Saturday, December 22, 2007

Ann Coulter on Science: Her Latest Joseph Goebbels Impersonation

As regular readers of this blog know, I am increasingly dismayed at the intellectual deterioration of the Republican party, and particularly their media shills. But as bad as Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Mark Levine, Dinesh D'Souza and Glenn Beck are, as stupifyingly ignorant and obviously so, none of them, or any other neocon hack, can light a candle to the Babe of Bile, the Mistress of MSU (Making Shit Up), Ann Coulter.

Normally I find Coulter's articles impenetrable, littered as they are with unecessary vitriol, cartoon versions of everything she represents, and flat out made up shit. But in this article she roamed into my territory, and once again proves herself to be incapable of intellectual honesty, as she continues to promote lie after lie, in as good a Joseph Goebbals impersonation as I've ever seen. Goebbals put it this way:

"The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous" - Joseph Goebbels"

Well, I guess Ann is English, or wishes she was, as she demonstrates in her article ostensively about Mike Huckabee. She begins talking about the fact that Huckabee, along with Tom Tancredo and Sam Brownback, embarrased America by claiming to not believe in one the best evidenced theories in science.:

"The media are transfixed by the fact that Huckabee says he doesn't believe in evolution. Neither do I, for reasons detailed in approximately one-third of my No. 1 New York Times best-selling book, Godless: The Church of Liberalism. "

Isn't it cute how subtly Ann promotes her book? Yes you did so Ann, in a book full of ignorant misrepresentations of evolution that biologist PZ Myers described as wall-to-wall error, and for which you were proudly tutored by pseudoscientists like David Berlinski and William Dembski. That's sort of like learning about how to cook Italian food by talking to the food processors at Chef Boy-ar-Dee. But the worst part of Coulter's brainless anti-science screed is not that she is so pompous in her ignorance, nor that she has made millions of dollars feeding ignoramuses more ignorance. No, the most maddening thing about Coulter is how she continuously lies and misleads about the scientific reaction to her book:

"I went on a massive book tour for Godless just last year, including a boffo opening interview with Matt Lauer on NBC's 'Today,' a one-on-one, full-hour interview with Chris Matthews on 'Hardball,' and various other hostile interviews from the organs of establishmentarian opinion. But I didn't get a single question from them on the topic of one-third of my book."

Well Ann, the American popular media is not exactly renowned for their scientific ecuman, which no doubt is part of why she would seek out such venues. Critics of evolution rarely seek out knowledgeable audiences. But she sure got some such questions from Jeremy Paxman when he interviewed her. He asked her if she believed the earth was 6,000 years old, a question she dodged by claiming she was only criticizing "Darwinism", and when he asked her if she had an alternative theory, she dodged that claiming she didn't have to run a restaurant to criticize one. Sorry Ann, but in science things are not matters of taste, and when one criticizes an established theory, one is indeed expected to offer an alternative. It was long known that Newton's theories of motion did not produce accurate results when applied to some astronomical events, but it was not rejected until Einstein came along with a better theory.

Not only that, but the blogosphere, in which Coulter participates, has criticized her anti-evolutionary nonsense in excruciatingly pathetic detail. All one need do is google "coulter evolution" to get more reading material than you'll need for the holidays. For her to claim that there has been no substantive criticism of her screeds is Goebbels to a tee: if you can't address your critics, simply proclaim loudly and consistently that they've given you nothing to respond to, and hope no one checks on your claim.

"If the mainstream media are burning with curiosity about what critics of Darwinism have to say, how about asking me? I can name any number of mathematicians, scientists and authors who have also rejected Darwin's discredited theory and would be happy to rap with them about it."

