3,614 of 4,452 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Republican Jesus wins out
I've always been a huge fan of Mr. Coulter's. How can you not love someone who calls for the bombing of newspapers, demands the conversion of non-Christians by the sword, and mocks the grieving of Cindy Sheehan for her son and the 911 widows for their husbands. Coulter's popularity is the ultimate proof that America has rejected the old, compassionate, French-minded Jesus...
Published on June 7, 2006 by Gen. JC Christian, patriot
212 of 289 people found the following review helpful
2.0 out of 5 stars A self-described "Liberal," who actually read the book with an open mind
I'm a liberal, but often I read books by conservative authors such as Robert H. Bork ("Slouching Towards Gomorrah"), Thomas Sowell ("Black Rednecks and White Liberals"; "Economics Politics"; and "Race and Culture: Around the World"), Walter Williams, and Shelby Steele. I jokingly say to my friends, "It's good to know what the enemy's thinking." But on a serious note, some...
Published on July 19, 2006 by Junis L. Baldon
Most Helpful First | Newest First
3,614 of 4,452 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Republican Jesus wins out,
I've always been a huge fan of Mr. Coulter's. How can you not love someone who calls for the bombing of newspapers, demands the conversion of non-Christians by the sword, and mocks the grieving of Cindy Sheehan for her son and the 911 widows for their husbands. Coulter's popularity is the ultimate proof that America has rejected the old, compassionate, French-minded Jesus of the Beatitudes and adopted the Jesus of Our Leader, a savior who isn't afraid to [...] and slay nations, a redeemer who despises the weak and belittles the grieving.
The logic Coulter employs in "Godless" is impeccable. Liberals, she proclaims, detest science. They ignore the empirically observable truth that God fashioned Eve from Adam's rib while they promote superstitious Darwinism. They deny the science supporting the use of adult stem cells to cure disease because "Liberals just want to kill humans." How can you argue with that?
212 of 289 people found the following review helpful
2.0 out of 5 stars A self-described "Liberal," who actually read the book with an open mind,
I'm a liberal, but often I read books by conservative authors such as Robert H. Bork ("Slouching Towards Gomorrah"), Thomas Sowell ("Black Rednecks and White Liberals"; "Economics Politics"; and "Race and Culture: Around the World"), Walter Williams, and Shelby Steele. I jokingly say to my friends, "It's good to know what the enemy's thinking." But on a serious note, some of these more illuminating conservative writers have very good arguments concerning the various political and social problems of the day and arguments, which are grounded in logic, experience, and reason.
That bring us to Ann Coulter's book, "Godless". I read it because of the controversy surrounding the book. I'm a native New Yorker, so it was interesting to read her book coupled with her public comments. In conclusion, I must say that the book is full of witty satirical prose, but the book is very short on arguments. Instead, it delves into ranting, at times, downright hatred of liberals. The arguments are very one-sided, which is disappointing because it seems that Coulter engages in a classic "strawman" argument: setting up the opposition and their positions in the weakest manner possible and then countering them, not with logical arguments: premise, premise, conclusion; but rather straight to conclusions--very outrageous and particularly harsh ones at that. In addition, the number of times she engages in the logical fallacy of argumentum ad hominem (appeal to ridicule) is unforgivable, particularly for a writer and scholar of her supposed ability and stature (this is the first Coulter book I've read). For the few arguments that may be somewhat logical and convincing, Coulter's ability to jump to dubious universally applicable conclusions based on skewed facts and quotations paired with the unbelievably harsh prose at times, is a real turn-off for a person approaching the book with an open mind or politcally moderate. Further, the book seems to ignore examples that stand contrary to Coulter's standard liberal caricature, as if Coulter casted the liberal ideology accurately and confronted them head-on, the book might have been decent--but I find Coulter's intellectual honesty inherently suspect throughout the book. If one does get this book, I would suggest checking the sources, as I did (particularly concerning the 9/11 widows and the 9/11 commission--I won't supply my findings here, I suggest you read the book and draw your own conclusions), and even the Biblical quotations are skewed and crudely interpreted to imply divine hatred of liberals.
