What Has Science Done?

Hey, I am New to This!

2005-09-24T21:39:00.000-04:00

As I have mentioned twice already, Boston University's College of Communications is going to hold a debate this November on "whether Intelligent Design should be taught alongside Evolutionary Biology in science classrooms." In a flash of utter stupidity, I cared to email the Discovery Institute's leading Blowhard/Laconic about what he hoped to accomplish at this event, since the DI's policy on teaching ID is that it should not be mandatory, but teachers should discuss the "evidence against evolution." Here is his rather curt, but prompt, response which I received last night.

At 06:02 PM 9/23/2005, you wrote:
what you hope to accomplish in this debate?

Exposure.

I gaped open mouthed at this for a good few minutes. I did not write the most articulate of emails and in an effort to be up-front, stated that I was not a fan of his work. One can say I should have known better, and yes I do now. In the least, I have a greater respect for the scientists who boycotted the Kansas BoE show trial earlier this year.

The "Other" Big One

2005-09-21T23:21:00.000-04:00

Holy Shit Man!. Please go check out Steve Gregory's wonderful weather blog. One can only hope the evacuation goes better then New Orleans. I am horrified that the evacuees/refugees of N.O. that are in Houston are going to get pounded by another monster of a Hurricane. Our thoughts are with all those on the gulf coast.

Boston University's "Great Debate" & Intelligent Design

2005-09-21T23:12:00.001-04:00

This is a generic email I just sent out to the Chairs of various science departments around BU. If you would like to refer to or pass on this letter to other universities, please feel free to do so.

To whom this may concern,

On November 2 of this year, Boston University's College of Communications will be holding its 20th annual "Great Debate," whose topic will be whether "Intelligent Design (ID) should be taught in conjunction with evolutionary theory."1 The 'controversy' concerning ID has garnered recent attention due to the actions of state and local school boards2 and prominent conservatives politicians (including the President)3 advocating the teaching of alternatives to evolution. The debate will be held at the Tsai Center for the Performing Arts - 685 Commonwealth Avenue, Boston and will start around 6:30pm.

I myself am an senior at Boston University studying Physics and the History of Science. I am writing to you today to express my concern about the nature of the ID movement in the United States (and across the globe) and its impact on how Americans view science and scientists.

Intelligent Design's central tenant, which can be applied to astronomy as well as biology, is that certain organic systems such as the bacterial flagellum are of such enormous complexity that they could not be produced by a natural process such as evolution via selection. This is not only a flagrant misrepresentation of current research on complex evolutionary pathways, but also exemplifies an attempt to undermine the methodological naturalism which is one of the fundamental underpinnings of modern science. The Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think tank and leading ID think-tank, published a scientific/PR strategy in 1998 titled the "Wedge" were they intend to "explore how new developments in biology, physics and cognitive science raise serious doubts about scientific materialism and have re-opened the case for a broadly theistic understanding of nature."4 This spring, a Education PhD student at Ohio State and his advisor attempted to pack his thesis committee with pro-ID and unqualified faculty who have no training in science education.5 From these and other examples, it becomes clear that the ID movement is not about reliable scientific research, but rather gaming the education system in any way possible to accomplish its social-religious agenda spelled out in the "Wedge Strategy."

Because of this cloaked religious attempt to undermine science, both the National Academies of Science6 and the American Association for the Advancement of Science7 have spoken out on their concern for the integrity of American science education. I would like to see the Boston area scientific community stand up as one, regardless of discipline, in defense of evolution and the teaching of sound science. I understand that everyone is quite busy in the fall, but it would be wonderful for academic and research scientists to attend this 'debate' and voice their opinions on what we should be teaching students about science.

Thank You and Best Regards,
[___]

New Title

2005-09-21T01:29:00.000-04:00

The new heading for this blog is an odd little quote from the debut episode of Aqua Teen Hunger Force (ATHF), a disturbing cartoon that airs in the late night on Cartoon Network. It is screamed by the now unemployed Doctor Wierd after his mechanical rabbit has escaped from a castle in New Jersey.

Now Steve - "Release the Mechanical Frog!"