The answer is simple my dear dissembler. The mainstream media is not burning with curiosity about what evolution-deniers have to say because they are not that versed in science and, sadly, neither is their audience. The scientific media is not interested in what you have to say because they recognize a rerun when they see it, and you people have nothing to say that wasn't said and refuted by scientists decades ago. It speaks volumes that 2/3's of the groups you mention (mathematicians and authors) have no special training or knowledge of biology that would make their opinion any more worthy of attention than your average hot dog salesman. When one looks closely at the evolution-deniers within science, they are overwhelmingly NOT biologists or paleontologists, which makes it all the more clear that you are aiding an intellectual scam.

Project on as shrilly as you like Ann, that your side of the aisle is the one interested in facts. The more you deny science, whether it is evolution, or global warming, or the natural existence of homosexuality in the animal kingdom, the more you betray your true, reality-denying agenda, at least to those of us who actually crack a science book now and again. But don't worry, I'm sure the sheep that buy your increasingly vacuous tomes won't bother to do so, and you and Goebells can sleep well tonight.


Unknown said...

David Berlinski, who I've met and admire is no pseudo-scientist. If his book, A Tour of the Calculus doesn't qualify as real science then I'll eat my hat.

Get your facts straight before you go babbling about things you apparently know very little about.

The whole issue of creationism versus evolution is a red herring. The real issue is whether or not processes besides natural selection and random mutation might be at work. No scientist can prove that there are not other hidden processes at work and no scientist worth his or her salt would not be interested in examining all possibilities in order to get traction on things they don't fully understand.

What most "scientists" are afraid of is that there might be a God and that they might have to stop beating their weenies and pay attention to something that is pure intellect.

By the way, regardless of what Ann Coulter might say or not say about evolution, she is just brilliant when it comes to skewering the liberal crowd. If you really want to take issue with her thoughts, don't just watch TV but listen to her tapes. There she really shines.

What sort of wimp would enable comment moderation? Is that so only thoughts similar to your own get viewed.

ScienceAvenger said...

Berlinski's support of the ID scam, regardless of his equivocation in that regard, qualifies him as a pseudoscientist, whether he has actually done any real science in his life. Behe and Dembski have also done legitimate work in the past, but that doesn't excuse their pseudoscientific approach now.

Be wary of accusing others of ignorance while clearly displaying your own. Scientists debate other processes besides natural selection all the time, such as neutral drift, sexual selection, evo-devo, etc. They just don't waste time on pseudoscience like ID. The issue is not whether there are processes at work that we might be currently unaware of, but rather whether there is any evidence for any such processes. This is the "pathetic level of detail" Dembski and the rest of the IDers can't be bothered to gather, which is why they are properly labelled pseudoscientists.

The idea that scientists are afraid there being a God is laughable considering so many of them believe in a God now. That you would make up such bullshit, and combine it with juvenile sexual innuendo, explains your admiration for Ann Coulter's adolescent drivel, and my moderation of comments. But it surely does nothing to bolster your assertions, which demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of the issue.

Disagree with my views if you wish. Just keep it factual, rational, and on topic. Rhetorical grafitti like the above MSU will not be tolerated again.

Anonymous said...

I confess my ignorance. I just don't see intellegent design and evolution as mutually exclusive. Besides, is this all you have to worry about?
Merry Christmas, Happy Chanukkah, Happy Kwanzaa, Blessed Solstice, Happy Beetoven's Birthday and happy anything that will let you catch the slightest buzz and enjoy the wit and humor of Ann Coulter.

ScienceAvenger said...

Well, you don't necessarily need to see evolution and deism as mutually exclusive. However, ID's fundamental tenet is that certain aspects of the living world could not have come about via evolutionary mechanisms, so they are by definition in conflict.

I don't "worry" about ID, I just enjoy exposing charlatens. When someone asks if "that is all you have to worry about", that's a pretty good indication they have little of value to say. If they think Ann Coulter is witty as well, that pretty much seals the deal.

Anonymous said...

Witty as in Hobbes. "All men are created equally, intellectually, because they think they are."
As a curious side note, intellegent design is a matter of faith. That being the case, to argue logically for or against it is a moot point. Apples and oranges.
Peace in tne coming New Year.