Coulter Exposes Darwinism

[Reverend AtheiStar]

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/vernon/060704

 

Coulter exposes Darwinism

 

Wes Vernon Wes Vernon

July 4, 2006

 

Much of the mainstream media has a simple formula for dealing with an author's arguments it can't answer: Ignore them.

 

Or better yet — focus on a controversial statement made elsewhere in the book and make that the whole discussion to the exclusion of everything else in the same book.

 

The latter is exactly what happened in media treatment of Ann Coulter's Number 1 New York Times bestseller, Godless.

 

About a third of the book deals with well-researched material that punches many holes in the theory of evolution, or Darwinism. But do the liberal media mention any of that? No way.

 

Virtually all the chattering-class attention has targeted Coulter's comments disparaging the "Jersey Girls" or (this past weekend) a charge that she plagiarized a few sentences. On the latter point, Coulter can defend herself. But a quick scan of one of the sentences in question shows wording that is easily different enough to pass the smell test on that issue.

 

The "Jersey Girls" are four widows whose husbands died on 9/11. Coulter excoriates them for using their family tragedies to promote a left-wing political agenda.

 

Whether one would have used exactly the same words to make the author's point (who can top Coulter's talent for turning a phrase and heading straight for the jugular?), these women's activities have surely given every appearance of being less about bringing closure to their grief and more about shilling for the Kerry campaign.

 

While echoing the "Bush lied" agitprop, these four women totally ignored ample evidence of Bill Clinton's corrupt criminal negligence on terrorism during eight years in the White House. Only Bush's eight months (prior to 9/11) mattered. "Bush knew?" Sorry, but it's hard to take that seriously as a quest for "truth." They'll have to do better than to say, "Our husbands died, so don't you dare contradict us."

 

One could cite the 75 pages involving Coulter's anti-Darwinian arguments and say that responding to them (pro or on) would require a large part of yet another book on the subject. And this column does not purport to do justice to her work in the limited space here. That does not justify totally ignoring it, either.

 

Basically, Godless makes the case that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is "a make-believe story" based on "no proof in the scientist's laboratory of the fossil record — and that's after 150 years of very determined looking." According to Coulter, "We wouldn't still be talking about it but for the fact that liberals believe evolution disproves God."

 

By way of explanation, the full title of the book Godless: The Church of Liberalism goes to issues beyond evolution. Coulter argues that liberalism is itself a pagan religion. Among its distinguishing features, Coulter suggests, are:

 

 

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).

 

Its doctrine of infallibility (as manifest in the "absolute authority" of such spokesmen as Cindy Sheehan and Max Cleland [and the "Jersey Girls?" — WV]).

 

And its cosmology (in which mankind is an inconsequential accident).

 

 

"Even if evolution were true," Coulter writes, "it wouldn't disprove God." She goes on to make her case that evolution is not true. Obviously, she has done considerable careful and time-consuming research. Much of the book, especially the evolution part of it, is — as Rush Limbaugh has noted — "an intellectual feast," albeit sprinkled with her signature penchant for the facetious wisecrack, e.g. "If you want something that complicates a belief in God, try coming to terms with Michael Moore being one of God's special creatures."

 

The book points out that Darwin "hypothesized [not proved]" that the bat might have evolved from a clumsy squirrel. The idea that we emerged from a monkey (or whatever) has yet to be proven. Human breeders have not produced a single biological structure in the laboratory — let alone a whole new animal species — even under artificial conditions. "No such demonstration exists; none has ever been provided."

 

Next, we come to a major fraud that has contributed to the "evolution" theory: the discovery of "a manlike ape that looked like a transitional fossil between ape and man — the long sought after 'missing link.'" For decades, biology textbooks (studied by our kids in liberal "churches" — i.e., government schools) presented this as fact.

 

In 1953, the "finding" of the "Piltdown Man" (the ancient skull of an apelike man in transition) "was exposed [after decades of respectability in scientific circles] as a complete and utter fraud" and was in fact "from a thousand-year old human fossil and the jaw from an modern orangutan."

 

Other fakes include "findings" by such "scientists" as the German Ernest Haeckel whose early 20th Century "demonstrations dealt with the "amazing similarity of fish, chickens, and humans to the womb." His work too appeared in biology textbooks in government "churches," even after embryonist Michael Richardson discovered in the 1990s that Haeckel had "used the same woodcuts for some of the embryos and doctored others to make sure that the embryos looked alike." Said Richardson: "It looks like it's turning out to be one of the most famous fakes in biology."

 

Haeckel, by the way, had other theories as to how man emerged. Among them was his "scientific" claim that "wooly-haired Negroes" were psychologically nearer to the animals (apes and dogs) than to civilized Europeans...[and therefore] we must....assign a totally different value to their lives."

 

In fact, there are more than tenuous links between evolution theories and those of Nazism. As Coulter puts it, "From Marx to Hitler, the men responsible for the greatest mass murders of the twentieth century were avid Darwinists." As evidence of this, one can site Richard Weikart's book From Darwin to Hitler, wherein the author traces the evidence that eugenics organizations in Germany at the dawn of the 20th Century touted "scientific" theories of the laws of evolution.

 

As Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf, "Everyone who believes in the higher evolution of living organisms must admit that every manifestation of the vital urge and struggle to live must have had a definite beginning in time and that one subject alone must have manifested it for the first time. It was then repeated again and again, and the practice of it spread over a widening area, until finally it passed into the subconscious of every member of the species, where it manifested itself as 'instinct.'"

 

Coulter writes, "It is impossible to understand Hitler's monstrous views apart from his belief in natural selection applied to races. He believed Darwin's theory of natural selection showed that 'science' justified extermination of the Jews."

