My comment was:
His style is like Coulter's? You mean loaded with anti-science propaganda and poorly researched tertiary references dealing with a subject on which the author has no clue? Sorry to hear that.For a good discussion of Coulter's "anti-science propaganda and poorly researched tertiary references" try the following:
I think after reading that, most folks will agree that when it comes to evolutionary sciences, Coulter has no clue.
Wrong. Coulter slams evolution by exposing applying common sense to this religion of liberalism. You can spout all the paleobabble that you want, but it doesn’t nullify the fact that evolution is only supported by pseudoscientists who have a vested interest in keeping it going. Evolution does not stand up in light of the complex engineering behind DNA.
Your tag is right to suggest that theistic faith is not science; just as science is not faith. The problem with evolution is that it requires immense faith, instead of science, to believe in. What is observable, repeatable and testable about evolution? Where are the valid transitional forms?
Instead of the knee-jerk reations to what you seem to think is some creationist bogeyman, how about showing solid evidence that backs up evolution?