Some more reading 21 Jul 2009 While I compose my haiku philosophical masterpieces, read these links: Douglas Kell gives an account of the problems of reverse engineering biochemical networks in biology here. It’s not just a matter of curve fitting to data. Thinking is Real gives a fair discussion of the debate between meself and PZ Marlargl on accommodationism. The Boston Globe reports on apparent racial profiling of African American academics at Harvard. Some University of Iowa rediscover that the nature-nurture distinction is without merit. Dispersal of Darwin has an account of some leading historians of biology meeting in Cambridge. This is a series, in which Dan Dennett, among others, makes an appearance. And surprise, surprise, creationists lie in order to misrepresent historians again in another creationist propaganda piece. Biology Creationism and Intelligent Design Genetics Race and politics Religion
Evolution Why are there still monkeys? 23 Jul 200818 Sep 2017 Once upon a time, a Roman author named Quintus Ennius wrote: “how like us is that very ugly beast, the ape!” It was quoted by Cicero, and from him Bacon, Montaigne and various others. But always it was thought that apes (simia, literally “the similar ones”), which in that time… Read More
Epistemology How many species concepts are there? 20 Oct 2010 [Note: This is a piece I wrote for Grrlscientist’s blog at the Guardian, Punctuated Equilibrium. I post it here for purposes of record. Please make comments at Grrl’s blog.] It’s an old question in biology: what is a species? Many answers have been given over the years – I counted… Read More
Politics Secular atheist radical Islamists 30 Mar 2011 So, the man responsible for Republican obstructionism, and confirmed adulterer, Newt Gingrich, has declared that “if we do not decisively win the struggle over the nature of America, by the time [my grandchildren are] my age they will be in a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists… Read More
Now you’ve gone and done it. Larry has picked up on that article on accommodationism (by “fair,” I assume you meant something halfway between “good” and “bad”*) and will now cite your endorsement of it as proof that accommodationism is anti-science. * Kidding aside, did you really think that was a fair assessment of the accommodationist side of the argument?