Here is an article discussing the testimony of a biochemistry prof at Lehigh who supports ID. They didn't even mention FSMism. What the Hell?
So if we're going to define science this broadly, isn't the tale about the moon being made of green cheese also a scientific theory? Well, I suppose it was refuted since some people have been on the moon, but couldn't it be really hard, crusty, moldy green cheese? And couldn't Jupiter be made of gaseous green cheese? Hey, I think I found a new state of matter! (Not to mention a theory that it exists---you know, blind, flagrant assertion seems to be grounds for scientific theories these days, according to some people).
OK, so I am too tired to come up with a funny way to do this and I wanted to link to the article before I forgot about it, so this will have to do.
That quote by the priest at the end of the article (about what the core of the issue is, from his perspective) is so disingenuous that it makes me want to puke.
2 days ago
2 comments:
Eh, it's not that bad, really. Pharyngula as always has great coverage of the trial. As he puts it, the NY Times feels compelled to "pull on the clown shoes before they can publish the article". And it's not like the NY Times has much credibility these days, anyway... :)
The lengthy referee's rejection of one of Behe's recent papers is also worth reading.
Was this link what you had in mind as a funny way to do this?
http://abstractfactory.blogspot.com/2005/10/only-debate-on-intelligent-design-that.html
I was thinking more of a funny alternative to what might constitute science, but the person who wrote that clearly did an awesome job.
Oh, part of me wants to reject an ID paper from a scientific journal, but an even bigger part of me would rather spend time doing research than writing a scathing review. [So any editors out there who want to send me an ID paper should know right now that I will reject it out of hand, so don't even waste your time by sending it to me. :)]
Anyway, the link you provided is awesome!
Post a Comment