Say what you want about the Discovery Institute; they are prolific! Evolution News & Views alone publishes several articles a day. I’m lucky if I can crank out three a week, and I try to limit the proportion that are about cdesign proponentsists being wrong. It’s a continual temptation, because those posts are easier to write than, say, digging into a peer-reviewed article. PZ promises me that blogging on FtB will eventually earn me enough to buy a cup of coffee, but I have a job. All of this means that I have to let a lot of big, juicy targets sail by. So, quickly:

Thank you, Michael Denton; no evolutionary biologist ever considered the possibility that not everything is adaptive. To answer your question, some aspects of leaf shape are adaptive, some are not. Next.

Another example of “it’s complicated, so it must be designed,” this one contains the gem,

…we know design when we see it.

Well…I concede this one, though I would argue that ID’s “excellent decade” is exaggerated. People should stop saying ID is dead; it isn’t, and it’s not likely to die soon.

I’ve already mentioned the Discovery Institute’s goal of unnecessarily prolonging human suffering.

Except the ones that aren’t. David Klinghoffer needs to read more science.

Beg the question much?

Persecution complex?

3% battery left.