Roboramma
7th December 2006, 11:43 PM
Was looking through the Loom today and saw something that might be of interest to other JREFers.
After his article about evolution in National Geographic, the Discovery Institute seem a little unhappy with Carl Zimmer.
Here's a link to the first part of a three part rebuttal of his article (http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/11/evolution_nat_geo_1.html
) that they've put up on their website.
And here's a link to Zimmer's response (http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2006/11/13/getting_the_mooney_treatment.php) on his blog.
I particularly liked this part:
"Was the Ford Pinto, with all its imperfections revealed in crash tests, not designed?"
This is not from a satire of intelligent design in the Onion. These words actually appear in the final part of the Discovery Institute's lengthy response to my article. I am tempted to just let those words speak for their own absurd selves and end this post right here. But it's worth taking this trip to the very end. Having confused a magazine article for a scientific paper, having searched for evidence of design in figures of speech, Casey Luskin now sets the rules for what anyone can and cannot discuss when it comes to intelligent design. The only problem is, he can't seem to abide by them himself.
After his article about evolution in National Geographic, the Discovery Institute seem a little unhappy with Carl Zimmer.
Here's a link to the first part of a three part rebuttal of his article (http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/11/evolution_nat_geo_1.html
) that they've put up on their website.
And here's a link to Zimmer's response (http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2006/11/13/getting_the_mooney_treatment.php) on his blog.
I particularly liked this part:
"Was the Ford Pinto, with all its imperfections revealed in crash tests, not designed?"
This is not from a satire of intelligent design in the Onion. These words actually appear in the final part of the Discovery Institute's lengthy response to my article. I am tempted to just let those words speak for their own absurd selves and end this post right here. But it's worth taking this trip to the very end. Having confused a magazine article for a scientific paper, having searched for evidence of design in figures of speech, Casey Luskin now sets the rules for what anyone can and cannot discuss when it comes to intelligent design. The only problem is, he can't seem to abide by them himself.