Comments on: Happy Darwin Day

By: Francis

Francis — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 16:17:59 +0000

I think what I love about Darwin is the bravery, that evolution ruffled so many feathers and continues to do so even today. That he waited 20+ years to “get it right”, that his wife was religious and yet he went ahead with “Origin” in any case. That he struggled with the ideas on a personal level. I think that takes guts, especially in the 1800s.

http://francisshanahan.com/www/index.php/2009/happy-birthday-darwin/

By: Claire C Smith

Claire C Smith — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 01:51:08 +0000

I didn’t think my comment was ‘that’ off topic!

Claire

By: Zed

Zed — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 00:56:10 +0000

@Low Math, Meekly Interacting Says:
“I sometimes wonder why evolution scares folks more than quantum mechanics. In a classical universe, even if there’s evolution, it can still, in principle, unfold according to a set plan. In a quantum universe, that there can even be a plan is unclear. What’s more heretical, that destiny was set for us further in the past, or that there is none?”

Interesting comment there linking QM and evolution. Interesting because quantum effects on the small scale probably effect the accuracy of DNA replication enzymes responsible for some of the raw material for natural selection (mutation). Now, how to measure such an effect?

Go Darwin!

By: Arun

Arun — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 00:20:17 +0000

This day was Naturally Selected!

By: Michael T.

Michael T. — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 02:02:03 +0000

*cool pic*

By: Martin E.

Martin E. — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 22:33:39 +0000

“If the evidence had indicated that we were designed as part of some Great Plan, the scientifically respectable thing to do would have been to accept that and try to understand it as well as we could”
Great statement! This attitude is one of the steps on my expansion of Dawkins’ “degrees of (un-)religion” scale. It’s the “Jack Sparrow” approach [up to you to realize why],or, to give it a proper name, “scitheism”.

By: Benjamin

Benjamin — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 21:47:57 +0000

Darwin Day was alive and in full cheer here at Harvard!

By: Eugenie

Eugenie — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 16:11:44 +0000

But wheres all the madlove for number one son Leonard Darwin, cousin Galton and America’s own Charles Davenport?
http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2008/01/30/maybe-its-a-virus/
http://echidneofthesnakes.blogspot.com/2008_01_01_archive.html#6051001262780259118
http://www.echidneofthesnakes.blogspot.com/2008_04_01_archive.html
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/04/bioethicist_art_caplan_understands.php [ N.B. scroll down to Colugo's comments-note the paucity of the response]
Still all things considered it’s great to see you reading Nietzsche..read enough of him & you too will break down in appalled laughter when you read the words “Ethical Naturalism”

By: chemicalscum

chemicalscum — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 05:56:31 +0000

Low Math said:
“I sometimes wonder why evolution scares folks more than quantum mechanics. In a classical universe, even if there’s evolution, it can still, in principle, unfold according to a set plan. In a quantum universe, that there can even be a plan is unclear.”

The reason is they don’t understand QM (come on who does? I know chemistry PhD’s who run away screaming when you try and talk about its relevance to their research) so they don’t think about it, but they think they understand what the Theory of Evolution is when they don’t.

By: Contains Caffeine » Darwin Day Roundup

Contains Caffeine » Darwin Day Roundup — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 02:22:02 +0000

[...] Why Darwin Matters [...]

By: piscator

piscator — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 00:38:28 +0000

>It’s nearly impossible to recognize and appreciate his scientific genius >without also grappling one way or another with the sad reality that so >many people are reluctant to accept the truth of natural selection….We >want to be special, we don’t want to be an accident, and in the face of >overwhelming evidence we too often simply refuse to accept any other >possibility.

Perhaps one reason many people are reluctant to accept natural selection is that what they are presented with is not the science but instead an ideology piggybacking on and distorting the science. It doesn’t matter whether we want to be special or not. On any rational grounds we are special, being the only species to argue the point. Darwin was a seriously great scientist, but he isn’t great because of dodgy meta-conclusions that, bluntly, are in straight denial of the facts. That we are special – and anything that may involve – has no contradiction with either common descent or natural selection; I also have common descent with Edward Witten, but he is still special in a way I am not.

This attempt to tie Darwin and the science of evolution to a kind of politically liberal atheism is both wrong and dangerous. It’s wrong because it’s false, and I think most people who are professional scientists know at heart (and certainly should know) that it is false. Evolution has no necessary connection to either liberalism or atheism. Anyone who would like to bluff to the contrary can write up their reasons, and try to publish it as a scientific result through usual channels, but I think we know this is not a claim belonging to the peer-reviewed scientific literature.

It’s dangerous because people who aren’t scientists and who aren’t politically liberal atheists reject the science because they are told that Darwin = atheism, and they have already seen through the latter so they don’t bother with the former. Great science is so much more than a tool to score political points with, and it is a tragedy that so many people miss out on science because Darwin is used for political posturing.

piscator

By: Neal J. King

Neal J. King — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 22:58:53 +0000

Sean,

I see you’re still trying to catch up with the other Sean Carroll. But he’s still ahead: Now he’s been on NPR with a Darwin-related gig.

By: per

per — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 17:58:26 +0000

*yawn*

By: Book of Darwin

Book of Darwin — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 14:24:10 +0000

[...] Even the physicists and dinosaurs are giving Darwin props… This entry was posted in Biology. Bookmark the [...]

By: Hiranya

Hiranya — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 12:15:00 +0000

Great post!

By: Low Math, Meekly Interacting

Low Math, Meekly Interacting — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 05:06:19 +0000

Nice post!

I sometimes wonder why evolution scares folks more than quantum mechanics. In a classical universe, even if there’s evolution, it can still, in principle, unfold according to a set plan. In a quantum universe, that there can even be a plan is unclear. What’s more heretical, that destiny was set for us further in the past, or that there is none?

By: pfc

pfc — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 03:17:33 +0000

Thank you Sean! This is why I’m a regular visitor; you’re a wonderfully articulate writer who is able to communicate not just the discoveries, the theories, and the process of science (as interesting as that is) but also why it’s something to be proud of, and to celebrate.

By: Pope Maledict XVI

Pope Maledict XVI — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 02:19:16 +0000

“Can Darwinism explain away the historical fact that a man named Jesus Christ, who claimed to be the Son of God, rose form the dead after 3 days?”

No. But it can explain why you think that this is a “fact”.

By: rww

rww — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 01:55:38 +0000

That’s “de-plane”.

By: Larry

Larry — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 23:11:40 +0000

Can Darwinism explain away the historical fact that a man named Jesus Christ, who claimed to be the Son of God, rose form the dead after 3 days? Where in the evelutionary process did man get his sense of spiritual things? I find there is a lot of things Darwinism and “science” can not explane.

Happy Darwin Day