Darwin’s Cathedral

Australia - On Line Opinion ^ | 23 Feb 06 | Hiram Caton

[gobucks]

Bringing them into the picture would spoil the halo over Darwin’s head and cast doubt on his singularity.

Someone once said it even better: "The little people first!!"

[Coyoteman]

Lets all bash Darwin. Then maybe his theory will just go away ===> Placemarker <===.

[ClearCase_guy]

Darwinians of the day recoiled in horror from these splendid discoveries. They proudly declared their “faith” in the master while hurling themselves vehemently at the new science. One, the brilliant Karl Pearson, persisted in dogged opposition to genetics until his death in 1936! So much for evidence.

Those dogmatic Darwinists just stuck to their pet theory like glue. Nothing would make them begin to question its validity!

Of course, as this article points out, Darwin HAS been refuted. Clever guy, but he got it wrong. "Darwinism" has been replaced by the much more modern "Theory of Evolution".

Nowadays, it is the proponents of the Theory of Evolution who dogmatically stick to their pet theory like glue. Nothing will make them begin to question its validity!

My, how times have changed.

[jocon307]

pinging myself for the AM, too late to digest all this.

[MRMEAN]

This is silliness...to say that Darwin didn't accomplish anything significant because he didn't discover Mendelian inheritance is like saying Newton didn't do much because he didn't discover quantum mechanics.

The fact is that Darwin was a prodigious observer and collector of data, he did numerous experiments, a great systematizer, and his insights provided powerful explanations as to how and why the observed natural world is as it is, and revolutionized the scientific understanding of the biological world. The basics of his theory, inheritance, with modification, and natural selection, leading to new species adapted to their environment, has been continuously confirmed since the theory was first published in 1858.

Darwin's publications are interesting and readable, Creationists who want to slime him should have the intellectual honesty to read his works, at least Origin of Species.

[Right Wing Professor]

Hiram Caton also believes that HIV does not cause AIDS. As I've often observed, look carefully at a creationist, and you'll usually find several other completely loony ideas.

[kajingawd]

ping

[Doctor Stochastic]

A peculiarly ignorant discussion of Darwin's actual writings. Perhaps the blog this was copied from isn't that rigorous.

[JCEccles]

That's a lot of pomp and ceremony to celebrate the life of a man whose admirers, in the main, are only too pleased to assure everyone that life is undirected, random, meaningless, pointless, and that man is bereft of free will.

[csense]

This is silliness...to say that Darwin didn't accomplish anything significant because he didn't discover Mendelian inheritance is like saying Newton didn't do much because he didn't discover quantum mechanics.

You might have a point sparky, if Max Planck were around in Newtons' time. Then again, if he was, the point wouldn't be in your favor.

[Dimensio]

That's a lot of pomp and ceremony to celebrate the life of a man whose admirers, in the main, are only too pleased to assure everyone that life is undirected, random, meaningless, pointless, and that man is bereft of free will.

Can you demonstrate that the above is true above the "main" of Darwin's admirers?

[Dark Knight]

Just like that other looney NOBEL Laureate from the same source...

"If there is evidence that HIV causes AIDS, there should be scientific documents which either singly or collectively demonstrate that fact, at least with a high probability. There is no such document."
Dr. Kary Mullis, Biochemist, 1993 Nobel Prize for Chemistry

http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/index.htm

You really need to source your scientific prejudice better Perfessor.

DK

[GSlob]

"What grading system ranks Origin as the greatest book in science? What titles were runners-up? What were those signal discoveries that transformed the biological sciences of his day? What was his new concept of humankind?"
Well, there is Charles Murray's book on human accomplishment. He explicitly used the econometric criteria to grade the relative importance of various prominent scientists in several different fields, and came to the same conclusion: in the field of biology Charles Darwin IS the greatest.

