Except Paul Nelson kind of meant it. Bllaaaargh"¦brains!

At the link:

"I say, 'Why don't you write an anti-glacier book instead?'"

The country is going through another of its episodic legal paroxysms over the teaching of evolution, with daily updates, breathless press releases, and he-said-she-said-blow-the-lid-off-revelations. In the end, the whole noisy business will make very little difference. As I said to Michael Ruse last month, if the debate about origins could have been resolved by litigation, that would have happened long ago. Michael agreed, and we walked on into the sweltering Miami night. Lawsuits about science teaching, evolution, and "creationism," are the judicial equivalent of anti-glacier books. Kitzmiller v. Dover (KvD) may bring a good, bad, or simply goofy precedent. What it won't do "“- you can count on this "“- is stop the ice from moving.

Ironically, this isn't the first time ID proponents have compared themselves to mindless unkillable zombies.

From the link:

Die, zombies, die! Look, we really mean it this time. Die already.

The climax of zombie movies occurs when the normal folks finally figure out what stops the walking undead. "Shooting 'em don't work, Mildred, 'cause they're already dead! You just gotta keep 'em away from the biology textbooks, and sooner or later, they'll shrivel up." In the endless zombie movie called the American controversy over evolution, the normal folks believe that the undead hordes only want the schools, and within them, the most sought-after zombie elixir of all, the science curriculum. The schools, the schools — we must protect our schools! So that's what happens, and "creationists" — the zombies — lose one court case after another. Yet they keep coming, lumbering with arms outstretched across the town square.

"Jesse, they ain't going away like you said they would!"

"Heck, Mildred, maybe it's not about the schools after all."

As my daughters would say: Ya think? The American controversy over science teaching stems from the interaction of a constitutional peculiarity, namely, the First Amendment, with the seeming absence of metaphysical or theological content in naturalistic theories of evolution. "Hey," says the science establishment, "we're not the people talking about God or design — this is nothing but straight biology. It's those creationists over there who want to promote their religion." This interaction creates what will very likely be a permanent legal advantage favoring naturalistic evolution in public school science curricula. The party that appears to be saying nothing about "religion" gets to teach the kids.