The Circus Comes to Town

2005-09-20T22:36:00.000-04:00

Since I attend Boston University, I found it of great interest when Bill Dembski reported he and Edward Sisson are coming to town to participate in the College of Communications biannual "Great Debate." I just got an return email from the Journalism Chair who organizes this event, confirming Dembski's post. The "debate" will be held at the Tsai Center for the Performing Arts on November 2, 2005 and will start promptly at 6:30pm. This program is usually broadcast via C-Span and an educated guess says that it will recieve some airtime from local/national news due to the recent prominence of Intelligent Design (creationism).

Any member of the Boston area scientific community is urged to come out and support Eugenie Scott of the N.C.S.E. and Prof. James Trefil of the G.M.U. physics department. This is one more chance to show that scientists regardless of discipline stand behind the rigorous requirements of scientific research and review.

If anyone has any questions, feel free to give me a shout.

Kicking the Habit

2005-08-24T18:44:00.000-04:00

I really need to stop commenting on the current "controversy" over teaching the biological theory of evolution in public High School science classes. I want to spend more time here commenting on "grand narratives" in the history of science and my frustrations with philosophers, then rehashing arguments which my scientific betters have already beaten into the ground. Quitting cold turkey may not be completely successful, though if I am going to talk about religion, politics, and science I will force myself to do its from a less contemporary perspective. At least then it would be true to the title of this blog.

Our little Habitable Zone in the Sky

2005-08-21T19:37:00.000-04:00

As I mentioned previously, what is with the Discovery Institutes CSC dating system for their "Scientific Research and Scholarship?" Maybe they just want to be out ahead of all those nasty critics of theirs. Guillermo Gonzalez of Priveleged Planet fame seems to be showing off a new article he has titled "Habitable Zones in the Universe." No mentions of intelligent design in the piece, but since its coming out of the DI, I am sure it will be waved about as more evidence of Universal fine tuning. Interesting to see if Gonzalez attempts to get it published in any peer-reviewed journals. Guess we will just have to wait and see.

Playing the Numbers Game

2005-08-21T13:18:00.000-04:00

The Discovery Institute's CSC has an interesting little bulletin up on its website at the moment titled "Peer-Review & Peer-Edited Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design." Its dated October 1, 2005, which by my clock is still over a month away, but hey, lets not dwell on simple mistakes.

With Intelligent Design again in the newspapers, one is forced to read through and double-check the numerous "talking points" that are spit-fired at reporters, who tendency to investigate is already weakend by a "he said/she said" mentality. Carl Zimmer goes digging through PubMed and Science Direct to see what the impact the DI's funding of ID 'theory' has made in Biology circles. His response, absolute diddly.

I cared to go see what www.jstor.org had in its archives. The journals I ran a search for evolution, natural selection, intelligent design through were: Science, Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences, Scientific Monthly, and the Proceedings of the National Academies of Science of the USA: Biological Science. Of the 27 articles found using "intelligent design," half are produced before 1990 when the CSC took on its crusade against Darwin, none are associated with DI fellows, and of those related at all to "origins research" most are fervently against the validity of ID. For "natural selection," I picked up 5,425 hits and for "evolution," 44,928 hits (from years 1859-2005).

But Jonathan Witt and his make-believe friend say that over 400 scientists are "convinced that Darwinian Evolution is deficient," so there must be a controversy. Not so says Professor Steve Steve and the 586 other Steves which have signed a statement supporting the validity of Biological Evolution. But as I mentioned in a previous posting, "the voices must be weighed, not counted." Who has the Ph.D.s in biology and genetics, who have put decades of research into the study and analysis of evolutionary theory, and the support of scientific organizations across the globe? Ok, moving on.

There is one final thing that bugs me about this research list.

In fact, some of the most important and groundbreaking work in the history of science was first published not in scientific journal articles but scientific books, including Copernicus’ De Revolutionibus Newton’s Principia, and Darwin’s Origin of Species the later which was published in a prominent British trade press and was not peer-reviewed in the modern sense of the term.

