This website does not track you.
It contains no private information. It does not drop persistent cookies, does not collect data other than incoming ip addresses and page views (the internet is a public place), and certainly does not collect and sell your information to others.
Some sites that I link to may try to track you, but that's between you and them, not you and me.
I do collect statistics, but I use a simple stand-alone Wordpress plugin, not third-party services such as Google Analitics over which I have no control.
Finally, this is website is a hobby. It's a hobby in which I am deeply invested, about which I care deeply, and which has enabled me to learn a lot about computers and computing, but it is still ultimately an avocation, not a vocation; it is certainly not a money-making enterprise (unless you click the "Donate" button--go ahead, you can be the first!).
I appreciate your visiting this site, and I desire not to violate your trust.
December 17, 2005 at 11:00 pm
I found this quote from the link interesting:
“Intelligent design is the theory that the origins and workings of the universe can never be explained through science alone.”
Would this definition be confirmed by people who propose the theory? It’s not what I imagined intelligent design theory to be.
December 21, 2005 at 3:46 pm
No, that’s not how they would describe it. Their definition mandates a “Designer.”
I read the Dover, Pa., opinion today. The judge spent a lot of time defining “intelligent design” as the term as used by those who jinned up the concept.
He also showed quite convincingly that it is creationism in sheep’s clothing (early drafts of the book, Of Pandas and People, actually used “Creatism” in the text; it was changed subsequent to the court ruling that, as a religious concept, creationism cannot be taught as if it were science.
You can find the opinion here.