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

« Turning 50, VI: Nature Is Your Best Friend ... NOT. | Main | Rudy's Pros and Cons »

Comments

realpc

"the more you know, the more you realize how little you know" has long been acknowledged in physics, but is just starting to be acknowledged in biology.

Biology has always been reductionist, but that's changing. We are never going to grasp the whole, but at least we're beginning to see that there is a whole.

Holistic biology will undermine neo-Darwinism. I knew neo-Darwinism was wrong ever since reading Arthur Koestler 20 years ago.

Intelligent Design just says neo-Darwinism is wrong, or at least tremendously incomplete.

I can't wait until someone figures out how to detect those morphogenetic fields!

amba

Real, I owe you a hat tip on this. I finished the post and had to run out the door.

James

The falsification of Neo-D doesn't validate ID. How would this information prove that there is an intelligent agent who created biological organisms or at least biological information?

amba

It doesn't. It might, however suggest (not prove) that fields, like Sheldrake's morphogenetic fields, could be involved in body organization and development.

realpc

"The falsification of Neo-D doesn't validate ID. How would this information prove that there is an intelligent agent who created biological organisms or at least biological information?"

ID does NOT claim anything about intelligent agents, first of all. It just says intelligence appears to be involved in the creation of life.

ID is all about falsification of Neo-D. If Neo-D is proven to be incomplete, the question of how life evolved will be re-opened. That question has been closed for decades.

The answer was simple and, supposedly, the simplest answers are the best. Well yes, provided they actually answer the question.

ID researchers say that life is too complex to have originated and evolved by chance and natural selection alone. ID opponents say life is not really complex, and it's badly designed. But as more is learned, the incredible complexity and ingenious design of life becomes harder to deny.



realpc

"It might, however suggest (not prove) that fields, like Sheldrake's morphogenetic fields, could be involved in body organization and development."

Yes, and I don't know why that idea never occurs to biologists. No one complains about the use of the field concept to explain organization in physics.

For historical reasons, I suppose, life fields and life energies have been taboo concepts in 20th and 21st century biology.

And it's also because new-agers all believe in these things. Wouldn't it be embarrassing if serious scientists had to agree with new-agers about something?

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