Anarcissie wrote:
> In article <678fihF2nah14U1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Dan Clore
> <clore@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> Alex Russell wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.expelledexposed.com/
>>>
>>> For a thorough debunking.
>>>
>>> ID is not science. It has no place in a science class room. Teach
>>> it in philosophy.
>> I think you mean "mythology".
>
> It's too abstract for mythology. I think it belongs in the realm of
> philosophical speculation, like Platonism. One can certainly
> criticize it on logical grounds, but one doesn't criticize mythology
> for its failures of logic.
So-called "intelligent design" isn't so much abstract as vague -- vague
for the purpose of emptying it of specifically religious content, which
keeps Creationism out of schools. The "intelligent designer" supposedly
isn't a euphemism for Gawd -- it could be Gawd, Satan, Bob, the crinoid
Old Ones who made earth life as a joke or mistake in Lovecraft's _At the
Mountains of Madness_, a mad scientist from the far future equipped with
a time machine, or what not.
--
Dan Clore
My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
http://tinyurl.com/2gcoqt
Lord We˙rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://tinyurl.com/292yz9
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
-- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"
|
