Culture

From Sarah Lewin at LiveScience: Space.com talked with Adam Frank, an astrophysicist at the University of Rochester in New York who consulted on “Doctor Strange,” about how the movie’s magic of the mind fits in with the more science-grounded (comparatively!) worlds introduced previously, the concept of the multiverse and what science philosophy has to do with superheroes. … In general, the multiverse idea is very much built into the Marvel comics; Marvel has Earth 226A, Earth 213B … You can expect it to show up in different places. What’s interesting about the Marvel universe is, they would have these characters which would be the embodiment of impersonal forces. There’s a character who’s like, “I’m Eternity,” and he’s represented as this Read More ›

From David Sloan Wilson at Evolution Institute: Toward A New Social Darwinism … We should be suspicious of all narratives that attempt to incorporate Darwin’s theory for one purpose or another, past and present. Nevertheless, this does not mean that we are permanently trapped in a hall of mirrors. The articles by Paul Crook and Adriana Novoa show that it is possible to understand how a scientific theory is refracted through the lens of a particular person or culture. Admittedly, this is easier to do for the past than for the present. In any case, avoiding cultural bias is a problem for all theories, not just evolutionary theory. … What does that mean? Either Darwinian theory is any use in Read More ›

If Darwin’s boys don’t get to town in time, it will be historic. A chance to talk about what really happens in evolution without Darwin clogging the works. New trends in evolutionary biology: biological, philosophical and social science perspectives Scientific meeting Register for this event Register now Starts: November 072016 09:00 Add to calendar Ends: November 092016 17:00 Add to calendar Location The Royal Society, London, 6-9 Carlton House Terrace, London, SW1Y 5AG View map Venue information Overview Scientific discussion meeting organised in partnership with the British Academy by Professor Denis Noble CBE FMedSci FRS, Professor Nancy Cartwright FBA, Professor Sir Patrick Bateson FRS, Professor John Dupré and Professor Kevin Laland. The Royal Society, London Developments in evolutionary biology and adjacent Read More ›

From Rochelle Poole at Science: On the first day of my first field expedition, my adviser abruptly shifted all the field resources to a different topic that didn’t match my experience or career ambitions, ignoring our rigorous research plans—and my growing objections. Such a capricious change was unacceptable, I said, but my adviser countered my resistance. “I have the power to do this,” he said. “This is how science works; you are just naïve.” To some extent he was right: Ph.D. advisers wield the power to create or destroy research careers, and students typically have few—if any—ways to protect themselves from advisers who misuse this responsibility, especially during remote fieldwork. I was upset, but he was the field manager, so Read More ›

From Kendall Powell at Nature: But some data and anecdotal evidence suggest that scientists do face more hurdles in starting research groups now than did many of their senior colleagues 20–30 years ago. Chief among those challenges is the unprecedented number competing for funding pools that have remained stagnant or shrunk in the past decade. “The number of people is at an all-time high, but the number of awards hasn’t changed,” says Jon Lorsch, director of the US National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS) in Bethesda, Maryland. “A lot of people with influence on the system recognize this is a serious problem and are trying to fix it.” Young scientists and senior scientists alike feel an acute pressure to Read More ›

From Andrew Griffin at Independent: British scientists don’t like Richard Dawkins, finds study that didn’t even ask questions about Richard Dawkins Though Dawkins wasn’t a part of the interview process, and researchers didn’t ask about him, 48 of the 137 British scientists they spoke to mentioned Dawkins. Of those 48 that referenced him, 80 per cent said they thought that Dawkins misrepresents science and scientists in his books and public speeches, according to the study by Rice University, Texas. Other scientists did stand up for the evolutionary biologist, and the remaining 20 per cent were positive views. One said that Dawkins has “quite an important place in society” because of his criticism of creationism and intelligent design. The study was Read More ›

From Massimo Pigliucci at Nautilus: Is evolutionary biology about to prove a two-millennia old metaphysical speculation? Or is metaphysics about to fundamentally change the way we look at biology? Andreas Wagner, a developmental biologist at the University of Zurich, argues for both theses. I’m not convinced. Just read the last two sentences of his 2014 book, Arrival of the Fittest: How Nature Innovates. They come in an epilogue, titled “Plato’s Cave.” “We are shedding new light on one of the most durable and fascinating subjects in all of philosophy,” he writes. “And we learn that life’s creativity draws from a source that is older than life, and perhaps older than time.” (Italics mine.) The source of this creativity, Wagner argues, Read More ›

