Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
My Blog List
-
-
What about Lindsay Clancy? - By now most of you know about the Lindsay Clancy case, but I’ll briefly reiterate it. Clancy, then 32 years old, says she was afflicted with postpartum psy...2 weeks ago
-
What is "alternate RNA decoding"? - I recently came across a paper in *Nature* on alternate RNA decoding. It looked interesting so I read the abstract. That didn't help. I was still confuse...4 weeks ago
-
Hello world! - Welcome to WordPress. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start writing!7 months ago
-
Thank you - This is my last post for the Bad Astronomy Blog on Discover Magazine. As of today – Monday, November 12, 2012 – the blog has a new home at Slate magazine...13 years ago
-
-
-
Subscribe To
Posts
Comments
2 comments:
Just a little bit of nit-picking.
This contains the phrase "theory of Intelligent Design".
There is no such theory.
There is a long tradition in anti-evolutionism that it avoid any substantive, positive content, and the ID version has "perfected" this strategy.
Tom S.
Hi Tom, I agree to a certain extent. There is certainly nothing in the philosophy of Intelligent Design that would qualify it as a scientific theory.
On the other hand the Dishonesty Institute publish propaganda for schools directly calling it - "The theory of intelligent design:
A briefing packet for educators"
- followed by a "Teach the controversy" picture of Charles Darwin - see the linked file
http://tinyurl.com/6bfqbp
It follows on from the Wedge document which said the following.
"We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design."
Post a Comment