In this book, there is no debunking of a somewhat accurate liberal belief system, with straight analysis and facts, that you might find in Bork, Sowell, Williams, or Steele. While those aforementioned authors can be harsh writiers as well, their analysis is clear and logical. Certainly, Sowell and Steele in particular, made me reconsider and challenge some of the political and social perceptions concerning my race--a mea culpa of sorts (I'm an African-American male). I didn't become greatly more conservative as a result, but those authors added more clarity to the political discourse concerning race in our country. It was a refreshing intellectual experience, and I was well-rewarding for reading those who challenged my preconceived notions of how the world operates. However, if you are looking for such an experience in this "Godless," I would emphatically urge you to look elsewhere. But, if you want to fill your head with at times, nonsensical ranting, unsupported facts, and virulent hatred then read the book. The other conservative authors I listed above, I would recommend you reading instead, regardless of your political ideology. In conclusion, I would simply chalk Coulter's book as another step in the decline of reasonable and civil political discourse in this country.
54 of 75 people found the following review helpful
2.0 out of 5 stars A disappointment,
Amazon Verified Purchase(What's this?)
I loved Ann Coulter's book "Treason"; it was informative and packed with facts that broke many Politically Correct paradigms. By comparison, this book is a disappointment.
The first part of the book points out the "religion" of the left wing. There is nothing really new here; the argument that the left has a "godless" ideology is an old one, dating back to the "miracle" of Lenin's corpse not decomposing. From the point of view of anthropology, all cultures have some sort of irrational, binding religious or ideological belief that binds the culture together, and leftist are no different. Coulter then points out many of the liberal attacks on science in a frenzy of "tu quoque" arguments (i.e. pot calling the kettle black). Yes, the left clearly does attack science and pervert science for political gain, but this in no way justifies the right wing doing so as Coulter attempts to do.
The second half of the book was an attack on the theory of evolution, but not modern evolution, but evolution as proposed originally by Darwin, and unchanged from the refinement of the theory with the knowledge of the genetic mechanism. It is the same logical error of trying to disprove modern chemistry by attacking alchemy. She compares the Darwinian evolution not to the Biblical genesis story of the 6 days of creation and a new earth, but to a vague, ill defined creationist pseudo theory. The second half of the book is pure rubbish and dependent upon ignorance of the modern theory of evolution and genetic theory. Yes, the left does use evolution as propaganda; the best propaganda, of course, is the true propaganda. She would have been far more rational to make the argument that when the theory of evolution contradicts leftist propaganda, the leftist will ignore it as well and supplant it with irrational beliefs from their own ideology.
For the thinking Coulter fan, this book will:
1) Make you want to re-read her previous books with a more critical eye for the types of logical errors that are rampant in this book.
2) Realize that advocates of either left or right political stripe are so bias as to be incapable of presenting an objective view point. Truth can only be found by those with an open mind. You are not going to obtain truth from the likes of Ann Coulter or Al Franken.
102 of 145 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars Infidels, The Church of Liberalism,
If you're anything like me, you are sick of the liberal media and politicians in America condemning Christian principles and values. There is, however, hope! I would like to tell you about a place where law defines marriage as strictly between a man and a woman, as God intended. A place where abortion will never be legal, and the government trusts its own citizens to make good choices regarding gun control. This is a place where prayer is still taught in school, and Creationism is accepted as the only reasonable explanation for the origin of man. The anti-Christian theory of evolution has been finally and decisively rejected. The taxes in this place (which probably by now sounds too good to be true) are incredibly low, and nearly all of the revenue is spent on national defense. In this land there is an incredibly low probability of a liberal party ever gaining control of the government, so strong family values are never attacked as they are by the liberals in this country. I feel that I have kept you in suspense for long enough: bring your family to Iran, and you may never hear another liberal idea again! True, you may have to switch from fundamentalist Christian to fundamentalist Islam, but you will be amazed how similar the two groups think. Come to Iran, and your religious views will never be offended by gays or pro-abortion terrorists again. Come to Iran, the water is fine!
58 of 82 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars This book really sparked my interest and got me focused on a lot of issues.,
Ann Coulter is an incredible author. In this book, you will get a perspective that you will not get anywhere else. For one thing, few people have been as willing as Ms. Coulter to expose liberal tactics such as dressing up pitiful victims to advance liberal causes. I was not aware of that prior to reading her book, but after reading this, it makes intuitive sense. It is not possible for a normal person to advance liberal causes because the beliefs and policies just do not make sense. However, if one sends out someone who is a "victim"--such as Cindy whatever her last name is--then it is possible that their anti-war and other liberal comments have some credibility. Ann Coulter is essentially saying, let's discuss issues on the merits, not based upon some person with whom the public may sympathize with. I also heard some original comments on evolution that I have yet to hear anywhere else. This book has certainly sparked my interest in learning more about what progress we have made on learning about evolution and whether there is real proof to the theory.
