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.
More like this
Andy Schlafly, the blinkered pudyanker at Conservapædia, has been on an impotent crusade against Richard Lenski for some time, and to his own routine self-humiliation.
I'm surprised that I haven't seen a spate of posts from certain quarters proclaiming that the Lenski-Schlafly dustup is good for creationists.
Cut-and-paste creationism?
The situation on the right wing must be getting bad when you can't even tell Jack Kemp and Phyllis Schlafly apart a