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

« Family 15 Minutes of Fame | Main | Working the Speed Bag, ca. 1950 »

Comments

realpc

If ID is not a theory, Cedric, then what? Some people call ID a theory, others do not. The fact that I have called ID theory does not prove I am stupid or unscientific. In case that was where your argument was heading.

If I say now that ID is not a theory -- although I was not stupid or unscientific for having called it that -- what would be the next step in your argument? Do you have an argument?

ID IS NOT A THEORY. What happens then? I already said I don't want ID taught in school. I have no idea where you are taking this, and you probably have no idea either.

Cedric Katesby

RealPC said...
"The fact that I have called ID theory does not prove I am stupid or unscientific."

This isn't about you.
It's about ID.

Maybe you're stupid. Maybe not.
I have no idea. Let's keep personalities out of this.

I am claiming that ID is not a theory.
That's it.

A while back, you asked me to define what I meant by the word "theory".
I gave you a definition.

You never bothered to acknowledge it or use it in an argument.
You just decided to fuzz the meaning of the word "theory" for your own purposes.

I have been consistant in the use of the word "theory".
I have provided multiple sources to banish any possible ambiguity on what the word "theory" means to the scientific world.

You claim that ID is science.
You claim that ID is a theory.
As in a "scientific theory".
This is a claim.
A testable, verifiable claim.

I am asking for a simple, baffle-gab free answer.

Do you still claim that ID is a theory?
Yes or no?

This question is an opening salvo in a scientific argument on Intelligent Design.

If you answer with a simple "Yes" then I will ask you to defend your claim in your next post.
Scientifically.
You will be obliged to back up your words.
Scientists love to do this.
They display their hard work with pride, to their peers in peer-reviewed journals and to the public in general.

RealPC said...
"If I say now that ID is not a theory'...'what would be the next step in your argument? Do you have an argument?"

Why not find out for yourself?
Ready?

******(Dramatic Pause)********

Do you still claim that ID is a theory?
Yes or no?


realpc

[You claim that ID is science.
You claim that ID is a theory.
As in a "scientific theory".]

No I didn't. You want simple answers but there aren't any. People define ID in various ways. I can't give you simple answers so I guess we won't find out what your simple argument was going to be. Something you learned at JREF probably -- 5 simple steps for arguing with ID advocates.

Cedric Katesby

Previously on this thread...

RealPC said...
"There is nothing unscientific about the ID hypotheses."

RealPC said...
"The science of ID is questioning Darwinism..."

RealPC said...
"...now that ID makes testable predictions."

RealPC said...
"...about the actual scientific controversy."

Cedric said...
"So, according to you, ID is not actually a scientific theory.
Right?"

RealPC replied...
"Absolutely wrong."
..................................

RealPc said...
"No I didn't."

Coward. Liar.

RealPC evades...
"People define ID in various ways."

Yes, but YOU define it as a theory.
Or sometimes as a hypothesis...

You repeatedly refer to Intelligent Design as a theory.
"...Intelligent Design theory..."
"...ID theory does not..."
"...strengthen the ID theory."
"...ID theorists acknowledge..."
"...the ID theory of evolution is despised..."
"...Intelligent Design is a theory..."
"...nothing about the ID theory..."

Do you still claim that ID is a theory?
Yes or no?

They're your words.
Make sure you don't choke on them.

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