I realize that this is neither new nor hot, but I thought that it could make a few people laugh, and that most of you in the class probably have not seen it before. Here is a video from http://www.creationscience.com. It outlines the hydroplate theory, a "theory" which Walt Brown (a creationist professor) claims proves that the Noah’s Ark flood actually happened. While not quite as silly as the peanut butter video from last week, it does involve questionable physics, such as a subterranean river 10 miles deep covering the underside of all land, and a crack forming all the way around the world from a microscopic fissure in only 2 hours. I am slightly worried about the fact that a man who should know the science behind plate tectonics could come up with such a theory, while I, only vaguely remembering what I learned about the subject in eighth grade, can tell that it has serious flaws. It is clear that he made the theory to fit Noah’s Ark, rather than using the facts to formulate a reasoned hypothesis.
Here is my review of Cyril Aydon's biography of Darwin.
Saturday, April 14, 2007
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Josh's New and Hot (Week 3) - The Pope!
Click here for the pope article.
It's wonderful that no matter how exhaustively we may explore one subject in the classroom, the real world never fails to add new fodder to our debate. This week in the news, the Pope wrote in the German book Creation and Evolution that evolution involves "questions that reach beyond the methodological possibilities of natural science." Clearly, the tensions between science and the church are still just as alive as they have always been.
"I find it important to underline that the theory of evolution implies questions that must be assigned to philosophy and which themselves lead beyond the realms of science... the theory of evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory," said the Pope.
This method of shooting down theories harks back all the way to the post-St. Augustine era when any scientific doctrine except for the Aristotelian view was seeen as heretical. Scientists from Halley to Copernicus all had their run-ins with official Church dogma.
The watershed moment in the liberalization of the Catholic Church was Galileo's trial in 1633. Although it did not completely end Church persecution of scientists, it did much to discredit the Church as the gatekeepers of scientific discovery. Humbled by the incident and losing energy to right against scientists who had since taken up Galileo as the first martyr for science, the Church eventually published an abbreviated version in 1741 which admitted, in a way, that they were losing their control on this issue. Since then, John Paul II has actually expressed regret over how the Galileo case was handled as recently as 1992.
Over the years, the Catholic Church, in staunch opposition to evangelical Protest churches, has seemed to accept or at least tolerate evolutionary thought. In reviewing the Vatican's Index of Prohibited Books which censored books for Catholic parishioners until it was abolished 1966 had early scientific writings like Galileo or Bruno on its censor list, but, interestingly enough, no Charles Darwin. In fact, they censored the works of Erasmus Darwin, yet deemed his grandson's works compatible enough with church doctrine. John Paul II even said in 1996 that evolution was "'more than just a hypothesis" and that it complied completely with the orthodox view of the beginning. If he had remained alive for a couple more years, he may have been able to rewrite the official church dogmas.
Unfortunately, the new regime is much less receptive to scientific ideas that was the former. Pope Benedict, in addition to rejecting evolution, is also noted for firing the Jesuit director of the Vatican Observatory, Father Coyne, last year after stating that intelligent design was not a real science. These rather conservative viewpoints coupled with his recent controversies in regards to Islam, all point to the same trend - the new Pope is VERY conservative.
I am not advocating taking an imprudent approach to science. It is not unreasonable to ask for a preponderance of evidence before an entire scientific paradigm is thrown out with all of its work. However, as John Paul noted, evolution clearly has an already incredible amount of data on its side while alternative views have failed to produce even a shred of evidence. It will be exciting to see exactly which academic track Pope Benedictchooses over the course of his reign.
++++PARIS?++++
So in class today, some people were talking about maybe goin' to Paris for a few days after our 3 weeks in the UK. (The period between Sep 15 and the start of school, like Sep 24 or so?) Anyway that's an awesome idea and I've been thinking about it over the past week as well. Going to Paris with a group of people definitely sounds like the most fun thing ever."Reply" to this message and leave your name (and thoughts, and such) if you're interested. The more the merrier.
A note from Josh: Also join the Darwin Safari Overseas group on Facebook. I started a before and after travel discussion, so we can talk about this a bit more privately. Thanks!
Word.
Also, how do people feel about either Florence, Rome, or Venice. Too far for just a few days?
-Alex Song
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Anne's New and Hot and Book Review
New and Hot: "Nietzsche, Spencer and the Ethics of Evoltution" by Gregory Moore, published 2002
An interesting “New and Hot” that I discovered relates the philosophy of Nietzsche to the Darwinian ideas of evolution. I know that some people expressed interest in the Impact that Darwin has had on many aspects of society, so when I saw this paper I thought people may find it interesting. It appeared in the Journal of Nietzsche Studies in 2002. It is quite comprehensive, but for anyone interested, this paper written by Gregory Moore, explains the philosophy of Nietzsche and intertwines the discussion with evolution and biology. According to the paper, Nietzsche’s philosophies are Anti-Darwinian, and as a contemporary, Moore argues that his philosophy represents a reaction to Darwin’s theories. Here is an interesting passage from the paper:
“Nietzsche's rejection of survival as a primary biological imperative is a key component of his anti-Darwinian theory of evolution. But long before he sought to replace the instinct for self-preservation with his own conception of the will to power, he tried to find other ways to account for the behavior that Spencer and others attributed to this superfluous and teleological principle. In a note written in 1880, for example, he writes: "There is no instinct for self-preservation. Rather, to seek what is pleasant, to avoid what is unpleasant—this explains everything which is attributed to that drive" (KSA 9, 6[145]). Like Spencer, Nietzsche believes that the universal allure of pleasure and avoidance of pain can be used to explain human conduct (and, a fortiori, morality) as an extension of more primitive animal behavior. In contrast to Spencer, however, he holds that the acts that give rise to pleasure and pain are not goal-directed; they are, rather, merely "playful expressions of the impulse toward action" (KSA 9, 11[16])."
The paper also elaborates on ethics and morality and a passage that I found interesting explains how Darwin presented morality in his book, “Descent of Man”. Before reading this paper, I hadn’t realized that Darwin presented natural selection and human behavior in a moral light. Here is an interesting passage:
“Although Darwin believes that a moral sense originated through the natural selection of those tribes in whom the social instinct was strongest, he recognizes that this primitive ethic gradually developed into a "higher morality" through the effects of habit, rational reflection, and religious instruction. Not "the survival of the fittest" but "as ye would that men should do to you, do ye to them likewise" has come to be regarded as the true maxim of human conduct. Nor is moral progress at an end. "Looking to future generations," Darwin prophesies, "there is no cause to fear that the social instincts will grow weaker, and we may expect that virtuous habits will grow stronger, becoming perhaps fixed by inheritance. In this case the struggle between our higher and lower impulses will be less severe, and virtue will be triumphant." 6 This theistic notion of evolution as an ever-upward progression away from earlier forms of animal life and toward spiritual and social perfection came to be inseparable from the way Darwinism was received and interpreted.”
For more information the website where I found the paper is :
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/journal_of_nietzsche_studies/v023/23.1moore.html
You can also find it by researching through the Stanford library website and access the publication directly.
My account on Amazon wont let me post my review on the website, but here is my review of the Autobiography of Charles Darwin posted here:
I would give Darwin’s Autobiography four out five stars. Darwin provides a thoroughly interesting and readable account of his life, and a unique window into the man behind the theories and ideas so familiar to us today.
