The Panda's Thumb currently features two essays thoroughly fisking attempts by pro-ID pundits to defend ID. The first post, by Timothy Sandefur, deals with an article from Hugh Hewitt, the religious right talk show host (and ironically, Sandefur's con law professor in law school). The second, by Steve Reuland, absolutely blisters a ridiculous column by Phyllis Schlafly on the same subject. Schlafly has written numerous similar columns in the past, all showing a very poor grasp of both the science involved and the basic use of logic.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Krauze at Telic Thoughts has a post about the recent disagreement between Sandefur and I that was posted partially here and partially at Positive Liberty. First was my post objecting to Daniel Dennett's suggestion that Genie Scott is being less than sincere in arguing that evolution and religion…
I've had several people ask me recently what the word "fisking" means, as I use it often. I had only a vague conception of it myself, as a thorough refutation of a blog entry or article, but lo and behold I came across a good definition::
fisking: n.
[blogosphere; very common] A point-by-point…
Jay Wexler of the Boston University School of Law has an upcoming article in the Washington University Law Quarterly which responds to the arguments of Francis Beckwith concerning the constitutionality of teaching ID. Beckwith is a Discovery Institute fellow and the associate director of the Dawson…
Phyllis Schlafly has suddenly become interested in evolution! She has written the most staggering display of buffoonery on the subject that I've read in a long time. She can't even tell the difference between Darwin and Lamarck--seriously. At least Steve Reuland at Panda's Thumb can dismantle this…