

    **Its clergy: public school teachers and university (private and public) prof.

    Or would Prof. be some sorta chancellor or something? :P

  19. I hate to play the devil’s advocate, and I’m sorry to reiterate what’s already been expressed on this thread. But I really don’t think the type of attention Coulter receives would be good for ID. She’s just too polarizing. As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, the ID movement can be viewed as liberal in nature.

    I think if there are people who would judge the merits of ID lacking by virtue of Ann Coulter’s position then those are people that the ID movement can survive without in the first place. The other side is welcome to such shallow thinkers. In fact though I think the other side already has them… ;-) -ds

  20. “But I really don’t think the type of attention Coulter receives would be good for ID. She’s just too polarizing.”

    Sounds like Coulter : ID :: Dawkins : Evolution.

    Rather, Coulter : Evolution :: Dawkins : ID –WmAD

  21. I can’t believe the quote from Ann Coulter regarding the wartime killing of civilians, etc. This is the best partnership for a movement about science? What a monstrous lack of regard for basic human decency. This from a woman who claims to be opposed to abortion on a moral basis? Who claims to defend Christians in their faith vis a vis the secular society? What a nightmare. Behold not the mote.

  22. tinabrewer: To be honest, that’s part of Ann Coulter’s style. Whether it’s hyperbole and deliberately inflammatory comments ,I have no idea, but the same Ann Coulter that, after 9/11, said : “We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity” also said :

    “My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building.”

    Ann Coulter on Islam: “It’s always so comforting when Muslims cite the precise verse from the Quran that tells them killing is wrong. Don’t all empathetic human beings understand that instinctively? ” Note how this claim of “all empathetic human beings” knowing that killing is wrong clashes so nicely with Ann’s idea of carpet-bombing foreign countries and bombing the NY Times building

    This little bash at Islam is interesting: “Being nice to people is, in fact, one of the incidental tenets of Christianity (as opposed to other religions whose tenets are more along the lines of ‘kill everyone who doesn’t smell bad and doesn’t answer to the name Mohammed’)”. From Ann’s column.

    Also this gem, since removed from Ann’s site, in Dec. of 2004: “To The People Of Islam: Just think: If we’d invaded your countries, killed your leaders and converted you to Christianity YOU’D ALL BE OPENING CHRISTMAS PRESENTS RIGHT ABOUT NOW! Merry Christmas.”

    Ann Coulter : speaking FOR God, said: ” God says, ‘Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It’s yours.’” This despite Biblical admonitions on proper stewardship of the Earth and a growing Christian “Green” movement?

    I was surprised at Kent Hovind being supported here, but this is perhaps more surprising. It’s certainly not my place to advise anyone on public relations, but I hope that my posting of her comments, taken from various sites on the internet, might give pause. JP
    Sites: http://www.washingtonmonthly.c.....isdom.html , http://www.nationalreview.com/.....lter.shtml and http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ann_Coulter

    It doesn’t give ME pause. Ann Coulter is hugely popular. True, she’s prone to hyperbole but the poster child for the left is Howard Stern and propriety prevents me from even quoting the best (or worst, depending on your POV) of his speech. -ds

  23. [troll]

    With the inclusion of Anne Coulter in this coven of psychopaths and mystics of yours, I’ve never been prouder to be one of the godless liberals you want to send to Guantanamo. (Or shoot, whatever the program calls for.) Nor have I ever felt more contentedly godless, if she is one of the multifarious faces of this Neo-Christianity.

    Eric Collier
    [email protected]

  24. 24

    Black Hole Sun: “Public school teachers are the most terribly overworked and under-appreciated professionals in the country.”

    Reply: The school teachers in my former highschool work 4 hours a day, 8 months a year, and are paid an average of $50,000. Sounds more like a bunch of overpaid union members to me.

  25. Ann Coulter is viciously funny…if you can’t annoy your opponents, who can you?
    Conservative darwinites may have their eyes opened…Dawkins or Coulter?

  26. “Ann Coulter is viciously funny…if you can’t annoy your opponents,who can you?”…well, something to consider is the fact that Ann pretends to defend Christianity, which to her appears to mean opening presents at Christmastime (see above quote) Perhaps it is a accurate measure of the degree to which we have truly absorbed the foundational messages of Christianity (for example, “love your enemies”) when large numbers of people get excited about this violent, vicious defense of their “religion”.

  27. I think Jesus annoyed the moneylenders.
    When you speak of violent vicious defense of their religion,,,,
    do you mean the Darwinite Devotees?

  28. mmadigan: I believe tinabrewer’s post was on Ann Coulter’s comments, which you defend by saying that “Jesus upset the moneylenders.” and go on to attach “vicious and violent” to “Darwinite Devotees.”

    Jesus may indeed have upset the moneylenders and even struck them with a knotted cord, but that’s hardly comparable to calling for forcible conversion and killing of innocents as Coulter did.

    Now, the only “Darwinite Devotee” I see you mention is Dawkins. As much as I may disagree with and dislike Dawkins, could you point to where Dawkins has called for the things Coulter has? If you can’t, then your comparison is inappropriate.

    It’s a well known fact that Richard Dawkins is effeminate, sissified, emasculate, and weak. There’s no real way to compare his passive-aggressive personality with one as strong as Coulter’s. Coulter eschews political correctness and that’s why so many people either love or hate her. There’s little middle ground. She is comparable with Howard Stern only on the opposite end of the political spectrum, far better educated, and more comely. -ds

  29. I mean that IMHO the teachings of the Christian religion contain the revolutionary concept of NOT REACTING IN VIOLENCE OR HATE to that which is “the enemy”. Rather, the Christian is asked to imitate the compassion and love of Christ, rising ABOVE the level of the enemy in behavior, and wishing only what is best for them. This is an inner attitude which is reflected in the behavior. It is impossible to square this elevated, difficult-to-achieve inner state with the violent and inflamed rhetoric of Coulter. THe fact that the Darwinite Devotees display this behavior is an invitation to all serious Christians to behave differently. This should be obvious. Bandying about the type of rhetoric I have read quoted above (Coulter’s comments) because it makes one feel a sense of bad-ass gratification at trouncing the enemy at his own game is a woefully bad substitute for the demanding LOVINGKINDNESS of Christ.

  30. Out of lovingkindness, I will cease beating this dead horse

  31. [...] Ann Coulter checked inon Darwinism, linking it to liberalism.  She throws open the doors of the Church of Liberalism, [...]

Leave a Reply