Skip to main content

Darwin Day Excerpts

Participating bloggers around the world are celebrating the bicentenary of Charles Darwin's birth (February 12th, 1809) with a BLOG SWARM through February 15th. Participants' posts (submitted via BlogCarnival.com) are being aggregated here (in fits and starts) throughout this 4-day event. After the 15th, they will be categorized for easier reference, and BLOG FOR DARWIN will remain a resource for educators, students, and others. CLICK HERE to learn how you can participate!
Now, what was I doing? thinks young Darwin is way more interesting (and other quibbles).

Google recognizes Charles Darwin 09 with this image. Another reason for some Christians to boycott Google? Speaking of Google, you can use it to put into some context the following two memorable (to me), quasi-anonymous quotes on Darwin and evolution.

The reaction to Darwinism is no less a puzzle. Of course it contradicts the literal account of Genesis, but we have long abandoned Biblical literalism in law and social mores, and it would be impossible anyway due to the internal contradictions generated by a literal reading. Darwinism is eminently compatible with a deistic conception of God. Indeed, a creator operating through a Darwinian mechanism to infuse complex life forms into the universe seems more glorious. He possesses the aesthetic virtue of parsimony, and the elegant avoidance of micro-management. Once again, one is led to the conclusion that Darwin pricked a hole in our ego, not God's.
In any event, a fun perspective for you: I don't know whether you've ever thought enough to encounter it, but abstract truth excites the human sense of beauty very strongly. It's a phenomenon that is most pronounced in mathematics, but evolution is probably the most beautiful truth that I know. It is an astonishing and wonderful thing that such a work of art (I mean all the intellectual labors that expand on the meaning of "evolution") should be more accessible to you than most (say, pure math). If you believe in God, this would be a gift from him to you - the fullest use of your mind to understand his work. Your behavior is sacrilege. (In fairness, I'll state the obvious that I'm an atheist, but I'm not being manipulative here - few things make me empathize more with a religious sense of wonder than contemplation of evolution).

Comments

  1. Gregor Samsa and the ghost of a-z.

    I know that without even googling.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Turns out I am responsible for preserving the old fray (or more of it than anyone else). Strange that no one ever thought to thank me.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'm sure they'll get around to it, eventually.
    Did you save the atheist's bible?

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A New Wave of Science Blogging?

One can imagine science bloggers would be a (the) primary beneficiary in a landscape where Google ranks sites based on the correctness of factual information provided by the [blog] .  What's more, it is not a stretch to conclude that science bloggers could very well be in the vanguard of a new wave of bloggers who earn Google’s trust by blogging within the confines of what is known. The news that Google is working on a system of ranking sites based on the quality of their facts should be greeted by science bloggers everywhere as a game-changer.

Are Female Science Bloggers More Likely To Blog Anonymously Than Male Science Bloggers?

Google+'s real name policy sparked a lively debate in the science blogosphere. On the side of anonymity it was observed that women risk more than men when they use their real names. We know that women experience 25 TIMES the amount of harassment online that men do. I light of this blanket disparity in risk you might expect to find--or even assume--that the percentage of women in science blogging anonymously is greater than that of their male counterparts. Sifting through the Census of Science Bloggers data I realized I had a sample with which to test this assumption. But to get there I first had to answer another burning question: I wonder what the overall gender ratio is among science bloggers?   The answer, based on the census data, is approximately 2 male science bloggers for every 1 female science blogger. Again, based on the census sample, 15% of all science bloggers post anonymously. Now does that percentage change when you divvy the sample up into male and female?

How to tell the difference between a Science Blog Network, a Fanny Pack and a Backpack

This is a network: http://scienceblogs.com This is a fanny pack: http://blogs.nature.com This is a backpack: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/science-blogs/ This is a network: http://www.fieldofscience.com/ This is a fanny pack: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/ This is a backpack: http://gu.com/scienceblogs This is a network: http://sciblogs.co.nz/ This is a fanny pack: http://blogs.plos.org This is a backpack: http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/ This is a network: http://scientopia.org/ This is a fanny pack: http://gam.southernfriedscience.com/ This is a backpack: http://www.labspaces.net/blogs