60 of 85 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars Unsullied by thought,
I have always thought Ann Coulter was an intellectual lightweight -- to paraphrase T.S. Eliot's comment about Henry James, "...had the purest mind of anyone I know, unsullied by thought". After giving her latest book a thorough read, its shallow and predictably pretentious contents offered me no opportunity to alter my opinion.
But, by god, Coulter sure gives it the old community college try. I don't think I have ever read such a laboured effort. She works so hard to be clever, shocking and cynical. Such obvious strain makes the book sort of depressing and cringe-making rather than the glittering triumph of wit and wisdom it so desperately yearns to become. One just feels rather sorry for her. Imagine being reduced to using cat-calls at the widows of 911 victims for effect? It has all the sophistication of Madonna crucifying herself in her silly touring show or a local performance artist taking potshots at the Pope. We're supposed to think it's all so edgy and dangerous. Nothing, of course, is further from the truth. It's all so silly and shrill.
If one would like to read genuinely interesting and erudite discussions of religion and society, perhaps one might do better to turn to the above mentioned T.S. Eliot and classical philosophers such as Aquinas, David Hume or Kant. There are the truly bright and finely educated modern philosophers like Alfred Lord Whitehead, Eliseo Vivas or Donald Atwell-Zoll to peruse and ponder. In short, a vertible army of vastly superior thinkers and writers.
Ann Coulter is the Paris Hilton of intellectualism -- shilling her shoddy pastiches of better minds, gimlet eyes forever locked on the main chance.
37 of 52 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars Stick to punditry, Ann,
Ann Coulter's treatment of evolutionary biology is very poorly done and uses arguments that have long been refuted by science that it makes her research for the entire book questionable. It is unfortunate that people lack even a basic knowledge of biology, let alone enough expertise to unravel all of the misrepresentations, technical errors, and unscientific misinformation. Thus, it is all too easy for her and her ilk to scare people into thinking that scientists are a sinister clique with nothing better to than to undermine people's moral value systems which couldn't be further from the case.
46 of 65 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars Fear and Loathing with a cup of Paranoia,
As an indepndent that leans to the (fiscally) conservative side, it is this sort of pap that keeps me away from wanting to be labeled a Republican.
Is the institution of marriage so weak that it would crumble if gays were allowed to get hitched? You can go get hitched on a whim by an Elvis impersonator and get divorced the next day but the "sanctity" of marriage would dissolve if gays are allowed to get married. Hmmm.
Is the state of Christianity so fragile and weak that is will crumble if not promoted by the government? I think not. In fact, that is an insult to Christianity to think that way.
I do not know what god she worships but it is not my God. My God does not know hate, intolerance, ignorance.
Her and people like her are no different from the Taliban that we all hate so much. I tried to read this book but could not make it to the end. I kept finding myself struck speechless at the ignorance and paranoia on display within its pages. Truly vile.
30 of 42 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars This is as chilling and eerie as Stoker's Dracula masterpiece of terror.,
Ann Coulter's new book is vulgar propaganda that goes against both science and reason. She has made a living as the cruel darling of the Religious Right, and in this book she aims her harsh rhetoric against, among other things, evolutionary biology, atheism, and what she calls 'liberalism.' The entire book in fact is a sustained attack on a group that doesn't even exist, namely 'liberals,' in the sense of the word that Coulter has made up. In her own words, Coulter's thesis is that 'Liberalism IS a religion.' She even refers to liberalism as 'the state-sanctioned religion.' This is borderline conspiracy theory, from the woman who called the Branch Davidians 'harmless American citizens.' In a kind of transubstantiation, we are supposed to believe that despite all outward appearances, our government is actually controlled by atheists. She says, 'Democrats revile religion,' and 'liberals love to boast that they are not `religious.'' This is absurd. Coulter sticks to generalizations because she can't give any cogent examples. Martin Luther King Jr. was undeniably Christian and liberal, but I doubt she had him in mind when she wrote, 'I would be crestfallen to discover any liberals in heaven.' Ann Coulter is going to heaven and Martin Luther King Jr. is not? For shame. Coulter can't name a godless president or member of Congress. The last two Democratic presidents have been born-again Christians, and the vast majority of liberals are Christian, yet Coulter defines 'liberals' as people who reject notions of God and an immortal soul. Meanwhile, the overtly Christian Republican Party is in control of all three branches of government. In this aspect of the book, as in others, it is exceedingly difficult to take Coulter seriously, and it is hardly surprising that many commentators on the left and right have questioned her sincerity. ID proponent William Dembski wrote on his blog that he takes full responsibility for any errors in the last few chapters of the book, which deal with evolution. Several websites have pointed out plenty of them, so if he was being honest, he has got his work cut out for him. But it doesn't matter how much evidence there is against Coulter because she just lies when the truth gets in the way of her agenda. She lies brazenly in the book about the Dover trial, which ruled the teaching of ID in science classrooms unconstitutional. According to Coulter: 'They won the way liberals always win: by finding a court to hand them everything they want on a silver platter.' Here Ann Coulter shows herself to be either completely incompetent or deliberately deceptive. The judge that presided over Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District is a life-long Republican and a church-goer, appointed to the federal bench in 2002 by President George W. Bush. Clifford A. Rieders, the former president of the Pennsylvania Trial Lawyers Association and a Democrat, said Judge Jones is 'universally well regarded.' Coulter's attempt to smear him is transparently motivated by her ideological concerns, not the facts. Like other bigots, Ann Coulter attacks what she perceives to be easy targets. In the past she has attacked Arabs, Muslims, and homosexuals, and in this book she saves some of her harshest words for environmentalists and America's most mistrusted minority, atheists. She writes, 'The theory of vegetarianism is that Americans consume `too much' energy.' To the contrary, vegetarianism is not a theory at all, it is the practice of not eating meat. There are a variety of reasons for practicing vegetarianism, and an individual vegetarian's choice to avoid meat may have nothing at all to do with concerns about over-consumption or inefficient consumption. She adds, 'Environmentalists' energy plan is the repudiation of America and Christian destiny, which is Jet Skis, steak on the electric grill, hot showers, and night skiing.' This consumerist position is untenable in light of much of Christian and American intellectual history. Coulter can't point to a verse in the New Testament promoting self-indulgence that could justify the conspicuous consumption of the rich while tens of thousands die every day due to malnutrition and easily treatable diseases. Jesus exhorts his followers, 'Sell that which you have, and give gifts to the needy,' and seek treasures in heaven instead of on earth. Nowhere in Coulter's book does she express concern for the troubled people of the third world where there are food and drug shortages, or for the poor in this country who can't even afford healthcare, much less jet skis or night skiing. Coulter's religion is not like that of the author of the Book of Proverbs, who prayed for neither poverty nor riches but, 'only the necessaries of life.' Her religion is not like St. Thomas Aquinas's, who went so far as to say that anything held in superabundance must be given to provide for the sustenance of the poor. If we are to infer 'Christian destiny' by looking at Christian history, we see that Coulter's ideal is nothing like the ideal put forth by most Christian leaders of the past. St. Francis of Assisi prayed, 'O Divine Master, grant that I may not so much seek,' but Coulter has said that the Biblical view is to 'rape the planet.' Coulter's distortion of history in order to misrepresent atheism is particularly disturbing. She wants us to believe that the horrors of Nazi Germany, the USSR, and the People's Republic of China are in some way due to atheism and acceptance of evolution. 'Hitler's world-view was based on Darwinism, not God,' she writes. This is clearly a lie designed to denounce Darwinism by association. It is contrary to Hitler's own words, as even a cursory reading of Mein Kampf shows. In it Hitler writes, 'Hence today I believe I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.' Though she claims that Hitler cited Darwin, she can't substantiate it, and thus this is yet another baseless assertion. Hitler was obviously either heavily influenced by Christian beliefs, or wanted to appear as though he was. Along with various other influences, Nazism undoubtedly drew from a long-standing Christian tradition of anti-Semitism. As far as I can discern, Hitler never even mentioned Darwin rather, he repeatedly claimed to be doing the will of Providence. Coulter's attempt to blame Darwin for the horrific famines in China is ironic given that they occurred partly because Communist scientists rejected Darwin. Denying what they called 'capitalist science,' they paved the way for agricultural catastrophe. Coulter even suggests that Darwin is to blame for 'Stalinist gulags.' In reality, Stalin sent scientists to gulags for espousing Darwinian evolution. Throughout the book Coulter never argues her points, but makes ad hominem attacks and false analogies, attacks straw-men and blatantly misrepresents history. She can't even distinguish between Darwinism and Social Darwinism. She is as bad on ethics as she is on science, and is completely inept regarding logical reasoning. When she says atheists are always the ones practicing genocide, she shows that she hasn't even read her scriptures. There is no 'church of liberalism,' there isn't even 'liberalism,' in Coulter's sense. Liberals are not 'pro-abortion,' and no atheist hates God. Godless is a ridiculous book and Ann Coulter lies flagrantly and is as self-righteous as she is malicious. The most controversial line in the book is her condemnation of four 9/11 widows who chose to involve themselves in politics: 'I have never seen people enjoying their husbands' death so much.' But it's not the only nasty thing she wrote in the book and she has said even worse things in the past. She has used epithets like 'raghead,' 'paki,' and 'gay boy.' She actually said, 'My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building.' Coulter's fans apparently consider death threats and violent rhetoric humorous, and she doesn't disappoint them. She is a hate-mongering reactionary who has said she is for public flogging, and against women's suffrage. I wish I were making this up. Godless is a boring collection of rants filled with utterly mind-boggling absurdities, like, 'public schools are the Left's madrassas,' 'The most important value to liberals is destroying human life' (in reference to abortion), and 'liberals made up Watergate.' We needn't worry about misinterpreting her words because she has repeatedly told interviewers that she believes everything she wrote in the book. She has even said that she never regrets anything she has ever said and she wouldn't have said anything differently. Even if the cynics are right to say that Coulter is laughing all the way to the bank and that she doesn't really believe any of it, it still reflects horribly on our media that gives her a national platform, and on our culture in which she is thriving with a lucrative speaking career and best-selling books.
