Posts from the ‘darwin’ Category

It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.

Charles Darwin (via sushi-cupcake)



So many things are right with this picture.

Ya heard?

In American today, anti-evolutionism matters because it has become the vanguard of a genuine anti-science movement. To be sure, opposition to evolution isn’t new. State laws against the teaching of evolution actually go back nearly a century, and the famous Scopes trial took place 87 years ago. However, if you thought such things were behind us, guess again. Laws designed to encourage the teaching of non-scientific “alternative” theories to evolution were introduced in 11 state legislatures last year. This year, Darwin’s 203rd birthday, on February 12th, saw an anti-evolution bill, already passed by the Indiana State House of Representatives, awaiting action in the State Senate. Its fate there is uncertain, but there are plenty of reasons to be concerned.

Our Darwin problem is really a science problem. The easier it becomes to depict the scientific enterprise as a special interest immersed in the culture wars, the easier it becomes to reject scientific findings. We see this everywhere in American culture and politics today, from the anti-vaccine movement to the repeated assertion that global warming is a deliberate “hoax” rather than a straightforward conclusion driven by reams of scientific data. Sometimes this is done for deliberate political reasons, to secure advantage for a particular industry or financial group, but just as often it is motivated by fear of the implications of what science has discovered or might discover in the future.

Our Darwin problem matters for two reasons. First, it threatens the future of American scientific leadership in an increasingly competitive world. Convince enough young Americans that science is a close-minded system with a particular cultural and political agenda, and we will cede leadership to emerging countries that don’t share our Darwin hang-ups, and see science as the wave of the future. If you doubt this is happening today, look at the graduate programs of America’s research universities, still the greatest in the world. Increasingly, they are filled with bright, eager, creative students from around the world, taking places that American students just don’t seem interested in filling. Once trained, they will become the scientists of the future, while more and more of our own students have been persuaded that science has nothing to offer them. If this doesn’t change, scientific discovery will increasingly become something that happens elsewhere.

Second, and in my view just as important, our problem with science constrains and narrows our views and vision of the world. My personal concern for those who hold that view isn’t just that they are wrong on science, wrong about the nature of the evidence, and mistaken on a fundamental point of biology. It’s that they are missing something grand and beautiful and personally enriching.

Evolution isn’t just a story about where we came from. It’s an epic at the center of life itself. Far from robbing our lives of meaning, it instills an appreciation for the beautiful, enduring, and ultimately triumphant fabric of life that covers our planet. Understanding that doesn’t demean human life — it enhances it. We may be animals, but we are not just animals. We are the only ones who can truly appreciate, as Darwin put it, that there is “grandeur in this view of life,” and indeed there is. To accept evolution isn’t just to acknowledge the obvious — that the evidence behind it is overwhelming — it is to open one’s eyes to the endless beauty that life has generated and continues to produce. It is to become a knowing participant, in the truest sense, in the living world of which we are all a part.

Ken Miller, Biology Professor from Brown University and Roman Catholic, on  America’s Darwin Problem (via crookedindifference)

Pearn says the diary helps “rehabilitate” Henrietta as well as help better understand the editorial role Darwin’s whole family played in shaping his work. “Henrietta’s contribution to Darwin’s work, in particular on religion, has been seen as purely negative – ‘editing out’ rather than editing in any constructive sense,” Pearn says. “Now we can see her as her father saw her, as a ‘dear coadjutor & fellow-labourer’, and as a lively member of an intellectually stimulating household.”
Darwin has long been portrayed as spending his time at home as a near hermit, with only occasional contact with his family and the outside world. I’m glad to see that view being overturned to some degree by his diary of his daughter Henrietta. Although it was known that she did some editorial work on her father’s works, it was generally assumed that her fervent religiosity made her give it a more pro-religion voice. Her personal writings indicate otherwise, that she was actually quite involved with the process and ideas, and that any editing was largely constructive to the science it contained.

Dear Diary, from Darwin’s daughter -New Scientist