The clear reasoning of the right wing
Cybercast News Service: Most people consider evolution to be a branch of science, or at least a scientific theory, yet in "Godless," you refer to it as a "cult" and a "fetish." What is your basis for calling it that?It makes perfect sense. All those fossils we have that are transitional between earlier and more modern forms are actually contradictory with evolution. And since it's possible to believe in evolution and God or not to believe in God, evolution is clearly an atheist plot intended to promote godless beliefs.
Ann Coulter: There is no evidence that it is true. The fossil record contradicts it, and it is a theory that cannot be disproved. Whatever happens is said to "prove" evolution. This is the very definition of a pseudoscience, like astrology. (Of course, I would say that. I'm just a Capricorn, aren't I?)
Cybercast News Service: Creationism is not considered a science because it can't be observed or empirically tested. You assert in your book that the theory of evolution has the same problems. Why then has the U.S. public school system been willing to accept the theory of evolution, but snubbed creationism?
Ann Coulter: Because evolution is the official state religion. Although it is possible to believe in God and evolution, it is not possible to not believe in God without believing in evolution -- otherwise, atheists have no explanation for why we are here. Thus, it's very important for the liberal clergy to force small school children to believe in a discredited mystery religion from the 19th century -- evolution -- in order to prepare them to believe in the nonexistence of God, one of the main goals of the American public education system.
But what I want to comment on is this passage, in which she considers environmentalists:
Cybercast News Service: Do you think any of them has ever used the type of dry toilet that they advocate?My emphasis.
Ann Coulter: Well, that would certainly explain why they're so cranky all the time. Dry toilets are worthless. You can't even use them to destroy a copy of the Koran. And believe me, I've tried.
Of course, in 2005 she was complaining about art showing a crucifix in a jar of urine and "a performance of large, sexually explicit props covered with Bibles performing a wide variety of sex acts and concluding with a mass Bible-burning." I admire the clear logic and the careful consideration of the full consequences of her premises.
Hallelujah! I'm a believer!