No surprises
Nov. 30th, 2004 09:24 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
elfsLooking for a hot topic button with which to get your constituency all in a lather? Want that fresh indignancy smell? You too can pimp the Boy Scouts for all their worth, become the buttboy of the White House, tell the Supreme Court it can go fuck itself, and in general violate both the Constitution's First Amendment and the Constitutional Separation of Powers by declaring the Boy Scouts beyond the reach of the courts.
On the other hand, while reading an article in Christianity Today about the recent National Geographic article, "Was Darwin Wrong?", I had to feel sorry for the writer. Did any one of them really think that there was credible evidence for their side? Did they really think "Intelligent Design" was going to have even a case in that venerable science magazine? The author states that National Geographic gave ID "the silent treatment," but this is a bit like worrying in every essay about astronomy that some time was not given to the Terracentric view.
Every theory has its classical example, something that from start to finish is explained with the greatest parsimony by the theory. ID doesn't have one. And until it does, it's not science; it's just cheerleading.
On the other hand, while reading an article in Christianity Today about the recent National Geographic article, "Was Darwin Wrong?", I had to feel sorry for the writer. Did any one of them really think that there was credible evidence for their side? Did they really think "Intelligent Design" was going to have even a case in that venerable science magazine? The author states that National Geographic gave ID "the silent treatment," but this is a bit like worrying in every essay about astronomy that some time was not given to the Terracentric view.
Every theory has its classical example, something that from start to finish is explained with the greatest parsimony by the theory. ID doesn't have one. And until it does, it's not science; it's just cheerleading.
