Self-destruction, Blogging Tory style.

I believe the phrase you're looking for here is "self-immolation":

4)Science, real science was never about absolutes. If you look at applied science, it is all based on measurements and calculations but those rely on models; for example, the atomic orbital theory isn’t proven or absolute — it just works pretty well for explaining most chemical reactions. Make the situation more complex though, like in organic chemistry, and the whole thing leaves scientists clueless. Another great example is Newtonian mechanics, which has actually been rendered obsolete by Einstein’s work almost four hundred years later. I have a strong hunch that a model like evolution won’t be so lucky as to stick around that long… This is real science!

5)Creation science is a real scientific theory — if you want to challenge it, please don’t insult us by just offering a fancy and long-winded “nuh-huh”.

And that's why "The Politic" is number five in the list of top 100 Canadian political blogs, and you're not. Apparently, they know their audience.

OH, THIS SHOULD BE GOOD. Commenter Jim Pettit, in a very sober, thoughtful and civil way, tries to enlighten the gang at Spanky's place:

I think you will find that Newtonian mechanics has not been overturned as you say but has been found to be merely a special case (low speed, average sized masses) of physics now enlarged by high speed and large and small mass physics.

I am not sure whay you mean by calling Creationism a theory. It makes no predictions and relies on no evidence. It is equivalent of saying the toothfairy did it.

Let's all watch for the similarly polite and courteous rebuttal, shall we?

OH, LORD ... he's dumber than even I imagined, and I can imagine quite the level of dumbness.

Politic blogger Matthew tries to buttress his inane argument by (are you ready?) linking to Wikipedia.

Pause.

And while you're snorting your morning coffee out your nose, let me point out that even that is dismally idiotic, since what Matthew links to is a Wikipedia article, not on creationism, but on intelligent design, which purports to be a purely scientific presentation of anti-evolutionary claptrap but, more importantly, explicitly rejects scientific creationism as religious codswallop.

That's right -- Matthew is so stupefyingly ignorant that he does not understand the fundamental distinction between scientific creationism and intelligent design. Of such fools are conservative blogs composed.