[Dark Knight]

Well, there is Charles Murray's book on human accomplishment. He explicitly used the econometric criteria to grade the relative importance of various prominent scientists in several different fields, and came to the same conclusion: in the field of biology Charles Darwin IS the greatest.<<

Why that is amazing! A theory with NO MAJOR PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS has as much economic implication as something like the discovery of DNA and the various scientific theories borne from that fruit. I believe there are ORDERS of magnitude difference in economic activity between the two. Would you invest in biotech or ... they really don't have many companies doing work on practical Darwinism do they?

DK

[GSlob]

I am afraid you got confused by the nomenclature: econometric techniques are not economics, and do not measure [at least in Murray's case] the economic impact, although these quantitative techniques were originally developed in economics area. He statistically measured the number, frequency, prominence and length of references and quotations [in multiple "qualified sources" of more or less encyclopedic character, and not, for example, in New York Times] and then compared these to arrive at the relative rankings. In the field of Western music he used the same techniques to arrive to the relative rankings of Beethoven and Mozart (practically indistinguishable, relative ranking 100 out of 100. J. S. Bach came as a close, but distinct third) - find me the relative economic importance of these composers, if you can.

[Dark Knight]

Thanks for the information. Econo metric should be about economic impact and the measurements of the phenomena. It is really a socio metric measure. Of course it does not lend much to any argument on the importance of Darwinism since controversy does not necessarily equate to importance.

DNA for example, is a paradigm change. It was a discovery that gave mechanism to Mendel's work. There is NO WAY the economic importance of Darwinism, NeoDarwinism or most of the other ToE's can be compared.

Of course Murray's work can prove that Darwin is talked about more. Maybe Mendel should get a publicist.

Besides Bach was robbed.

LOL

Thanks for the info on Murray, but I'll pass on the methodology. If the name does not describe the info, it intends to mislead. Nomenclature used to attempt to accurately describe what is being named, now it is newspeak.

Econo without economics. At least metrics is an attempt to measure.

DK

[Dark Knight]

Thanks for the challenge.

Mozart 554
Beethoven 413
Bach 394

The internet movie data base, music used by each composer in listed movies.

imdb.com

Bach was still robbed.

DK

[GSlob]

"...Murray's work can prove that Darwin is talked about more. Maybe Mendel should get a publicist. "
Murray was attempting to measure the talk by, about, and for, professionals. A publicist could get a client into the society pages of NYT, but to get somebody into, say, a musical encyclopedia would be nontrivial even for the best PR joint - and even more difficult to get a client there to figure prominently, and not as a footnote.
Murray's "qualified sources" were never intended for mass consumption, but mostly serve as solid, and stolid, reference works in specialized fields. More, Murray tried, wherever possible, to pick those "qualified sources" from different countries, and prudently cut off his analysis at 1950, so as to avoid fads and let the time sort the things out, more or less.

[GSlob]

OK. Here are Murray's "qualified sources" for the Western music:
G.Abraham, (1979) The Concise Oxford History of Music, Oxford, Oxford University Press;
L. Alberti, (1968) Musica Nei Secoli, Milan, CEAM;
M.C. Bertrando-Patier, (1998) Histoire de la Musique, Paris, Larousse
E. Borroff, (1990) Music in Europe and the United States, New York, Ardsley house
C. Dahlhaus and M. Eggebrecht, (1978) Brockhaus Riemann Musiclexicon, 2 vols, Mainz, F.A.Brockhaus.
D.J.Grout and C.V.Palisca, (1996), A History of Western Music, New York, W.W. Norton &Co.
P. Hamburger (1966) Musikens Historie, Copenhagen, Aschehoug Dansk Forlag
and another 10 equally dry, equally scholarly and equally incomprehensible to a layman works. To score really high, one better be in all 16 sources, and prominently. As you can see, it has nothing to do with use in movies. Results of this "popularity contest":
Beethoven 100; Mozart 100; J. S. Bach 87; Wagner 80; Haydn 56, and all the rest of them, from Handel to Gluck - below 50.