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

« More Wordplay | Main | Gottblogs: The Next Generation, Part Deux »


William Swann

It may be a valid distinction, but I'm having difficulty with his specific examples illustrating "observability" as compared to "testability":

Forces, fields, atoms, quarks, past events, mental states, subsurface geological features, molecular biological structures all are unobservables inferred from observable phenomena.

I suspect scientists would consider forces, fields, past events, and even mental states as having been "observed" given the amount of physical studies on said phenomena. Observability doesn't properly mean "seeing with your own eyes". It means some kind of physical measurement of the phenomenon, I would think.

Second, unobservability does not preclude testability: claims about unobservables are routinely tested in science indirectly against observable phenomena.

I can imagine a testable ID hypothesis. For example, suppose life came into existence over a period of seven days during some specific week a few thousand years ago -- the plants one day, the animals the next, humans next, etc.

The physical record of that would be pretty distinct. And it would sure look like divine intervention.

Suppose God steps in from time to time and changes life -- perhaps reshaping DNA during the moment of conception.

If such events occurred, there's no reason to believe they wouldn't be occurring somewhere in the world today. Isn't there some kind of telltale residue of such events? A cat suddnely giving birth to some sort of other creature. Or, literally, some new entity appearing out of nothing somewhere.

The two above theories would be actual explanations, from an ID perspective, of how life came into (or comes into) existence here on earth. The question is, do they offer such theories?

The second one above might be more appealing, in terms of matching the rest of what we know from science. But I wonder if someone, somewhere, shouldn't be noticing these weird "design" events, if they're taking place.

fuck u

fuckin stupid

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