[Right Wing Professor]

We haven't even gotten to the third prong of Darwin's theory of evo--the point of the whole contraption--and we've already had to assume miracles and stifle giggles at the key definitional term "fittest." The big payoff of the thory that must be taught as scientific fact to small school children throughout America is this: If we combine (1) absurd assumptions about random mutation with (2) a tautology ("survival of the fittest") we get... a whole new species! AC

Popper's argument was almost entirely based on the tautology issue, and he later admitted that he had not appreciated the basic argument of natural selection. Furthermore, he retracted his statements in later publications and agreed that natural selection was as valid as any other scientific theory (Sonleitner, 1986). However, some authors still cite Popper's earlier statements on natural selection, then equate evolution with natural selection, and conclude that the whole of evolutionary biology lacks any scientific validity.

Link

Interestingly, Coulter elsewhere quotes Popper, who advanced the tautology argument, so she presumably knows this. Still, she left it out of the book. So much for intellectual honesty.

[Mamzelle]

At some point, it's not eve pseudoscience anymore, it's just a crazy religious cult. If mutations are utterly random--as Darwinism claims--there ought to be an infinite variety of transitional animals with small mutations that eventually lead to a magnificent new attribute like a wing or a lung. Unlike most high school bio teacher lying to your children about evo, Darwin was at least aware of what the fossil record ought if his theory was correct..."interminable varieties connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps." AC quoting CD.