Virginia Beach
Second Thursday of the Month
Drinking Liberally Website
Join us at Meetup.
Follow the conversation at Facebook.
In the latest migration to a new virtual private server, some of the links to images in the earliest posts to this blog were broken. If you encounter one of these broken links, please let me know. I have backups and can restore the images.
There’s only one person who agrees with me on everything, and, as I’m not running for office, that person is not on the ballot.
(Why can’t I type “Whateverrrrrrrrr” the way my daughter says it?)
It’s not science.
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.