Replies

I hadn't even gotten to her attack on "Darwinism" (as if that was some sort of actual movement) when I wrote the Chernobyl piece. She played fast and loose with the facts of the after affects of Chernobyl, including her takes on the numbers of resultant cancers and birth defects.

Finally, if you notice, I did not take Greenpeace's numbers with anything other than a grain of salt. I included them for completeness sake only. I also included links to resources at the bottom of the article so that others could check my results (something the inestimable Ms. Coulter failed to do).

I hadn't even gotten to her attack on "Darwinism" (as if that was some sort of actual movement)

Actually, it is - it traces back to Spencer. It's Social Darwinism and the deterministic philosophies that have sprung from it that most thoughtful conservatives are reacting to in attacking "Darwinism." I'm guessing that's what Ann's mostly reacting to also, but I'm gonna have to read the book and find out fer shure now!

Hate to say this, but your extreme reaction to Ann's book is reminiscent of someone whose religion has been attacked. C'mon, wouldn't you say a woman that smart and that good looking is . . . highly evolved? :-)