1. pharyngula
  2. And that's why we call them IDiots

And that's why we call them IDiots

By pharyngula on June 16, 2011.

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?

Tags
creationism

More like this

Uncommon hypocrisy
I thought that silly Intelligent Design blog, Uncommon Descent, was going to have a new and enlightened comment policy, in which people would be allowed to criticize ID without risk of deletion. That's what they said, at least. You knew it couldn't be true: they're already sharpening the knives to…
Two Things that Don't Go Together: Michael Egnor and Intellectual Integrity
Someone once pointed out that when a dog pisses on a fire hydrant, it's not committing an act of vandalism. It's just being a dog. It's possible to use that analogy to excuse a creationist who takes a quote wildly out of context, I suppose, but I don't think it's really appropriate. Creationists…
Baylor has a stalker
(Note addendum to this post: the infamous Uncommon Descent memory hole is in operation.) A while back, Bill Dembski was bragging about how he was going to be snuffling about Baylor University, affiliating himself with an ID research lab there. It was a strange situation: a serious lab working on ID…
Joe Carter strings together some noise
Joe Carter is making a curiously convoluted argument. He's trying to get at why the majority of the American public does not accept the theory of evolution, and he's made a ten part list of reasons, which boils down to placing the blame on the critics of intelligent design creationism. We're all…