The blog for the Design of Life textbook supplement went live this morning (I'm the lead blogger).
The first three posts:
1. Welcome to the Design of Life blog!
Excerpt: " Here at this blog you will see the evidence run through a filter that accepts the possibility of purpose and design. That means that sometimes you will see the same evidence but without the just-so stories that rescue Darwinism. You will see lots of evidence you wouldn't otherwise know about. In no case will you see the kind of thing you hear increasingly from popular (and sometimes tax-supported) media. For example, here are some things we WON'T tell you: 1. What Pleistocene man "would have done". For example, he "would have had several mates in order to spread his selfish genes." Actually, I don't know what Pleistocene man would have done. Do you? Did he? When we don't know that something actually happened, we won't tell you that it did. We certainly won't tell you that it "would have happened" in order to promote some otherwise useless or failed Darwinist theory."
2. The Big Bang of flowers - an abominable mystery? Or an opportunity to really understand?
Can scientists shed light on Charles Darwin's "abominable mystery" - the Big Bang of early plant evolution? Flowering plants evolved quite quickly into five groups, according to scientists at the University of Florida and the University of Texas at Austin (ScienceDaily, November 27, 2007) ...
3. The "Copernican" myth, and other science myths - the undead still walk! The myth that Copernicus's model of the universe "dethroned" humans is a vampire that refuses to die. In Physics Today, Mano Singham tries yet again! to drive a nail through the monster's heart. Singham writes (December 2007, page 48) about the promoters of the myth ...
Maybe you guys were hard at work doing research *snicker, snort* but have you heard of a little case referred to as 'Kitzmiller v. Dover'?
Allow me to briefly summarize the findings of Judge Jones, a Republican nominated by Sen. Santorum and appointed by Pres. Bush:
1. Intelligent design is not science
2. Intelligent design is creationism
3. Intelligent design, lacking any evidence or even a single testable hypothesis, has no merit being taught as science.
Thus, why make an ID 'textbook'. Why not make one for astrology, phrenology, numerology, or alchemy?
Posted by: Jesse | December 20, 2007 at 05:59 PM
Jesse,
Thank God the legislative branch is the ultimate authority on science, and that Judge Jones is a trained biologist who comprehends every little bit of literature on the subject...
What, it's not, and Judge Jones isn't? Who'd have guessed it...
Posted by: Michael | December 21, 2007 at 03:28 AM
Are you going to add an rss feed to that blog.
Oh btw Jesse, maybe when some scientists stop trying to be philosophers there will be no need to present theories of intelligent design.
Posted by: Alex Fear | December 22, 2007 at 08:17 AM