Creationist Wisdom #200: Ann Coulter

As our series reaches the milestone number of 200, we bring you what may be the all-time unbeatable example of creationist wisdom. This is a column by Ann Coulter which appears in Human Events.

The thing is titled The Flash Mob Mentality of Scientific Inquiry, and it’s a huge load of screaming, raving, hysterical creationism. Every paragraph is one we could excerpt and have fun with, but there’s just too much of it. We’re boggled by the sheer volume and density of the material; and the quality. It’s like being confronted by the simultaneous eruption of every zit on the planet. So we’ll just pick a few excerpts to play with. You’ll have to click over to Human Events to read it all — or as much as you can. Here we go, and the bold font was added by us:

Roughly one-third of my 2007 No. 1 New York Times best-seller, “Godless: The Church of Liberalism,” is an attack on liberals’ creation myth, Darwinian evolution. I presented the arguments of all the luminaries in the field, from the retarded Richard Dawkins to the brilliant Francis Crick, and disputed them.

But apparently liberals didn’t want to argue back.

It’s not just the liberals who won’t debate science with Ann. Even your Curmudgeon, who is notoriously non-liberal, wouldn’t dream of it. But Ann can’t imagine why — after all, she’s such a well-informed lady, and classy too. For those who don’t know, the Wikipedia article on William Dembski says:

Dembski, along with fellow Discovery Institute associates Michael Behe and David Berlinski, tutored Ann Coulter on science and evolution for her book Godless: The Church of Liberalism. Approximately one-third of the book is devoted to polemical attacks on evolution, which Coulter, as Dembski often does, terms “Darwinism”

We’ll skip Coulter’s tirade against Chris Matthews; we don’t care for him either. After that the gusher begins. It’s like a catastrophic break in a high volume, high pressure sewer pipe — one that services a densely-populated leper colony:

This week, we will consider one small slice of the mountain of scientific evidence disproving this mystery religion from the Victorian age.

Most devastating for the Darwiniacs were advances in microbiology since Darwin’s time, revealing infinitely complex mechanisms requiring hundreds of parts working together at once — complex cellular structures, DNA, blood-clotting mechanisms, molecules, and the cell’s tiny flagellum and cilium.

Complexity! Parts working together at once! The flagellum! This is more than the typical festival of creationism — it’s the World’s Fair of Foolishness! We continue:

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.

Right. Here’s a little bit more:

Evolution fanatics would rather not be called on to explain these complex mechanisms that Darwin himself said would disprove his theory. Instead they make jokes about people who know the truth. They say that to dispute evolution means you must believe man walked with dinosaurs.

[…]

This is why the brighter Darwiniacs end up sounding like Scientologists in order to cling to their mystery religion.

We can’t go on. For just this once we’re dropping out; you’ll have to carry on without us. Go ahead, read it all. Then let us know what you think — if you still can.

Copyright © 2011. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

21 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #200: Ann Coulter

  1. Greetings fellow “liberal” (and curmudgeon). I hope that you had the sense to leave your irony meter in a different galaxy before reading anything by the queen of shock jocks. I confess a perverse enjoyment of her use of “flash mob” to misrepresent mainstream science. It takes about 6000 millidembskis of chutzpah to say that after claiming to be an “idiot” about science (her exact words when defending her book “Godless” and admitting that the “Darwiniac” chapters were all but written for her).

    If that’s not enough irony, she wrote: ”They say that to dispute evolution means you must believe man walked with dinosaurs.” Someday I’d like to meet the “they” that paranoid extremists constantly invoke without identifying. No one complains more than I do that some fellow “Darwiniacs” sloppily imply that all evolution deniers believe that man walked with dinosaurs. But most do not, and she knows it. Meanwhile some evolution deniers, Like Coulter’s buddies at WND, do believe that man walked with dinosaurs. Since she apparently does not, I look forward to her challenging them, and will remind her about it. To all readers of this blog: feel free to do the same.

  2. You made me (OK, so you didn’t hold a gun to my head) read Ann Coulter. And she said, “Galileo’s persecutors probably had some good guffaws about him believing in Fred Flintstone.” I need a drink….and it’s only 11:37 AM.

    Just as an aside from a Theist, it always puzzles me when a creationist (or one who pretends to be, like Coulter) says, “…mathematically impossible…” So, this god in whom they believe (or pretend to, like Coulter) is capable of instantly creating complex stuff, but incapable of having it evolve over time? God can say, “Poof!” but God cannot say, “Change?”

  3. @Ellie:

    Thanks for the “or pretends.” I wish everyone would say that instead of assuming what they believe. Short of reading minds we simply don’t know whether they truly doubt evolution, especially when they have such a vested interest in keeping the “masses” in denial.

