Jonathan Witt has a great post about Dilbert taking on a fire-breathing militant evolutionist. There are a lot of good links in the article that elaborate on the basic story. (And the basic story is: why would an alleged scientist bother to make a spectacle of himself by going ballistic over what a cartoonist has to say? Who’s next in his line of fire? Nancy and Sluggo?) At the end of Jonathan’s post, he relays a suggestion from a victim of this over-the-top biologist’s venom, a victim (and an atheist) who argues that the Discovery Institute should bankroll the guy, seeing as he is something of an embarrassment to his own cause.
That is indeed a fascinating dynamic, when someone is so awful at making any sort of reasoned, cogent argument that you wish he would defect to the opposition.
Jonathan also has a good op-ed in today's Seattle Times.