Finally finished this paper that's been in my tabs for days: "Irreducible Incoherence and Intelligent Design: A Look into the Conceptual Toolbox of a Pseudoscience." Stumbled across it playing on The Panda's Thumb, and while it took me forever to read because I've had the attention span of a spastic on caffeine pills lately, I got quite a lot out of it. Namely: if one goes about disproving IDiotic blathering about how evolutionary theory can't explain X, they'd better not be doing it in order to convert the cretins. May as well spend your time trying to convince me that curling is an exciting and dramatic sport to watch - you'd have better luck making a conversion. Mind you - I find nearly every sport in the universe dead boring.
No, the only time the IDiots become useful IDiots is when they inspire evolutionary biologists to figure things out and demolish IDiotic arguments from the foundations up - not because any amount of evidence will make these dumbshits realize they're wrong (none will), but because of the ricochets. Knocking down an IDiot's argument is a fantastic way to teach ordinary folk like me about biology. It makes it more interesting, what with the controversy and the smart people vs. the Dumbskis sorta thing. It's also a good idea to have a refutation ready so that innocent bystanders don't get snookered.
Besides, it's fun. Especially when the poor howling IDiots snivel and have to rush out to move their goalposts.
Anyway. There's my thoughts. It's an entertaining paper, too, so you lot may enjoy reading it yourselves. Which you should go do now, because I'm off to watch another Harry Potter film.