Maybe its just me, but I think the scientific community and its approach to publishing valuable research has changed in the last 150 years. Also, scientific journals didn't exist when Copernicus was alive! Both Newton and Darwin's work was subject to extensive review in the Transactions of the Royal Society and other scholarly journals, as well as by fellow scientists like Edmund Halley and Asa Gray respectively. The errors of the books themselves I shall leave to groups better trained then myself to dissect the material within the covers of the books, if they havent already.

Is there a budding research program like Steve Myers tried to con Nightline into thinking? No. Is there a controversy in the scientific community about the validity of Biological Evolution? No. Will the media stop printing pseudo-scientific garbage? Probably not. Is it worth the effort to keep fighting for science? YES!

Joseph Henry and Modern Quackery

2005-08-18T22:55:00.000-04:00

In my study of 19th and early 20th century physics, I came across a wonderful speech by Joseph Henry to the American Association for the Advancement of Science back in 1850. He has some poignant views on quackery that I believe put the current tussle concerning the teaching of evolution in high relief. Links to relevant aspects will be provided in the text.

Quackery. Under this head may be classed a great variety of petty artifices by which the vain, the superficial, and the unprincipled endeavor, generally at the expense of the labors of others, to elevate themselves into notice and impose upon credulity and ignorance of the public.

It should never be forgotten that true reputation must always be based on the favorable opinion of the few in any country who are capable of properly appreciating the labors of him who would claim to have enlarged the bounds of human knowledge or to have done anything worthy of commendation by his fellow men.

The higher and more abstruse the character of the investigations he professes to have made, the smaller is the number of those who are capable of rendering a proper verdict. In this case especially the voices must be weighed, not counted.

He therefore who seeks approbation for his labors by appealing to a tribunal which from its character and pursuits is not qualified to appreciate them is practising a deception and is justly entitled to the name of a quack.

The man of honorable feelings and imbued with the true spirit of science presents the results of his investigations to some learned society or to the editor of some scientific journal where they will be scrutinised before they are published and where they will be presented to the eye of men capable of pronouncing on their merits.

The man of true science must of necessity be a little in advance of his age and be beyond the appreciation of the multitude. He therefore scorns an appeal to so low a tribunal and would prefer to be the author of a discovery the importance of which but few men in the whole nation would be capable of appreciating.

How different is the proceeding of the quack; he affects to despise the opinion of men of science and accuses them of jealousy, prejudice, and ignorance.

He appeals immediately to the public generally through the newspapers, and for approbation calls not on the few who are capable of judging of his merits but the many who know nothing of the subject.

How many wonderful surgical operations are performed in our country every year and how rapidly are we increasing in our knowledge of this part of the healing art, if the public prints are to be credited. I would say to the public, beware of those whose merits are thus continuously proclaimed to the world, in whatsoever line they may be. Be not quick to trust your purse or your life in their hands.

In announcing, says Sir Humphry Davy, even the greatest and most important discoveries, the true philosopher will communicate his details with modesty and reserve. He will rather be a useful servant of the public bringing forth a light from under his cloak than a juggler exhibiting fireworks with a trumpeter to announce their magnificence.

Let it never be forgotten that there is no abiding reputation to be obtained by devious ways. So far from this, every departure from the strict code of scientific procedure acts in the end like a negative quantity in algebra which tells in the opposite direction: That no man can long deceive his fellow man; the masquerader is exhibiting himself before those who are familiar with masquerading; that true fame in due time is awarded to those who deserve it but not always awarded to those who are most anxious to obtain it. It is always the result of successful effort, but ought never to be the object of pursuit.

Henry was a proponent during the 19th century of best science elitism. He believed that science requires a hierarchy of professionals to set standards for a scientific community and that the scientific enterprise should not be democratic if ones goal is the accumulation of truth. This is not to say, those of lower social classes were to be denied their opportunities, but merely that "mob rule" should not be what determines what is true and best in science.

And YES by mob, I mean the general public, not those with advanced degrees who study these subjects for a living and a lifetime.

Thank you for enduring a gratuitous link dump.

The Politics of Evolution

2005-08-02T19:47:00.000-04:00

Pig Pile!

