{"id":289,"date":"2005-02-21T13:33:00","date_gmt":"2005-02-21T21:33:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.sixsquare.com\/?p=289"},"modified":"2005-02-21T13:33:00","modified_gmt":"2005-02-21T21:33:00","slug":"intelligent-design","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.sixsquare.com\/index.php\/intelligent-design\/","title":{"rendered":"intelligent design?"},"content":{"rendered":"

There’s a terrific editorial in today’s New York Times that addresses the recent acceptance by a Pennsylvania school of an alternative to Darwinism. This approach, dubbed Intelligent Design<\/a>, figures that human beings are far too complex to have simply evolved by chance. They must have been “designed” by someone or something (they’re careful not to use the G-Word.) This editorial picks apart that notion. We humans are complex machines (something you understand well if you attended the recent Bodyworlds exhibit at the Science Center) but as feats of engineering go, we bear some serious flaws. It’s a terrific read.<\/p>\n

Check it out here<\/a>. If the Times wants you to register, I’ve copied it here<\/a>.<\/p>\n

via Boing Boing<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

There’s a terrific editorial in today’s New York Times that addresses the recent acceptance by a Pennsylvania school of an alternative to Darwinism. This approach, dubbed Intelligent Design, figures that human beings are far too complex to have simply evolved by chance. They must have been “designed” by someone or something (they’re careful not to […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[26,31],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-289","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-check-it-out","category-current-events"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t