Goodenough Gismo

  • Gismo39
    This is the classic children's book, Goodenough Gismo, by Richmond I. Kelsey, published in 1948. Nearly unavailable in libraries and the collector's market, it is posted here with love as an "orphan work" so that it may be seen and appreciated -- and perhaps even republished, as it deserves to be. After you read this book, it won't surprise you to learn that Richmond Irwin Kelsey (1905-1987) was an accomplished artist, or that as Dick Kelsey, he was one of the great Disney art directors, breaking your heart with "Pinocchio," "Dumbo," and "Bambi."

  • 74%How Addicted to Blogging Are You?

  • Google

Blogs I love and/or learn from

« Your source for all things Easongate | Main | Ever Deeper Into Intelligent Design [UP-UPDATED] »


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference De-Sign of the Times:

» from Evolution News & Views
The Non-Controversy Continues to be Controversial Michael Behe’s op-ed in yesterday’s New York Times seems to have hit a nerve. Or two. Or three. Or perhaps all of them, if you’re a Darwinian dogmatist. Here’s a few. ID Hits the Times Op-Ed, Science T... [Read More]

» De-Sign of the Times from Booker Rising
AmbivaBlog, a moderate site, discusses a recent New York Times op-ed piece by a leading Intelligent Design advocate that sought to counter claims that merely promotes teaching creationism in schools. It argues that the piece had a promising start, bu... [Read More]

» The Evolution from Restless Mania
Intelligent Design is making a huge splash. The recent Kansas hearings on the subject as it relates to education have caused quite a stir, and with good reason. [Read More]


Tom Strong

His article is indicative of the major problem with ID -- it's not actually a theory, just a (valid) criticism of Darwinism.

I've long felt that ID should be taught in school -- but in philosophy, not biology, classes. It's an important concept in its own right, but as it's neither predictive nor empirically testable, it has little to do with science. Of course we don't usually require philosophy in high schools anymore -- but we ought to.


...and yet it's precisely philosophy that those opposing intelligent design want taught in science classes.

The very belief that I.D. is necessarily un-scientific, by allowing for a designer, is a matter of philosophy.

"Science must disallow viewpoints positing a designer" is not a scientific statement.
It's not something that can be subject to experimentation; it can't be falsified. It's a view in the realm of religion.

Surely we should be open to the possibilities, unless we're religious dogmatists. And we wouldn't want that.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

New on FacTotem, my Natural History Blog

Jacques' Story: Escape From the Gulag

The AmbivAbortion Rant

Debating Intelligent Design


  • Listed on Blogwise

Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 08/2004