One cannot say this response from Bush about "Intelligent Design" is all that surprising. It has the right amount of double-speak to give the President wriggle room while making his point crystal clear. Chris Mooney over at ScienceG8 reminds us all that George was in favor of teaching creationism back in '99 and that the President seems to be contradicting his own Science advisor, John Marburger, who unequivocally stated that ID is not science. Remember folks, the reporters asked for his "personal views" and there was the caveat that curricula decisions "should be made to local school districts." Damn that man and his technicalities! "This debate is not about assessing the evidence, but about getting faith-based bullshit taught as science," courtesy of biologist PZ Myers. Even conservative stalwarts are shaking their heads. Nice to see people of opposing political views can have enough sense to agree on what is NOT science.

I am not so far out of high school that I can't remember my HS biology classes. For the record I am a product of a catholic high school, where evolution was taught in biology without batting an eye. When most high school students take a biology course they have not yet had a formal year of chemistry and are taking either geometry or algebra II. So excuse me for saying so, but how in hell is a HS sophomore supposed to understand the arguments of Dembski and Behe? Not many, I would say that is not my intent to besmirch the intelligence of thousands of high school students across the country. They just don't have the background knowledge to judge these complex issues by themselves! These are issues for college level study not high school!

Its all for the children, says the Discovery Institute, an organization with the integrity of a snake-oil salesman.

Biology in high school must be taught better then it is today, but that would be by actually teaching evolution as the underlying concept in modern biology! I am just going to end with another PT link on how ID is has NO content.

The need for proofreading

2005-06-30T12:57:00.000-04:00

As is the habit when an individual begins a blog, their writing is particularly atrocious. My own postings have been a clear example of this phenomena. Hopefully I will put more effort into checking out what I write before I post it. One part of me says that since no one reads this blog, there is no reason to care. This obviousman post is due to the fact of getting A. Pais first name wrong (its Abraham) in my post about Einstein and Relativity Theory. The requirement to make reasonable sentences will draw out the length between posts, but as I said about, since no one reads this, it really should not matter all that much.

Let the guessing game...continue

2005-06-26T23:30:00.000-04:00

With recent posts, here and here, about how the Intelligent Design movement is gaining steam and "evolution is bankrupt," I cannot help but wonder who these mysterious scientists are. Well, some have already gone over this and playing the game over and over has its limits. So let me be the first one to ask AGAIN, who are these renowned scientists that can only transmit their disdain for Evolutionary Biology via Bill Dembski. Please, oh purveyor of all wisdom, tell us. I would love, personally to chat with these individuals, and it might make ID seem more than just a cheap intellectual version of three-card monty.

I also would like to add myself to the list of snarky commenters who are not allowed to post anymore on Dembski's website. Eh, I am just small fry. But I do smile, having been annoying and succinct enough to merit removal of my last post and the deletion of my account. Maybe I am just tired and cranky. Maybe.

The American Perspective

2005-06-26T19:40:00.000-04:00

I would just like to say that Science, however much Americans hate this fact, is NOT a democratic institution. Everyone will get their chance to speak, but because you believe something doesn't mean its right or that we should even care. If one needs further clarification please go read Steven Dutch's comments on being an "expert" here.

Back to the Primary Sources

2005-06-22T16:43:00.000-04:00

For the sake of my health I really shouldn't read Dembski's website, especially its comment section. Oh well, we all have to have our bad habits. Since I am used to seeing by now the ridiculous tripe the Intelligent Design trots out for everyone to see, comments by Charlie Townes via Dembski are none too exciting, since because the nobelist's comments on science and religion have already been given the once over before.

I couldn't help though but laugh as perennial commenter DaveScot attempted to explain here and here some hitherto unknown aspects of Darwin's work. I had just gone over the development of Darwin's thought in a post just a few days ago. I must recommend On Evolution for anyone wanting to get some good insight into Darwin's writings. Darwin, if you read his notebooks, cannot stand Lamarck's theory and regularly states so. There are Lamarckian characteristics like his discussions of early man and the notion that environmental precedes morphological change. But goodness, Darwin was no Lamarckian, made pains to make that clear, and I sure doubt any of the neo-Lamarckians of the period would take to kindly to adding Darwin to their camp.

