An Ol' Broad's Ramblings
Ann on The Darwiniacs
The Flash Mob Mentality of Scientific Inquiry
by Ann Coulter
The definition of hell is being condescended to by idiots. It will probably be MSNBC’s Chris Matthews? and Contessa Brewer? sneering at you for all of eternity for not believing in evolution.
Roughly one-third of my 2007 No. 1 New York Times best-seller, “Godless: The Church of Liberalism,” is an attack on liberals’ creation myth, Darwinian evolution. I presented the arguments of all the luminaries in the field, from the retarded Richard Dawkins? to the brilliant Francis Crick, and disputed them.
But apparently liberals didn’t want to argue back.
Despite Matthews’ obsessive fixation on the topic, manifested by his constantly asking elected Republicans if they believe in evolution, in a one-hour interview with me on “Godless” — the very book that is chockablock with attacks on Darwinism — Matthews didn’t ask me a single question about the subject.
No liberal did. Matthews doesn’t even know what evolution is.
Just a year later, at a 2008 Republican presidential candidates’ debate, Matthews asked for a show of hands of who believed in evolution. No discussion permitted! That might allow scientific facts, rather than schoolyard taunts, to escape into the world.
Evolution is the only subject that is discussed exclusively as a “Do you believe?” question with yes-or-no answers. How about conservative journalists start putting mikes in front of liberal candidates and demanding, “Do you believe in the Bible — yes or no?” “Is an unborn baby human — yes or no?” and “Do you believe teenagers should have sex — yes or no?”
This is the flash mob method of scientific inquiry. Liberals quickly surround and humiliate anyone who disagrees with them. They are baffled when appeals to status (which would work on them) don’t work on everyone else.
Now that Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry has said there are “gaps” in the theory of evolution — or “gas” as The New York Times originally reported, before issuing a correction — we’re in for another round of fact-free mocking of fundamentalist nuts.
In fact, however, it has not been advances in Christianity (which is pretty much settled), but in science that have completely discredited Darwin’s theory of evolution.
This week, we will consider one small slice of the mountain of scientific evidence disproving this mystery religion from the Victorian age.
Most devastating for the Darwiniacs were advances in microbiology since Darwin’s time, revealing infinitely complex mechanisms requiring hundreds of parts working together at once — complex cellular structures, DNA, blood-clotting mechanisms, molecules, and the cell’s tiny flagellum and cilium.
Darwin’s theory was that life on Earth began with single-celled life forms, which by random mutation, sex and death, would pass on the desirable mutations, and this process, over billions of years, would lead to the creation of new species.
The (extremely generous) test Darwin set for his theory was this: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”
Thanks to advances in microscopes, thousands of such complex mechanisms have been found since Darwin’s day. He had to explain only simple devices, such as beaks and gills. If Darwin were able to come back today and peer through a modern microscope to see the inner workings of a cell, he would instantly abandon his own theory.
It is a mathematical impossibility, for example, that all 30 to 40 parts of the cell’s flagellum — forget the 200 parts of the cilium! — could all arise at once by random mutation. According to most scientists, such an occurrence is considered even less likely than John Edwards? marrying Rielle Hunter?, the “ground zero” of the impossible.
Nor would each of the 30 to 40 parts individually make an organism more fit to survive and reproduce, which, you will recall, is the lynchpin of the whole contraption.
As Michael Behe?, biochemist and author of “Darwin’s Black Box,” explains, even a mechanism as simple as a three-part mousetrap requires all three parts to be working together at once. Otherwise, you don’t get a mousetrap that catches half as many mice — and thus might win a survival of the fittest competition — you don’t get a mousetrap at all.
The more we have learned about molecules, cells and DNA — a body of knowledge some refer to as “science” — the more preposterous Darwin’s theory has become. DNA is, as Bill Gates says, “like a computer program, but far, far more advanced than any software we’ve ever created.” (Plus DNA doesn’t usually crash when you’re right in the middle of reproducing.)
Evolution fanatics would rather not be called on to explain these complex mechanisms that Darwin himself said would disprove his theory.
Instead they make jokes about people who know the truth. They say that to dispute evolution means you must believe man walked with dinosaurs.
Galileo’s persecutors probably had some good guffaws about him believing in Fred Flintstone.
This is why the brighter Darwiniacs end up sounding like Scientologists in order to cling to their mystery religion.
Crick, winner of the Nobel Prize for his co-discovery of DNA, hypothesized that highly intelligent extraterrestrials sent living cells to Earth on an unmanned spaceship, a theory he set forth in his 1981 book, “Life Itself.”
Thus was God narrowly averted!
But Crick’s solution obviously begs the question: How did the highly intelligent extraterrestrials evolve?
Harvard population biologist Richard Lewontin said the Darwiniacs tolerate “unsubstantiated just-so stories” of evolution and ignore “the patent absurdity of some of its constructs” because they are committed to coming up with a theory that excludes God. “We cannot,” Lewontin said, “allow a divine foot in the door.”
Maybe if we called the Intelligent Designer “Louis Vuitton” to avoid frightening the Godphobics, they’d finally admit the truth: Modern science has disproved Darwinian evolution.
seem to make a point of adding “Darwinian” in front of the word evolution every time you mention it. This appears to me that you’re well aware of the flaw in your argument, yes, parts of modern science could “disprove” evolution as it was exactly put forward by Darwin, but that’s the way science works. Testable hypothesis, then experiment. As the experiments render results, the hypothesis will so be tweaked, and as strong a conclusion as possible can be made over time. So yes the Darwinian theory of evolution may soon/have become outdated, but only by tweaking the theory according to new evidence.
Would you dispute the existence of gravity? This theory started out as the Newtonian theory of gravity, which when doing simple calculations can be shown to be an accurate model, but upon greater understanding of particle physics and quantum mechanics the theory needed to be tweaked so as to be a better model, hence Einstein’s theory of gravity.
So Newton was partially correct, and Einstein tweaked it here and there to make it a bit more correct. Same applies to Darwin and evolution, we just need a new discovery in order to tweak.
Finally, evolution cannot be disproved by a necessity for all parts to be working at once, for each individual part may well, and is likely to, bring a further benefit which is not instantly recognisable once the complex result of many mutations has assembled. The use of a mousetrap is not a strong analogy (to put it delicately) as it is man made and designed, not a single step of evolution would be present in the three parts as a whole, but much evolution has taken place in each individual part, through design of a hinge, or a spring, or even metal alloys. And each step in the evolution there can be viewed quite simply as a genetic mutation in system theory.
(Incidentally I’m a research neuroscientist in a hospital in the United Kingdom, so I use the sort of “modern microscope”s you refer to, and I fail to see why Darwin would have abandoned his theory so readily.)
Well sir, if you notice up at the top, it says “by Ann Coulter”. I’m not Ann Coulter, so I can’t respond to your comment. She’s tall and skinny, I’m short and stubby.
I will say that, personally, I don’t believe I evolved from any type of ape. I believe in God’s grand design, and if He wants to tweek, then that’s His prerogative. So, obviously, I can’t really discuss the finer points of any theories. Wish I could. 
Ah, my apologies, I was a first time visitor here and so was unaware that Ann Coulter wasn’t you.
Perhaps I should do a little more research on initial background in the future…