Review of Godless -- (Centers on Evolution)

Powells Review a Day ^ | August 10, 2006 | Jerry Coyne

[publius1]

Godless: The Church of Liberalism by Ann Coulter Coultergeist A Review by Jerry Coyne

H. L. Mencken once responded to a question asked by many of his readers: "If you find so much that is unworthy of reverence in the United States, then why do you live here?" His answer was, "Why do men go to zoos?" Sadly, Mencken is not here to ogle the newest creature in the American Zoo: the Bleached Flamingo, otherwise known as Ann Coulter. This beast draws crowds by its frequent, raucous calls, eerily resembling a human voice, and its unearthly appearance, scrawny and pallid. (Wikipedia notes that "a white or pale flamingo ... is usually unhealthy or suffering from a lack of food.") The etiolated Coulter issued a piercing squawk this spring with her now-notorious book, Godless: The Church of Liberalism. Its thesis, harebrained even by her standards, is that liberals are an atheistic lot who have devised a substitute religion, replete with the sacraments of abortion, feminism, coddling of criminals, and -- you guessed it -- bestiality. Liberals also have their god, who, like Coulter's, is bearded and imposing. He is none other than Charles Darwin. But the left-wing god is malevolent, for Coulter sees Darwin as the root cause of every ill afflicting our society, not to mention being responsible for the historical atrocities of Hitler and Stalin.

The furor caused by her vicious remarks about the 9/11 widows ("I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much.") has distracted people from the main topic of her book: evolutionary biology, or rather the pathetic pseudoscientific arguments of its modern fundamentalist challenger, Intelligent Design (ID). This occupies four of Coulter's eleven chapters. Enamored of ID, and unable to fathom a scientific reason why biologists don't buy it, Coulter suggests that scientists are an evil sub-cabal of atheist liberals, a group so addicted to godlessness that they must hide at all costs the awful "truth" that evolution didn't happen. She accuses evolutionists of brainwashing children with phony fossils and made-up "evidence," turning the kids into "Darwiniacs" stripped of all moral (i.e., biblical) grounding and prone to become beasts and genocidal lunatics. To Coulter, biologists are folks who, when not playing with test tubes or warping children's minds, encourage people to have sex with dogs. (I am not making this up.)

Any sane person who starts reading Godless will soon ask, Does Coulter really believe this stuff? The answer is that it doesn't much matter. What's far more disturbing than Coulter herself (and she's plenty disturbing: On the cover photo she has the scariest eyes since Rasputin) is the fact that Americans are lapping up her latest prose like a pack of starved cats. The buyers cannot be political opponents who just want to enjoy her "humor"; like me, those people wouldn't enrich her by a dime. (I didn't pay for my copy.) Rather, a lot of folks apparently like her ravings -- suggesting that, on some level at least, they must agree with her. And this means that the hundreds of thousands of Americans who put Coulter at the top of the best-seller lists see evolution as a national menace.

Well, that's hardly news. We've known for years that nearly half of all Americans believe in the Genesis account of creation, and only about 10 percent want evolution taught in public schools without mentioning ID or other forms of creationism. But it's worth taking up the cudgels once again, if only to show that, contrary to Coulter's claim, accepting Darwinism is not tantamount to endorsing immorality and genocide.

First, one has to ask whether Coulter (who, by the way, attacks me in her book) really understands the Darwinism she rejects. The answer is a resounding No. According to the book's acknowledgments, Coulter was tutored in the "complex ideas" of evolution by David Berlinski, a science writer; Michael Behe, a third-rate biologist at Lehigh University (whose own department's website disowns his bizarre ideas); and William Dembski, a fairly bright theologian who went off the intellectual rails and now peddles creationism at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. These are the "giants" of the ID movement, which shows how retarded it really is. Learning biology from this lot is like learning elocution from George W. Bush.

As expected with such tutors, the Darwinism decried by Coulter is the usual distorted cardboard cut-out. All she does is parrot the ID line: There are no transitional fossils; natural selection can't create true novelty; some features of organisms could not have evolved and therefore must have been designed by an unspecified supernatural agent. And her "research" method consists of using quotes taken out of context, scouring biased secondary sources, and distorting what appears in the scientific literature. Judging by the shoddy documentation of the evolution section, I'm not convinced that the rest of the book isn't based on equally shoddy research. At any rate, I won't belabor the case that Coulter makes for ID, as I've already shown in TNR that her arguments are completely bogus.

