21 October 2005

Catalyst on ID theory

Catalyst did a reasonable job on Intelligent Design last night. I say reasonable because they got caught up in the antiphonal debate theory where you doing good journalism if you let both sides have a say, even if one side is actually badly wrong.

There's a poll crying out for you to go and vote. Brendan Nelson's support for the teaching of ID theory in science classes raises a lot of questions. Why do Australian conservatives pick up the latest silliness from the US right as if it were (ahem) Gospel truth? How does a medical practitioner reconcile his knowledge of life science with endorsing ID theory as scientific? And was the world really designed by an intelligent Flying Spaghetti Monster?

3 comments:

Stan said...

Alan, comments seem to have stopped appearing in the post above. Maybe it's telling us something :-)

Found this report on the Pacific plan which I thought you might find interesting. Looks like it is a fairly specific set of recommendations for the leaders to consider tomorrow. Some of the more interesting bits don't seem to have made it into the news (which while strange, isn't really unusual I suppose).

http://pacificplan.org/tiki-download_file.php?fileId=103

Alan said...

There appears to be an illgal charactr in your last comment which has disabled psoting as well as commenting.

Stan said...

Whoops. Sorry about that chief.