Is what I've been talking about:
Ann Coulter says, in an interview on her latest screed,
John Hawkins: If you were to pick three concepts, facts, or ideas that most undercut the theory of evolution, what would they be?
Ann Coulter: 1. It's illogical. 2. There's no physical evidence for it. 3. There's physical evidence that directly contradicts it. Apart from those three concerns I'd say it's a pretty solid theory.
P.Z. Myers cites this over there on his blog, Phayngula,
and there is some discourse about whether Coulter means this or is just scamming the public -- pretending she doesn't believe in evolution because she knows this is what her idiot winger readers want to hear.
And you know, I would go for that second explanation if it weren't for the fact that I know plenty of otherwise intelligent folk (no, really, they are!) who buy all this idiocy about evolution not being proven. Usually it's because they know nothing about it -- because they're getting their information from folks like Rush and Coulter and their preachers -- but they are not lying. They mean it. They actually believe that evolution is not based on evidence.
This is what I mean by bugfuck nuts, frankly. How can this happen? How can we be living in the same universe? What do these people think folks like P. Z. Myers are doing with his time? Do they honestly think P. Z. Myers spends years and years studying evidence and then...what? Lies about it? Just so he won't have to admit Mr. Jesus exists?
Not just Myers, either, but thousands of scholars, all over the world? All in cahoots?
And they'll prefer to believe Coulter? Because she's studied biology and genetics and paleontology for...never? And is therefore qualified to examine the evidence why?
But I shouldn't be surprised. These folks won't take my opinion on what movie is worth watching, even though I've spent 20 years studying just that subject. Why would they take P.Z. Myers judgment on where guppies come from?
23 minutes ago