Coulter mangles Dover case
By Mike Argento
Posted June 23, 2006
Jun 18, 2006 -- There is an irony buried deep under the vitriol, idiocy,
slander, vileness, ignorance, stupidity and simply breathtaking inanity
that passes for the contribution to the public discourse of an alleged
carbon-based life-form that goes by the name of Ann Coulter.
Of course, you've heard about this vile life-support system for a mane
of blonde hair. She's been all over the media, spreading her poison,
the vaguely human counterpart of a Gila monster, except with colder
blood. It's amusing that one of her complaints about what she calls the
liberal media establishment is that it gives short-shrift to morons
like herself who seek airtime to inflict a toxic stew of idiocies
masquerading as ideas upon an unsuspecting public.
Her latest missive - I won't name it because it doesn't need the
publicity - is yet another of her fact-free exercises in what comedian
Stephen Colbert calls truthiness, which is essentially cattle excrement
that tries to pass itself off as truth.
She's received a lot of airtime to discuss her idiotic remarks about
the women who were widowed in the Sept. 11 attacks. I'm guessing she's
mostly jealous of these women because they have demonstrated the
ability to have a relationship with a man that didn't end with them
killing and eating him.
I won't repeat her slanders - they are beyond indecency and lapse into
the pornographic. You've probably heard them already, and there's no
need to repeat her idiocies about the widows "enjoying" their husbands'
One part of her latest book that's getting little notice is the part
that deals with Dover and what is purported to be the "debate" over
She begins her screed by saying that liberals have contempt for science.
She offers as proof that liberals support stem-cell research.
Yes, I know, I don't get it either.
Lots of conservatives also support stem-cell research. Nancy Reagan,
for one. Arnold Schwarzenegger, for another. Gov. Arnold has even
supported increased funding for stem-cell research in California, after
the federal government, kow-towing to the religious right, cut off
money to explore this vital area of scientific research.
"Liberals," Coulter writes, "just want to kill humans."
Moving on, she then says liberals worship the theory of evolution.
Which is science.
Which she says liberals hate.
OK, it's a mistake to try to figure this out. I'll try, though.
She wrote, "Liberals' creation myth is Charles Darwin's theory of
evolution, which is about one notch above Scientology in scientific
rigor. It's a make-believe story, based on a theory that is a
tautology, with no proof in the scientist's laboratory or the fossil
record - and that's after 150 years of very determined looking. We
wouldn't still be talking about it but for the fact that liberals think
evolution disproves God."
Where do you begin with that?
First off, lots of conservatives subscribe to the theory of evolution
and oppose the teaching of creationism in the guise of intelligent
design - or whatever they're calling it now - in public schools.
And why drag Scientology into it? Darwin's theory and Scientology are
two completely different things. One is a rigorously tested and
thoroughly accepted scientific explanation for how life evolved on this
planet and the other is the reason Tom Cruise acts so weird.
"A make-believe story"? "No proof"?
I suggest that Ann do some reading.
Tons of laboratory work and the fossil record clearly support evolution. She has no idea what she's talking about.
But that doesn't stop her.
"Liberals think evolution disproves God"?
Now, that's just stupid. For one thing, Ken Miller, an Ivy League
biology professor and one of the leading evolutionary biologists in the
country, is a devout Catholic and he has no problem balancing belief in
evolution with his faith. Speaking of Catholics, Pope John Paul II, for
God's sake, spoke out in support of evolution, saying it is now beyond
mere supposition and is fact. Catholic schools and universities teach
evolution in biology classes. Last I heard, Catholics still believe in
She goes on to completely misrepresent what happened in Dover and
concludes, "After Dover, no school district will dare breathe a word
about 'intelligent design,' unless they want to risk being bankrupted
by ACLU lawsuits. The Darwinists have saved the secular sanctity of
their temples: the public schools. They didn't win on science,
persuasion, or the evidence. They won the way liberals always win: by
finding a court to hand them everything they want on a silver platter."
First off, Ann, this wasn't a victory for liberals. It was a victory
for everyone who believes in the separation of church and state, for
everyone who believes in quality education, for everyone who believes
that scientific research and human progress shouldn't be thwarted by
the prejudices and fears of a small group of people.
Secondly, the plaintiffs in this case - the parents who brought the
case - weren't a bunch of crazed liberals. Many of the 11 plaintiffs
are Republicans and consider themselves conservative. They just didn't
like the idea that a small cabal on the school board chose to trample
on their rights and violate the Constitution.
Thirdly, they did win on science, persuasion and the evidence - as so
eloquently outlined in U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III's decision
in the case. They also won because the side of righteousness - as Ann
would have you believe - lied repeatedly during the trial.
For all of Ann's blather about activist judges, Jones, appointed to the
federal bench by President Bush, was just the opposite. His ruling was
based on the evidence presented during the trial. For him to have ruled
differently would have required not just activism, but the kind of
legal gymnastics that would have made a mockery of the judicial system.
The logical extension of Coulter's bent reasoning seems to be that the
scientific method is a liberal trick and that adherence to it by
scientists is part of the liberal plot to ... um ... whatever.
She seems not to understand that researchers doing the kind of work
that will cure disease and ease human suffering need to know how the
evolutionary mechanism works, just as engineers building bridges need
to know math.
So that brings us to the big irony of Coulter's work.
Her vitriol and ignorance shows contempt for science and for the
scientists working to cure diseases such as cancer, Alzheimer's and
whatever it is that is afflicting Ann Coulter.
Originally posted at York Daily Record.