What is especially striking is Coulter's failure to tell us what she really believes about how the earth's species got here. It's clear that she thinks God had a direct hand in it, but beyond that we remain unenlightened. IDers believe in limited amounts of evolution. Does Coulter think that mammals evolved from reptiles? If not, what are those curious mammal-like reptiles that appear exactly at the right time in the fossil record? Did humans evolve from ape-like primates, or did the Designer conjure us into existence all at once? How did all those annoying fossils get there, in remarkable evolutionary order?

And, when faced with the real evidence that shows how strongly evolution trumps ID, she clams up completely. What about the massive fossil evidence for human evolution -- what exactly were those creatures 2 million years ago that had human-like skeletons but ape-like brains? Did a race of Limbaughs walk the earth? And why did God -- sorry, the Intelligent Designer -- give whales a vestigial pelvis, and the flightless kiwi bird tiny, nonfunctional wings? Why do we carry around in our DNA useless genes that are functional in similar species? Did the Designer decide to make the world look as though life had evolved? What a joker! And the Designer doesn't seem all that intelligent, either. He must have been asleep at the wheel when he designed our appendix, back, and prostate gland.

There are none so blind as those who will not see, and Coulter knows that myopia about evolution is a lucrative game. After all, she is a millionaire, reveling in her status as a celebrity and stalked by ignorazzis. I have never seen anyone enjoy her own inanity so much.

But after ranting for nearly a hundred pages about evolution, Coulter finally gives away the game on page 277: "God exists whether or not archaeopteryx ever evolved into something better. If evolution is true, then God created evolution." Gee. Evolution might be true after all! But she's just spent a hundred pages telling us it isn't! What gives? As Tennessee Williams's Big Daddy said, there's a powerful and obnoxious odor of mendacity in this room.

What's annoying about Coulter (note: there's more than one thing!) is that she insistently demands evidence for evolution (none of which she'll ever accept), but requires not a shred of evidence for her "alternative hypothesis." She repeatedly assures us that God exists (not just any God -- the Christian God), that there is only one God (she's no Hindu, folks), that we are made in the image of said God, that the Christian Bible, like Antonin Scalia's Constitution, "is not a 'living' document" (that is, not susceptible to changing interpretation; so does she think that Genesis is literally true?), and that God just might have used evolution as part of His plan. What makes her so sure about all this? And how does she know that the Supreme Being, even if It exists, goes by the name of Yahweh, rather than Allah, Wotan, Zeus, or Mabel? If Coulter just knows these things by faith alone, she should say so, and then tell us why she's so sure that what Parsees or Zunis just know is wrong. I, for one, am not prepared to believe that Ann Coulter is made in God's image without seeing some proof.

Moreover, if evolution is wrong, why is it the central paradigm of biology? According to Coulter, it's all a big con game. In smoky back rooms at annual meetings, evolutionists plot ways to jam Darwin down America's throat, knowing that even though it is scientifically incorrect, Darwinism (Coulter says) "lets them off the hook morally. Do whatever you feel like doing -- screw your secretary, kill Grandma, abort your defective child -- Darwin says it will benefit humanity!"

Unfortunately for Coulter (but fortunately for humanity), science doesn't work this way. Scientists gain fame and high reputation not for propping up their personal prejudices, but for finding out facts about nature. And if evolution really were wrong, the renegade scientist who disproved it -- and showed that generations of his predecessors were misled -- would reach the top of the scientific ladder in one leap, gaining fame and riches. All it would take to trash Darwinism is a simple demonstration that humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time, or that our closest genetic relative is the rabbit. There is no cabal, no back-room conspiracy. Instead, the empirical evidence for evolution just keeps piling up, year after year.

As for biologists' supposed agenda of godlessness -- how ridiculous! Yes, a lot of scientists are atheists, but most have better things to do than deliberately destroy people's faith. This goes doubly for the many scientists -- roughly a third of them -- who are religious. After all, one of the most vocal (and effective) opponents of ID is Ken Miller of Brown University, a devout Catholic.

