Moving

I'm moving to LiveJournal, so please adjust your links to:
http://wickedwolfj.livejournal.com/

Ann Coulter -- "Mindless: The Dark Side of Conservatism"

In addition to the well-deserved death of the murderer al-Zarqawi (may he burn forever), yesterday saw the release of Ann Coulter’s new book, “Godless: The Church of Liberalism.” I happen to be a regular reader of Ann’s column. Despite my differences with her on some vital issues, I usually enjoy her writings exposing the absurdity of a culture that passes off obscenities as art but prohibits courts from displaying the Ten Commandments.

However, on some issues, she and I see things VERY differently. I think I’ve already stated my opinion on abortion, and ‘nuff said there. Unfortunately, just like Rush, there are some things Ann should avoid discussing if she doesn’t want her other good ideas to suffer by association. Rush, for example, needs to keep his big yap shut about environmental science, since he doesn’t seem to have the first clue about it. Likewise, Ann needs to keep her stunted knowledge of the theory of evolution under tight wraps. To quote from the first chapter of “Godless:”

“Liberals hate science and react badly to it. They will literally run from the room, lightheaded and nauseated, when told of data that might suggest that the sexes have different abilities in math and science. They repudiate science when it contradicts their pagan beliefs—that the AIDS virus doesn’t discriminate, that there is no such thing as IQ, that nuclear power is dangerous and scary, or that breast implants cause disease. Liberals use the word science exactly as they use the word constitutional.”

Actually, Ann, one could argue that some conservatives also hate science, and react just as poorly. There is a yawning chasm of ignorance about science on both sides. In addition, that line about repudiating science when it contradicts one’s beliefs is dismayingly ironic; as Ann goes on to demonstrate. Graphically.

It is frighteningly unscientific to think that the AIDS virus discriminates based on potential victims’ morality. One may be a pillar of moral virtue, but that won’t protect you if you are accidentally exposed to the virus. The virus does not discriminate. This is not to say that personal morality doesn’t have any influence. It can serve in a preventive sense: By making certain choices about one’s behavior, one can minimize one’s risk of becoming exposed to the virus. One’s morality does influence those sorts of choices, but has nothing to do with the action of the virus itself.

Likewise, in her column from June 7th, Ann states (of Liberalism):
“It is the doctrine that prompts otherwise seemingly sane people to propose teaching children ... that they share a common ancestor with the earthworm. (They haven't yet found the common ancestor ... but like O.J., the search continues.)
… Liberals believe in Darwinism as a matter of faith, despite the fact that, at this point, the only thing that can be said for certain about Darwinism is that it would take less time for (1) a single-celled organism to evolve into a human being through mutation and natural selection than for (2) Darwinists to admit they have no proof of (1).”

One wonders what sort of “proof” Ann would require. Usually, when creationist morons claim there is no proof for evolution, they say it is because we’ve never seen one form of life (say, a fish) spontaneously transform into another (a frog, for example). This is based on an utter, abject and self-inflicted ignorance about Darwin’s actual theory and the improvements upon it that have been made in the century since he proposed it. Moreover, creationists love to claim that evolution is a “theory,” and therefore unreal. Well, our understanding of gravitation is a theory, too, but its status as a theory won’t keep you from falling to your death if you leap off the Sears Tower (something I devoutly wish the creationists would try, given their disdain for actual scientific theories). Apparently, they would rather accept the proposition that a story made up by a primitive tribal culture over 3,000 years ago is more likely to represent reality.

I say their ignorance is self-inflicted because the concept of evolution is very simple, and they don’t bother even to try to understand it. It goes like this: (1) Small spontaneous, heritable changes in individual animals or plants either promote or inhibit their survival in a changing environment. (2) Positive changes are more likely than maladaptions to be passed on to offspring, since biota maladapted to their environment do not survive well enough to reproduce as successfully as those better adapted. (3) The cumulative effect of many small changes over hundreds or thousands of generations over thousands or millions of years results in descendents so different from their ancestors that we call them new or different species. That’s evolution in three sentences, three. I mean, if you can't understand something that simple, maybe you need to eat more fish...

Notice that nowhere did I suggest that any species suddenly changes into another species, like magic. The only things that vary are the heritable characteristics of individual animals. Such variations occur all the time through normal, routine mutation and crossover. (If crossover and mutation did not result in genetic diversity, we would all be identical twins.)

So where’s the proof of evolution? It’s all around us, in the fossil record (in which there are many examples of intermediate forms), in the diversity of species, in the fact that the diversity of species more than matches the diversity of environments, in the fact that we are not all identical twins, and in the confirmed fact that we Homo sapiens are nearly genetically identical to Pan troglodytes. If people can’t see the proof, it's because they don’t want to.

The theory of evolution (a.k.a., Darwinism) is not a matter of faith; nor does it (as the benighted wing of the conservative movement claims) deny the existence of God. It allows us to appreciate the intricacy and complexity of the world and affords us a glimpse into the possible means by which God accomplished His work.

The politicization of science by loudmouthed throwbacks, ignorant of its basic tenets, is the primary reason I cannot and will not be a card-carrying member of the Republican party; just as the Democrats’ obsession with socialism, enforced mediocrity and political correctness (“Newspeak” and/or “Newthink," to draw Orwellian allusions) has prevented me from ever considering them as a viable – let alone legitimate – political alternative. I hold little hope for us as a country – hell, as a species – if people continue willfully to remain ignorant about science. Ignorance is curable. Willfull ignorance, however, is a symptom of that incurable malady, stupidity.