I guess this is what passes for creationist "humor"
Scrappleface, which is kind of funny from a conservative point of view (albeit more conservative than my point of view) often enough that I still check it out now and then, appears to have drunk deeply from the creationist Kool-Aid. The evidence? It's this supposedly satirical look at the evolution-creation controversy in Kansas by Scott Ott, entitled "Natural Selection Shrinks Herd of Kansas Darwinists." In it, "Darwinists" are represented as unable to handle "Darwinian" selection/competition from "skeptics" and, because of that inability to compete, as having to be protected in "reservations."
Lame, lame, lame.
Look, I understand this is supposed to be satire, but good satire has to have a kernel of truth at its core, as most articles in The Onion do, regardless of whether its writers are skewering liberals or conservatives. There is none in the Scrappleface article, just "ain't I so clever?" references to "scrappy skeptics" who "contended for equal space in the Darwinists' natural habitat." You can almost hear Scott slapping himself on the back for being so "clever" as to use "Darwinian selection" as the basis of a joke making fun of biologists defending evolution.
Actually, come to think of it, the analogy could have some use. Using Scrappleface's analogy, it is creationism and "intelligent design" that are unable to compete in--shall we say?--Darwinian terms, notevolution. Intelligent design has already been selected against in science. It has lost the battle of ideas because it is not science, cannot produce scientific evidence for its ideas, and is, the denials of its advocates notwithstanding, inherently religious. Consequently, intelligent design advocates, having totally failed to get a foothold in the "natural habitat" of evolutionary biologists, are now reduced to using ignorant legislators to force reluctant teachers to misrepresent the pseudoscience that is ID/creationism as a scientific "alternative" to evolution in a desperate attempt at self-propagation. Their ideas can't compete in the scientific arena on the rather "Darwinian" basis that scientific hypotheses normally compete, on supporting observational and experimental data, predictive usefulness, and ability to explain natural phenomenon. So intelligent design advocates are reduced to exploiting the ignorance of most school board members and legislators about science in order to trick them into forcing teachers to teach their ideas to impressionable teenagers, whom they hope will then become the next generation of intelligent design advocates.
Truly in this case, Scrappleface has descended into the realm of hack.