Sounds dirty, don’t it? It’s always nice to see sites that usually deal with politics discuss science. Or in this case, the opposite, also known as Ann Coulter. Robert Savillo, of Media Matters, demolishes the creationist arguments found in Ann Coulter’s latest book
Why I Think All Liberals Should Be Brutally Murdered Godless: The Church of Liberalism. Before I get to Savillo’s summary, he discusses a part of the book where Coulter refers to the ‘Flatulent Racoon.’ Now, a farting racoon is sort of funny in a five year-old kind of way, but we all know that this just means she is threatened by Pastafarianism and the Church of the Disco Ball. This is Coulter’s take on the origin of life (which, unbeknowst to her, is distinct from evolutionary biology):
Throw in enough words like imagine, perhaps, and might have — and you’ve got yourself a scientific theory! How about this: Imagine a giant raccoon passed gas and perhaps the resulting gas might have created the vast variety of life we see on Earth. And if you don’t accept the giant raccoon flatulence theory for the origin of life, you must be a fundamentalist Christian nut who believes the Earth is flat. That’s basically how the argument for evolution goes.
What a total fucking moron. Anyway here’s excerpts from the executive summary:
In her book Godless: The Church of Liberalism (Crown Forum, June 2006), right-wing pundit Ann Coulter devotes two chapters to a bizarre attempt to disprove the theory of evolution. With a mix of misleading claims, pseudo-scientific arguments, distortions of evolutionary theory, and outright falsehoods, Coulter places herself not only outside the mainstream but truly toward the lunatic fringe. After all, no reasonable person argues that one cannot believe in God and simultaneously accept the findings of decades of accumulated research on evolution. Yet, Coulter appears to believe that in order to prove that liberals are “godless,” she must attack evolutionary theory itself.
Though she stops short of saying that the earth is 6,000 years old and Adam and Eve rode through the Garden of Eden on the backs of dinosaurs, in her quest to disprove evolutionary theory, Coulter echoes the arguments of the creationists from whom even many religious conservatives distanced themselves long ago.
Among her falsehoods, misinformation, and distortions, Coulter:
*Misstates how fossils demonstrate the evolutionary transition from reptiles and mammals, as well as the fossil record of dinosaurs and mammals.
*Distorts the likelihood that a living creature will be fossilized.
*Distorts the duration of the period known as the Cambrian explosion, omits important information about its significance, and suggests that 10 million years is “sudden.”
*On transitional fossils, misrepresents relation of the Archaeopteryx to modern birds.
*Omits information regarding the Piltdown man and Archaeoraptor hoaxes.
*Misrepresents the evolution of the eye and ignores recent research.
*Falsely suggests that “irreducible complexity” disproves evolutionary theory.
*On the drawings and theories of Ernst Haeckel, omits a century of scientific criticism while falsely suggesting that textbooks still use Haeckel.
*Falsely suggests that the Miller-Urey experiment did not accurately reflect early Earth atmosphere.
*Throughout the book, displays her own misunderstandings regarding evolutionary theory (i.e. descent with modification, the evolution of bacteria).
*Offers only classic creationist arguments from discredited, unscientific ideas, despite a claim on the inner jacket sleeve of the book stating that Coulter writes “with a keen appreciation of genuine science.”
According to the weblog of William Dembski, a supporter of intelligent design, all of the above-mentioned falsehoods, misinformation, and distortions can be attributed to his “generous tutoring.”
The evidence reveals that Coulter’s two chapters on the theory of evolution display her own ignorance toward the subject while providing an avenue to make ad hominem attacks against scientists, progressives, and Democrats.
Definitely read the whole thing: it’s a excellent refutation of intelligent design creationism.