The real reason Coulter goes after evolution is not because it's wrong, but because she doesn't like it -- it doesn't accord with how she thinks the world should be. That's because she feels, along with many Americans, that "Darwin's theory overturned every aspect of Biblical morality." What's so sad -- not so much for Coulter as for Americans as a whole -- is that this idea is simply wrong. Darwinism, after all, is just a body of thought about the origin and change of biological diversity, not a handbook of ethics. (I just consulted my copy of The Origin of Species, and I swear that there's nothing in there about abortion or eugenics, much less about shtupping one's secretary.)

If Coulter were right, evolutionists would be the most beastly people on earth, not to be trusted in the vicinity of a goat. But I've been around biologists all of my adult life, and I can tell you that they're a lot more civil than, say, Coulter. It's a simple fact that you don't need the Bible -- or even religion -- to be moral. Buddhists, Hindus, and Jews, who don't follow the New Testament, usually behave responsibly despite this problem; and atheists and agnostics derive morality from non-biblical philosophy. In fact, one of the most ethical people I know is Coulter's version of the Antichrist: the atheistic biologist Richard Dawkins (more about that below). Dawkins would never say -- as Coulter does -- that Cindy Sheehan doesn't look good in shorts, that Al Franken resembles a monkey, or that 9/11 widows enjoyed the deaths of their husbands. Isn't there something in the Bible about doing unto others?

The mistake of equating Darwinism with a code of behavior leads Coulter into her most idiotic accusation: that the Holocaust and numberless murders of Stalin can be laid at Darwin's door. "From Marx to Hitler, the men responsible for the greatest mass murders of the twentieth century were avid Darwinists." Anyone who is religious should be very careful about saying something like this, because, throughout history, more killings have been done in the name of religion than of anything else. What's going on in the Middle East, and what happened in Serbia and Northern Ireland? What was the Inquisition about, and the Crusades, and the slaughter following the partition of India? Religion, of course -- or rather, religiously inspired killing. (Come to think of it, the reason Hitler singled out the Jews is that Christians regarded them for centuries as the killers of Christ. And I don't remember any mention of Darwinism in the Moscow Doctors' Trial.) If Darwin is guilty of genocide, then so are God, Jesus, Brahma, Martin Luther, and countless popes.

As Coulter well knows, the misuse of an idea for evil purposes does not mean that idea is wrong. In fact, she accuses liberals of making this very error: She attacks them for worrying that the message of racial inequality conveyed by the book The Bell Curve could promote genocide: "Only liberals could interpret a statement that people have varying IQs as a call to start killing people." Back at you, Ann: Only conservatives could interpret a statement that species evolved as a call to start killing people.

Coulter clearly knows better. I conclude that the trash-talking blonde bit is just a shtick (admittedly, a clever one) calculated to make her rich and famous. (Look at her website, where she whines regularly that she is not getting enough notice.) Her hyper-conservativism seems no more grounded than her faith. She has claimed that the Bible is her favorite book, she is rumored to go to church, and on the cover of Godless you see a cross dangling tantalizingly in her décolletage. But could anybody who absorbed the Sermon on the Mount write, as she does of Richard Dawkins, "I defy any of my coreligionists to tell me they do not laugh at the idea of Dawkins burning in hell"? Well, I wouldn't want Coulter to roast (there's not much meat there anyway), but I wish she'd shut up and learn something about evolution. Her case for ID involves the same stupid arguments that fundamentalists have made for a hundred years. They're about as convincing as the blonde hair that gets her so much attention. By their roots shall ye know them.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Actually I was too. Of course, Dennis Hastert isn't that impressive.

[Gumlegs]

Sorry. That was pretty snide on my part. But it was also kind of tough to see the point.

The point would appear to be that science should be more like stamp collecting; that scientific theories are inherently unscientific.

[King Prout]

no science deals in proof - evidence, falsification, and probability only.

osteology is neither rocket science nor voodoo. the techniques successfully used in forensic osteology and comparative osteology of extant organisms are identical to those used on fossils and unfossilized remains of long dead years.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

I was close. The eryopidae are part of temnospondylii which is part of the stegocephalian group with the amniota of which the diapsids are a sub-group (whew).

