As the saying goes, not everyone is entitled to their own facts, and in this–as in so many other things–Ann Coulter is wrong. Flatly. I’m willing to say that she probably isn’t as wrong about as many things as Rush Limbaugh–that would be difficult!–but she clearly doesn’t know a thing she’s talking about when it comes to evolution.

Do you know what I would do if I were going to write about evolution? I would talk to people doing actual work in the actual fields involved. Ann Coulter did not. She talked to people who are biased against it. Then again, it seems to be how she does all her research–talking to people she knows agree with her. Why bother being confronted with the facts?

This way Coulter’s critics will have a comprehensive resources to allude to on all of her evolution claims.

If you want to launch personal attacks on Coulter, just do it. Don’t try to rationalize it as a mature and sensible response.

It’s your decision how you want to run your blog. If you want to be just another blogger spewing venom for the entertainment of those who already agree with him, then good luck to you; you’ve got plenty of company in the blogoswamp. But you can’t do that *and* expect to appeal to people who don’t already agree with you.

The point of an analogy is that it’s an analogy. Of course I’m not saying Coulter physically attacked me. I’m saying she’s mentally attacking everyone.

As for dealing with her claims on an intellectual level– all of her garbage has been debunked countless times, so I don’t feel the need to do a blow-by-blow. I have several posts on creationism with links to debunkings.

And finally, I don’t think you and I will agree on your last paragraph either. I decided some time ago to call ‘em like I see ‘em. I am polite under almost all circumstances, but Ann Coulter has strived mightily to become a cartoon parody of a human being, and so I don’t feel overly pressured to treat her as I would a solid opponent.

So you’re claiming that Coulter physically assaulted you? No? Then your analogy doesn’t really work, does it?

I don’t blame you if you don’t want to deal with Coulter’s claims on an intellectual level. But there is an alternative other than descending to her level: Just don’t talk about her at all.

Are you trying to work for the spread of scientific literacy, or are you merely trying to impress people who hate the same people you hate?

If the latter, keep calling people “deranged creationist liars.” I’m sure the people who find that sort of thing impressive will be very impressed. But if you actually want to teach people about science, then you are behaving foolishly. No one is suddenly going to realize that there are indeed transitional forms in the fossil record because you call Ann Coulter names. People being what they are, the effect will rather be the opposite: “If this jerk believes in evolution, then I’d rather be a creationist.”

Magical thinking – Young children, primitive cultures.

Traditional – Children place great importance on what authorities say. In cultures.. well you figure it out.

Rational – Discovery of the rational mind.

Post rational – I think Zen is supposed to be the one example of this.

I’m not sure that people get stuck; rather that people use the different types of thinking for different areas of their lives – RAtional thinking is really handy for understanding the objective world; traditional thinking is useful for living in a society, working with people and so on; the magical and post-rational types of thinking seem to me to be most useful for thigns like having spiritual beliefs, making love or doing other emotinally based activites.

So maybe people read things that are rationally untrue because they are magically “true” in that they satisfy an emotional need. People are terrified of change so being told that old, traditional beliefs are true and evolutionists are just weirdo liberal revolutionaries is immensely emotionally reassuring.

For the same reason, perfectly rational and educated women curl up with chick-lit at night before they go to sleep – obviously rationally “untrue” but completely “true” in a magical sense (if I wish for perfection/ a happy end then it WILL come). ANd in some ways, wish-fulfilment fantasies are true in a post-rational sense – post-ratioanlly I “know” that everything is an interconnected web of life and simultaneously an illusion and that the only imortant thing is my own sppiritual development. THerefore, to be offered the chance to practice patience, tolerance and compassion is fantastic and we need all the Hitlers we can get.

RAtionally this is madness.
Argh! How do I sleep at night? SEe chick-lit comment above!

Thanks!

~Paige