Status update
Things have been monumentally quiet here over the past year (only 38 posts, and most of those trivial), largely because I have been busy but also because I’ve been thinking about this whole blogging thing. At least for the short term, most of my blogging energy will be devoted to the group history and philosophy of science blog that I participate in, Whewell’s Ghost (also on Facebook and Twitter), and this blog will really only serve as an online notebook, primarily about creationist activity and more for my own benefit. I also may be on Twitter a little more (@jmlynch) with the stress on ‘a little’.
Given that there have been few posts in the past year, I found the following interesting:
Book Review: Richard Owen. Biology Without Darwin
Nicolass Rupke. Richard Owen: Biology without Darwin. xxiv + 344pp., Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009. $29.00, (paper).
The Natural History Museum in London recently unveiled its Darwin Center, the most significant expansion of the Museum since it opened at its present site in 1881. Instrumental to the original formation of the Museum was Sir Richard Owen, the anatomist who served as superintendent of the natural history department of the British Museum, whose driving vision it was to see a national museum of natural history. The work under review sees Owen’s advocacy for the museum as being key to understanding his oeuvre and furthermore attempts to rehabilitate Owen from previous depictions.
Rupke’s book is an abbreviated version of his out-of-print (and expensive) monograph Richard Owen: Victorian Naturalist (Yale, 1994). In omitting some material and slimming the work down from 480 pages, Rupke seeks to streamline his argument and make it more accessible to students. In so doing, he has succeeded admirably. While not a traditional biography, the work offers specialists and tyros an accessible overview of both Owen’s accomplishments and the institutional politics of nineteenth century science. As such, it will maintain Rupke’s status as the premier expositor of Owen’s ideas and remains a vital source for students of the time period.
After a brief introduction, Rupke offers an examination of how Owen negotiated the political landscape – both at the national level and that of the metropolitan anatomists & surgeons – to successfully advocate for a natural history museum in South Kensington. This is followed by two chapters examining Owen’s opportunistic adoption of both Continental transcendentalism & Cuverian functionalism. The former was associated with the metropolitan scientists while the latter was of interest to the Paleyite Oxbridge set and Owen had to please both camps if his vision was to be fulfilled. The remaining three chapters deal with matters Darwinian and are likely to be more familiar to historians of this period.
Rupke’s work is most certainly a needed corrective to earlier depictions of Owen and he skillfully demonstrates that Owen was not a fundamentalist objector to transmutation but had his own theory of evolution through what he termed the “continuous operation of the ordained becoming of living things”. Yet much is still missing here even given the non-biographical approach that is adopted. While Rupke briefly notes the prickly nature of Owen’s personality, he generally omits how that personality must have influenced his interactions with the very scientists and administrators who were central to his project. The rivalry between Owen and Gideon Mantell is quickly glossed over (with Rupke clearly siding with Owen) and no mention is made of his appropriation of the work of Chaning Pearce, the revelation of which resulted in Owen being voted off the councils of the Zoological Society and the Royal Society. This criticism should not be seen as undermining what Rupke has achieved in Richard Owen, merely to point out that a fuller understanding of Owen requires the integration of Rupke’s scholarship with that of others.
After Owen’s death, a bronze statue was erected to him on the grand staircase of the Museum, replacing a marble Darwin that was eventually relegated to the tea-room. In 2009, no doubt due to the bicentennial celebrations, Darwin replaced Owen. This timely re-issue of Rupke’s work reminds us that without Owen there would be no Darwin Center and that perhaps Owen’s statue should have remained in place.
This review appeared in ISIS 102(2): 374-375.
Texas
I’m traveling for another few weeks but I just stopped in to note that the Texas anti-evolution bill has died. This means a total of nine defeats for the anti-evolutionists.
Missouri
The Missouri anti-evolution bill (HB 195) is now dead. That only leaves Texas still in play. Another fantastically successful year for the DI and their minions.
Tennessee & Florida
Update (5/10): Florida is dead as well.
NCSE is reporting that the two anti-evolution bills in Tennessee are effectively “on hold” until next year.
To summarize so far:
Louisiana
In 2008 Louisiana passed the “Louisiana Science Education Act,” marking the only legislative success that creationists have had in recent times. The bill claimed that “the teaching of some scientific subjects, such as biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning, can cause controversy, and that some teachers may be unsure of the expectations concerning how they should present information on such subjects,” and extends permission to teachers to “help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories pertinent to the course being taught.” As such, it was boiler-plate DI dreck and was signed into law by Republican darling, Bobby Jindal.
Now a bill (SB 70) has been introduced by Karen Carter Peterson (D-District 5) which aims to repeal the 2008 act. NCSE has more.
Happy Paul Nelson Day!
Today we celebrate Paul Nelson Day in honor of the seven year anniversary of his theory of “ontogenetic depth“. Last year it appeared that Paul is finally going to spill the beans. On April 6th 2010 he posted this on the DI’s Evolution News & Views. On the 7th we got a “prequel” in which Paul admitted that the initial concept was dead in the water and promised to tell us what PZ got right or wrong. And since then? Nothing. That is until yesterday, when we got this. Tune in next year for Part II. And now we have Part II. I’m stunned. Surely a peer-reviewed version can only be weeks away?
No matter how you choose to celebrate, have a happy Paul Nelson Day!
Friday Fox
Alabama
Apparently a fifth grade teacher in Alabama is in trouble for refusing to teach evolution in science class.
[Jody] Brown recently refused to continue an evolution lesson in a science class, saying, “some of us believe in God” and “some of us believe that the world was made in seven days and that God created man and the trees,”
More worrying is the claim made by Michael Sibley, the Director of Communications for the state Board of Education:
“The Alabama Course of Study deals with Theories of Evolution … Creationism is one of those theories. The Alabama Course of Study presents each of these so that students can draw their own conclusion for themselves.”
(source)
Update: NCSE has a post up on this.






Recent Comments