I was mildly amused by a recent post on the Hacknot site. The author is clearly completely in love with himself (if this piece was written by a woman I'll buy a hat and eat it), and cannot even be bothered to get Stephan Diebel's name right. I really don't see the point of trying to put dynamic languages down - they exist, and those who don't want to use them don't have to. This is yet another boring case of some idiot fighting a religious war of their own imagining, and unfortunately it doesn't seem to contain much that usefully adds to the static vs. dynamic language debate.
About the most egregious example of false logic to be found is in the attempt to put down people who say "where's the harm - [dynamic languages] are just another item in your tool box, for use where appropriate". The author attempts to persuade us this argument is untenable because, he says, "... the same milksop argument is used by advocates of intelligent design ...". Because an argument is used irrationally by one misguided group of people doesn't make it any less valid in cases where it actually applies, however.
Overall I think the author is just looking for a group to refer to as weenies in a feeble attempt to prove (possibly to himself) that "I'm OK because you're not OK". The blog is output-only, with no apparent mechanism for reader feedback. Probably the author isn't interested in other people's opinions.