Wallowing in the furor
Still wallowing in all the words stirred up by the Prez’s seemingly off-hand remark about “intelligent design.” Still determined not to invest a lot of consonants and vowels on an incident that is being covered by so many others.
I’ve spent WAY too much time for over a week reading this column and that response. I’ve gotten frustrated at misleading pleas for balance, like the one by syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker published around the country under various titles. (“There’s room at the table for intelligent design theory” in The Oregonian.). I’ve chuckled at clever repartee on the heavy-duty science weblogs like Panda’s Thumb and Pharyngula, marveled at the passions stirred by this issue, and appreciated the thoughtful responses by the many defenders of science in the blogoshpere and in mainstream publications.
Even if I could, it wouldn’t make any sense for me to reiterate all that I have been absorbing, but I will highlight a couple of items I haven’t yet seen mentioned elsewhere.
I haven’t had a chance to read all the way through it yet, but the Aug 22 issue of The New Republic has a lengthy article, “The Case Against Intelligent Design: The Faith That Dare Not Speak Its Name” (registration required) by Jerry Coyne, that looks at the evolution of ID from its creationist roots.
While Time magazine came out with a cover story about evolution and religion that tried oh-so-hard to be “balanced,” the Aug 15 issue of Newsweek has a forceful Jonathan Alter column (“Monkey See, Monkey Do”) with the pull-no-punches callout
And finally, some coverage from the UK, where the local religious right is going after the school science curriculum, the Aug 12 Times Online has these words from Mark Henderson (“Dangerous models to create”)
[Note: I’ve registered on Technorati. If you find me from there – or anywhere else – please leave a comment so I will know that I am not just talking to myself.]
I’ve spent WAY too much time for over a week reading this column and that response. I’ve gotten frustrated at misleading pleas for balance, like the one by syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker published around the country under various titles. (“There’s room at the table for intelligent design theory” in The Oregonian.). I’ve chuckled at clever repartee on the heavy-duty science weblogs like Panda’s Thumb and Pharyngula, marveled at the passions stirred by this issue, and appreciated the thoughtful responses by the many defenders of science in the blogoshpere and in mainstream publications.
Even if I could, it wouldn’t make any sense for me to reiterate all that I have been absorbing, but I will highlight a couple of items I haven’t yet seen mentioned elsewhere.
I haven’t had a chance to read all the way through it yet, but the Aug 22 issue of The New Republic has a lengthy article, “The Case Against Intelligent Design: The Faith That Dare Not Speak Its Name” (registration required) by Jerry Coyne, that looks at the evolution of ID from its creationist roots.
While Time magazine came out with a cover story about evolution and religion that tried oh-so-hard to be “balanced,” the Aug 15 issue of Newsweek has a forceful Jonathan Alter column (“Monkey See, Monkey Do”) with the pull-no-punches callout
“Offering ID as an alternative to evolution is a cruel joke. It walks and talks like science but in the lab performs worse than medieval alchemy.”
And finally, some coverage from the UK, where the local religious right is going after the school science curriculum, the Aug 12 Times Online has these words from Mark Henderson (“Dangerous models to create”)
“The best schools do not simply teach a body of knowledge. They teach children how to think, to question, to reach conclusions for themselves based on evidence, not authority or hearsay. Science encourages all these qualities; creationism promotes their antitheses.”
[Note: I’ve registered on Technorati. If you find me from there – or anywhere else – please leave a comment so I will know that I am not just talking to myself.]
posted by Gerry L at 9:47 PM
2 Comments:
You're not talking just to yourself--I've found you from technorati. But it takes a while to develop a readership. Even more so, commentators. PZ Myers and Panda Thumb are brand names and great sites but bad examples in that regard. John Lynch @ Stranger Fruit is doing brilliant, highly respected work--but has low comment traffic. Nightlight, much the same.
So if you're concerned about that all I can tell you give it. Likewise, on political matters, the Heretik has a great site. His open threads are well-commented. His own posts--often shockingly good--are not always so. Etc.
Just focus on content and people will find you.
"Science" has long since gone overboard to be, in effect, nothing less than WITCHCRAFT. For example, take the now too familiar "remote control". You push a button over HERE, and 5 to 10 feet away, something happens OVER THERE. The "cause" and "effect" have no visible relationship WHATSOEVER. Thus the whole idea of using a remote control is just like casting a spell on that (formerly) inanimate object to get it to do what you want it to do-- WITCHCRAFT 101. This is true of the rest of so-called "science", especially 'evolutionary' anything. It should be so obvious that DEEVOLUTION-- DECAY-- is the way of the universe, not an 'evolution'!)
If evolutionists would ADMIT to themselves and the world that their 'science' IS a religion (anti-Christian to be sure, but a RELIGION nevertheless), the battle lines for the souls of the world's people would finally be HONESTLY drawn between the humanist/naturalist 'sciences' and supernatural religion.
As for me, I choose Jesus!
Post a Comment
<< Home