amoebic_vodka ([info]amoebic_vodka) wrote,
@ 2005-09-08 17:17:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
Serious Interlude
No silliness here, just a link to an article about intelligent design. Written by someone who may count as a scientist, but not a biologist. See, it is possible to write something intelligent about science without working in that field, or even near it.

http://www.qwghlm.co.uk/blog/?p=753

...oh and the Life section is no more. Sob. Bad Science is staying, however. Yay.

Wow, seven links to his blog in this week's Bad Science. That's one way to increase your pagerank...

(4 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Daily Science....wow!
(Anonymous)
2005-09-09 10:00 am UTC (link)
I must say I'm looking forward to a daily science section, it may even be worth sending in some articles in the hope that their regular writers get writers block. The whole "Berliner" format the Guardian is adopting is sounding promising, I just hope they don't make all the Science into shock stories as described in the big Bad Science Dr. Goldacre did yesterday....

- sickboyedd

(Reply to this) (Thread)
Re: Daily Science....wow!
[info]amoebic_vodka
2005-09-09 10:15 am UTC (link)
It depends on the size of the science section. If it is small, then there won't be much in the way of feature length articles. Sigh. If it means the 'science' articles that appear normally appear in the main bit of the paper move to the science section then we're all doomed.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Daily Science....wow!
(Anonymous)
2005-09-13 09:27 am UTC (link)
Well.... it was about intelligent design in the end and the interviewee seemingly didn't read Dawkins critique of ID because yet again it was all "wow, that's beautiful and complex so it must have been designed" (sure, molecular machinery looks complex now, but who could have envisaged even *doing* molecular science at this scale and complexity 100 years ago! ), he quoted Dawkins' Blind Watchmaker out of context (missing the point of the book entirely), alluded to there being a large body of credible people supporting ID who are being hushed and compared them to Galileo.

Erm....was he playing Intelligent Design bingo, where you have to tick off all the things Dawkins said were naughty about ID'ers?

- sickboyedd

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Daily Science....wow!
[info]amoebic_vodka
2005-09-13 10:54 am UTC (link)
Wow, we're psychic or something. We didn't know the first science bit would be about ID. Sigh. Flagella as irreduceably complex, eh? *examines membranes* Phew, we've still got our proton ATPases.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(4 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…