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

« De-Sign of the Times | Main | What is this world coming to?? »



First, regarding Flew, i'd suggest reading a response from Flew to the claims that he's renounced atheism - it's here

Second, you quote Dembski approvingly -"He does assert that Intelligent Design, insofar as it is good science, "gives [us] the tools to dismantle materialism,"and that "[d]ismantling materialism is a good thing," because it is an "ideology . . . which suffocates the human spirit." "

And go on to say "That's what's at stake here."

Well, I can make the bold statement that, for example, it's -Christianity- that "stifles the human spirit" - and justify it with a vast amount of history, from the inquisition to Hitler (now, I'm not claiming Christianity -does- that - but the claim has as much -or more- foundation as Dembski's claim about materalism).

In this statement, Dembski show clearly that his agenda is to oppose an ideology he views as negative -first and foremost-. Well, given the ideological nature of his support for ID admitted in that statement, he almost precludes it being a scientific endeavor.

Scientific Materialism does not exclude religion (if it did, there would be no Christian biologists who accept the theory of evolution - and there are many).

You have expressed the opinion that (to paraphrase) 'faith' is under attack from science. My view is the opposite. It is reason, and the Enlightement itself, that is under attack from folks like Dembski (as well as Postmodernists). When IDer's and creationists associate acceptance of evolutionary theory with things like Nazism and Stalinism, they demostrate a radical and anti intellectual agenda (and they are full of s**t).

If you think materialism stifles the human spirit, ok. But, that in itself is a statement of faith, not fact. I think it's quite possible to accept that intelligence (whatever -that- is) is an epiphenomena of matter and still value humanity and all the ways we express ourselves as human (including through faith).


Read Schwartz -- we don't KNOW if intelligence is an epiphenomenon of matter -- or vice versa, for that matter. (Though not very knowledgeable about philosophy, I know this is an old, old philosophical debate.) I am not for blind faith that skews the data, on EITHER side of this aisle. I hope that a third way is -- evolving (a hope I admit is usually frustrated in this "Crossfire" world). I hope that ID includes not only religious scientists but SCIENTISTS who come from a position like Flew's (he is not a scientist). One of the most devastating critiques of Darwinian theory in the book UNCOMMON DISSENT is by a secular Jewish mathematician and philosopher, David Berlinski.


I don't know if consciousness is an epiphenomena of matter or not. And, I'm not sure it matters.

As for Berlinski: Here's a set of articles refuting his claims on here. And, Berlinski responded to these letters, and was responded to in kind, with the focus for the most part on the math and logic involved.

Show me where IDer's, in their forums, invite this type of comment from supporters of evolutionary theory.

In the page listed above, one of the writers makes a critical comment that defines what it will take for me to even begin to consider ID as science - he states:

"In a word, a hypothesis of biological design must be built not merely as a negation of the theory of natural selection, but rather as a series of diachronically expanded theoretical models of design, consistent in all of their links." - and I would add that these theoretical models need to be predictive and testable.

It's not ID by itself that bothers me, it's ID in the science classroom that does. (Well, I -am- bothered by ID supporters who contend that scientific materialism is morally bankrupt, and claim a superior morality based on their faith - that's a real 'elitism'. And, it's completely sideways to the question of ID as science.)


That the proponents of "Intelligent Design" are getting as much attention is a credit to their PR machine.

Dembski and Schwartz claim that "Intelligent Design" is a "scientific research program". The problem is there is no science in "Intelligent Design"! Proponents claim that biology originated from an "intelligent creator" yet they cannot test this hypothesis. Their use of thermodynamics and information theory are so obviously flawed that few serious scientists and engineers even bother to respond. Yet, ID zeolots claim the dearth of attention implies that the scientific community has no arguments against ID!

It is clear that "Intelligent Design" is at best a mythology, better to be relegated to philosophy or literature. Science classes should teach scientific theories. I don't mind teaching Intelligent Design and Creationism in a philosophy, religion, or even a public relations course. It has no business in a science curriculum.


Intelligent design is not a mythology; it is design. To learn more about the "missing link" see:

Ellis Godard

Being designed and having evolved are not mutually exclusive. If there was an intelligent designer, it's conceivable - even likely - that he/she/it designed evolution, as a means of emerging complexity.

Joel Sax

You might want to check the blogs Pharyngula and Panda's Thumb on the issue of Intelligent Design.

I tend to fall back on the lessons of the Book of Job and The Bridge at San Luis Rey -- if there is intelligent design, anyone who tells you that he can discern it is a liar.


Design is the first thing we pay attention to. Therefore it should be perfect.Thanks for this post

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