It’s in the nature of cranks and denialists not to really object to other forms of crankery, as long as the other crank or denialist is also sowing doubt about the same scientific theory. This fits in with proof 295,232 that intelligent design isn’t a science. Witness an IDer who really loves the Creation Museum. O’Leary even likes their idea that chameleons change color to “talk” to each other in the Garden of Eden:
And, if you are not a frothing Darwinist, it is not always clear who is right:
Nature here is not “red in tooth and claw,” as Tennyson asserted. In fact at first it seems almost as genteel as Eden’s dinosaurs. We learn that chameleons, for example, change colors not because that serves as a survival mechanism, but “to ‘talk’ to other chameleons, to show off their mood, and to adjust to heat and light.”
The creationists could well be right about the chameleons. Darwinian theory needs the colour change to be a survival mechanism and interprets just about everything in that light. The chameleon itself may not have any such need. If you think that everything about life forms exists in some relation to a survival mechanism, you have spent too much time among Darwinists.
Can you believe it? An IDer who is more than happy to entertain this batty theory that chameleon’s camouflage has nothing to do with survival, instead it’s some pre-lapsarian lizard Morse code. Never mind that if they believe in science at all they should reject the findings of the museum as psuedoscientific garbage. Never mind that ID is trying to represent itself as a science, and as such should reject young-earth creationism as a rejection of not just biology, but archeology, geology and physics (and many other fields of science I’m sure).