|
Pitas.com
bartcop
Mark Morford
Freeworld (Kirsty MacColl)
Not In Our Name
Question W
Planned Parenthood
PETA
International Fund for Animal Welfare
Gnome Girl
Nerve.com
Wonkette
Talking Points Memo
archives here
email me here
|
Wednesday, May 11, 2005
02:49 p.m.
Finally!
Barbara O'Brien of The Mahablog has a post up at The American Street that explains why liberals should reclaim the word "liberal" and stop using "progressive" as if the two words are interchangeable.
Wednesday, May 11, 2005
11:32 a.m.
A pet peeve
Okay, this might seem like nitpicking. Heck, it is nitpicking. I'm snotty, my nose itches and I'm not in the best of moods. But I'm getting tired of ceding any ground to creationists, even by accident. What set me off is in the comments section of this otherwise excellent post by John Cole on his blog Balloon Juice. Here is the comment in question, posted by Mr. Cole himself:
My Dad is an atheist and he thinks the evolution theory is not adequately been proved, yet.
Which is why it is a theory, and not a law.
Intelligent Design and Creationism are neither.
Intelligent Design can best be summed up as:
"Hey- this shit is complicated and I don't understand it- some 'intellgient' being or thing must have designed this. Oh, and by the way, these creationists over here think God did it all in seven days."
Great post. I agree with everything said. Except ...
Evolution isn't a theory because it hasn't been proven yet. Evolution is a theory because scientists realized early in the 20th Century that even supposedly proven scientific theories might still turn out to be wrong as new information comes to light or as new conditions are applied. Einstein demonstrated this when he showed that Newton's "Laws" broke down under extreme conditions.
By any criteria, evolution has been "proven." It's been proven by experiment and observation time and time again. Despite that, scientists are careful and no matter how much more proof is gathered, it is doubtful it will ever be more than a theory. As if that mattered.
For too long the nuts and peckerwoods have set the definitions of the terms in this debate. They've twisted meanings to favor themselves. Those of us who believe in objective, verifiable scientific truth can't let them continue. We've got to understand and insist on one simple fact. Evolution is proven science. Creationism is neither.
Wednesday, May 11, 2005
11:26 a.m.
Whoa!
I haven't posted anything for almost a year on this site, yet, here it waits. I'm impressed. So, it's time to start up again, though I doubt anyone will read it until our civilization has long passed away and an alien race, technologically advanced yet ethereal, walks the earth and finds the computer on which this post is written.
Of course, they won't read it either, since the computer, like all computers that sit for millions of years, will have become evil and will attempt to destroy the world. A great war will ensue between ethereal critters and the computer and one way or another nobody will have time to do much light, recreational reading.
I've resigned myself to this. But I have a pet peeve I want to vent about, so it's on to the next post.
|
