The American Spectator

I hesitate to comment on anything related to Ann Coulter, thereby contributing to her unseemly prominence as a public figure. However, Richard Kirk’s review of her book does provide food for thought. To my knowledge, there are currently no valid arguments disproving Darwinism, and there have never been any valid arguments proving the existence of God. When Darwinism is linked to discredited individuals, nothing is done to topple the theory. Using that kind of defective logic, Albert Einstein could be considered a mass-murderer, since his theories led to the development of the atomic bomb. Darwinism can be seen as a de facto religion, but it is quite different from religion in that it is based on the scientific method, and is therefore subject to change as new evidence is obtained and new scientific tools are developed. This country is more the product of the rationalism of the Enlightenment, which expresses itself directly in our constitution, than it is of theology. If the U.S.A. ever becomes a theocracy, it will bear little distinction from the Taliban.

p>After sporadically reading TAS online for a few months, I’m thoroughly sick of the words “liberal” and “conservative.” I don’t think either word meaningfully identifies anything, and the result is pointless bickering. Politics is a difficult field as it is, and is harder than ever now that the natives are getting restless and are starting to throw rationality out of the window. It would benefit the country immensely if a few prominent politicians stood up and said that religion must never have a role in the government of the United States of America. Democrats and Republicans alike have been too cowardly to do it. br> — Paul Dorell br> Highland Park, Illinois /p>

I love most of Ann Coulter’s work but I think Intelligent Design is not scientific at all while evolution seems like a solid scientific theory.

p>I also think that Ann would be way more effective if she would ratchet back her attacks by 5 or 10 percent. For example, when she attacked the New Jersey 9/11 widows, I agree that the widows used their husbands’ deaths for political gain in a disgusting way. What dismays me is that Ann said these wives enjoyed their husbands’ deaths or that maybe their husbands were planning on divorcing them (the New Jersey 9/11 widows). Ann simply destroys her own credibility when she goes so far. You might even say that she is like her hero Joe McCarthy in that she has a lot of good points to make but destroys these valid points by going too far and making unnecessary points that are not true and also personally attacking her political foes. It makes her seem crazy. It is too bad, because she is a brilliant woman. br> — unsigned /p> p> INDICT TIMES