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.
More like this
Coturnix is organizing an informative google bomb — if you look up Michael Egnor on the web, what should you find? How about lots and lots of critics?
It seems only fair. Teach the controversy!
...like this (explanation here):
In the back-channels here on Scienceblogs and on Panda's Thumb we were discussing the pros and cons of paying so much attention to one Dr.Michael Egnor, a new creationist shill for the Discovery Institute.
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.)