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.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
You know, I'm really tired of this.
I'm tired of my fellow physicians with a penchant for spouting scientifically ignorant "attacks" on or "doubts" about evolution. It embarrasses the hell out of me around ScienceBlogs, and I really wish they would stop it. Sadly, it seems to be an increasingly…
I need some β-blockers STAT.
I say that not because I'm hypertensive or because I'm having heart palpitations--at least not at the moment. I'm saying it because, after reading the latest brave foray into antievolutionary ignorance by--as much as I hate to admit it--a fellow surgeon named Dr.…
So the Discovery Institute's most recent addition has chosen to reply to my post about
tautologies. (Once again, I'm not linking to him; I will not willingly be a source of hits for the DI website when they're promoting dangerous ingorance like this.) Typically, he manages to totally miss the…
...That all around evolution-ignorant but nonetheless eager lapdog of the Discovery Institute, SUNY Stonybrook Professor of Neurosurgery Dr. Michael Egnor, is back.
Rats. I thought that the utter drubbing he took at the hands of myself and my fellow ScienceBloggers (in particular PZ Myers) might…
Check the real Michael Egnor's April Fools' day post at http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/04/what_if_darwinism_were_right.html#…
The PT joke will give the DI a laugh too I think.
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.)