Jerry Coyne has a nice, long, thorough analysis of ID in The New Republic. Not much new for the initiated, but a very good primer for newbies to the issue, touching everything from science (or lack thereof) to the religious roots of ID. (I am not sure, but it may require free registration to read) Did I say it’s long? It’s long.
Coyne on ID in The New Republic
1 TrackBack
What's in a Theory? from Newton's Binomium on August 13, 2005 3:10 PM
Red State Rabble has an interesting post on the relative "theoryness" of Evolution and Intelligent Design. (See Coyne's excellent piece in The New Republic for a more detailed discussion of the same problem.) Hayes hit the nail on the head with his a... Read More
6 Comments
About this Entry
This page contains a single entry by Andrea Bottaro published on August 11, 2005 12:46 PM.
Fisking Dembski was the previous entry in this blog.
Thoughts on The Dover Case is the next entry in this blog.
Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.
Categories
- Assault on Science (395)
- Bathroom Wall (13)
- Book Reviews (54)
- Conferences (20)
- Darwin's Finches (1)
- Designoids (8)
- Education and Legal (59)
- Eugenics (1)
- Evolution (449)
- Expelled (68)
- Flyers/Pamphlets (3)
- Humor (134)
- ID/Creationism (52)
- Icons (1)
- Journal Club (28)
- Legal Issues (120)
- Manufactroversy (9)
- Medicine and Evolution (19)
- Metatalk (85)
- MustRead (5)
- News Roundup (24)
- Prebiotic Chemistry (4)
- Question of the Day (6)
- Question of the Moment
- Quote of the Day (14)
- Religion and Politics (10)
- Research News (52)
- Resources for Biologists (16)
- Shoptalk (27)
- Slightly Off Topic (43)
- Steve Steve (68)
- Sticky (2)
- Their Own Words (18)
- Theological Issues with Intelligent Design (9)
- War on Science (32)
- What motivates creationism (20)
bugmenot username and password for tnr.com: u: 33477b p: 33477b
I need a special firefox extension to hide the obligatory reference to Scopes which has to lead off every evolution/ID article. It’s so tediously repetitive at this point. Kind of like if you’re in physics, eventually, mentions of Schrodinger’s Cat starts to cause involuntary eye-rolling.
Long but very good. Thanks for announcing it.
One thing this piece reminds me of, is how good these judges have been. They consistenly see the creationist tricks for what they are–fundamentalist attempts to deform science teaching to fit the bible.
Man, that TNR piece just taught me something cool:
Dembski copied and posted the whole thing on his website–what a jerk.
Update