R.J. Anderson (rj_anderson) wrote,
R.J. Anderson

Dilbert Rides Again

As expected, the Dilbert Blog entry I mentioned in my last post generated a huge amount of acrimony from the Darwinist side. I was particularly amused by the comments on the rebuttal blog Scott mentions in his most recent follow-up post, most of which indicated that the posters were severely humor-impaired and munching on sour grapes to boot ("I never thought Dilbert was funny! Adams is really only reinforcing the workplace atrocities he claims to mock! He's just like the pointy-haired boss! Wah!").

Like Scott says, there is a serious lack of credibility involved when people can't read a patently tongue-in-cheek article suggesting that their views could be partially incorrect without going off into frothing mania. The sheer rage the whole ID debate has generated, even in the blog of a notoriously irreverent cartoonist who never once said he believed in ID, proves that evolution is just as much dogma and sacred cow as it is scientific theory.

(And BTW, the first person to use Flat-Earthism in an analogy while attempting to defend/explain why Darwinists get so emotional about ID automatically loses the debate. It's the Godwin's Law of creation/evolution arguments -- trite and old and ultimately self-defeating.)

In other news, Paul fell asleep at 6 p.m. last night and woke at 12 a.m. in a very cheerful mood, which ultimately meant that I am operating on about two hours' sleep. Urggh.

But on a positive note, there is new Snapefic on my LiveJournal for those of you who like that sort of thing.
Tags: science
  • Post a new comment


    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded