…and this is a 
Today is the 150th anniversary of the publication of Darwin's On the Origin of Species, and a few sites have taken notice.
A new science blog, The Whirlpool of Life, opens today.
CNN has published a brief retrospective from Richard Dawkins. It focuses entirely on "militant atheism", which is odd since the book itself did not promote unbelief, but also indirectly appropriate, since the concept did end up undermining the argument from design, and contributed significantly to making god irrelevant.
And…that's about it. No fireworks, no triumphant announcements, no scientists standing outside in candlelight vigils singing hosannas to Chuck. That's about right, I think — it's a great book, it made a difference in the intellectual world, but it ain't religion, thank dog.
Comments
Posted by: CS Lewis Jr | November 24, 2009 5:55 PM
Too bad they also saw fit to publish this. Opinions differ, don'tcha know.
Posted by: Ralph Johnson | November 24, 2009 5:59 PM
Yes, they had to throw in the opinion of a lying propagandist. It's discouraging. Next they'll give space to a Holocaust denier.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
November 24, 2009 6:00 PM
Warning, pedantry ahead.
Technically, and pedantically (but it could be important sometimes for not giving ammunition to morons), god was always irrelevant, unless it was for supplying fake and psychologically-satisfying (to many) "explanations" which fail evidentially.
I realize that as long as science didn't explain life, the god of the gaps was psychologically alive in our monkey brains tuned for teleological answers. Yet in our better more rational minds god did nothing except stop the questioning, and so certainly was irrelevant to meaningful understanding of the world.
Here, well, what's the difference? But if I were writing something that a lot of creationist would read, I'd write something like "revealed god's irrelevance."
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: Jason Febery | November 24, 2009 6:01 PM
I'll definitely have to check out that new blog. Looks promising.
--
http://jasonfebery.wordpress.com/2009/11/22/not-just-a-theory/
Posted by: Ralph Johnson | November 24, 2009 6:02 PM
I forgot to mention that I went to the little "feedback" button in the upper right of the page and told them (CNN) they ought to be ashamed of themselves for publishing this. Probabaly makes no difference, but recommended for peace of mind.
Posted by: uppity cracka | November 24, 2009 6:05 PM
Looks like PZ can even be irreverent about irreverence.
Posted by: H.H. | November 24, 2009 6:05 PM
Don't forget Time magazine. Today, they honored Darwin by publishing an interview with a jackass who blames evolution for being responsible for eugenics.
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1942483,00.html?xid=rss-fullhealthsci-yahoo
Stay classy, Time.
Posted by: Mario Pineda-Krch | November 24, 2009 6:06 PM
Happy Birthday Origin, you may be getting old but your message is as relevant today as ever. Now..., what would Darwin drink when in celebratory mood? :-)
Posted by: Measure | November 24, 2009 6:07 PM
It's not that the theory of evolution directly attacks the idea of a God...
...It just happens to destroy the foundation that the "God" concept is built on: That there are things in this world that we can't explain, and the solution is "God".
With evolution in place, there are very few things about life that we can't explain, and it becomes ridiculous to assign "God" as a solution to those problems, especially as we continue to solve them.
Posted by: Brigand | November 24, 2009 6:09 PM
CBC radio also has a 4 part series on Darwin. The show airs Wednesdays at 21h00 on CBC Radio One. You can get the podcasts here after each show has aired.
Posted by: Biology Blogger | November 24, 2009 6:42 PM
PZ, did you see that negative piece on Darwin, TIME posted?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20091124/hl_time/08599194248300
Posted by: Jason Febery | November 24, 2009 6:53 PM
@Biology Blogger
That TIME piece might even be more ridiculous than the one CNN posted.
"What that misses is the way his ideas were abused in the 20th century and the way in which Darwin was wrong about certain key issues."
Ask any scientist and I'm sure they would agree that of course Darwin wasn't write about everything. There were quite a few things he was wrong about, but this is the nature of science. Theories built upon each other and are slowly modified and changed as new information comes to light.
That's like criticizing Newton for not taking Einsteinian relativity into account.
--
http://www.jasonfebery.wordpress.com
Posted by: Biology Blogger | November 24, 2009 8:32 PM
And Darwin was not the inventor of social Darwinism. Wankers like Ben Stein have taken advantage of that.
Posted by: Dave Blake | November 24, 2009 9:25 PM
That CNN article is absolutely awful. I'm also sure they misquoted Dawkins - I doubt he claimed that life existed for 300,000 million years.
Posted by: jaynie | November 24, 2009 9:37 PM
On The Origin:
http://tinyurl.com/yemzr4m
Posted by: Chuck | November 24, 2009 9:52 PM
There is nothing wrong with singing hosannas to Chuck!
Chuck
http://www.irreligiosophy.com
Posted by: J. James | November 24, 2009 10:05 PM
Well then, I'll do tonight only what seems appropriate: drink 150 oz. of beer in Darwin's honor.
Posted by: MadScientist | November 24, 2009 10:26 PM
Don't thank dog, it's obviously the will of the Flying Spaghetti Monster!
Posted by: MadScientist | November 24, 2009 10:55 PM
Gah, that CNN article has a heavy overtone of ignorance about it.
"What would eventually be known as 'The Origin of Species' was the opening shot in a debate that hasn't ended, even 150 years later."
Nonsense; the debate ended over 100 years ago even though it's not possible to point to any one moment and claim that the debate ended there. Darwin was right.
