I'm looking forward to learning about all the paradigm-shifting work on evolutionary theory from the likes of Denis Noble and the Third Way crowd [Physiologists fall for the Third Way]. There may even be some famous members of the Altenberg 16 [More calls to extend the defunct Modern Synthesis].
I'm taking Ms. Sandwalk and hope to show her Down House. She loves old English houses.
She'll also be really excited to see Darwin's tomb in Westminster Abbey and tour the Natural History Museum. We'll make it a fun-filled week of science and evolution! Why don't you join us?
13 comments :
Hurrah for Down House and the Natural History Museum. But England in November?
The photos are from November 2006. It's not as bad as you think and there's no crowds.
I wish I could afford to attend the science circus.
Happy to meet either in London or Down House - loved the place. Malcolm
Are you going to be one of the speakers? Possibly on junk DNA or RGD?
If that is the case, I will join you.
Is the registration closed?
As an occasional viewer of this blog post, over the last several years, I have come to realize several trends in my thinking about evolution and the subject of ID. This is after almost 50 years working in this world of ours in jobs as varied as driving a truck, running a bacteriology/food lab, environmental engineer and lastly, in health and safety. Now that I have officially retired and devote more of my time strolling through the natural environment and exploring more ephemeral endeavors, I have come to realize a few of things:
1. God created man before woman, basically, because he wasn’t in need of a second opinion
2. God doesn’t create junk; he creates stuff. We choose to delineate it as junk.
3. Biochemistry is about stuff and physiology is about process.
4. Science is about how and religion is about why. (Einstein)
5. AND, if I had been really smart, I’d been rich and would have retired years earlier.
Quite recently, I watched, in wonder, as my grandson worked at trying to change his environment to his advantage as his father tried to maintain his environment for his children’s benefit. Somewhere in this microcosm of familial conflict rest the conundrum of life. The author, Sara Maitland, is quoted as saying:
“Wilberforce did not believe in either evolution or extinction.
Owen believed in extinction but not evolution.
Lamarck believed in evolution but not extinction.
Darwin believed in evolution and extinction.
All four of them believed in God.”
Whatever your flavor, stay with it. It will probably make you feel better than the person you’re trying to convince. I think I’ll go and cut some more wood. In the meantime, re-read J.Scott Turner's, the Tinkerer's Accomplice.
While you are genuflecting at Darwin's tomb, don't forget to visit Isaac Newton's tomb in the same place.
Darwin's belief in god, which was much in evidence when he boarded the Beagle, dissipated as he got older so that by the time of the publication of the Origin of Species, he was an out and out agnostic.
I don't know what Lamarck's view of god was but it would not surprise me if it was similar to that of his colleague, Pierre Simon de Laplace who had no need of invoking god as an explanation fr the stability of the Solar System.
You can't avoid Newton's tomb. It's huge and it overshadows all the others. The size of the memorial does not reflect the importance and significance of the scientist.
It would be very difficult to overestimate the importance of Newton's contribution to science and mathematics.
It was, indeed, difficult but Westminster Abbey managed to pulled it off by overestimating his importance. Newton's memorial is more important than any other scientist or any other King, Queen, or Prime Minister.
I would argue that Newton was more important then any King, Queen, or Prime Minister and with any other scientist save
Charles Darwin.
I live in that area. I'm definitely up for joining you. Just keep us updated with your plans and schedule
Post a Comment