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

« Parkblogging | Main | American Collision »



Well, I don't -believe- in evolution, I think evolution is a scientific theory backed very solidly by evidence.

Intelligent Design does not meet the criteria for a scientific theory, and does not belong in the science classroom.

We as a nation do a poor job of educating our children at the K-12 level, and I think it's absurd to lower standards even further by pretending ID is science to satisfy someones -religious- beliefs.


Anyone who "believes" that the theory of evolution by natural selection of random mutations is solidly, scientifically proven shouldn't be afraid to read Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing. If you "believe" that Darwin's theory in its entirety is beyond challenge, and you don't see why you should have to bother to entertain and try to refute any argument to the contrary, consider the possibility that you may indeed be a "true believer." Science by definition is supposed to entertain, even welcome, tests and challenges. Only dogma does not.


I don't think that the theory of evolution is beyond challenge.

Indeed, -by definition-, all scientific knowledge is contingent, and based on the evidence we have at hand, and is subject to change when new knowledge becomes available.

I've seen nothing in ID, however, to suggest that it's science. Instead, it seems to resort to the 'god is in the gaps' argument for the existence of god. "I don't know how it could have happened naturally so God must have done it" -is not- science.

We know far more about how evolutionary processes work than we do about, for example, gravity. Our 'theory of gravity' describes -what- gravity does, not how it does it. Should we be adding disclaimers about the theory of gravity to high school text books?

Now, if you are going to argue that science -as practiced- (rather than scientific method as an epistemological approach) is full of very human politics, I'll agree with you.

However - that argument is not enough to refute current evolutionary theory, or elevate ID to science.

Now, ID as a part of compartive religion classes in our schools would be a wonderful thing, but I suspect too many fundamentalists would disapprove.

My oldest son recently graduated from high school with an International Baccelaureate diploma. This program has an internationally recognized cirriculum that includes a full year of a class called 'Theory of Knowledge'. This class examines quite a few things, including, at least briefly, the philosophy behind scientific method.

I, for one, would be much happier if we taught -all- our children to examine the basis for their claims to knowledge, rather than just trying to pour facts into their heads.

Oh, even though I frequently disagree with you, I enjoy your blog.


Darwin didn't know everything, and for some, the existance of God will be a myth unless they see God for themselves some day. So, why bother teaching either in school? Stick to educating the kids about things that will land them a job someday.


Well..........I read it all anyway.


Argh! The only reason why the word "belief" is applied to evolution is because the creationists say the evolutionists are treating evolutionary theory as a religion.

Certainly there are various parts of the theory that are either more or less well supported by evidence, and any truly scientific mind appreciates and highlights that distinction.

However, just because there is a relative lack of evidence for some aspects of the theory does not mean you toss the theory & whip out the God card! It just means that we need to find new and better means of exploring those more difficult questions - and I do NOT mean through thought experiments and philosophy.

The reason why some areas are less well supported (such as the initial origin of life) is because there is little to no surviving evidence we can peruse. In the 4+ billion years since life began, almost the entire crust of the earth has been recycled. Plus the soft-bodied critters prevalent in the first billion or so years could only leave fossils under the most extreme circumstances.

And good point about gravity, Michael. We know gravity exists, we're pretty certain how it acts on a macroscopic (but sub-galactic) scale, but all sorts of unanswered questions remain as to its mechanism, and how it works on either extremely small or large scales. We have a much better idea about how evolution works.

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