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

« New Orleans Gets the Short End . . . Again [UPDATE] | Main | Alert to David Foster Wallace Fans, Right-Wing Talk Radio Foes »


Richard Lawrence Cohen

This potential split among Darwinists mirrors splits occurring among gay rights activists and anti-abortion activists, as Ann points out. In all three cases the question is, "Should a movement be defined by its extremes, or should it seek to woo moderates?"


Good point. (Said split is also occurring among ... Democrats!)

a china teapot

I'm with Dennett, religion is a social phenomenon which science should study.

Religion is all about persuading people to (claim to) hold beliefs for which there is no supporting evidence.

Science, at its very best, is about encouraging people to continually challenge the accepted world view in order that we can learn more about the world.

The "moderate" scientists need Dennett, Dawkins, Blackmore & co. out at the cutting edge of their subject in order to stop the, so called "moderates" being labeled as extremists.

Joshua Taj Bozeman

I would assume you don't know many religions people tea pot. Only a fool would devote their lives to something that has no logic/reasoning/evidence behind it.

As a Christian, I work on a number of areas of evidence that support my worldview. Science, historical evidences, archeology, and much more.

I don't know of anyone I've ever met or have seen on TV, interviews, websites, etc. that try to get people to religion based on a lack of evidence for the foundation of the religion. That's just silly.


Joshua, you should read the comment in this thread posted by Michael -- scroll down to the 11th comment. It's a remarkably good argument for the existence of God, penned by an atheist as part ofJewish Atheist's "Opposite Day" experiment.

a china teapot


Open your eyes and examine the evidence.

There is no evidence for the existance of any of the gods from any of the world religions.

There is plenty of evidence that lots of people CLAIM that they exist, and the christian method of dealing with non-believers has been to burn them alive. So lost of people say they believe out of fear.


I kinda like the Freudian ~lost~ mis-spelling. I guess in Nigeria they burn 'em dead, now. Unfortunately- humans screw up about 99.94% of everything they touch (IMhumbleO)- so it isn't surprising that we have a hell of a hard time reproducing Christlike lov ein the world.

It doesn't mean we stop trying. Some things are best left taken on Faith.

Two Dishes

Although I don't at all believe in I.D. I enjoyed reading this site a lot. Well done. Though an outsider to the POV, I felt welcome here and maybe learned something. Thanks.

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