Tuesday, May 17, 2005

Read this now

Every so often, I come across a post by another blogger that's just so perfect that I can only stand by in envy, wishing I had thought of the argument first. So it is with this article by Canadian Cynic on why one particular creationist canard, the demand for "direct observation," may not be as smart a gambit as they think it is. Better yet, it's labeled as "Part 1 in the serial adventures of John Q. Creation." Please, go and read it. I can't wait for part 2.

3 example(s) of insolence returned:

At 5/17/2005 9:16 AM, Blogger GrrlScientist said...

Thanks for sharing that link!



At 5/17/2005 12:54 PM, Blogger Saint Nate said...

This would make a great addition to the upcoming Skeptics' Circle.


At 5/17/2005 1:19 PM, Blogger Orac said...

Canadian Cynic might even make a good future host for the Skeptics' Circle.


Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Links to this insolence:

Create a Link

<< Home