Here’s Ann Coulter, on science as done by trial lawyers and activists:
In response to my column last week about hormesis – the theory that some radiation can be beneficial to humans – liberals reacted with their usual open-minded examination of the facts.
According to Noel Sheppard at Newsbusters, MSNBC’s Ed Schultz devoted an entire segment to denouncing me. He called me toxic, accused me of spreading misinformation and said I didn’t care about science.
One thing Schultz did not do, however, was cite a single physicist or scientific study.
I cited three physicists by name as well as four studies supporting hormesis in my column.
Just think. There was a time when science was based on evidence (not always easy to come by).
Not on myths, rituals, incantations against evil, superstitions, and witless worship.
The latter state pretty much characterises peoples unreached by the conceptual revolution of the last ten thousand years, and also today’s lecture room and pulpit Darwinists (cf worshipping the Beard*).
I get the impression that Coulter doesn’t like “liberals.” Oh well, come to think of it, I don’t like Darwin’s broomsticks, and have made that clear enough. But she offers a fun romp through the lint trap of science (which wouldn’t matter if it weren’t inflicted on the rest of us).
By the way, if you are convinced that Coulter’s out to lunch re radiation, consider the real ecological aftermath of Chernobyl: No new species. Great old ones, though.
* File this under Ethnography: There are other “Beard worship” cults. Popular Darwinism is the only tax-funded one known to the author.