 

And here, the author gets closer to home and contemporary society when she notes that many abusers, politically correct advocates, sexual profligates, racists, and "animal rights nuts" eventually gravitate to Darwinism.

 

Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, believed in Darwinism. In fact, she cited Darwinism to support her crusades for birth control. She was also a eugenicist. Call it pure happenstance, if you will, but Planned Parenthood is the largest provider of abortions in the U.S., and — coincidence or not — about 36% of aborted babies in this country are black. Blacks make up only 12-14% of the United States population.

 

Hitler's own opposition to abortion, as Weikart explains, was not based on the tenets of Judeo-Christian morality, "but rather was a complete repudiation of them." As Coulter writes, "He didn't oppose abortion because he believed in the human soul. In fact, and needless to say, he didn't oppose abortion for everyone, only 'Aryans.'"

 

For 80 years now, we have heard over and over again about the Scopes "monkey trial" in Tennessee wherein the story is told of how the evolutionists made monkeys out of the creationists. Clarence Darrow — for the evolutionists — was the hero who destroyed the credibility of the dottering three-time Democrat presidential wannabe William Jennings Bryan. He is one of the more famous of defeated presidential candidates in history, second only to Barry Goldwater whose ultimate influence was arguably more long-lasting.

 

It turns out that the whole monkey trial was nothing but a publicity stunt to put the town of Dayton, Tennessee, on the map. Everyone involved was in on the showmanship — Darrow, Bryan, all of them (though Bryan likely would have preferred better PR). It was plotted by the ACLU and eagerly embraced by the city fathers and Chamber of Commerce types. This is all told in detail in the book Summer for the Gods, where Edward Larson explains how the circus (that's exactly what it was) was set up. Hollywood, of course, perpetrated that historical hoax with no less than four productions of Inherit the Wind, in which the trial is portrayed as a real watershed confirming the most sacred belief of what Coulter identifies as the "liberal religion."

 

To sum it up: Godless cites facts that schoolchildren should be taught. Among them:

 

 

The entire fossil record shows a very non-Darwinian progression, noticeably lacking the vast number of transitional species we ought to see.

 

 

The truth about Haeckel's embryos is that they were a fraud perpetrated by a German eugenicist.

 

 

One by one, so-called "proof" of evolution has melted under honest scrutiny.

 

 

There is much more, of course. We've just skimmed it. Ann Coulter has done the research. Her book is a page-turner, not just for her one-line zingers, but for its depth.

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wes Vernon is a Washington-based writer and veteran broadcast journalist.

[Lightbearer]

Coulter is a "Social Commentator" not a Scientist, if such a thing exists anymore.

 

I read some of the book, agreed with some, was baffled with others, completely outraged by most. But her job is to expose how people spread thier political agendas by exposing and spreading her own.

 

Already you can see the quotes and commits about what she said. Already liberalism is a "religion" not a political view.

 

Coulter is right on some things... but this still smells like propaganda.

[Reverend AtheiStar]

Coulter is a "Social Commentator" not a Scientist, if such a thing exists anymore.

 

I read some of the book, agreed with some, was baffled with others, completely outraged by most. But her job is to expose how people spread thier political agendas by exposing and spreading her own.

 

Already you can see the quotes and commits about what she said. Already liberalism is a "religion" not a political view.

 

Coulter is right on some things... but this still smells like propaganda.

 

The bottom line I see with her is this. What she's doing is her job. She gets paid to be a bitch. Why? Because the people on her side like having raving bulldog on their side doing really mean things that they don't have the balls to do. You're right. She's no scientist. I wouldn't even be able to call her thinking "scientific!" She's just a well paid attack dog.

[Guest JP]

I don't like how she thinks that liberals use evolution to disprove God. Maybe some do, but she shouldn't group all of them together. I know of people who believe in God and evolution together.

[Ouroboros]

I don't like how she thinks that liberals use evolution to disprove God. Maybe some do, but she shouldn't group all of them together. I know of people who believe in God and evolution together.

That's because they're liberal Christians. So they're also evil.

 

An not to talk about all the other religions, and the Catholics, and all the false Christians, and the the false churches all over the place. There's only one, just one single person on earth that is the epitome of the true Christian, and that's her. She's going to be quite lonely in Heaven, and the perfect America is when everyone else is gone, and she's alone in the White House.

[RedPillAddict]

Why is she assuming that all liberals believe in evolution, and vice versa? What is the with automatic grouping of political views and religious beliefs? Not all Republicans are Christians...not all Democrats are Athiest.

[Ouroboros]

Because she has a personal agenda. I suspect someone hurt her in the past, and she's on a vendetta.

 

Of some reason I think of Hitler and Nazism when she preachers her hate speech.

 

She have similar propaganda tactics. Group large sets of people under one simple idea, and then blame all problems on them.

[Lightbearer]

Thanks Han... you can see the same thing I do.

 

 

 

I am not a liberal, I think most liberals are all crazy, and morons. But I am not a conserative either seeing how they have turned into religious zealots. I see both as being hypocrites, liars and generally anti-Man anti-Reason.

 

I read Chapter 1 of her book and thought it was crap. It was written like something on this board with more editing and a few citations.

 

I am an atheist, didn't always used to be but I am now, and I find this book offensive. I don't think it's funny, that I a man who believes in life and values human life, is put next to monsters like Hitler and Stalin and claimed to believe the same thing.

 

I think it shows Miss Coulter's ignorance. Your right that she has a personal vendetta (she did date Bill Marhr... who is an ass, which could explain things) or she, like all Christians feel guilty about thier sin and for her it is coming out in the self-righteous attacks on everything around her. I think some of the thing she says are right on the mark, smart and truthful but then she turns around and blames it for the wrong reason.

 

It does have a feel of proganda to it. Too dark to comprehend...