Dirk may have been the best in the regular season, but if he's the best player on his team, the Mavs will never win it all. I agree with everything JJT has to say.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/spt/columnists/jtaylor/
stories/050407dnspotaylor.3dda6d5.html
Or, for a little encouragement, read Bill Simmons' take.
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/blog/index?name=simmons
---------------------------------------------------
Is anyone else frightened by the fact that 3 grown men running for president of the United States readily admitted on live TV that they do not believe in evolution? I guess I'm actually frightened by the fact that their rejection of 150 years of biological study will actually HELP their campaigns in many corners of the country.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/05/us/politics/05repubs.html
---------------------------------------------------
Take a second to laugh. Check out McSweeny's. Start here, then make your way to the lists. They're pure gold.
http://www.mcsweeneys.net/2007/5/3hutchinson.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Interestingly, none of them said evolution should not be taught in schools. And McCain and Tancredo gave opinions that evolution and the existence of God were not mutually exclusive. i’ll just put it out there (maybe this should go to our other board).
1) Why does it bother you so that politicians appeal to voters on religious issues? They are trying to get anything, in anyway possible.
2) What makes you believe in evolution other than it has been taught in school for the past 30+ years?
The fact that they don't want to make any changes in the classroom is reassuring, sure. But it only reinforces your first point. They are trying to get as many votes as possible by any means possible.
To answer your question, I guess I believe evolution because, not being a scientist or even very scientifically-minded, I have to rely to a great extent on the opinions of people that are scientists. What I do know about it, however, seems to make a whole lot of sense. The genetic simliarities and interdependency of various species, among other things, certainly lends credibility to it's case.
I suppose what bothers me with the politicians' claim is that their stance relies primarily on a book that was written not to be a scientific reference, but a historical and religious one. Opening with two contradictory accounts of how the world came into being, it doesn't even seem to agree with itself on how it all happened. Not to mention that it was written by men who knew nothing about the Western Hemisphere, much less genes, cells, bacteria, or even a heliocentric solar system. Their world needed explanation just as much as ours does. They didn't have the benefit of thousands of years of scientific observation. We do.
If a more plausable explanation for the origin and development of the earth and its species comes around, I'll definately hear it out. Right now, I don't hear any call from the scientific community to "rethink" evolution or to consider an intelligent design model. I just think that it is interesting that we live in a world in which three "non-scientific" men can publicy stand in opposition to 99.9% of the scientific community with the expectation that they will BENEFIT from such a claim.
Post a Comment