![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jrtomhttp://www.sciam.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF
(Actually, the article title differs somewhat, but I thought that it was unnecessarily inflammatory.)
The article is perhaps not as "grandma-ready" as it could be--it could use some editing for accessibility--but it does a good job of deconstructing the most common contentions of ID advocates.
(Actually, the article title differs somewhat, but I thought that it was unnecessarily inflammatory.)
The article is perhaps not as "grandma-ready" as it could be--it could use some editing for accessibility--but it does a good job of deconstructing the most common contentions of ID advocates.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 17 February 2007 20:18 (UTC)If you think the generic creationist/id proponents are bad, read this and then spend a few minutes at the Fixed Earth website. It makes Kent Hovind look positively rational. hooboy :\
http://www.spicejar.org/asiplease/archives/000442.html