Creationist Wisdom #202: Coulter Again

We have yet another column by Ann Coulter which appears in Human Events. The last one we told you about was just a few days ago and it inspired us to write Creationist Wisdom #200. Now she’s at it again. It’s difficult to believe, because her recent column seemed to be the Krakatoa of creationist essays, but it now appears that she was holding back — there was still more madness that was yet to be disgorged.

We explained in our earlier Coulter post that her creationist tutors are William Dembski, Michael Behe and David Berlinski. They’re associated with the neo-theocrats at the Discovery Institute‘s creationist public relations and lobbying operation, the Center for Science and Culture (a/k/a the Discoveroids, a/k/a the cdesign proponentsists).

But those creationists, notwithstanding their Discovery Institute connections, are aware (to some extent) of the evidence that supports evolution. Their game is to somehow dance around it while simultaneously appearing to be scientific. Coulter, on the other hand, is utterly unrestrained by any contact with the world of science. She knows nothing but Discoveroid dogma. Thus she screeches hysterically — and we think sincerely — about how stupid people must be to accept something as foolish as Darwin’s theory when [*pause to flick hair back*] it has absolutely nothing in its favor.

Coulter in the role of science guru reminds us of one of those clones you see in low-grade science fiction movies — you know the plot: A fiendish scientist (the only kind known to Hollywood) fabricates a human clone in his lab. She’s lovely, but her mind is a clean slate. The madman imprints her brain with his own demented thoughts and she is then released into society to do what she’s been programmed to do. Coulter’s creationist writings are the result.

But Coulter is not a newly-hatched clone, a mere tool blindly following the instructions she was given by her demented creator. If she were, we could then say that she’s not really responsible for her actions. But Coulter wasn’t born yesterday in a lab, so we do hold her responsible — at least for using extremely poor judgment in choosing her mentors.

Coulter’s latest essay is Liberals’ View of Darwin Unable to Evolve. It’s solid craziness from beginning to end, so we’ll give you only a hint of what awaits you when you click over to Human Events to read it all. Most of it is a rant about how there are no fossils of transitional species. None! [Hey Ann — if you’re reading this, take a look at Wikipedia’s list of transitional fossils.]

We’ll skip almost all of the column except the end — the thundering climax, so to speak — of Coulter’s science adventure. Here it comes:

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

These aren’t scientists. They are religious fanatics for whom evolution must be true so that they can explain to themselves why they are here, without God. (It’s an accident!)

Any evidence contradicting the primitive religion of Darwinism — including, for example, the entire fossil record — they explain away with non-scientific excuses like “the dog ate our fossils.”

So there you are. Now that it’s over, we’re left with the feeling that somewhere, in some secret lair, someone responsible for Coulter’s performance is grinning and rubbing his hands together as he gleefully mutters: “Excellent, my pet. Excellent!”

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

12 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #202: Coulter Again

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

    Wow! Just wow! To her, inside is outside. Up is down. Left is right. Backwards is forwards.
    For Ann and her ilk, that last sentence is shockingly appropriate.

  2. Based on the comments – over 700 when I looked – she has an army of faithful supporters, but it wouldn’t hurt to throw a rational comment or two into the mix.

  3. Thus she screeches hysterically — and we think sincerely — about how stupid people must be to accept something as foolish as Darwin’s theory when [*pause to flick hair back*] it has absolutely nothing in its favor.

    Ha! That’s good!

    I can’t completely dislike Coulter. She does favor smaller government. I also admire her guts — her critics are frequently bigger bullies than she is, (see Franken, Al).

    But she’s a loon, of course; impossible to defend, ultimately. She shoots from the hip when she’s way over her head — if you’ll excuse the mixed metaphors — and is also completely clueless on environmental issues.

  4. magpie61 says:

    I can’t completely dislike Coulter. She does favor smaller government. I also admire her guts

    I feel the same way about Rush Limbaugh. I wish these people had some sense of their limitations.

  5. @magpie:She shoots from the hip when she’s [in] way over her head

    I LOLed. That’s almost as bad as the drums of war whipping people into swords.

  6. @GH:
    Ha! Yeah, I know… I did apologize beforehand!

  7. magpie61 says: “I did apologize beforehand!”

    Every time you open your mouth you shoot yourself in the foot.

  8. But she’s a loon, of course

    No, she’s not. She is a skilled and adept self-promoter. I wish I were half as loony, then I might have more money.

  9. moultonpj@yahoo.com

    Curmy: “Now that it’s over, we’re left with the feeling that somewhere, in some secret lair, someone responsible for Coulter’s performance is grinning and rubbing his hands together as he gleefully mutters: ‘Excellent, my pet. Excellent!'” Dr Emilio Lizardo, I presume?

  10. I have not taken Coulter seriously since 2006. This dispels the one or two lingering doubts I had about her motivations. She is a full blown fanatical frothing-at-the-mouth brain-locked militant anti-evolution creationist crusader.

    The more rational and less fanatical on the Right understand criticism of evolution is a losing issue with independents and the mushy middle who see it as sectarian religious proselytizing. Even Fred Barnes said today on Bret’s show that Perry ought to shut up about evolution because it is counter productive to getting elected and communicating an agenda that addresses much more pressing problems.

  11. Jack Hogan says:

    Even Fred Barnes said today on Bret’s show that Perry ought to shut up about evolution

    I saw that. Very nice. And very surprising. There’s hope that the professionals know what’s going on.

  12. She can’t be serious. I suspect that Coulter is a Poe. A true hard-core Poe. One who has found a niche, a money making scheme, in creationists. Her style, the incredible stupidity, the levels of irony, look all too obvious, a pose too studied to be believed.