• New York blog by New York

    A discussion of all things New York science. A group effort by Sabbi Lall, Caryn Shechtman, Neda Afsarmanesh and Barry Hudson.

    • "Darwin's rotweiller" barks

      Friday, 23 Oct 2009 - 03:46 UTC

      Richard Dawkins spoke a couple of days ago at the New York Academy of sciences, discussing his new book “The Greatest Show on Earth”. Going through it chapter by chapter, he discussed it as a proof of evolution, and indeed it sounds like it makes an argument from modern and older evidence. The house was crowded and there were some interesting questions in the Q and A, including one young lady who asked how she could persuade her religious family to read the book.

      There’s a full color plate in “The Greatest Show on Earth” of Darwinius masillae described in the legend as a “Superlink” that goes on to use one of my favorite underused words “preposterous” with respect to some of the hype, so I am interested to further hear his take on this and read the tome. Other interesting points were that Dawkins defended his description of evolution as a fact from Nicholas Wade’s review which discusses the use of the word fact vs. theory. Dawkins seemed to suggest that a theory is something more for those in the realms of philosophy of science. The argument being conveyed, I think, is that the idea that the earth is round and that evolution occurs will likely never be disproved, thus fact.

      Last updated: Friday, 23 Oct 2009 - 03:46 UTC

        • all tags

          • No tags for this post.
      • Comments

        • Date:
          Sunday, 25 Oct 2009 - 11:38 UTC
          Anna Vilborg said:

          Sounds like a very interesting talk! Still, and with Henry’s recent post on science and doubt in mind, I think the definition of fact as something “likely never to be disproved” a bit fussy. I would like evolution to be called a fact, and I totally and completely agree that evolution will most certainly not be disproved, ever. Still, if you can’t actually prove it, could it really be called a fact and not a theory?

        • Date:
          Tuesday, 27 Oct 2009 - 03:35 UTC
          Sabbi Lall said:

          I guess Dawkins would argue it’s been proven? He wants to essentially say this book rounds up the evidence. I confess I still haven’t finished reading it!

        • Date:
          Tuesday, 03 Nov 2009 - 12:18 UTC
          elizabeth lewis said:

          Have you read The Butterfly Hunter by Anthony Crawforth? More support for evolution on the life of Henry Walter Bates.
          http://www.ubpl.co.uk/index_files/NewBooks.htm

        • Date:
          Thursday, 05 Nov 2009 - 12:11 UTC
          vikas sharma said:

          I think Dawkins would argue it’s been proven?I totally and completely agree that evolution will most certainly not be disproved, ever.
          -
          VIKAS
          debt advice
          -debt advice


Search blogs

web feed Want a blog?

Submit this post to

Advertisement