Ann Coulter's "Godless"

I finished reading Ann Coulter's new book tonight, "Godless: The Church of Liberalism." I've read all of her books except her first one, the one about Bill Clinton. I think this was by far the best of the lot, though I enjoyed them all.

Coulter kept me laughing throughout the book, by making side references to liberals, Democrats and even some of Bush's friends like Harriet Myers. Her thesis in this book is that liberalism is a religion itself, as many of its premises and precepts are based on faith, believed without factual support. Indeed, Liberals become almost as incensed as Muslims do when you question their holy writ. Liberals will go to extremes to ensure that their point of view is the only one that can be heard, and they seek a monopoly on the public pulpit through lawsuits, NY Times editorials and school room instruction, all while hysterically denouncing those who disagree.

I found Coulter's examination of Darwinism and the theory of evolution to be absolutely fascinating. I admit I was somewhat uneasy when I began the chapter on evolution. I have studied evolution several times, in high school biology, in college courses in zoology, anthropology and genetics and I have been exposed to the theory more than most folks. I have in the past, even gotten into serious debates and arguments with relatives and others who did not believe in evolution. I only opened my mind a crack over the past couple of years, after I heard of several distinguished scientists who think evolution is a crock. Say what??

I was pleasantly surprised at reading Coulter's treatment of the subject. She did not argue Bible scriptures or create straw men merely for the purpose of knocking them down. She quotes Darwin and scientists who support him, discusses the major premises of the theory and then points out its weaknesses, while quoting opposing scientific opinions. In other words, she treats the subject fairly, using scientific facts as her arguments and not, as I'd feared, religious ones.

Coulter illustrates how complex life really is and uses as an example the most simple dynoflagellate, a one celled animal with a flagellum it uses to propel itself. Even it requires several complex protein molecules to manage its flagellum, and it is difficult to discern the mechanism by which these proteins evolved by chance.

She then went into the mathematical possibility that complex and diverse life forms on this planet all originated from organic goo and changed and evolved based on genetic mutation and natural selection. She quoted the works of various anti-evolution scientists, some of who were atheists, who describe large problems with the theory of evolution, stating flat-out that the mathematical odds of it happening make the theory absurd.

Coulter also discussed Chinese research into the Cambrian period, a period of about 5 to 10 million years when life forms burst forth in great proliferation, according to the fossil record. Their appearance, in paleontology terms, was sudden and vast, as one scientist put it, "almost as if they had been planted here." The ACLU, however, has sued to keep this information out of public schools and scientific journals have so far neglected to cover it.

Coulter also considers some of the classic "proofs" of evolution, like the Piltdown man (a hoax), the German drawings of different animal fetuses compared to humans, showing remarkable similarities in appearance (also a hoax), the amino acid from gasses experiment (the experiment and its results were real, but the gasses used were not the ones in the earth's atmosphere when life originated) and several others. In spite of this, many of these disproven or misrepresented "facts" still appear in modern biology textbooks. Further, and I did not realize this before, the fossil record does not come close to proving evolution. There are great gaps in the record, there are few or no transitional forms from one creature to another, and many animals appear suddenly and disappear just as suddenly again. Something was going on, something miraculous in human terms, but what we really can't say. Those who say it was God don't sound quite so preposterous any more.

For me, her book wiped the blackboard clean as far as evolution goes. If it is true, it is not even close to being proved, and there are major problems with it. I will never be a proponent of it again, absent some remarkable new scientific discoveries in its favor. But what is really revealing is how dogmatic the pro-evolution scientific community is, how close-minded they are to any other possibility, and how much their beliefs are based on their own form of faith. So much so, that they sue to prevent other viewpoints from being presented, and persecute those among them who step out of line. For example, one scientist was banned from the Smithsonian after writing a paper on intelligent design (which is not the dopey theory we've been led to believe) that appeared in an obscure scientific journal. The scientist has had to sue to keep his job.

Coulter also savages that film "Inherit the Wind," the Hollywood version of the Scopes Trial, where close-minded, drooling Christian fundamentalists try to jail a young teacher for teaching evolution in Dawson, Tennessee sometime in the 1920's. The true story is that the trial was a publicity stunt designed to put Dawson "on the map" with enormous publicity. The trial was staged by the ACLU who paid for both the prosecution and the defense attorneys, and John Scopes volunteered to be sued "for teaching evolution" in response to an ad. Not only did he not go to jail (teaching evolution was only a misdemeanor), but an Appeals Court even threw out his $100 fine. He was rehired by the same school district for the following year. So much for drooling fundamentalists persecuting bright young teachers.

Anytime a book can change my mind about something I once strongly believed in, it's got to be a good book. I experienced a paradigm shift. I highly recommend it.