Creationist brain surgeon Michael Egnor has been busy over the last couple of days, posting first a "[response](http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/04/oracs_challenge_do_scientists.html)" to Orac's challenge then a "[response](http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/04/darwinist_all_scientific_theor.html)" to Mark ChuCarroll's repeated attempts to explain the concept of tautology to him. There have been several responses to these two posts over at various of the Scienceblogs already - [PZ](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/04/egnors_latest_kookfests.php), [Orac](http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/04/dr_egnors_deviously_clever_plan_to_destr.php), [Mark](http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2007/04/todays_tautology_egnor_writes_1.php), and [Kevin](http://scienceblogs.com/bushwells/2007/04/egnors_awful_example_of_design.php) have all addressed one or both of Egnor's latest claims, and all of their responses are worth reading. I'm actually feeling a little left out right now - after all, Egnor still hasn't deigned to address the two specific examples I presented of cases where natural selection has and is playing a role in public health decisions.
I'm not going to address Egnor's claims about the role of the design inference in medicine at the moment. The stupidity really does burn, and Orac did a superb job of working through the brain spasms to deal with that post. Kevin and Mark have also done a good job addressing some of Egnor's claims in the more recent "tautology" post, but I think that there is something that I can add to their responses. An introduction - Dr. Egnor, I'd like to introduce you to Sir Ronald Aylmer Fisher, FRS.