Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd." - Voltaire
Links
- Yahoo News
- Wikipedia
- Slate
- The Secular Web
- Human Rights Watch
- Butterflies and Wheels
- Atheists of Silicon Valley
- A Secular Humanist Declaration
- The Skeptic's Dictionary
- Free Inquiry
- Skeptical Inquirer
- Phylotaxis
- Discover
- Scientific American
- Reason
- Salon
- The Economist
- Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
- Bibliomania
- Online Literature Library
Blog Roll
-
-
-
-
Operationalizing Climate Science3 days ago
-
-
Forthcoming book1 year ago
-
-
-
New site5 years ago
-
-
Defenders of the Earth6 years ago
-
-
Announcing INSIGHT at Skeptic.com10 years ago
-
15.11.4212 years ago
-
-
Blog Archive
-
▼
2005
(390)
-
▼
Aug 2005
(35)
- FDA official tenders resignation over Plan B
- News that should be news
- A parable
- For the love of money
- The West's silence on the new Tiananmen Square
- Abominable quote of the day
- New American newspeak dictionary
- Quote of the day: the paradox of liberalism
- Federal funding for Silver Ring Thing suspended
- Where is the 2000 election post?
- The "generosity" of Coca-Cola
- Slate slide-show essay on Earnest Haeckel
- Et tu, Blogger?
- Paul Krugman on the elections of 2000, 2004, and t...
- More on the internet and the FCC
- Democracy for sale
- My nightmare
- Michael Shermer on George Bush, Intelligent Design...
- A quote from this blogger's namesake
- On fascism
- A response to Bill O'Reilly
- The shame of the UN
- Does acupuncture work?
- What happened in Ohio?
- Timeline of intelligence manipulation leading up t...
- The Toledo Blade
- How democratic are we?
- Kansas experiencing strange time dilation problems...
- The riddle of Epicurus
- Cause for concern: the corporatization of the inte...
- The media buzzsaw: a 60th anniversary edition
- Debating Guns, Germs, and Steel
- Baleful quote of the day
- Nevermind, the war is back on!
- Defending thimerosal
-
▼
Aug 2005
(35)
Contact
dailydoubter@gmail.com
2 comments:
"The intelligent design concept holds that some features of the natural world are best explained by an unspecified intelligent cause"
Let me get this straight : The ID explanation is that there is no explanation, and hence, this is the best explanation? How religiously brainwashed do you have to be to not be able to see through this bullshit?
How religiously brainwashed do you have to be to not be able to see through this bullshit?
Apparently, not very. The ID movement plays upon the scientific illiteracy of the general public who do not see how shallow and error-ridden ID criticism of evolution is.
Post a Comment