In his Panda’s Thumb article Ann Coulter: No evidence for evolution? Paul demonstrates a classic case of projection with this statement:
I’m not interested in writing such a lengthy rebuttal, and I’m sure this is exactly what Coulter is counting onâ€â€tell enough lazy lies, and no one in the world will have time enough to correct them conscientiously. She’s a shameless fraud.
This sounds exactly like what the tireless defenders of chance and necessity have done in their doctrinal libraries of “evidence” that chance and necessity are the drivers of change that turned bacteria into baboons. Tell enough lazy lies of all this evidence, 150 years worth of it now, and no one in the world will have time enough to correct them conscientiously. These tireless defenders of Darwinian doctrine are shameless frauds.
Actually that was the pre-internet strategy. It isn’t working so well anymore because the internet isn’t subject to censorship by a corrupt system of peer review where any scientist who dares oppose the group-think Darwinist dogma is ostracized as is any editor who would dare allow such opposition to appear in print. Now the only crutch allowing the Darwinian narrative dogma to limp along with exclusivity in our schools is to call any criticism of its dogmatic preaching a breach of the establishment clause of the constitution. So the purveyors of Darwinian dogma continue to hold an exclusive but increasingly tenuous grasp on the indoctrination of young minds into their chance worshipping worldview. They know full well that any honest examination of the evidence will support natural selection changing the size of finch beaks and color of moth wings, that the fossil record and common genetic code among extant creatures strongly implies a deep common relationship among all species living and extinct, but that there is no empirical evidence that these relationships are without purpose, thought, or design. They also know that any honest evalution of the evidence, most notably the nanometer scale molecular evidence acquired in the last few decades, shows that the basic molecular machinery of all living things is a complex digital program code that drives complex interdependent nanometer scale machines with no conceivable way of self-assembling in the first place. Honest examination of the actual evidence with honest criticisms of dogmatic interpretations of it can’t be tolerated in public schools. That’s because the evidence doesn’t support the Darwinian dogma and even a 9th grader, perhaps especially a 9th grader who still has an open mind and willingness to question authority, can see how hollow the Darwinian narrative really is and absent indoctrination to the contrary, the few that will proceed to higher education in the biological sciences will carry their skepticism with them all the way through.
The other dishonest thing Paul does right off the bat is uses the term “evolution” in the loosest sense of descent with modification and then presumes that Coulter is disavowing that broad definition of evolution when in fact Coulter is doing nothing of the sort but is rather only bashing, and bashing really well, the baseless notion that evolution is a purposeless process driven solely by chance and necessity. It’s a good thing Meyers is a flaming atheist because if he thought for a moment he might be held accountable by a higher authority for his flaming dishonesty he’d have to rethink the whole equation.