The most serious event in this field in decades: Finally, the ongoing conflict between Darwinism and  evolution has made it to the top of the In Tray. And are we seeing much notice from the pop science media? Not if you go by the first page on Google, appended (18:30 EST). Now, the good news is that serious researchers will get more discussed and done without the pop science media reassuring everyone that Darwin’s reputation is safe. For a handy guidebook to new ideas that will likely be discussed informally, as well as those that will be discussed at the meeting, get and read Suzan Mazur’s Public Evolution Summit. New trends in evolutionary biology: biological … – Royal Society https://royalsociety.org/science-events-and-lectures/2016/11/evolutionary-biology/ Read More ›

Here: Q: What is the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement?VHEMT (pronounced vehement) is a movement not an organization. It’s a movement advanced by people who care about life on planet Earth. We’re not just a bunch of misanthropes and anti-social, Malthusian misfits, taking morbid delight whenever disaster strikes humans. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Voluntary human extinction is the humanitarian alternative to human disasters. … When every human chooses to stop breeding, Earth’s biosphere will be allowed to return to its former glory, and all remaining creatures will be free to live, die, evolve (if they believe in evolution), and will perhaps pass away, as so many of Nature’s “experiments” have done throughout the eons. It’s going to take Read More ›

Iconic culture commentator Tom Wolfe, author of The Kingdom of Speech told Spanish paper, El Mundo (second after El Pais” ): I started reading a bit and I had more and more the feeling that it was a myth. A myth like Thor and Wotan. The theory of evolution does not meet any of the standards of a new theory because, first, it is not testable. Evolution means you can not see what will happen unless you are going to live for seven million years. It can not be explained, it is completely impossible. If you tried to find facts that are true, evolution would vanish. No new investigations have been opened and it is not a testable theory. I think that if Read More ›

A friend sends this list of freakouts by Darwin’s followers some years ago, about the dangers the ID community poses: — Evolutionary biologist Massimo Pigliucci (“The Varieties of Denialism,” 2002): ID is “bent on literally destroying science as we know it.” Anthropologist Pat Shipman (2005): I have been “prompted to take ID seriously, and this movement scares me. Now I feel like a jogger in the park at night who realizes that she is far too isolated and that the shadows are far too deep. At first I ignored that faint rustling behind me, convincing myself it was just wind in the leaves. Louder noises made me jump and turn around, but I saw nothing. Now I know that I Read More ›

From David Klinghoffer at Evolution News & Views, in connection with the documentary Revolutionary, about biochemist and design theorist Michael Behe, recounts: As one paleontologist recounts here, after his own mind was opened to the cogency of design arguments, he met ID scientists and scholars and was surprised to find they bore little resemblance to what he expected based on media caricatures. The shy (as he describes himself), self-effacing, yet stubborn Dr. Behe may also come as a revelation to those who don’t know him but assume he must be a cartoon “creationist.” Revolutionary is unlike other ID films I’m familiar with in the way it offers personal stories. One of the most startling concerns University of Idaho microbiologist Scott Read More ›

In Public Evolution Summit, Suzan Mazur quotes John Landon at Darwinana.com on the decades-long Darwin debate, now erupting at the Royal Society. One might have expected, given the name of the site, that Landon felt himself in somewhat the same position as the turkey who discovers the true meaning of Thanksgiving… But it is encouraging to hear him say, Watching the Darwin debate go on and on unreasonably with no resolution from scientific or academic bodies allowing the religious right to dominate critique is a strange experience. I am impressed by the inability of most of the public to think clearly on the subject, the failure of the biological community to handle even the most elementary discussion of the problems, Read More ›

From Caroline Mortimer at Independent: Founder insists believers are welcome as well as long as they don’t have religious symbols on their headstones Apparently, the Church of Sweden will maintain the graveyard. Josef Erdem, a teacher from Borlänge in central Sweden, first proposed the idea because he wanted people to “decide for themselves what their graves should look like”. More. If one can’t be buried in the cemetery with the symbols of any “religion,” that suggests that atheism is itself functioning as a religion. Obviously, the atheists will be in charge of what they will allow, just as the Catholic Archdiocese is in charge of what is permitted at the Hope Cemetery in Ottawa. But anyway, the Americans are way Read More ›

For eleven months. From Stoyan Zaimov at Christian Post: The atheist criticism against the movie reached such intensity that the film’s trailer was blocked on YouTube for 11 months because it was flagged by members of the community who were seemingly upset with its representation of what happened. The issue was allegedly the claim that a key conversation, in which Rachel dies for affirming her Christian faith, never took place. The filmmakers are standing by the story, however, and say the conversation in question is found in later statements made by witness Richard Costaldo, who says he was near Scott when the killers opened fire. More. So many people worldwide die for affirming their Christian faith, one wonders to whom it Read More ›