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

« The Celluloid Test | Main | All the Fallen Cathedrals [UPDATED] »

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c638553ef00d834945cbf69e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference ID at BU: Scott Beats Dembski -- One Centrist's Opinion:

Comments

Jack Whelan

If the issue is whether ID should be taught in science class, of course it shouldn't. My take on what makes this debate so contentious is that people on both sides of the debate mistakenly equate science with absolute truth.

It isn't. It's simply a provisional attempt to make rational sense of the mechanics of nature. That's an interesting and valuable thing to do, but it has nothing to do with religious or philosophical meaning (although it does provide data for philosophical and religious reflection). So if ID has a place it's in philosophy and religion courses, not science courses. Philosophy or a theory of knowledge class should be taught in High Schools, not ID in science classes.

So the mistake some of the extreme IDers make is to want scientific validation for their theology, and the mistake the Dawkins evolutionist types make is to think that the only kind of truth that's worth knowing is what can be scientifically verified.

ID would have a lot more cultural legitimacy if IDers would simply present themselves as people who accept the science of evolution, but who understand it in the context of a larger metaphysics that explains it in a way that is more complex, rich, and humanly satisfying than that which a purely rationalist approach can yield.

karen

Wow. What a great comment, Jack. I'm just glad I send my kids to a Catholic school :). Religion class. Science class. Totally connected.

As for religion classes taught in public schools- how laughable. Hell, Christmas concerts are extinct, I doubt if any can even say merry Christmas legally anymore. I think if the ACLU or whoever is offended would allow for freedom of expression and thought, this battle wwould blow over.

sleipner

Very well said, Jack, I agree completely, though I would add a caveat that ID is still so far in its infancy (and imho will always be) that it really deserves little attention outside of graduate school research. Once they muster sufficient evidence that it is anything other than repackaged creationism, then I'll consider it as a valid topic of study.

The biggest problem with religion in schools is that usually whomever ends up teaching it brings their own bias and beliefs to the classroom, to the exclusion of all else.

Believe it or not, I have no problem with comparative religion classes, or history classes that discuss the various roles of religion in history. What I object to is the Christian bible thumping and brainwashing that would almost certainly ensue if the door was opened a crack, especially in the bastians of fundamentalist intolerance such as the South.

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