From here. Almost as good as this one from December 23, 2005:
Tom Toles nails it yet again
Categories:
7 Comments
About this Entry
This page contains a single entry by Nick Matzke published on August 4, 2006 1:00 PM.
Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.
Categories
- Assault on Science (424)
- Bathroom Wall (13)
- Book Reviews (60)
- Conferences (21)
- Darwin's Finches (1)
- Designoids (8)
- Education and Legal (84)
- Eugenics (1)
- Evolution (520)
- Expelled (69)
- Flyers/Pamphlets (3)
- Humor (136)
- ID/Creationism (65)
- Icons (1)
- Journal Club (28)
- Legal Issues (121)
- Manufactroversy (11)
- Medicine and Evolution (19)
- Metatalk (87)
- MustRead (5)
- News Roundup (27)
- Prebiotic Chemistry (5)
- Question of the Day (6)
- Question of the Moment
- Quote of the Day (14)
- Religion and Politics (11)
- Research News (53)
- Resources for Biologists (19)
- Shoptalk (28)
- Slightly Off Topic (48)
- Steve Steve (69)
- Sticky (2)
- Their Own Words (19)
- Theological Issues with Intelligent Design (9)
- War on Science (38)
- What motivates creationism (20)
Makes me proud of having worked on the same college newspaper with Tom. On the other hand, I was also working with Howie Kurtz.
Excellent. Simply excellent.
GW
Isn’t this presenting the misguided “ladder of evolution” concept though?
Yes, but the rules say that’s OK in cartoons on the editorial page.
You can expect to see the diagram in the first of those cartoons snipped out of the rest of the frame and showing up in the next edition of ‘Icons of Evolution’ as another ‘fraud’ by the ‘Darwinists’.
Afterall, the rules also say that scientific theories stand or fall on their explanatory and predictive power and the extent to which they are born out in observation and experiment, and the IDers have never accepted those rules either, so why would they obey the rules of editorial cartooning?
You must mean this one.
I like how non-science is so not scientific:
In a 288 page paperback.
Update