I agree with you in the cases where there is little fossil evidence. Where significant fossil evidence is available, molecular biology is confirming almost all of the groupings.

[King Prout]

Wow! Now *that* was an amazingly convincing, concise, scientifically sound and unbiased refutation.

True, oh so true, and so well said, my dearest brother in pond-scum.

[js1138]

green goo placemarker.

[tioga]

well, HE may not have liked her book, but I did. Just who counts with Ann anyway?

[spatso]

"The issue is not whether there are good scientists who are also people of faith. The issue is whether faith may be used as a starting point for scientists. Though you and your cheerleaders a loath to admit it science always begins with faith. Intelligent design is a reasonable, normal, non-supernatural means of explaining organized matter in any form. One need not be superstitious, mystical, suprnatural, or even unscientific to assume or assert as much."

I don't know enough about science to be a cheerleader. However, I do know enough about theology to recognize nonsense when it placed in a faith wrapping. Intelligent design is way outside our understanding of biblical or extra biblical literature. You can teach it to anyone you want as science if you can convince the body of knowledge within science that it has scientific merit. But you cannot posture ID as having any historical connection to our understanding and teaching of scripture. It drives me nuts when I see supposed Christians wanting to rewrite sacred text. The stories on Creation are more than 2500 years old, God has never needed help before to explain the meaning of Genesis. The text says what the text says.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Intelligent design is way outside our understanding of biblical or extra biblical literature.

On the contrary, intelligent design is integral to, and essential for, our understanding of biblical or extra biblical literature, including the intelligible universe. My response to those who think intelligent design is unscientific is to request an alternative explanation for the existence of organized matter that performs specific functions. No alternative explanation has come forth except upon philosophical grounds. Science is not obligated to belabor the obvious any more than an author is obligated to insert his own name into every sentence of his work, nor is it incumbent upon science to construct an artificial barrier between itself and the Creator.

[Dimensio]

Moreover, your previous derision did not in any way demonstrate that any of Coulter's claims regarding the theory of evolution are INcorrect.

My original statement to you was a direct response to your unsubstantiated claim that Darwin and the fossil record are subjects of "worship". Your attempt to distract from the fact that your claim is unsupported by evidence does not validate it.

[Dimensio]

Oh, gee, I don't know. It might give more credibility to your argument if you ACTUALLY READ THE WORK YOU'RE ATTACKING.

Steve-b was referencing a refutation of the sections of evolution written by an individual who has read the book. Whether or not steve-b has read the book has no relevance to a refutation written by a different author.

Have you read it?

I have not. As such, I do not claim to be able to refute her claims. Instead, I can only defer to those who have read her claims, and refer to those.

[betty boop]

do you pledge to pay attention, or shall we simply put out once more in hope that has thus far gone unrequited?

FWIW King, I regard Charles Darwin as a first-rate, world-class scientist, and also as a man of scrupulous integrity. For instance, it was he himself who said that his theory was only as good as the fossil record. The funny thing about the fossil record is that it has this uncanny knack of falling silent when we most need it to speak to us (e.g., transitional forms in the pre-Cambrian). There have also been less honest men who, boosters of the theory, perpetrated outright fraud with bogus fossils, or other instances of truly bad science (e.g., Haeckel's recapitulation of phyologeny in the human foetus).

Like I said, FWIW, I am not anti-evolution; I'm just anti-bad science.

If your best argument is an ad hominum attack (see above italics), then you haven't got a leg to stand on, and, if I might kindly suggest, I have better uses for my time.

[spatso]

"When science seeks to create a moral climate it is beyond its limits.
And, you are correct, when religious professionals make diatribe against reason and legitimate scientific enterprise they are no better than a Taliban."

