Friday, September 30, 2005

Farenheit 451 watch ... and other stuff

Been too lazy to actually write something myself (although I've got several things in the works that I'll likely finish this weekend) so I'll continue for now the trend here of linking to articles of interest.

In Norwood, Colorado, parents did their best impression of a Ray Bradbury novel by burning copies of Rudolph Anaya's Bless Me, Ultima. And I am simply stunned by some of the books that are in the ALA's list of the 100 Most Frequently Challenged Books from 1990-2000: Huck Finn, Wrinkle in Time, I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings, Of Mice and Men, To Kill a Mockingbird ...

From the world of PR, you can look forward to more hidden advertising.

What is truth? Is truth objective, subjective, or something in-between? Philosopher Simon Blackburn addresses these age old questions in his new book Truth: A Guide, in which he takes the reader on a journey through various schools of thought on this matter, and gives his take on what the proper answer is. Slate has put up the first part of a two part series reviewing the book in some detail, and a review of the book can also be read here at Salon.

Also at Slate, William Saletan explains why Intelligent Design is not science. Hopefully, eventually, this message will make it to the public at large.

And one more, a daily dose of Peanuts.

Update: Here is part two of Slate's review of Truth: A Guide

1 comment:

John Lombard said...

Heh, I made the same point about ID on my blog a few weeks ago -- that they don't bother making a positive case for ID, they just attack Darwinism. And even then, it's a logical fallacy to suppose that disproving Darwinism makes intelligent design more likely.

Michael Behe's claim that intelligent design is open to experimental refutation is an exercise in unbelievable cynicism. Growing a bacteria for 10,000 generations and see if a flagellum develops under a selective pressure? Jesus, where the Hell do you begin with that?

First off, evolution isn't a directed process. It's impossible to introduce an evolutionary pressure and get a specific result. Secondly, it took procaryotes about *two billion years* to develop into primitive eukaryotes. In evolutionary terms, 10,000 generations is the blink of an eye. Fourthly, this test excludes the possibility of cooption. Fifthly, notice that he doesn't try to prove that the flagellum is irreducibly complex -- he asks us to disprove his claim (no surprise there, of course).

You know, it chills me to think there are evil, evil people like this out there, peddling poison to people who need to believe in something because their lives have been made so lousy by the betrayals of their leaders. I cannot even begin to understand someone evil enough to write the wedge document. Scientific materialism is the origin of all our problems -- and for this reason you vote Republican? Are you *insane*?