The National Library of Medicine has released scans of classic science texts from the 15th-16th century — they're beautiful.
And the amazing thing is, they're still better science than anything you'll find from a creationist!
Search
Profile
PZ Myers is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris.
…and this is a pharyngula stage embryo.
• a longer profile of yours truly
• my calendar
• Nature Network
• RichardDawkins Network
• facebook
• MySpace
• Twitter
• Atheist Nexus
• the Pharyngula chat room
(#pharyngula on irc.synirc.net)
I reserve the right to publicly post, with full identifying information about the source, any email sent to me that contains threats of violence.
Random Quote
I do not believe in revealed religion — I will have nothing to do with your immortality; we are miserable enough in this life, without speculating on another….
[Lord Byron (1778-1824), Letter to Rev. Francis Hodgson, 1811]
Recent Posts
- The Midwest Science of Origins Conference!
- Biology teaches that sexual deviancy is normal
- Mary's Monday Metazoan: Ambition!
- Our illness is their profit
- Friday Cephalopod: NUMBERLESS HOSTS!
- Dear Jezebel
- There Will Be Blood?
- Zooming in on the Origin of Life Science Foundation
- Friday Cephalopod: Feasibility trial successful
- Making excuses
A Taste of Pharyngula
Recent Comments
- Nerd of Redhead, OM on Zooming in on the Origin of Life Science Foundation
- Stanton on Zooming in on the Origin of Life Science Foundation
- Owlmirror on Zooming in on the Origin of Life Science Foundation
- themayan on Zooming in on the Origin of Life Science Foundation
- Stanton on More bad science in the literature
- Stanton on Biology teaches that sexual deviancy is normal
- 'Tis Himself, OM on The Midwest Science of Origins Conference!
- Billy on Biology teaches that sexual deviancy is normal
- EntropicForces on Botanical Wednesday: Walking? No way
- kamizushi on Biology teaches that sexual deviancy is normal
Archives
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
Blogroll
Other Information
« Attenborough joins the symphony | Main | NJ, get off the fence! »
More articles by PZ Myers can be found on Freethoughtblogs at the new Pharyngula!
Antique illustrations
Category: Art • Books • Science
Posted on: January 6, 2010 8:55 PM, by PZ Myers
Find more posts in: 
Life Science
Life ScienceTrackBacks
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/128685
Leave a comment
HTML commands: <i>italic</i>, <b>bold</b>, <a href="url">link</a>, <blockquote>quote</blockquote>
Comments
Posted by: Zeno
|
January 6, 2010 9:16 PM
Creationists don't have a lot of creativity when it comes to their arguments against science. They just keep repackaging the same old stuff. So sad.
Meanwhile, science keeps moving along and piling up even more evidence (as if it were needed) to refute the creationists. So glad.
Posted by: Brain Hertz
|
January 6, 2010 9:30 PM
Cue creationists screaming that all of the original authors and artists were actually creationists in 3... 2... 1...
Posted by: Sven DiMilo
|
January 6, 2010 9:37 PM
Aw, shit...timesink. Check out this!
Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM, CR
|
January 6, 2010 9:37 PM
Your octopus is
One simple page away from
The page for mermaids.
(still better science than creationism!)
Posted by: Brain Hertz
|
January 6, 2010 9:44 PM
...and then there's this:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/exhibition/historicalanatomies/Images/1200_pixels/eden_23.jpg
I thought the unicorn was a nice touch.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
January 6, 2010 10:15 PM
Weren't they? They certainly weren't modern creationists (being actually interested in the world around them to meticulously draw something seems beyond the ken of cdesign "Let's just steal this John Lennon song and this XVIVO animation" proponentsists), but neither were they evolutionists.
Posted by: Brain Hertz
|
January 6, 2010 10:49 PM
Brownian,
sure, and I wasn't meaning to imply otherwise (however, it is kind of pointless to categorize historical people according to whether they accepted a theory that hadn't actually been postulated at the time).
I was only commenting on the inevitability of creationists showing up to argue the point ;-).
In other news, I have strong evidence that Sir Isaac Newton, one of the greatest physicists of all time who had more impact on physics than any other single person in the entire history of science evar, didn't believe in the theory of relativity. (Either of them!!!). This surely must be a huge blow for the Einsteinists.
Posted by: Bix12
|
January 7, 2010 12:50 AM
Very cool illustrations.
I've had a large print of Hooke's "Flea" hanging on my wall for some time now--the detail is amazing.
Poor old Hooke, btw--apparently he ended up Sir Isaac Newton's shitlist (they were contemporaries) and subsequently had a tough go of it all because of that.
Posted by: Brian
|
January 7, 2010 2:26 AM
Vesalius! Oh, man, so beautiful.
Posted by: boygenius
|
January 7, 2010 3:49 AM
Sven@3,
That looks like a GD concert poster. The skeleton isn't clasping its hands in prayer, rather contemplating the opening notes of a good Saint Stephen.
Posted by: boygenius
|
January 7, 2010 4:00 AM
Oops, forgot the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m68lFBKkthU
:) :) :)
Posted by: Steven Mading
|
January 7, 2010 7:27 AM
One of the things I'm always impressed with about biologists from that era is how they had to be both good scientists AND good artists. The ability to draw the animals and plants being studied was a prerequisite for getting your ideas across in that pre-photography era.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo
|
January 7, 2010 8:55 AM
good call (and vid), boygenius
Posted by: Mobius
|
January 7, 2010 9:35 AM
Quite beautiful, especially considering it is a 17th century woodcut.
Posted by: OmiOne
|
January 7, 2010 2:40 PM
@Cuttlefish, OM (#4)
Only for the record, the text associated with the mermaid page reads:
The Sea Monster and The Hydra
Gesner is extremely skeptical of the existence of sea monsters, but he feels it necessary to mention them because he cannot absolutely refute earlier descriptions of them.
In Greek mythology, the hydra was a seven-headed monster slain by Hercules. Gesner considers it to be imaginary but includes it because of a recently published pamphlet about a seven-headed snake found in Turkey.
Posted by: DesertHedgehog
|
January 7, 2010 5:47 PM
Lovely illustration.
And perhaps a bit off-topic, but...does anyone recall an article in New Yorker some years back about scientific illustration and decrying the death of sketching skills in science? I remember reading it and liking it (note: I'm hopelessly art-challenged; Stick Man and Stick Giraffe are the limit of my skills) and wondering what people who were in the sciences these days thought about sketching/drawing...or about scientific illustration as art...
Posted by: Aunt Benjy
|
January 7, 2010 7:30 PM
Thanks. I've been looking for a copy of the original of this, my favourite anatomy t-shirt:
http://content.perspicuity.com/?q=node/239
Oh, and Yay, I managed to log in...first time in ages...
Posted by: rebecca.e.parker
|
January 7, 2010 9:15 PM
This isn't exactly a scientific work, nor is it a woodcut, but it does have an octopus.