He traces his life from his childhood education up to his late life. Darwin focuses on the aspects of his life that have influenced his theories and publications, rather than focusing on every event of his life, and by doing so he succeeds in writing a concise but useful account of his life. It is interesting to compare Darwin’s Autobiography to that of his contemporary, Benjamin Franklin, whose autobiography takes a drastically different approach. Franklin presents himself as a model of how to succeed, and although he uses humor, his writing takes on a distinctly pompous tone. Darwin’s autobiography reflects his scientific mind because his language contains none of the flowery pros of Ben Franklin. Darwin even admits to the evolution of his own mind from one that appreciated poetry and music to one that was more scientific.
The most interesting aspect of his Autobiography for me is the way he integrates familiar figures like Lyell, Wallace, Henslow and Sedgewick into his account. I have heard of all these people in isolation, but by bringing them all together, Darwin really brings the reader back in time. He shows how different ideas and prominent figures influenced him. The description of his relationship with Lyell provides a particularly interesting window into Darwin’s life and the scientific culture in England in the nineteenth century.
An interesting “New and Hot” that I discovered relates the philosophy of Nietzsche to the Darwinian ideas of evolution. I know that some people expressed interest in the Impact that Darwin has had on many aspects of society, so when I saw this paper I thought people may find it interesting. It appeared in the Journal of Nietzsche Studies in 2002. It is quite comprehensive, but for anyone interested, this paper written by Gregory Moore, explains the philosophy of Nietzsche and intertwines the discussion with evolution and biology. According to the paper, Nietzsche’s philosophies are Anti-Darwinian, and as a contemporary, Moore argues that his philosophy represents a reaction to Darwin’s theories. Here is an interesting passage from the paper:
“Nietzsche's rejection of survival as a primary biological imperative is a key component of his anti-Darwinian theory of evolution. But long before he sought to replace the instinct for self-preservation with his own conception of the will to power, he tried to find other ways to account for the behavior that Spencer and others attributed to this superfluous and teleological principle. In a note written in 1880, for example, he writes: "There is no instinct for self-preservation. Rather, to seek what is pleasant, to avoid what is unpleasant—this explains everything which is attributed to that drive" (KSA 9, 6[145]). Like Spencer, Nietzsche believes that the universal allure of pleasure and avoidance of pain can be used to explain human conduct (and, a fortiori, morality) as an extension of more primitive animal behavior. In contrast to Spencer, however, he holds that the acts that give rise to pleasure and pain are not goal-directed; they are, rather, merely "playful expressions of the impulse toward action" (KSA 9, 11[16])."
The paper also elaborates on ethics and morality and a passage that I found interesting explains how Darwin presented morality in his book, “Descent of Man”. Before reading this paper, I hadn’t realized that Darwin presented natural selection and human behavior in a moral light. Here is an interesting passage:
“Although Darwin believes that a moral sense originated through the natural selection of those tribes in whom the social instinct was strongest, he recognizes that this primitive ethic gradually developed into a "higher morality" through the effects of habit, rational reflection, and religious instruction. Not "the survival of the fittest" but "as ye would that men should do to you, do ye to them likewise" has come to be regarded as the true maxim of human conduct. Nor is moral progress at an end. "Looking to future generations," Darwin prophesies, "there is no cause to fear that the social instincts will grow weaker, and we may expect that virtuous habits will grow stronger, becoming perhaps fixed by inheritance. In this case the struggle between our higher and lower impulses will be less severe, and virtue will be triumphant." 6 This theistic notion of evolution as an ever-upward progression away from earlier forms of animal life and toward spiritual and social perfection came to be inseparable from the way Darwinism was received and interpreted.”
For more information the website where I found the paper is :
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/journal_of_nietzsche_studies/v023/23.1moore.html
You can also find it by researching through the Stanford library website and access the publication directly.
My account on Amazon wont let me post my review on the website, but here is my review of the Autobiography of Charles Darwin posted here:
I would give Darwin’s Autobiography four out five stars. Darwin provides a thoroughly interesting and readable account of his life, and a unique window into the man behind the theories and ideas so familiar to us today.
