BarryA at Uncommon Descent talks about a startling finding using this tool the blog readability test.

Thanks to one of our commenters for pointing out this website that calculates the reading level of blogs. Just for fun I inserted UD and it came back “High School,” which means that the general discussion at this blog is at a high school level. I then inserted Pandas Thumb and it came back “Elementary School.”

Make of this what you will.

Interesting, when I insert I get College/Post Grad. Oh wait, I forgot, the people at UD are morons. They put in, an unregistered domain.

Now granted, this is a really stupid metric, that doesn’t really say much of anything, but you’d think these geniuses could at least criticize the right website. The only lesson here is never take anything the evolution denialists cdesign proponentsists say at face value.


  1. #1 Ian B Gibson
    November 12, 2007

    No, I’d say that the lesson is that creationists are an infinite time, energy and sanity sink and it’s best to just ignore them if you value your allocation of any of these resources.

  2. #2 Bronze Dog
    November 12, 2007

    That’s what we thought a few decades ago, Ian. Didn’t really get us anywhere.

  3. #3 Scott
    November 13, 2007 gets a “Genius” level.

  4. #4 small words for small minds
    November 13, 2007

    The only lesson here is never take anything the evolution denialists cdesign proponentsists say at face value.

    There’s also the lesson that creationists are a really stupid bunch.

  5. #5 Pierce R. Butler
    November 13, 2007

    Shouldn’t the good guys hustle to register the name before some major intellect (relatively speaking) among the creationists starts getting what passes for a brilliant brainstorm in their circles regarding potential prankery?

  6. #6 Harry Abernathy
    November 13, 2007

    I kind of wish the real Panda’s Thumb website had returned an elementary reading level. Wouldn’t that reinforce the point that evolution is such common sense that even a fifth grader can understand it?

  7. #7 Dustin
    November 13, 2007

    That thread was particularly illuminating. Dembski chimed in with a site that would check a block of text against the Flesch-Kincaid readability indicator. Now why would Dembski know about such a thing? He isn’t an editor for USA Today, and he isn’t a (real) educator.

    I have this creeping feeling that Dembski modifies his “math” until it scores below a 10 on the readability indicator so that he can delude himself into thinking it’s bona fide scholarship while ensuring that his bafflegab is baffling enough.

  8. #8 testing
    November 20, 2007

    s bafflegab is baffling enough.


New comments have been temporarily disabled. Please check back soon.