Off topic, but this is the best editorial I've read that argues against teaching "Intelligent Design" in school (and I've read a shit-load of them): [link]
They make some excellent arguments for why to keep ID out of the classroom. But it's paragraphs like these that really annoy me:
Intelligent design is not an argument of the same character as these controversies. It is not a scientific argument at all, but a religious one. It might be worth discussing in a class on the history of ideas, in a philosophy class on popular logical fallacies, or in a comparative religion class on origin myths from around the world. But it no more belongs in a biology class than alchemy belongs in a chemistry class, phlogiston in a physics class or the stork theory in a sex education class. In those cases, the demand for equal time for "both theories" would be ludicrous. Similarly, in a class on 20th-century European history, who would demand equal time for the theory that the Holocaust never happened?
Yes, ID is a religious argument, and belongs firmly in church and not in science class. But minimizing ID by calling it, sequentially, a historical idea, a popular logical fallacy, and an origin myth; and then ridiculing ID by comparing it to alchemy, phlogiston, stork theory, and (in the classic application of Godwin's Law) holocaust revisionism? It's offensive, and only hurts their otherwise well-written article.
Isn't it CNN's job to scare the crap out of people? I mean, scared people don't change the channel, so they're around when the commercial breaks happen.
Actually, that is the problem with newscasts right there in a nutshell.
ooooh! Jilli! Have a wee mini-auction of cutie-pie things.
That is a very good idea. Off to IM the DJ again ...
Cindy, that has been underway since this morning, according to the chronicle:
[link]
Besides the first of 500 buses from the Superdome, two 737s jetliners were expected in Houston today with 135 people aboard, and another 1,900 people were heading to Houston on an Amtrak train.
The first official busses got there wee small hours this morning, I think.
You know when Jilli said "Goodbye, cruel internets!" above, b/c so much of the hurricane discussion was so upsetting? Well, we had the idea to -- for now -- make Bitches a Hurricane-Free Zone.
By that, I just mean this: it's totally normal for people to be talking about the hurricane and its aftermath; this is a disaster of staggering proportions, and I don't say that lightly. That said, the news reports people are quoting and linking here can be so upsetting to some people, we though we could make Bitches a respite from the hurricane discussion.
Basically, if you're overwhelmed by hurricane discussion and want to discuss other stuff, free of hurricaney-ness, you can go to Bitches. It's just an idea, to create an oasis of calm.
Isn't it CNN's job to scare the crap out of people?
Yeah, that's true, and it's my fault for reading the top article about first-person experiences and not anything about the official response. The former makes one feel very helpless.
Basically, if you're overwhelmed by hurricane discussion and want to discuss other stuff, free of hurricaney-ness, you can go to Bitches.
Can we talk about how pretty I am and how it's a travesty that I'm NGA?
I can't watch CNN coverage anymore. The women with babies are making me want to go get Em and just cuddle her even more than I already want to.
But ridiculing ID by comparing it to alchemy, phlogiston, stork theory, and (in the classic application of Godwin's Law) holocaust revisionism?
In these authors' defence, two out of four of these theories were once, and for a long time, considered legitimate science, before science became more rigorous in its "oh yeah? Prove it!" hard-headedness.
I agree that the stork theory thing is a cheap shot, but the Holocaust revisionism thing is intended to shock -- just because there is "another side" to an argument doesn't mean the argument is legitimately a part of that class.
(In the Dewey Decimal System, the Holocaust goes in the 900s, under history, whereas Holocaust denial goes in the 000s, under controversial beliefs.)
