Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Meeting the scientific outcasts and mavericks

arroba Email

Mathematicians and scientists who study evidence for design in nature are hardly the only ones! Alex Berezow at American Council on Science and Health offers some others, including

Mark Davis. In an editorial for Nature, Davis and 18 of his colleagues made the case to stop vilifying invasive species. They argue that invasive species are not a threat to biodiversity, and the notion that these species are little more than barbarian invaders leads to bad policy. They write, “this perspective has led many conservation and restoration efforts down paths that make little ecological or economic sense.” More.

Here: “Conservationists should assess organisms on environmental impact rather than on whether they are natives, argue Mark Davis and 18 other ecologists.” (paywall)

In principle, those guys are likely right, but one hopes they have security guards.

First, as often noted here, it is far from clear what a species is, exactly. Despite that, speciation is the basis for claims about Darwinian evolution.

Second, life forms are always members of ecologies. Just what it means to “upset the ecology” should be specified and quantified, if the subject is supposed to be science rather than Save Our Planet. Save Our Planet is more fun than science, of course, because one gets to vilify people whose research findings introduce complexities.

See also: Bill Nye open to jail time for climate change skeptics


“Speciation” means what exactly? No one can define it but it is the basis of Darwinian evolution.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

But modern evolutionary theory is more like a rice paddy than a stream. Mung
In principle, those guys are likely right, but one hopes they have security guards.
I don't think any of those guys are outcasts, and quite a few (e.g. Brown, Rosenzweig, Carroll) certainly wouldn't be described as mavericks: they're very much part of the mainstream. Bob O'H

Leave a Reply