(Photo from wikipedia,
here)
I've been reading some right wing pundits for a couple of years now. By and large, I disagree with them wholly and in part. To quote my Dad when he listened to Limbaugh (something even I can't stomach), "you got to watch those bastards."
I also considered evolution pretty much proven. So far, every time evolution has been put to the test it's been shown to happen as predicted. Sometimes, it happens in a surprising manner-- which should not, actually, be surprising since life has been around a lot longer than we have. Evolution has been shown to function as reliably and provably as, say, the combustion engine, electricity and gravity. Probably more than gravity since we know more about evolution than gravity. We can actually observe evolution's intricacies in real time and often demonstrate them in the laboratory.
I find myself in recent years using accepting the fact of evolution something of an intelligence test. Not that I don't think people who don't accept it are idiots and dolts per se. It's just that anybody that can't accept the facts of something that shows itself more obvious and reliable than a light bulb have to show their intelligence in order for me to find it credible.
Enter the right wing pundits.
I regularly read Ann Coulter, Pat Buchanan and Newt Gingrich. I also read, second hand, Rush Limbaugh since I find him objectionable. It's just easier to read him once the vitriol has been wrung out a bit. I don't read Coulter the same way since if you wring the vitriol out of her material there's not much left.
So far, Coulter (
here and
here), Buchanan (
here) and Limbaugh (
here) have come out not being able to find their butts with both hands.
Gingrich has come out and can find his butt in that he understands that evolution is the best model of biology.
This means that Coulter, Buchanan and Limbaugh have shown that facts do not sway them in the pursuit of their ideology. I'd say they were idiots but idiots don't get to be millionaires. So I'm less forgiving. They're either liars or ideologues. Regardless, either category makes them uncredible. If they are liars or ideologues in one area, it makes them less credible in other areas.
Gingrich is more interesting. I don't like him. I don't like his politics. I think he's opened an evil gate in the heart of politics by attempting to remove the barrier between Church and State. Even so, though it's clear he would be more comfortable in a created universe he accepts the evidence. Consequently, I'm more inclined to listen to his rhetoric.
Not a
lot more inclined. But Coulter, Buchanan and Limbaugh have shown themselves to be unfit for listening.
But they do present a question for human evolution. How does natural selection work if bozos like
these survive and reproduce?
=================================
Wall of IdiotsA visit to the Creation Museum and
hereDolphin Safe TunaUS Bank.
Links of InterestThe Chaotic BrainHitler's Stealth FighterLosing Lousiana and
hereExtinction OscillationFirefly biologyDevelopment of the SpineV: The Fiat TankFireworks ToxicityPapercraft CastleComets seeded earth's early atmosphereAnt MegacolonyV: Ghost VideosTimbrel VaultingV: Slow Motion VideosDIYV: Fat Man and Circuit GirlBest Beef RibsV:Transformer RobotSpoon FlowerLithophanes$50 Knife ShopPyrophoric IronPobiano Chicken BurgersReview: Folding BikesReview: Science KitsMotors and MicrocontrollersSunscreenGetting Rid of AntsDroning MachineWhat to have in the medicine chestEcholocation for Humans
Posts