That is pretty good and maybe a better way of balancing what I am trying to say. Why would people of faith want to invest so much energy into a scientific understanding to support God? Any good course of study in theology includes a required reading of the forces of modern atheism including Marx, Feuerebach, Camus, Nietzsche and Whitehead. Like most everyone else in my class I found the required study of atheism remarkably invigorating in the affirmation of faith. Alfred North Whitehead is particularly interesting because he taught a kind of ID nearly seventy years ago. His writings were dismissed because it reduced God to a process as well as mitigating both the omnipotent and omnipresent nature of God. North's ideas although well intended were not unlike the ID of today. In trying to affirm God they trivialize God by advocating the nature of God in a counter scientific formulation. Both God and people of faith deserve better. Like you say the realm of theology is our moral well being and I believe it is important to stick to our own knitting there is much work to do. We can afford to let science play in their own sandbox.

[pageonetoo]

"Your attempt to distract from the fact that your claim is unsupported by evidence does not validate it."
---
I keep responding, just to enjoy how desparate you must be for attention. I have answered, with as much clarity, as you have posted to me and others...

You can make all sort of claims but you can't substantiate most of them. Why? They are just a "theory" (and please don't lecture us on what a theory is...), and subject to change at a moment's notice. That is your problem, not mine!
It really bugs you that not everyone is as sold on evolution and other scientific doctrines. Yes, I said doctrine. I meant doctrine, just as much as your science tomes are your liturgy. You quote them as well as I can quote Scripture...

Below is some imprtant information from a fellow believer. I doubt you will read it through. I doubt you have read any of Ann's books. I have them all on my bookshelf. I helped her EARN her millions.

Respond with a refutation, not your opinion of God and His followers:

___

The atheist and his atheism.



Atheism is defined by Webster's New World Dictionary as, "1. the belief that there is no God, or denial that God or gods exist. 2. godlessness". An atheist, therefore, is a person who believes that there is no God. But what does the Bible say?

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.

PSALMS XIV:I

Atheism is a belief system that ardently denies the existence of God. God calls the atheist a FOOL. Many atheists spend much time and effort attempting to "disprove" that God exists. According to Romans chapter 1 they know that He exists, but they want to control their own lives and not submit to the Lord. They are actually rather tragic figures just like any other unsaved individual. It is hard to live out their atheism--if they did, they'd actually be considered crazy like O'Hair was.

The atheist's RELIGION (which is simply a system of beliefs based on a philosophy) of atheism is simply a way to try to block out and override the truth--the ol' ostrich-head-in-the-sand technique:

If you try to tell 'em the truth, they say "Shut up!"
stick their heads in the ground and shout--
"There's nobody there,
there's nobody there,
there's nobody there, I tell you!
See, I can't see 'em!"

Well, atheist reader, Somebody is there and His truth has stood from the beginning of time and will continue for all eternity. God is not dependent on you in any way. Blasphemies, wars, famines, and political appointments come and go, but when the dust settles, there's Jesus. And there is nothing you can do about it but breathe out hot air. You will humble yourself before the Lord Jesus or you will be ground to powder.

And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.
--Jesus Christ
Matthew 21:44

Most atheists have what I call the Don Quixote Syndrome. Let me explain. Cervantes wrote a book about Don Quixote a long time ago. Don Quixote would attack windmills as if they were his enemies. Of course a windmill is nobody's enemy. If what the atheist believes is REALLY his belief, then he would leave people like me alone. After all, if God did not exist, He and His followers would be no enemy to the atheist. We'd just be deluded people. Therefore IF the atheist REALLY believes there is no God and the fool attacks a Christian, then he has the Don Quixote Syndrome because the Christian is not his enemy. Nevertheless, God is real and THAT is why atheists have all these organizations and debates to "prove" that God does not exist. Atheist reader, if you would just be true to what you purport to believe, then you wouldn't have the Don Quixote Syndrome.

My old pastor once ministered to an old atheist who had been a card-carrying atheist for decades--but as he laid on his death bed, he wanted a pastor. I don't know if he got saved or not. When it's time to die, many atheists are understandably uneasy and those that aren't should be terrified.

There is hope for the atheist. He can be saved. In fact, there are plenty of atheists that have come to Jesus Christ. I refuse to argue with them, but will answer honest questions. Unfortunately, many atheists ignorantly say hard things against the Lord Jesus Christ and His people. Don't let fancy titles and big words shake your faith in the One who holds your eternal destiny.