He traces his life from his childhood education up to his late life. Darwin focuses on the aspects of his life that have influenced his theories and publications, rather than focusing on every event of his life, and by doing so he succeeds in writing a concise but useful account of his life. It is interesting to compare Darwin’s Autobiography to that of his contemporary, Benjamin Franklin, whose autobiography takes a drastically different approach. Franklin presents himself as a model of how to succeed, and although he uses humor, his writing takes on a distinctly pompous tone. Darwin’s autobiography reflects his scientific mind because his language contains none of the flowery pros of Ben Franklin. Darwin even admits to the evolution of his own mind from one that appreciated poetry and music to one that was more scientific.
The most interesting aspect of his Autobiography for me is the way he integrates familiar figures like Lyell, Wallace, Henslow and Sedgewick into his account. I have heard of all these people in isolation, but by bringing them all together, Darwin really brings the reader back in time. He shows how different ideas and prominent figures influenced him. The description of his relationship with Lyell provides a particularly interesting window into Darwin’s life and the scientific culture in England in the nineteenth century.
Joy's New and Hot, week 2
My new and hot is an article from the San Diego Union-Tribune titled "Pope says science too narrow to explain creation." Here's the link.
Basically, I found this article interesting because it gives a different position than what I've felt to be the usual evolution/ID dichotomy seen in the news when portraying science vs. religion. Basically, Benedict's stance is that science can't explain everything, yet he praises scientific progress and says that "science has opened up new dimensions of reason." Benedict feels that science and religion need not clash and has written a book about "theistic evolution," which is basically the idea of intelligent design, that something designed the rational mechanism behind evolution.
I think its interesting to parallel this attitude on science vs. religion to what has often been a heated debate in news media in America, of this irreconcilable divide.
On a lighter, somewhat more bizarre note, did anyone know that there exists an "Origin of the Species in Dub," a reggae mix of some of the chapters of the Origin? It's kind of funny but really cool that well, people think the idea of evolution is interesting enough to make music out of it. It was created to celebrate Darwin Day 2005. Here's all the videos.
Finally, here's my review on amazon for Darwin's autobiography.
Basically, I found this article interesting because it gives a different position than what I've felt to be the usual evolution/ID dichotomy seen in the news when portraying science vs. religion. Basically, Benedict's stance is that science can't explain everything, yet he praises scientific progress and says that "science has opened up new dimensions of reason." Benedict feels that science and religion need not clash and has written a book about "theistic evolution," which is basically the idea of intelligent design, that something designed the rational mechanism behind evolution.
I think its interesting to parallel this attitude on science vs. religion to what has often been a heated debate in news media in America, of this irreconcilable divide.
On a lighter, somewhat more bizarre note, did anyone know that there exists an "Origin of the Species in Dub," a reggae mix of some of the chapters of the Origin? It's kind of funny but really cool that well, people think the idea of evolution is interesting enough to make music out of it. It was created to celebrate Darwin Day 2005. Here's all the videos.
Finally, here's my review on amazon for Darwin's autobiography.
Sagar Bapat "New and Hot" (Week 2)
This article from www.evolutionnews.org talks about a book review in an upcoming issue of American Scientist that challenges Darwinian reductionism. I think it is interesting to see how Darwin's framework, while widely accepted in the academic community, is still not infallible and leaves much room for debate.
Alex Rosenberg's "Darwinian Reductionism" Under Fire
Logan Gage
The May-June 2007 issue of American Scientist contains John Dupré’s review of Darwinian Reductionism: Or, How to Stop Worrying and Love Molecular Biology by Alex Rosenberg.
Dupré fears that Rosenberg’s adherence to strict physicalist reductionism (“Darwinian Reductionism”), where “everything is ultimately determined by what happens at the physical level—and that this entails that the mind is ‘nothing but’ the brain,” is based upon a failure to understand why most philosophers of biology have abandoned such reductionism rather than a new revelation. As Dupré points out, most philosophers have abandoned this view because, among other reasons, genes have a “many/many” relationship with phenotype.
