Joined: June 2006
|Quote (sparc @ Sep. 24 2013,11:08)|
|Teamwork: New York Times and Science Magazine Seek to Rebut Darwin's Doubt|
It's now evident that, their previous denials notwithstanding, Darwin defenders have been unnerved by Darwin's Doubt. On the same day last week, both the world's top newspaper (the New York Times) and one of the world's top scientific journals (Science) turned their attention to the problem posed by Stephen Meyer. We'll respond later to the review of Darwin's Doubt in Science. For now, let's take a look at science-writer Carl Zimmer's piece in the Times, "New Approach to Explaining Evolution's Big Bang. Zimmer promotes the conclusions of a commentary in Science that accompanies the review of Meyer's book, purporting to explain the Cambrian explosion.
There's something odd about Zimmer's article. Despite the vigorous media dialogue over Darwin's Doubt, reflected in print, online, and over 300 Amazon reviews, Zimmer declines to mention the book or its author. But then the article in Science that claims to reveal the causes of the Cambrian explosion never acknowledges the controversy either. ENV noted a similar reticence in last week's Current Biology paper, which makes reference to "opponents of evolution," and critiques a very Meyer-esque argument, but likewise refuses to cite Meyer or Darwin's Doubt by name.
When asked about it, everyone said, "Meyer who?"
"[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory
"Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night." Joe G