Think about this: What does the atheist have to offer you? Eternal life? Spiritual comfort? Love? Kindness? Comfort in the midnight hour when no one is around? No, none of these. He has nothing to offer you but blasphemy, hell fire and the wrath of God. The atheist will tell you fabulous fairy tales like

you were spontaneously generated from a rock,
a monkey is your daddy,
a fish is your cousin,
you have no hope,
you should just live for today,
when you're dead, you're dead.

If you follow their ignorant advice and die without Christ, you WILL forever regret it and you will remember that someone told you the truth and you scoffed.

Atheists try their hardest to argue a fact that is firmly established--God is real. You cannot look on His creation and its ways and honestly deny it. I won't argue that 2+2=4 and I won't argue that God exists. An atheist once wrote and said, "2+2 is not necessarily 4". Well, write any other number on your math test and see if you get it right.

The bottom line is that atheism is a false belief system composed of fools--it's not new--the Bible told us about atheism thousands of years ago. Is there a real atheist? No. The closest thing to it is someone who has told themselves a lie so many times that they begin to believe it's true.

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/atheism.htm

[spatso]

"Science is not obligated to belabor the obvious any more than an author is obligated to insert his own name into every sentence of his work, nor is it incumbent upon science to construct an artificial barrier between itself and the Creator."

I don't understand what you are trying to say. I could make the same statement and substitute "auto mechanics" were you say science and it would have the same meaning. ID is either good science or it is not. I will let you debate that with other scientists. On the other hand, if you want to examine ID in light of Genesis that is a theological matter. In this regard ID presumes to explain what does not need to be explained and trivializes the rich meaning of our sacred texts.

[Coyoteman]

There have also been less honest men who, boosters of the theory, perpetrated outright fraud with bogus fossils...

If your best argument is an ad hominum attack (see above italics), then you haven't got a leg to stand on...

If your best attack against evolution is to claim there are some "less honest men" who perpetrate "outright fraud" with "bogus fossils," then perhaps you could either provide a list of these, or maybe a percentage.

Are you suggesting there are thousands of frauds and bogus fossils, and that the number is perhaps 50%, 75%, or even 90% of the total?

[Dimensio]

Radio-isotope halos and Diamond Crystal studies aren't negative.

The claim regarding polonium halos is simply wrong. I am unable to locate information regarding your claim of diamond crystal studies. Do you have a reference? Do you also have a reference showing that "creationism" predicted the exsitence of polonium halos and diamond crystal propreties before either were discovered?

The vestigal organs can be stated as a positive. That all human organs would serve important functions.

What important function is served by the appendix? When and why did creationism predict that all organs would serve an important function?

The missing links is a negative, but it's a pretty damning negative for evolution.

Please support this claim.

[Dimensio]

Ichneumon provided a well-researched refutation of one of Coulter's claims.

[Dimensio]

Your diatribe on atheism is completely off subject and does not support your false claims regarding evolution, nor does it justify your admitted willful ignorance.

[King Prout]

you miss the point of my question, betty.

many anti-evolutionists (admitted and covert) here have challenged us to give evidence or proof of Ann's known and demonstrable -ah!- "misstatements" in the chapters of Godless concerning the ToE.

their requests have repeatedly been fulfilled.

oddly, these challengers seldom acknowledge that Coulter has, indeed, been thoroughly busted.

at best, these Coultergeists simply fall silent on that thread.

indeed, often enough, those same Coultergeists pop up a few hours or days later on *another* Anndroid Idolatry thread and make the same claims and demands they made on the previous thread, without any admission as to having been given proof of Coulter's -ah!- "errors".

WE TIRE OF THESE GAMES.

So, again: before I once more expend the energy of providing you the proof you have requested, I ask whether you -YOU, yourself, personally, betty- will pay attention to the proofs I and others can readily provide.

This is not an ad hominem attack, betty - it is a reasonable attempt to nail an opposition debater's feet to the arena, to fix the goalposts in concrete, and to eliminate any opportunity for the wriggling by which my side has become disgusted.

So, AGAIN: Will you give your binding Word that you shall pay attention to the answer to your request, or will you not?
The only answer this question requires from you is a "Yes" or a "No."
Likewise, the only answer from you to this post to which I shall pay any heed shall be either a "Yes" or a "No."

The choice is yours, betty.
Which shall it be?