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.