Uncommon Descent breaks my irony meter yet again

BarryA at Uncommon Descent talks about a startling finding using this tool the blog readability test.

Thanks to one of our commenters for pointing out this website that calculates the reading level of blogs. Just for fun I inserted UD and it came back “High School,” which means that the general discussion at this blog is at a high school level. I then inserted Pandas Thumb and it came back “Elementary School.”

Make of this what you will.

Interesting, when I insert pandasthumb.org I get College/Post Grad. Oh wait, I forgot, the people at UD are morons. They put in Pandasthumb.com, an unregistered domain.

Now granted, this is a really stupid metric, that doesn’t really say much of anything, but you’d think these geniuses could at least criticize the right website. The only lesson here is never take anything the evolution denialists cdesign proponentsists say at face value.


  1. No, I’d say that the lesson is that creationists are an infinite time, energy and sanity sink and it’s best to just ignore them if you value your allocation of any of these resources.

  2. That’s what we thought a few decades ago, Ian. Didn’t really get us anywhere.

  3. http://www.talkorigins.org gets a “Genius” level.

  4. small words for small minds

    The only lesson here is never take anything the evolution denialists cdesign proponentsists say at face value.

    There’s also the lesson that creationists are a really stupid bunch.

  5. Pierce R. Butler

    Shouldn’t the good guys hustle to register the pandasthumb.com name before some major intellect (relatively speaking) among the creationists starts getting what passes for a brilliant brainstorm in their circles regarding potential prankery?

  6. Harry Abernathy

    I kind of wish the real Panda’s Thumb website had returned an elementary reading level. Wouldn’t that reinforce the point that evolution is such common sense that even a fifth grader can understand it?

  7. That thread was particularly illuminating. Dembski chimed in with a site that would check a block of text against the Flesch-Kincaid readability indicator. Now why would Dembski know about such a thing? He isn’t an editor for USA Today, and he isn’t a (real) educator.

    I have this creeping feeling that Dembski modifies his “math” until it scores below a 10 on the readability indicator so that he can delude himself into thinking it’s bona fide scholarship while ensuring that his bafflegab is baffling enough.

  8. s bafflegab is baffling enough.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *