And that's why we call them IDiots

Joe Felsenstein has a guest post on the Panda's Thumb in which he dissects a totally bogus statistical game some intelligent design creationist was playing. In a few short paragraphs he shows clearly and plainly how wrong the creationist is, which is why he is Joe Felsenstein, I guess.

Meanwhile, the creationists go on imperturbably, completely failing to recognize that they've been cut off at the knees. It's hilarious.

For further hilarity, Felsenstein quotes an amusing revelation from the gang at Uncommon Descent:

At UD we have many brilliant ID apologists, and they continue to mount what I perceive as increasingly indefensible assaults on the creative powers of the Darwinian mechanism of random errors filtered by natural selection.

Yes, they are increasingly indefensible. When will they realize it?

More like this

That's the sound you should hear when Joe Felsenstein takes on an idiotic claim by Sal Cordova.
His recent "peer-reviewed paper" has prompted one giant to look down and notice: Joe Felsenstein gives it a brief dismissal.
Over at the Discovery Institute's blog, Winston Ewert has a post up explaining, one more time, what specified complexity is. Since I am given a mention near the end, perhaps it's worth a look.
If you've ever looked at an evolutionary tree, contemplated phylogeny, cladistics, or the like, you're probably aware that Joe Felsenstein is one of the leaders of the pack.