"Read why another writer believes evolution and faith can be compatible"
Well, the other writer has some bizarre ideas if he believes that evolution and faith can be compatible. Even Darwin's formulation of the theory of evolution exposed the biblical creation stories as nothing more than myths - just another set of myths in the mediocre book of myths we call the bible. Evolution and faith can only be "compatible" in the most trivial sense: that people who believe in god can also believe in evolution. However, such people are giving religious beliefs an unwarranted exception to investigation; if the rigorous thought processes used to test and refine ideas on evolution had been used to investigate and determine the veracity of any religious belief, the religious beliefs would be discarded with very little effort.
"Darwin struggled with the book, which he called 'my abominable volume' and said that it 'has cost me so much labor that I almost hate it.'"
No shit; Darwin had a lot of information to put together and to present to others in an intelligible fashion - a promethean task. As I build instruments I'm so sick of working with them after only a few months that I feel like smashing them every time tests reveal another problem to resolve. Darwin did not hate his work; he loved it, otherwise he would not have persevered. Darwin was not "very slow to make his theory of evolution by natural selection public" as the stupid article claims; he simply spent an awful long time working on it. It was made public when he was moderately happy with his work. If anyone has evidence that Darwin rushed the publication solely because he saw Wallace's work I'd certainly like to see that.
"The book went through six editions with Darwin's input and sold many copies, but it was controversial from the start."
More like "controversial at the start" but even that would be a difficult claim to substantiate. Thinking people read the work and many were thoroughly impressed; even then it was controversial primarily to folks who would rather have believed the biblical creation myths.
"Read the view of an advocate of "intelligent design"
Oh, come on CNN, don't waste my time with ID bullshit.
Posted by: David Estlund | November 24, 2009 11:09 PM
Forgive me for having nothing useful to contribute (haven't read the comments yet), but why does your good news have to be bad news? It's all bad news. And that's a double entendre. This stuff isn't hard to understand; it should be understood by every high school biology student, unless they stop teaching biology in high school. Anyone who says otherwise should be called out on their 18th-century understanding of biology, and anyone teaching otherwise should simply be removed.
Posted by: David Estlund | November 24, 2009 11:19 PM
Now that I've read the comments, I'll go ahead and quote a troll, "Praise God! Praise PZ Myer! Praise god only if PZ Myers is god!"
And by that quote, I mean, "Thanks, folks, for making sense and providing further thought."
Posted by: David Estlund | November 25, 2009 12:01 AM
I'm kinda proud of the challenge I put on the facebook: "I guess it's still kinda Darwin's birthday, and his book's. I say this because "The Media" are still doing interest pieces on "The Controversy." I've read his book, cover to cover, and the Bible, and a lot of other things. If you think "teaching the controversy" is of any use, I would love to talk with you. I might lose, even! Don't you want me to lose? Make me lose." "Oh, and if you send Kirk Cameron to my door, I will hit you in the face. Sorry. Kirk Cameron isn't proof, and neither is he equipped for debate." I thought it was worth putting on Pharyngula because it's relevant and ballsy. Any tips are welcome.
Posted by: David Estlund | November 25, 2009 12:19 AM
Oh the tips are welcome at dee estlund at geemail dot com. Put it together if you want to. I love email.
Posted by: wiley | November 25, 2009 1:50 AM
Delusional Dawkins says America is so much more religious than most other western countries, and maintains that science is corrosive to religion and that religion undermines science.
So how come the only nation that has put a man on the moon is the good ol' USA?
And how come Albert Einstein decided to migrate from a 'less religious' nation to the more religious USA?
Methinks RD is an anti-American bigot.
Posted by: Psychodigger | November 25, 2009 3:42 AM
Well, Pz's right to claim the Origin is (thankfully) not religion, but me and a bunch of fellow archaeologistst took the occasion to get plastered yesterday just the same. Happy Monkey, Origin!
Posted by: Erik | November 25, 2009 6:24 AM
#24 Bad troll is bad troll.
How come about 50 % of americans deny evolution? The percentage is ~10 % in Iceland, and ~20 % over here.
As for Einstein, I'm sure you can figure that one out for yourself.
Posted by: Knockgoats | November 25, 2009 6:33 AM
So how come the only nation that has put a man on the moon is the good ol' USA? - wiley
Because it imported and sheltered Nazi war criminals to run its space programme. You know, the kind of people Einstein fled from.
Posted by: Rorschach | November 25, 2009 6:40 AM
Hey, without us germans you'd still be looking at the moon through german telescopes :P
Posted by: Knockgoats | November 25, 2009 6:49 AM
One of my favourite Tom Lehrer verses (excuse the cod German accent - that's how I hear it in my head):
"Vunce rockets go up,
Who cares vhere zey come down?
Zat's not my department!",
Says Werner von Braun"
Posted by: MadScientist | November 25, 2009 6:50 AM
@troll #24: Religion didn't have a goddamned thing to do with putting people on the moon. It was scientists and engineers that put folks on the moon, not priests and prayers.
Mr troll, you must have gone to the School of the Exceptionally Stupid if you don't realize that Einstein did not leave Germany to find a less religious place; he left to get away from the growing hostility to Jews.
Posted by: bobxxxx | November 25, 2009 7:21 AM
and contributed significantly to making god irrelevant.
I think that's a bit of an understatement. What Darwin did is equivalent to smashing the magic fairy's head with a baseball bat.
And this is what I like to tell Christians who think it's OK to accept evolution and still believe in woo-woo. It's not OK because it's pointless to believe in a magic man who never had anything to do.
And what bugs me even more than Christian retards are atheists who dishonestly tell Christians they can accept modern biology and still believe in Christian bullshit.
Posted by: Sili
|
November 27, 2009 2:25 AM
Give it another 350 years. We'll get our own Constantine yet.Posted by: Confused | November 30, 2009 1:43 PM
Why is it that people fight so hard to prove we are nothing more than a glorified monkey? Where then does morality come from?