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

« Bork Reconsidered | Main | The Best Pan of the Worst Movie Ever »

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c638553ef00d8344d36a053ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Not-So Intelligent Design:

Comments

sleipner

Yeah, what he said.

Very well stated, and probably one of the most supportable points in the anti-ID evidence. Of course the creationist folks would just say "Just because we don't understand why it's there doesn't mean God didn't have a purpose for it"

Regarding the initial origin of life, there is simply too little evidence to fully support any theory (it is almost all lost to antiquity) - but imho if the crazy and complicated quilt of evolution is possible without ID (refuting the ridiculous "watch" analogy), there's no particular reason why the inherently more simple chemical reactions necessary to form self-perpetuating chemical copy reactions could not also have occurred without ID.

We know the chemicals were all there, we know that conditions on the Earth were more favorable to chemical reactions, and we know that complex sugars are formed in the extrasolar clouds where comets come from.

Once it gets to this point - after science or logic has repeatedly beaten down every one of ID's other assertions - why should we assume that ID is correct in this area, just because we have less evidence? Especially since we know the exact reason for that dearth of evidence.

In the end, I believe that the only people who truly believe in ID are the ones who already had their minds made up about it - irrespective of the science.

The only way we'll ever know for certain is to visit another planet similar to early Earth with incipient life - which will likely not occur in my lifetime, unless Titan or some other intrasolar planet gives us an exciting surprise.

michael reynolds

Why be limited to the familiar materials? God doesn't know how to make titanium for bones and joints? Teflon for teeth?

And He couldn't come up with a process for generating energy that didn't involve belching, farting, urinating and defecating? (I hope you appreciate that I went with the big words there.) Some reason God can't do nuclear fusion?

amba

Oh, he does nuclear fusion. Just not here.

(Which reminds me of my favorite quote - "There is infinite hope, but not for us." Kafka.

sleipner

Actually natural nuclear fission has occurred right here on earth - I read a science news article stating that a few million years back some uranium deposits reached critical mass and reacted for a few thousand years.

And of course every star is a fusion reactor.

sleipner

Ha! I heard that joke in college...back in 1988. Some humor is timeless.

karen

Love the joke. My ex-husband is a civil engineer. As to the rest of the debate, I humbly acknowledge that *God is science* and since I'm no scientist, I opt out of the issue. Or copped- out. :)

slot machine

Good site! Thank you! Online casino top - http://www.slotmachines.happyhost.org>slots machines,
[url=http://www.slotmachines.happyhost.org]slots machine[/url].

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

Ecosystem


  • Listed on Blogwise

Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 08/2004