Just remember, if your having trouble handling complicated concepts in Ernst Mayr's work, I know I did, I would recommend e-mailing a biology professor from a nearby college or university. Throwing books across the room in frustration is just a childish temper tantrum and we must all remember to treat our books with care and respect.

Oh and as a reminder, in biology they don't argue over Darwin's theory anymore but about the Modern Synthesis of which certain Darwinian mechanisms are integral. For as much as you wish, it ain't going any.

Questions about an Annus Mirabilis

2005-06-21T17:00:00.000-04:00

Having a propensity to ask history laden questions in physics classes often gets me to go digging in the science library for an answer, when I should be doing problem sets. One problem that has been recently vexing me is an idea that Einstein's work in quantum theory helped pave the way for relativity theory. This may look at first glance as if I had pulled this out of the air, particular with the current problem in theoretical physics of reconciling the underlying assumptions of relativity theory and quantum mechanics. After having Alexandre Pais, a physicist and biographer, recommend as a potential source, I came upon an article for the hundredth anniversary of Einstein's birth in the Reviews of Modern Physics (Vol.51 863-914). Reading it set my mind further wondering if there was a connection which Einstein would have most vehemently denied, since he kept discussions of quantum theory and of relativity separate from each other.

So in part this posting is to be both a recount of what I have read so far on the subject, that is the genesis of relativity theory, as well as to petition any knowledgeable physicists/historians out there who could help me out in answering this conundrum.

I have taken over the past year two courses in intermediate electrodynamics, which I know is a drop in the bucket compared to some, but I am working with what I've got. At the end of the year, we naturally went over Special Relativity with discussions of Lorentz transforms of E&M fields and the ease of using four vectors. David Griffiths' text, Introduction to Electrodynamics, was our textbook for the two classes. I also, because I like being interdisciplinary got to write a paper on the reception of Special Relativity in the United States, which forced me to do some background reading into how the came about in the first place. Three things struck me in the course of my study, one: that few historical commentators ever commented on the importance of Faraday's Law and the Flux Rule when talking about the genesis of SR, two: that Einstein through his reasoning was able to discard so easily the concept of a luminiferous ether as superfluous when so many of his contemporaries were unable to, and three: that a discussion of synchronized clocks which is crucial for relativity resembles so much a lesson in ballistics.

The first is not particularly relevant to this discussion, more for a need to vent about the obsession historians particularly in the US have with the Michelson Morley interferometer experiments, and in the course missing a whole lot more crucial material. Oh and this is not to say Einstein didn't know about the experiment, for one of Lorentz's 1895 papers was called "The Michelson interferometer experiment," so whether Einstein read the original paper I think is inconsequential. The two other points are important, though one may chalk them up to a mere lack of experience with this material. The ether was a particulate substance that permeated all the universe and whose oscillations (in whatever manner that was) were electric and magnetic field oscillations. And when Maxwell and his followers described light as an electromagnetic wave, the already vaguely defined ether now gained another phenomena to its historical grab bag. In order to keep from drawing this out too far, I will cut straight to the chase and say I believe that Einstein's work on quanta was further corroboration for his dismissal of the ether hypothesis in special relativity, and that an acceptance of the quantum hypothesis may have facilitated an exceptance of special relativity. This is a working hypothesis and obviously needs a bit more fleshing out, but I think it is a worthwhile line of inquiry.

The Pais article I mentioned before is so interesting (well the whole thing is) because a small section is devoted to Relativity and Quantum Theory. Pais brings up a number of obvious areas to mention quantum or relativity in the discussions of the other theory, but Einstein does not.

