Wednesday, June 07, 2006

Ann Coulter's book Godless

This is an excerpt from Ann Coulter's new book, Godless: The Church of Liberalism:

"Darwinism never disappoints the liberals. They never say ‘Well, I'd like to have cheap meaningless sex tonight, but that would violate Darwinism.' They can't even say ‘I'd like to have cheap meaningless sex tonight with a goat, but that would violate Darwinism.' If you have an instinct to do it, it must be evolved adaptation. Liberals subscribe to Darwinism not because it's science, which they hate, but out of some wishful thinking. Darwinism lets them off the hook morally."


I don't even know where to begin. Maybe with the first word: What the hell is "Darwinism"? Does she mean the theory of evolution? Evolution has nothing to do with what a certain society deems moral or immoral. It does not address moral concepts at all. I do not understand why these anti-evolution zealots insist upon attacking claims that evolutionists have never made, and I REALLY don't understand why there are still publishers willing to serve this Kool-Aid, albeit to a public that should know better.

The only connection I've ever seen made between morality and evolution remains the fascinating (to me) idea that in the same way our evolved reasoning abilities contribute to our survival, so do our highly evolved emotional capabilities. One very reductive example: Even though babies are, let's face it, way annoying a lot of the time, "normal" people don't throw them out the window and head for the nearest casino because we love our children so powerfully; even when it doesn't make clear sense to keep them because they drive us crazy, we keep them and make sure they survive.

But these concepts have NOTHING to do with following evolution as some kind of moral compass. Who does that? Did Coulter actually find someone who does that? I don't even understand how one would do it. Unless she's accusing "liberals" of adhering to a "survival of the fittest" mentality (which would also be taking Darwin's findings egregiously out of context since, again, natural selection is not about how one shellfish treated one other shellfish very badly indeed in that one shellfish community in 1985, but about changes that occur to large groups over millions of years). But even that seems unlikely since the other favorite complaint about liberals is that they're "bleeding hearts" or whatever, wanting Daddy Government to take care of everyone. How could someone support survival of the fittest (by the false definition) AND welfare?

Also, where did she get this inanity: "If you have an instinct to do it, it must be evolved adaptation."

WHAT? Again, I defy her to quote an actual person saying that. Have you ever known someone to take this position, that we should do anything we feel like doing because all urges come from evolution? That doesn't even make sense! I've heard the hedonistic "if it feels good, do it" perspective espoused, but that's completely different because it still takes into account consent. If two people past the age of consent want to have "cheap meaningless sex" tonight? Go for it. None of my beeswax. You know why you can't have that cheap meaningless sex with a goat though? Because the goat can't give consent. That's it. It's not that complicated, really, and it has fuck-all to do with Darwin because, AGAIN, evolution is not concerned with one freako in June of 2006 who wants to shag a Chamois. It's about adaptations of entire populations over vast amounts of time.

READ A BOOK, ANN. No, not that one.

I don't even have the energy to tackle the other bizarre accusation that liberals "hate" science. I can't imagine what support she provides for that one.

8 Comments:

At 7:02 AM, Blogger Sassy Pants said...

Well said!

Ann Coulter is the worst kind of conservative crackpot: She says things that if you don't know any better, or don't think about it for a second, they actually make sense on some level. Not this current Darwinism crap of course(at least not to me, a former Bio major) but some things.

One nice thing is that she says things with so much spit and vinegar that she turns some people off. However, she counters it with cleavage and blonde hair. I saw a clip of an interview with Matt Lauer and she kept running her fingers through her hair and flipping it back. And she was wearing a sleeveless black dress. I hate to stereotype and I think women should wear what they want but it was hard to take her seriously - and it wasn't just because of what she was saying.

Glibness, hair flipping, and hatred don't go very far with me. Whether I agree with what you're saying or not.

 
At 8:44 AM, Blogger Shell said...

Thanks, sassy!

It does seem like AC has made a career out of being a spectacle, as much as I hate accusing another woman of that. It's pretty depressing if you think about it too long. I mean, couldn't she at least be smart too?

 
At 9:39 AM, Anonymous noell said...

Wow, I can't believe those words are actually in published type. I am so embarrassed for this lady.

This is my first time on your site. I read your comment at The Atheist Mama. You said you were looking for atheist parenting blogs?

My blog is specifically regarding raising a healthy family without religion. I am a monthly columnist for the Humanist Network News and a new expert writer for ClubMom.com on the same topic as my blog.

I hope you drop by. I have a lot of readers who are great at sharing their experiences and ideas.

http://www.agnosticmom.com

 
At 2:44 PM, Blogger Shell said...

Thanks! Your site is now linked on my sidebar. Cheers!

 
At 10:46 AM, Blogger belledame222 said...

Good lord. Thank you for wading through that pile of bilge so more of us don't have to; simultaneously, though, I am worrying: do you have a good detox facility nearby?

Coulter is imo a real-life troll, no more no less. Hard as it is to know what to do about the online variety, I don't have a good answer for what the rank and file are supposed to do about her; clearly "ignore her and she'll go away" doesn't work from the average shmo's perspective; but I wish to Christ the TV producers and publishers and so on would stop enabling her. It's like: look, she's HAD her fifteen minutes. There are nearly seven billion other people in the world. Pick one and give her a shot instead. chances are excellent that whoever it is will be an improvement.

 
At 11:12 AM, Blogger NuggetMaven said...

Oy, she's such a hate monger, it's not even worthwhile to comment upon her.

Fancy this though... even as evil as she is... she's got a right to her POV... no matter how twisted.

Wouldn't surprise me if sometime down the road, it becomes public that she's just a puppet spewing someone else's vitriol.

 
At 1:10 PM, Blogger Shell said...

It is hard to know what to do. She clearly thrives on controversy, so you almost think ignoring her is the trick, but at the same time stupidity must be confronted, you know?

 
At 11:33 AM, Blogger Stephen Holland said...

The thing that scares me about Ann Coulter is not that what she writes is so inane; she is clearly mentally ill. What bothers me is that so many people agree with the nonsense that she writes. How does someone who writes the tripe that she writes manage to get published? Why does a sizable fraction of the population of the US agree with her point of view? It sometimes makes me wonder why I really want a Green Card.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Number of online users in last 3 minutes