Matthews, O'Rourke, and Monkeys

PJ O'Rourke on HARDBALL you know that hadda be good

It seems to me that Chris Matthews knew better than engage PJ O'Rourke in a battle of wits, and played straight man.  But here's the thing.  I could care less about the evolution/creationist thing, but I'm at least familiar with both arguments.  People like Mathews (liberals) dismiss out of hand any concept that has the slightest specter of God, e.g. climate change, abortion, and certainly creationism. This is not an atheistic deal; Matthews considers himself a practicing Catholic (which tenets happen to be trumped by his real god, statism).   What O'Donnel,  perhaps,  was trying to say when Maher cut her off was, "Even Darwin acknowledged "the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe … as the result of blind chance or necessity."  How many times in your lifetime have you read the headline, "Missing Link May Have Been Found?"  Why is that so exciting to evolutionists? Jonah Lehrer,  a contributing editor at Wired, smugly took on Ann Coulter's extensive writings on the subject  here: “ Coulter's mistake is an ancient one. She insists that because we can't touch, taste or dissect evolution, then it can't really exist. In other words, if something isn't reducible into physical terms, then it's just another abstraction, no more tenable than God. This is why Coulter equates "the ideology of evolutionary biologists" with "religious fundamentalism." For Coulter, both beliefs are acts of faith. ” Am I nuts, or doesn't this precisely describe the nexus of atheism, as well as evolutionist theory?  Despite the can of worms this opens, these are rhetorical questions since I'm not inclined to argue the point by typewriter. Call it a king's prerogative.