The Flash Mob Metod of Scientific Inquiry

I debated on where to put this as it covers all three subjects, science, religion and politics. I opted for science, but if the mod decides to move it based on responses, that is fine with me.

Ann Coulter

THE FLASH MOB METHOD OF SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY

August 24, 2011

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.

I've been a proponent of evolution for a very long time.

Sad to say, I've not devoted a lot of effort at studying the theory, recent advances in it, nor refutations of it.

As such, I am neither standing behind nor refuting Ann's take on this here. I am merely presenting it here for discussion.

Many hate Ann for her abrasive style of writing, but I have always found her arguments extremely sound.

Say what you will about her, but she is no dummy.

I find this article to be extremely vague. Instead of attacking Liberals for more than half of the article, maybe she should have focussed on explaining why exactly Darwin was wrong better and more detailed.
And instead of suggesting an alternative to the Theory of Evolution, she keeps on bashing those that believe in evolution, all the while not making a concrete statement on what she actually does believe in.

I'm not surprised though, Ann Coulter is nothing more than somebody who gets paid to talk and only receives attention for the outrageous and extremely offensive things she says/writes. The woman obviously did not get enough attention from her parents as a child....

BubbleBliss wrote:I find this article to be extremely vague. Instead of attacking Liberals for more than half of the article, maybe she should have focussed on explaining why exactly Darwin was wrong better and more detailed.

There'd be no article if she did that. Her sole argument against evolution is her personal belief that the flagellum could not have evolved, refuted above, years ago.

BubbleBliss wrote:And instead of suggesting an alternative to the Theory of Evolution, she keeps on bashing those that believe in evolution, all the while not making a concrete statement on what she actually does believe in.

She's obviously a creationist, though maybe not a literal six-day creationist, judging by this:

Ann wrote:Instead they make jokes about people who know the truth. They say that to dispute evolution means you must believe man walked with dinosaurs.

Which is a deeply dishonest comment. Creationists themselves claim that man walked with dinosaurs.

Speaking of dishonesty: never trust anyone who chops quotes up like that. I refer to her quote of Richard Lewontin, which comes from this book review. This quote has zero relevance to the truth value of evolution theory, but it's interesting because it reveals not just a lack of honesty and/or reading comprehension, but a very deep hostility on Ann's part to science itself. So I shall dwell on it.

As you can see, she completely misrepresented and/or misunderstood Lewontin. For one thing, he was talking about all scientists, not "Darwiniacs." (Common creationist tactic: lump all science you don't like under the umbrella of "evolution." Attacking science as a whole makes you sound like a nut.)

And he wasn't saying that scientists try to come up with theories that exclude God. It is the very scientific method that excludes God! Tell me, what's the scientific explanation for why the sun shines: 'the constant fusion of hydrogen atoms releases energy,' or 'Goddidit?' Ann clearly prefers the latter explanation, the former being "godless." Problem is, the latter explanation is not science!

Ann has no idea what science even is, or if she does, then she opposes science itself, not just evolution, for being non-theistic.

BubbleBliss wrote:I'm not surprised though, Ann Coulter is nothing more than somebody who gets paid to talk and only receives attention for the outrageous and extremely offensive things she says/writes. The woman obviously did not get enough attention from her parents as a child....

Yep, she's a extraordinarily hateful person. And when it comes to science, she has no clue what she is talking about.

Which is what makes her first sentence so deliciously ironic.

You've made a lot of good points there! I really can't understand how anybody could take an article like this seriously, when it is written by somebody who has no education in science whatsoever. I guess it's just about telling the people what they want to hear, not about telling the truth.