RE: I want to believe!

["Gary R. Van Sickle" <g dot r dot vansickle at worldnet dot att dot net>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cygwin-talk-owner@cygwin.com 
> [mailto:cygwin-talk-owner@cygwin.com] On Behalf Of James R. Phillips
> Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2005 1:19 AM
> To: cygwin-talk@cygwin.com
> Subject: Re: I want to believe!
> 
> Hm, I don't usually post or even read this list, but now 
> you've tempted me. 
> The original thread seems to have been back in April?  So 
> perhaps you are referring to the recent buzz over ID 
> (Intelligent Design); I guess it made the cover of _Time_.
> 
> There are a lot of misconceptions regarding ID.  It isn't 
> creationism at all; it is based on scientific methodologies 
> used every day in fields such as anthropology or archeology.  
> An article you might want to look at outlining the controversy is
> 
> http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/klinghoffer200508030811.asp.
> 
> A pretty good concise summary of the theory is at
> 
> http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=8543
> 
> Jim Phillips

Lets see the peer-reviewed journal articles documenting the overwhelming
evidence that anything that could possibly go by the name "Intelligent
Design" is anything more than "Creationist Hucksterism."  And you can leave
out the ones that inexplicably confuse cosmology and evolution in the first
sentence, because we can all agree that those are nonsensical from the
get-go.

Until such time as the "Intelligent" gets added to "Intelligent Design", I
think it behooves us all to simply ignore it in favor of the
much-better-supported Theory of Spaghetti Monsterism.

-- 
Gary R. Van Sickle