Dispatches from the Creation Wars

My Best Science Writing?

I have been invited to submit some of my best science blogging for a possible book project. The subject needs to be science, not the law and other stuff I write about (though what I’ve written on the Kitzmiller trial would likely qualify). I thought I would open it up to my readers to suggest posts from the past that they particularly like that I might submit. Leave out the snarky stuff, it needs to be the more detailed, substantive posts, probably criticizing some aspect of the evolution/creationism debates. Any suggestions?


  1. #1 Jeff Hebert
    December 22, 2006

    Ed, I’d say your basic biostratigraphy challenge (as laid out at least once, here or, even better, here.) is in my humble opinion your best science writing. It’s clear and unequivocal, easy to understand by a layman but scientifically strong, and deals with the creationism debate that’s your strong suit when it comes to matters scientific.

    That’s my vote, anyway.

  2. #2 argystokes
    December 22, 2006

    When you put up the post, I immediately thought of a shorter version of the biostratigraphy challenge that you posed to commenter Gumpngreen (now overlord of Dembski’s UD4kids). So I will concur with A-Bear’s suggestion above.

  3. #3 Leni
    December 22, 2006

    I agree with Jeff Herbert. Especially on the Gibbons exchange, since that is what immediately came to my mind.

    The Coulter fisking was good, but was done more thouroughly by… that guy who wrote the 3 part epic ass-whooping whose name I can’t remember. The Gibbons exchange had a bit more meat to it, if I remmeber right.

  4. #4 PhysioProf
    December 22, 2006

    It ain’t science, but I thought your post on the Ninth Amendment was truly outstanding.

  5. #5 Greg
    December 23, 2006

    I agree with Jeff Herbet, that’s a nice piece. I was also thinking that any number of your posts debunking the faulty conclusions drawn/used by anti-gay groups would also be good. I’m not sure if your publishers will think of it as science, but it most certainly is — you bash false claims with verified ones. Sorry I can’t point to a specific article though.

  6. #6 Dave S.
    December 23, 2006

    I agree the Gibbons multi-part series/biostratigaphical callenge was a very nice piece of work. The only problem is that you’re responding to a particular poor correspondent. For that reason I might prefer your 4 parter analysing Behe’s testimony at Dover (and subsequent related postings). I also liked the Answering Dean Esmay on ID in Science Classrooms and the follow up Dean Esmay’s Latest on ID, although the follow up veers more into Godwin’s Law territory than science per se.

  7. #7 doctorgoo
    December 25, 2006

    I just read the suggestions from all bloggers posted on the Clock. And of Ed’s three proposed articles, my favorite by far is the third one titled “Answering Dean Esmay on ID in Science Classrooms”.

    http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2004/12/answering_dean_esmay_on_id_in.php (Sorry, I don’t know how to embed this link with text.)

    Not only is this a terrific explanation of why ID isn’t science, but the comments between you and Jan and then with Davescot are absolutely fascinating!

    Did this post mark your first exchange with Davescot? It seems bizzare to see how his positions have evolved (he actually claimed to be agnostic two years ago.)

    Ed, if you were to ever create a “Best Of Dispatches” list, then this post should most definitely be at the top.

New comments have been temporarily disabled. Please check back soon.