Ann Coulter's Un-Intelligent Designs

Coulter's relentless attacks agains 9-11 widows in Godless seem to get all the press. Less well publicized are her equally idiotic and bitter attacks against science--specifically, againstthe theory of evolution.

She states, for example, that there is no fossil evidence for the theory of evolution, which is horse pucky, as you can see here. She also quotes scientists out of context, misleads her readers about how fossilization works, and so on. For a laundry list of her anti-evolutionary nonsense, complete with links to the scientific refuations of this nonsense, check out the Media Matters for America article and the article on TalkReason.org, as well as the article at Panda's Thumb.

Of course, Coulter is not content to argue against the scientific consensus on evolutionary theory; she also wants to argue for the theory of Intelligent Design. Bad idea. Why?

1. Intelligent Design is explicitly and self-consciously intended as a religious (and not a scientific) antidote to evolutionary theory, as shown by, among other things, the Discovery Institute's "Wedge documents."
2. ID has no empirical basis, no observations or laboratory experiments which support it. Instead, it is held aloft by fallacious arguments about the flagellum of the salmonella bacterium (see refutations here and here) and about mousetraps (see refutation here under the heading "The Fallacy of Conclusion by Analogy," and also here).
3. To my knowledge, ID has never been used to explain or predict anything whatsoever about the behavior or physiology of any organism. If ID is a scientific theory which is competing with the theory of evolution, then it is losing, and losing BIG. See for example, this article.

As if her idiotic support of Intelligent Design weren't enough, Coulter also has the gall to claim that Hitler's Final Solution comes directly from the theory of evolution! This is nonsense for at least two reasons. First, the misuses to which a theory is put have nothing to do with the accuracy of that theory itself. Just look at the Crusades or the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Should we now disavow Catholicism and atomic physics on the basis of these events? Second, Hitler's views were based on a number of other things besides pseudo-Darwinism, including a bastardized version of Nietzshe's philosophy. Does this mean that we should discard Nietzsche, too? The "evolution caused the Holocaust" idea is a commonplace among creationists, of course. See here for a fuller discussion of this fallacious use of the "Hitler card."

The thrust of Coulter's argument, of course, is that 1) the theory of evolution is liberal/atheistic/evil/genocidal/terroristic/treasonous, and that 2) no true American/patriot/Christian/good person would ever believe in such a terrible theory. In other words, it does not matter whether the theory of evolution is really accurate or not: all that matters is that it had BETTER NOT be accurate. As with so many far-right wingnuts, values trump facts in Coulter's lopsided world, and empirical study takes a backseat to (right-wing, fundamentalistic, corporatistic, jingoistic) ideology.

By working to cast baseless doubt on the scientific consensus regarding the theory of evolution, Coulter tries to destroy one of the pillars on which our culture bases its knowledge and decision-making. That's evil doings, Annie. You had better cut it out.