The Panda's Thumb
Oh, I just love where the evolution/origins debate takes me! Yesterday, I clicked on a few links and discovered a pro-evolution blog called The Panda's Thumb. It's a pretty high-level discussion, hosted by people who defend Darwinism and attempt to debunk Intelligent Design. That's pretty cool, but what I really love is that they call it "The Panda's Thumb." When I was younger, the Panda was my favorite animal. I had a stuffed Panda that was my constant bedtime companion. I did several reports on Pandas for school and learned that although they are commonly referred to as Panda bears, there was in fact a serious debate in the scientific community about what family the Giant Panda and Red Panda belonged to. The Giant Panda looks like a black-and-white bear, but has a primitive opposable "thumb," like a raccoon. The Red Panda looks more like a raccoon. And some scientists wanted to place Pandas in their own family, separate from bears and raccoons.
Here's an illustrative post from the blog called Richard Feynman on Intelligent Design. L. has a Feynman book around here somewhere that I haven't read yet, but now I really want to. It's called "What Do You Care What Other People Think?": Further Adventures of a Curious Character. The post rebuts an article that attempts to use Feynmann to legitimate Intelligent Design (see this post and this post for my earlier ruminations on ID). And, if you've got the patience, the comments section is fascinating. It has a scholarly journal sort of feel to it, mixed with the down-and-dirty posturing of the blogosphere. You get the feeling that everybody is reading everybody and you're in on this discussion.
Also in the Feynman post, there was a reference to this article, which rebuts the arguments of a prominent evangelical Darwin-basher named Phillip Johnson. It's called "The Phillip Johnson Phenomenon: Are Evangelicals Inheriting The Wind?" Once again, there is reference to the play based upon the Scopes Trials called "Inherit the Wind." (See my earlier post) And the title of that play is based upon a passage from Proverbs 11:29: "He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind." In the play, it makes more sense, because the local preacher who opposes Darwinism casts out his own daughter, who is dating the young teacher on trial.
Here's an illustrative post from the blog called Richard Feynman on Intelligent Design. L. has a Feynman book around here somewhere that I haven't read yet, but now I really want to. It's called "What Do You Care What Other People Think?": Further Adventures of a Curious Character. The post rebuts an article that attempts to use Feynmann to legitimate Intelligent Design (see this post and this post for my earlier ruminations on ID). And, if you've got the patience, the comments section is fascinating. It has a scholarly journal sort of feel to it, mixed with the down-and-dirty posturing of the blogosphere. You get the feeling that everybody is reading everybody and you're in on this discussion.
Also in the Feynman post, there was a reference to this article, which rebuts the arguments of a prominent evangelical Darwin-basher named Phillip Johnson. It's called "The Phillip Johnson Phenomenon: Are Evangelicals Inheriting The Wind?" Once again, there is reference to the play based upon the Scopes Trials called "Inherit the Wind." (See my earlier post) And the title of that play is based upon a passage from Proverbs 11:29: "He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind." In the play, it makes more sense, because the local preacher who opposes Darwinism casts out his own daughter, who is dating the young teacher on trial.