    It drives me even more nuts when one of these scam artists or their better-trained parrots just deny (or pretend to deny) evolution, and some critics carelessly assume that they must be YECs. Those critics often get egg on their face when the denier admits having no problem with an old earth, and sometimes even common descent (but misrepresents evolution anyway).

  4. It’s like a catastrophic break in a high volume, high pressure sewer pipe — one that services a densely-populated leper colony

    What a great word picture! Your get the pre-FOX Dennis Miller Golden Metaphor award!

  5. magpie: I was about to congratulate SC for “simultaneous eruption of every zit on the planet” which I thought was a new rhetorical high.

    Although, sometimes I worry about the mind that can dream up these expressions!

  6. Ed says: “I worry about the mind that can dream up these expressions!”

    So do I, but so far I’ve been harmless.

  7. SC: “So do I, but so far I’ve been harmless.”

    That’s your problem. Probably no one is more capable than you are to deflate the anti-evolution movement, by which I mean limiting its influence to the to the~25% who are already in hopeless denial of evolution (& reality), instead of the ~70% that buys at least some of its propaganda. If anything liberals, particularly if they’re atheists, have a net effect of helping the movement. And more than ever as anti-evolution strategies “evolve” away from pretenses at alternate “theories” and toward paranoid Klinghofferism (that acceptance of “Darwinism” is the root of all evil).

    The public, not just the “choir,” needs to hear from more conservatives who reject creationist/ID propaganda.

  8. I don’t particularly want to click over to her link, so can someone who has already done that self-flagellation tell me how she sees 150 years = “flash mob?”

  9. eric says:

    can someone who has already done that self-flagellation tell me how she sees 150 years = “flash mob?”

    It’s all about sound-bites and bumper-strip slogans.

  10. “bumper-strip”? The hell? Speak American, SC.

    Ann Coulter is a propagandist not interested in anything but selling books telling people things they want to hear.

  11. RetiredSciGuy

    SC: “It’s all about sound-bites and bumper-strip slogans.”

    Cars have evolved. When’s the last time you saw a bumper-sticker actually on a bumper? Since all cars now have plastic bumpers, it’s probably been a while.

  12. Gabriel Hanna says:

    “bumper-strip”? The hell? Speak American, SC.

    Okay, how about “cover-blurbs”

  13. RetiredSciGuy asks: “When’s the last time you saw a bumper-sticker actually on a bumper?”

    Oh, not long ago. It said: “George McGovern for President”

  14. RetiredSciGuy asks: “When’s the last time you saw a bumper-sticker actually on a bumper?”

    Tuesday. It was on a car in the parking lot where my daughter lives. It said, “I (heart) zombies.” I noticed it particularly, because it was actually on the bumper.

  15. It was on a car in the parking lot where my daughter lives. It said, “I (heart) zombies.”

    Did the bumper also have a Jesus fish?

  16. Harvard population biologist Richard Lewontin said the Darwiniacs tolerate “unsubstantiated just-so stories” of evolution and ignore “the patent absurdity of some of its constructs” because they are committed to coming up with a theory that excludes God. “We cannot,” Lewontin said, “allow a divine foot in the door.”

  17. SC: “Oh, not long ago. It said: ‘George McGovern for President’.”

    I still have a “McGovern Eagleton” button. 1972 was the first election where I could vote, and the only one where I felt good about voting. Though even then it was more against Nixon than for McGovern; I was rather clueless about McG’s positions on the issues. While I’m off-topic, thanks for the Hurricane links. Though it’s creepy reading about severe weather from a “NOAA” site.

  18. @Blogin:

    One can allow as many divine feet in the door as one wants, its just that one cannot do anything with them that can’t be done without them. I for one would have no problem if fellow “Darwiniacs” prefaced every testable statement with “Here’s what God did…” But ask a Discoveroid what their unnamed, possibly deceased designer did, when and how, and they backpedal furiously, whining that it’s not their job to “connect dots.” They whine that ID is not a “science stopper,” then demonstrate that it is.

  19. Sorry to monopolize the thread, but I can’t believe I hadn’t thought of this before. If you want to measure millidembskis of chutzpah, use a Coulter Counter.

  20. @magpie
    No, it didn’t also have a Jesus fish. However, there is a car that has a Jesus fish (not on the bumper). It is usually parked next to a car that has a Darwin fish on it which is usually next to my daughter’s car which sports a Flying Spaghetti Monster emblem. It’s an interesting place to look at what people put on their cars.

  21. dogmatichaos

    I threw in my two-cents. Most of you already covered (probably better than I.

    http://dogmatichaos.blogspot.com/2011/08/annd-shes-at-it-again-coulter.html?m=1