More specifically, his [Rosenberg’s] portrayal of the genome as a program directing development, which is the centerpiece of his reductionist account of biology, discloses a failure to appreciate the complex two-way interactions between the genome and its molecular environment that molecular biologists have been elaborating for the past several decades.
Dupré excoriates Rosenberg for thinking of natural selection as an actual physical law rather than mere differential death. (Natural selection is, of course, the latter and much more akin to the "Stuff Happens" bumper sticker on the TV version of Forrest Gump.) Finally, Dupré also goes after Rosenberg for thinking “genes literally embody a program that produces development,” for seemingly adhering to the notion that 95% of DNA is “mere junk,” and for not keeping very current on molecular biology. For more, see the rest of Dupré’s excellent but tough review “Is Biology Reducible to the Laws of Physics?”
Also here is the link for my review of Darwin's autobiography on Amazon: here
Alex Rosenberg's "Darwinian Reductionism" Under Fire
Logan Gage
The May-June 2007 issue of American Scientist contains John Dupré’s review of Darwinian Reductionism: Or, How to Stop Worrying and Love Molecular Biology by Alex Rosenberg.
Dupré fears that Rosenberg’s adherence to strict physicalist reductionism (“Darwinian Reductionism”), where “everything is ultimately determined by what happens at the physical level—and that this entails that the mind is ‘nothing but’ the brain,” is based upon a failure to understand why most philosophers of biology have abandoned such reductionism rather than a new revelation. As Dupré points out, most philosophers have abandoned this view because, among other reasons, genes have a “many/many” relationship with phenotype.
More specifically, his [Rosenberg’s] portrayal of the genome as a program directing development, which is the centerpiece of his reductionist account of biology, discloses a failure to appreciate the complex two-way interactions between the genome and its molecular environment that molecular biologists have been elaborating for the past several decades.
Dupré excoriates Rosenberg for thinking of natural selection as an actual physical law rather than mere differential death. (Natural selection is, of course, the latter and much more akin to the "Stuff Happens" bumper sticker on the TV version of Forrest Gump.) Finally, Dupré also goes after Rosenberg for thinking “genes literally embody a program that produces development,” for seemingly adhering to the notion that 95% of DNA is “mere junk,” and for not keeping very current on molecular biology. For more, see the rest of Dupré’s excellent but tough review “Is Biology Reducible to the Laws of Physics?”
Also here is the link for my review of Darwin's autobiography on Amazon: here
Julie’s New & Hot – “The diaries of Darwin's wife debut online”
(Above) First page of Emma Darwin’s 1824 diary. http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070312/full/446243a.html
According to Nature’s March 14, 2007 “News In Brief,” just last month the diaries of Charles Darwin’s wife Emma were released online. The diary includes details about daily life in the Darwin family, such as about grocery costs, visitors, and illnesses.
This new source of information is interesting on a few different levels. First, it would definitely be an interesting exercise to compare Charles’ and Emily’s daily accounts. What would Charles include and Emma leave out and vice versa? What more can we learn about who Darwin was from these firsthand accounts? Second, it is interesting to note how Darwin’s fame is contagious. I imagine that now that these records are available to the public, historians and others interested in Darwin will analyze these diaries for more clues on to the personal life and thoughts of the famous scientist. Could Emma have ever imagined that her daily diaries would one day be under such scrutiny? Third, just as Darwin intended for his audience to be his children and grandchildren, what audience did Emma write for? If Emma had intended for her diaries to be personal accounts of events not to be read by others, she may have been frank about the daily ongoings, thoughts, and feelings.
With yet another source of information about Darwin’s life, another dimension has been added to the complicated yet intriguing challenge of pulling together the facts to reconstruct his life and thoughts.
Click here to directly acces Emma’s diaries.
Click here to read my Amazon book review on The Autobiography of Charles Darwin.
--Julie Kim
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)