The Discovery Institute almost fooled me with their Michael Egnor impersonation. We know the real Egnor was just testing folks like me out, and that we fell for it. My apologies to the real Dr. Egnor, I almost believed there really were people who didn't think bacteria evolved, that medicine hasn't improved since Galen, or that science has learned nothing since Linnaeus.
Thoughts from Kansas
You will notice that it lacks definiteness; that it lacks purpose; that it lacks coherence; that it lacks a subject to talk about; that it is loose and wabbly; that it wanders around; that it loses itself early and does not find itself any more. --Mark Twain
Search
Profile
Joshua Rosenau spends his days defending the teaching of evolution at the National Center for Science Education. He is formerly a doctoral candidate at the University of Kansas, in the department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology. When not battling creationists or modeling species ranges, he writes about developments in progressive politics and the sciences.
The opinions expressed here are his own, do not reflect the official position of the NCSE. Indeed, older posts may no longer reflect his own official position.
Sb/DonorsChoose Drive
Thanks!
Recent Posts
- Pascal's lament and E. B. White
- Free contraception for everyone!
- Godwin's Law
- NCSE takes on climate change
- A new identity?
- Belief is part of identity
- Endlessly classy
- Does Jerry Coyne read his own blog?
- Disco. 'tute: Dawkins too scary for kids, too mean to miracles
- Research methodology 101
Recent Comments
- Sesli Chat on Belief is part of identity
- Makai on A new identity?
- Anthony McCarthy on Free contraception for everyone!
- Marion Delgado on Godwin's Law
- afrika mangosu on Godwin's Law
- afrika mangosu on Godwin's Law
- Just Say No on Godwin's Law
- v-pills on Does Jerry Coyne read his own blog?
- Anthony McCarthy on Godwin's Law
- Juris Doctor on A new identity?
Archives
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- May 2005
- April 2005
- March 2005
- February 2005
- January 2005
- December 2004
- November 2004
- August 2004
Subscribe to TfK:
Accolades
Good posts from history
The Birth of Intelligent Falling
A failure of Intelligent Design
Why it's called Intelligent Design Creationism
Support TfK
Buy me things from my Amazon.com wishlist.
Buy yourself things!
Add yourself to the Frappr map!
« How Harun Yahya and the Discovery Institute changed my mind | Main | On a more serious note »
My apologies
Category: Chatter
Posted on: April 1, 2007 6:39 PM, by Josh Rosenau
TrackBacks
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/37100
Comments
Check the real Michael Egnor's April Fools' day post at http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/04/what_if_darwinism_were_right.html#more
The PT joke will give the DI a laugh too I think.
Posted by: Mike | April 1, 2007 7:25 PM
So, they were parodying their own position? They're anti-envolutionists, but they're not those kind of far-out loopy anti-evolutionists? The DI thumbs their noses at the real loopy anti-evolutionists.
Aren't people in the reality based world silly when they fail to distinguish between a true anti-envolutionist position, and an anti-evolutionist parody of an anti-evolutionist position? Can't evolutionists be trusted to distinguish an apple from an orange?
(Honestly, the fruity ideas the DI chooses to work with are solely characterized by their moldy rotteness. It overwhelms any subtlety.)
Posted by: crf | April 1, 2007 10:49 PM