It's rather odd for Miss Coulter to be wearing a cross amulet hanging freely from what it's perceived, from the hardcover portrait of the book, as a vampire's neck. Ideally, Miss Coulter would look more appropriate in the cover of Godless without her hair, resembling more the pale likeness of Nosferatu, Eine Symphonie Des Grauens, director F.W. Munarau's chilling and eerie adaptation of Stoker's Count Dracula, which is the 1922 silent masterpiece of terror which to this day is the most striking and frightening portrayal of the this legend.
As far as Miss Coulter Godless book, her presentation sounds more like a typical car sales pitch trying to convince you to indulge in neocon, pseudo-religious, propaganda by assailing a group that she calls `liberals' in a series of innuendos and ludicrous jokes with sarcastic overtones and ironic punch lines. One thing is clear from this work: it's more divisive and creative. From the beginning, she sets the stage for enmity towards a secular or more like infidel type of malevolent, immoral, ad libitum, nonconformist bohemian group of junkies, she calls `liberals'. Then more loathing ensues for the rest of the Godless' chapters. Miss Coulter fangs cut deep into the American psyche, shedding more fear into what is now a weak and bewildered society, controlled by the creation of irrational phobias by the same neo-conservativist movement mythos as that produced in the 19th century by the Robber Barons, bankers, Railroad Industrialists, and business tycoons that amassed huge personal fortunes, typically as a direct result of pursuing various anti-competitive, unfair business practices, instilling fear into the mind, and totally suckling dry of blood from the eluding captives - the middle class. If you are a Miss Coulter look alike, then this book is for you, my dear vampire.
If you want to read a better fiction mixed with hatred and terror book, then read Bram Stoker's `Dracula', this is a more precise description of what `liberals' Miss Coulter would like us believe they are than what she describes in her Godless book, which is a cheap, fiction neocon propaganda pamphlet to pass the time in the leisure your Transylvania castle.
Ann H. Coulter would like us to believe that God himself chooses my nation's leaders and that, in His infinite wisdom, He chose a lying, thieving, self-absorbed, pro-torture, pro-war, lazy frat-boy like George W. Bush. I am supposed to believe that elected representatives who voted for the Bankruptcy Bill, tax breaks for wealthy individuals, and tax subsidies for multi-billion dollar corporations are looking out for their constituents - as Ms Coulter fails to mention? Let's NOT deceive ourselves Ms Coulter is directly paid by the GOP to write books that hypocritically purport to high ethics and moral principles to obtain the vote of Christian institutions for political gain! Am I supposed to believe that an Administration whose policies make basic medical care and life-saving drugs unaffordable for millions of Americans is pro-life? Am I supposed to believe that the same people who left NOLA to drown, who refuse to secure our borders, who refuse to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, and who initiate policies that incite anger and violence the world over are protecting my country from harm? Am I supposed to believe that gutting the funding of social programs aimed at assisting the poor, the sick, the hungry and the homeless is the outcome of good Christians being in office, and that torturing, maiming and killing innocent civilians is 'doing the Lord's work'? Is this anyway like that the Godless Americans who Ms Coulter wants us to believe are Liberals? Am I supposed to believe that spying on US citizens, quashing free speech, and suspending laws that govern detention and confinement without just cause is preserving the tenets of democracy? Am I supposed to believe that alienating our allies, isolating ourselves from the world, refusing to use diplomacy instead of aggression, and causing people around the globe to hate us is the best way to protect my country from violent attack? Am I supposed to believe that no-bid contracts awarded to companies owned by members of this Administration, its families and its cronies is pure coincidence, and that secret meetings resulting in policies that enrich their supporters to the detriment of hard-working Americans is good and honest government. If only I were GULLIBLE, ILL-INFORMED, EASILY LED and FOOLISH as Ms Coulter's readers are - what a FINE Bush supporter I would have made! PLEASE, DON'T BOTHER BUYING THIS BOOK !
