Crackpots

The Smithsonian is taking money from crackpot creationists (there is no other kind of creationist) to let them screen a movie propounding their crackpot (I am trying to make a point here) views. In their report on this, The New York Times manages the relatively nuanced "Although Charles Darwin's theory is widely viewed as having been proved by fossil records and modern biological phenomena, it is challenged by those who say that it is flawed and that alternatives need to be taught." Unlike me, they are unwilling to use the word "crackpot" -- are you getting my point? -- which I think is a shame. Pharyngula points out that arch-sceptic James Randi is offering to do something about it, and admonishes us to help.

Meanwhile, Pharyngula (who is emphatically not a crackpot!) comments on another bit of crackpot dross (actually, he prefers the harsher "moron") called 'Entropy: Enemy of Evolution?' which opens with the manifestly incorrect statement "Very few scientists have considered or pondered the implications of the law of entropy upon the theory of evolution" and descends from there. In addition to his own commentary, Pharyngula points to further excellent rejoinders to the crackpots at Talk.Origins.

Finally, Sean Carroll makes the excellent point that "It's a characteristic feature of crackpots in any field, as seen in the Einstein skeptics as well -- a sneaking suspicion that the so-called experts could be so completely stupid as to miss a point that is so obvious any high-schooler could come up with it. Or an Intellectual Conservative."

P.S. sorry for any access problems over the weekend -- due to a power failure at a nearby station...