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.