In his first relativity paper (1905c) Einstein noted: "It is remarkable that the energy and frequency of a light complex vary with the state of motion of the observer according to the same law." Here was an obvious opportunity to refer to the relation E = hv of his paper on light-quanta, finished a few months earlier . But Einstein did not do that. Also in the September paper (1905d) he referred to radiation but not light-quanta. In his 1909 address to Salzburg (1909a) Einstein discussed his ideas both on relativity theory and on quantum theory but kept these two areas well separated. As we have seen, in his 1917 paper (1917a) Einstein ascribed to light-quanta an energy E = hv and a momentum p = hv / c. This paper concludes with the following remark. "Energy and momentum are most intimately related; therefore a theory can only then be considered justified if it has been shown that according to it, the momentum transferred by radiation to matter leads to motions as required by thermodynamics." Why is only thermodynamics mentioned; why not also relativity?.

None of this is proof of the matter, but it should raise doubts about how much Einstein was able to keep the two theories separate in his own head despite his public claims to the contrary. Pais proposes that "Einstein kept the quantum theory apart from relativity theory is that he considered the former to be provisional (as he said (1912d) already in 1911) while, on the other hand, relativity to him was revealed truth." I would love to get some feedback on this peculiar topic, which though doesn't seem to have possibility of resolving problems in physics, does shine a new light on an impressive achievement of human intellect.

The Origin of the Origin of Species

2005-06-20T14:30:00.000-04:00

How did Charles Darwin come to formulate his theory of biological evolution by natural selection? The Origin was published in 1859, and the laws of Mendelian genetics would only rediscovered at the turn of the last century, and it would be another fifty years till Watson and Crick discussed in detail the structure of the molecule of inheritance. The story is important not only of importance for historians of science but also as a pedagogical tool in biology classes.

Fossils were being uncovered at an ever increasing rate throughout the 19th century, with even U.S. president Thomas Jefferson using the East Room to store his bone collection from Big Bone Lick. These dead animals often slightly resembled living species found on other continents like the elephants and sloths, but some which became known as dinosaurs to their discoverers were like nothing they had ever seen before. The problem was of how to fit these dead animals only known to exist because of their bones into the contemporary view of natural history. A discussion of natural history, unlike natural philosophy (physics, astronomy, chemistry) had not shed its connection to theology at this time. One widely held theory of geology was that of catastrophism which stated that changes to the Earth were due to global occurrences like a flood which do not occur with an observed regularity. Though not an explicit recitation of the story of Noah, this theory would mesh well with a Christian view of God changing the Earth with water or fire from heaven. Then to explain the fossils found in various layers of sediment, natural historians proposed that these catastrophes occurred numerous times throughout history wiping out all life on the planet, and God would then create new life again in a manner like that described in Genesis 1.

So sticking with the current theme of geology, we move onto Sir Charles Lyell whose work developing the theory of uniformitarianism crucial to the Origin's development. Uniformitarianism is a theory which states that changes in the surface of the Earth can be attributed to slow-acting observable processes like that of erosion. In order for erosion to create something as large as say, the Grand Canyon, it would require an enormous amount of time. Efforts to calculate the age of the Earth in the 19th century involved studies of salting of oceans, the condensation of gas nebula into stars, and the cooling of molten metal. A commonly stated figure was 100 million years, which Huxley decried as too small, though greater precision in age calculation was only brought on by the discovery of radioactivity and atomic isotopes. But back to our supposed main character Charles Darwin. He was a very close friend of the elder Lyell and an active proponent of uniformitarianism himself. He took a copy of Lyell's masterwork, The Principles of Geology with him on the HMS Beagle and his surviving 1837 copy is heavily annotated.

For the biology portion of this history, we have start with the Swedish ecologists Carl Linnaeus who developed the system of organizing species by their external and internal characteristics (taxonomy). Taxonomy can be a contentious enterprise, as anyone whose opened a few biology texts will note, since views of what phylum or family a particular species belongs in varies among scientists even today. Jean Baptiste Lamarck, a French biologist, created a taxonomy based on a line of increasing complexity with humans, as one could expect, being at the pinnacle. Lamarck's theory of evolution was that animals gained new forms by the inheritance of acquired traits, and that each successive generation would further develop along the line. He did not believe in extinction, but that evolution produces ongoing spontaneous generation of new species. Darwin calls Lamarck's hypotheses absurd quite regularly in his notebooks with regard to both extinction and taxonomy. From Darwin we get the familiar branching tree model, but more will be said on this in a minute.

In 1830, at the age of 21 Darwin goes off on the HMS Beagle, a survey vessel to study the geology, fauna, and flora of South America. He writes about the importance of Lyell's geology while studying layers of sediment in Patagonia and how earthquakes can raise land. The book about his trip, The Voyages of the Beagle became a best seller in England documents the discovery of extinct species of gaunaco and armadillo buried in the ground in the same area as contemporary species. The questioned asked was, are these animals at all related? From uniformitarianism, Darwin knew that the Patagonia, the Andes, and the Galapagos were not always as they were when he saw them. So if these species were related, it is another jump to speculate how if possible could the changes in the habitat create new species. The final piece in the puzzle of Darwin's though comes from an unlikely source, political economist Thomas Malthus, whose "Essay on Population" produced a eureka moment for Darwin as well as Alfred Russel Wallace. Darwin artfully describes the importance of population pressure and the struggle for limited resources in the 1845 republication of the Voyages, particularly in his description of the variety of different finches found in the Galapagos Islands. The finches he described were all the descendent of a single ancestor from South America, not the product of special creation, and the variety they displayed were due to available food supply on each island, which would make certain beaks more preferable then others. Those who ate more, were healthier, more apt to survive to produce offspring who were themselves healthy.

Charles Darwin had his theory of evolution by natural selection in his head by 1838, but only published The Origin of Species, at the request of Lyell in 1859, almost thirty years after he had left to tour South America. In this age of publish as fast as you can, one right asks why thirty years of mulling the problem. Darwin, plain and simple was obsessive about his theory, wanting to make it as solid as he could with mounds of evidence like that of his studies in orchids and barnacles. Understanding how controversial it would be in his own time, he wanted to make it irrefutable, and the comments in the Origin follow from his inability to fit every anomaly into his theory upon its 1859 publication. He was working on his Big Species Book, when the writings of Wallace compelled him to publish his theory, so without external motivators he may have waited even longer to publish.

My apologies for making this entry drone on forever, but few things in history are ever able to be squeezed sensibly into 100 words, and many historians just have a gift to gab. I also hope in a latter entry to go over all those contemporaneous arguments used against Darwin that are often thrown about as an aside by creationists to contend that evolution has always been controversial. Not only do we need better teaching of science in this country, but better history curricula as well. Bleh!

Inspiration and Procrastination

2005-06-20T12:38:00.000-04:00

Anyone having gone through college knows how problematic both of these things can be, especially when intertwined, and for an egg-head in training like myself, I start a blog to comment on metascience studies. I cannot say that I am filling a necessary niche in the blogosphere, but hey this is my little corner of the web and I will waste it the way I want.

And who do I blame for distracting me from writing papers about the comparative reception of Freudian psychoanalysis and the various problems with the concept of scientific revolutions? Creationists! Yes rather then withering my life away playing hours of Everquest I spend my waking hours scanning the Thumb and laughing at silly IDers. For personal experience, I happen to be at a talk with physics nobelist and eccentric fellow, Prof. Robert Laughlin right around the time well-known grandstander Bill Dempsey cared to quote his new book, in a way Prof. Laughlin was none too happy about. I understand that Laughlin knows his stuff when it comes to condensed matter physics, but as commented elsewhere, he seems to be a bit out of realm when commenting on epistemology and biology.

This past semester I found myself in a tiff with some conservative Catholics on campus regarding Evolution and Faith, and yes more eminent posters then I have beaten this subject to death, but it was my first time seeing it up close. With no discussion of the actual science, lots of comments on the dangers of materialism (though not the type everyone there thought), and the kicker of "well evolution is just a theory," I couldn't help but walk out shaking my head in disappointment. It was a failure on two parts, for the science was mangled and the Church was represented as having a problem with evolution. Sigh. So the march of progress goes on.

I must thank Charles Alt over at Philosophy of Biology for giving me the final push I needed in starting this "thing." Also I promise to actually write about more interesting things, well that's definitely relative, in later postings