Honorary POTM Nomination (Was: Re: External Chez Watt)
- From: "Grace Haliburton" <kaosgrace@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 7 Nov 2005 16:26:52 -0800
Andrew Arensburger wrote:
> There's nothing in the Chez Watt rules that prohibits me from
> nominating a statement from outside t.o, is there? 'Cos I really liked
> this bit from Eric(?) Rothschild's closing argument in the Dover Panda
> Trial:
>
> > Who else could it be? Michael Behe suggests candidates like
> > aliens, or time travelers with a wink and nod, not seriously.
> > Intelligent Design hides behind an official position that it does
> > not name the designer, but as Dr. Minnich acknowledged this morning
> > all of its advocates believe that the Designer is God.
>
> And the nominated portion:
>
> > Intelligent Design could not come closer to naming the designer if
> > it was spotted the letters "G" and "O".
>
> --
> Andrew Arensburger, Systems guy University of Maryland
> arensb.no-bloody-spam@xxxxxxx Office of Information Technology
> An aquarium is just interactive television for cats.
Actually instead of seconding your Chez Watt, I'd like instead to
nominate his *entire* closing argument as the honorary POTM. Having
read it in its entirety I must say that it singlehandedly convinced me
(and no doubt most of the courtroom, whatever their original stance) to
stop reserving judment and admit that ID is inextricably linked with
creationism and no matter how appealing some of its ideas may be, it is
part of a well-documented evil fundie conspiracy.
--
-Grace
"Never trust anything that thinks for itself if you can't see where it
keeps its brain." - J.K. Rowling
.
- Prev by Date: Re: The animate vs. the inanimate
- Next by Date: Re: Mindless Intuition
- Previous by thread: Chez Watt: Re: Of Mice and Straw Men
- Next by thread: Re: Mindless Intuition
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