89 of 127 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars Dishonest and ignorant rant,
I didn't have a very high opinion about American Christian conservatives before, but reading this book have changed my view. This is a bestselling book by leading conservative intellectual Ann Coulter, and it has received many positive reviews (e.g. here at Amazon), so now I am forced to conclude that some conservatives are far dumber than I had ever imagined.
Coulter's main types of argumentation are (1) name calling (2) fabrications and fantasies (3) massive omissions of relevant facts and (4) a black-and-white thinking that makes her the intellectual equal of such subtle thinkers as Hitler and Stalin (and if you find such comparisons offensive, please don't read Coulter's book because it is full of them). Actually, I find myself at times wondering whether the book (or at least parts of it) is just a joke, not intendend to be taken seriously. In particular the first chapter is full of completely bizarre statements: "Liberalism is a belief system denying the Christian belief in an immortal soul", "environmentalists want mass infanticide", "the core of environmentalism is that they hate mankind", "birds are like rats, you couldn't get rid of them even if you tried", "if Hitler hadn't turned on their beloved Stalin, Liberals would have stuck by him too", "I would be crestfallen to find any liberals in heaven". And that is just a small sample that really cannot do justice to the vileness and stupidity of this book.
Much of the book adresses issues related to science. Coulter's approach to analysing science consists of not reading any scientific literature, ignoring almost all the data, completely missunderstanding how science works and in particular what constitutes evidence and disproof, and then calling scientists liars, cultists, hysterics and lots of other names. Take global warming. One might expect that a fact like an increase of the mean annual global surface temperature of around 0.6 C the last century would have been relevant if one discusses whether global warming occurs, but Coulter stays clear of any such facts. Her whole treatment of evidence consists of a reference to a statement made by comedian Larry David's wife about a hot September. But I suppose a conservative could find that an adequate treatment of a scientific subject.
There are four chapters of evolution. They appear to be entirely based on creationst literature (in particular Jonathan Wells), and basically contain a repetition of old creationist arguments and quote mining, with an extra dosis of stupidity, vilification and ignorance added for measure. Just a brief example of how Coulter deals with the few pieces of evidence she does adress: she mentions that scientists had found a fossil in Greenland this year of "an odd-looking fish with weird appendages and pronounced the missing link between fish and land animals". What she doesn't mention is that (1) it was a fish with limbs, although not strong enough for walking on land, and with a neck - which you otherwise don't find on fish - and quite an amphibian skull, and (2) a lot of similar critters have been found before, including amphibians a few million years younger, with gills and tails like fish and somewhat more developed limbs. Actually, the scientists that found the fish knew where to look based on these previous findings. That is real science being done. But while real scientists are digging up real evidence for evolution, Coulter is busy trying to bury the same evidence under a stinking pile of ignorance, poor logic, and insults.
Or just take the challenges to evolutions posed by Behe's argument of irreducible complexity and Dembski's "complicated mathematic formulas for detecting design". Coulter claims that evolutionary scientists have been completely unable to respond to these challenges, but that is blatantly false. You can even find several book here at Amazon that refute Behe's and Dembski's pseudoscientific arguments.
Or consider Coulter's absurd discussion about "bad mutations" in the fossil record, were she claims that according to evolutionary theory we should have found things like "a dog that mutated antennae, or gills, or a tail on its head." I believe Coulter is confusing evolutionary theory with Marvel comics!
In summary, this is a stupid and dishonest book written for people that don't like to think and don't want to know. The fact that it has become a bestseller speaks volumes about the intellectual state among Christian conservatives and should worry anybody that is concerned about the future of science and democracy in the US.
Most Helpful First | Newest First
Godless: The Church of Liberalism by Ann Coulter (Paperback - June 26, 2007)