I want to get on Jilli's list too.

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.

That's a good point, Nutty, but two out of four of those theories were strictly scientific theories, even if they are now considered archaic. ID is not. And lots of people, who aren't trying to cram ID into a science book, actually believe in it right now, and don't take kindly to others comparing said ideas to medieval "sciences" or origin myths.

And of course the Holocaust revisionist thing is a shock tactic, but isn't that the point of Godwin's?

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.

I don't know. The tone of the article can be criticized, but surely Intelligent Design is an origin myth. It is a belief about origins that is based on a shared world view rather than on data. And alchemy and phlogiston were unsupported beliefs tarted up to ride on the coat tails of science. The were "designed" as pseudoscience, so that they resembled science in superficial ways and would be confused with science by people who respected but did not understand science. The same is true of Intelligent Design.

Storks and the holocaust? I agree that these were unfortunate choices and did not advance the argument.

And lots of people, who aren't trying to cram ID into a science book, actually believe in it right now, and don't take kindly to others comparing said ideas to medieval "sciences" or origin myths.

But, but, irreducible complexity-- which is what ID is based on-- has been pretty soundly refuted, as here [link] If people "believe" in it, it's not because of the unimpeachable science of it. It does seem like various self-serving and unproven theories to me.

Jilli's list makes me feel like strawberry jelly.

Again, not seeing the lawlessness and looting and danger overstated:

**********

City not safe for anyone

Thursday, 3:45 p.m.

Across the city Thursday, the haunting fear of flooding was replaced by a raw fear for life and public safety.

Navigating the St. Thomas area of the Lower Garden District in an SUV, Times-Picayune reporter Gordon Russell, accompanied by a photographer from The New York Times, described a landscape of lawlessness where he feared for his life and felt his safety was threatened at nearly every turn.

At the Superdome and Marc N. Morial Convention Center, Russell said throngs of hungry and desperate people displaced by the flood overwhelmed the few law enforcement or miliatary personnel present.

"There was no crowd control," Russell said. "People were swarming. It was a near riot situation. The authorities have got to get some military down here to get control of the situation."

Russell witnessed a shootout between police and citizens near the Convention Center that left one man dead in a pool of blood. Police, perhaps caught off guard by their sudden arrival on the scene, slammed Russell and the photographer against a wall and threw their gear on the ground as they exited their SUV to record the event.

The journalists retreated to Russell's home Uptown where they hid in fear. They planned to flee the city later today.

Almost everywhere Russell went Uptown, one of the few relatively dry areas in Orleans Parish, he said he felt the threat of violence.

"There is a totally different feeling here than there was yesterday (Wednesday)," said Russell, who has reported on the aftermatch of Hurricane Katrina since the storm devastated the city on Monday. "I'm scared. I'm not afraid to admit it. I'm getting out of here."

I think it was the "gangs of armed men roaming the city" that was overstated, IIRC, Hec.

To me, the three greatest tragedies in the world right now are:

1. Hurricane Katrina

2. The Mariners' inability to develop a pitching prospect without destroying their arms and shoulders.

3. A hawt chyk like Allyson NGA when men and women should be lining up outside her place to give it up.

And, honestly, #3 is a great place to be.

And lots of people, who aren't trying to cram ID into a science book

Not quite.

There's a huge difference between belief in intelligent design (lowercase), and the political movement behind the capital-letter version. Intelligent Design (in caps, as coined by the Discovery Institute) is, by definition, something that people are trying to cram into biology textbooks, and THAT is what scientists are fighting to prevent.

actually believe in it right now, and don't take kindly to others comparing said ideas to medieval "sciences" or origin myths.

What's offensive about the term "origin myth"? Are the creation stories of other religions less valid just because they're equally as unscientific as the Judeo-Christian one?

But, but, irreducible complexity-- which is what ID is based on

There is also the argument that Allyson is too pretty to be the result of a purely natural process. I think it was the paper "Damn Allyson is pretty, why the hell is she NGA?!" by Petrotov and Deiterman.