Darwin Fest Videos
August 15, 2010 1:32 PM Subscribe
"Darwin Fest" videos of talks given at the 50th anniversary of the Darwin Conference at the University of Chicago in 2009.
Including talks by Jerry Coyne (direct link to .mov file), Daniel Dennett (direct link), Neil Shubin (direct link), Marc Hauser (direct link), and Richard Lewontin (video yet to be uploaded).
Including talks by Jerry Coyne (direct link to .mov file), Daniel Dennett (direct link), Neil Shubin (direct link), Marc Hauser (direct link), and Richard Lewontin (video yet to be uploaded).
It would be awesome if the the Darwin Conference and the Darwin Award Conference happened at the same time, at the same hotel or convention center. Comedy gold just waiting to be harvested right there....
posted by Skygazer at 2:18 PM on August 15, 2010
posted by Skygazer at 2:18 PM on August 15, 2010
Anti-Evolutionism in America: Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design
God knows what the public will think':Darwin and the Religious Response to the Origin of Species
What Would Darwin Say to Today's Creationists
From Where to Morals Come? NOT Religion!
Darwinism seems to be going the way of Freudianism. It's beginning to sound quaintly "wrong" for some reason we can't put our finger on. The new wisdom has yet to coalesce out of the growing mass of genetic and proteomic data, so we can't write Darwin off just yet. But the inner circle is uncomfortable, and like the Freudians, they're pushing the atheism angle to hang onto those disciples who can't let go of the emotional crutch of unbelief.
posted by Faze at 2:29 PM on August 15, 2010
God knows what the public will think':Darwin and the Religious Response to the Origin of Species
What Would Darwin Say to Today's Creationists
From Where to Morals Come? NOT Religion!
Darwinism seems to be going the way of Freudianism. It's beginning to sound quaintly "wrong" for some reason we can't put our finger on. The new wisdom has yet to coalesce out of the growing mass of genetic and proteomic data, so we can't write Darwin off just yet. But the inner circle is uncomfortable, and like the Freudians, they're pushing the atheism angle to hang onto those disciples who can't let go of the emotional crutch of unbelief.
posted by Faze at 2:29 PM on August 15, 2010
Thank God for the Darwin Conference.
posted by milnak at 2:37 PM on August 15, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by milnak at 2:37 PM on August 15, 2010 [1 favorite]
Darwinism seems to be going the way of Freudianism.
...
the emotional crutch of unbelief
I'm sorry Faze but this is an unsupported assertion. Would you care to back it up with some evidence? Or would you prefer to bless us with yet another hit-and-run trollish comment from bizzaro world where atheists are desperately trying to make themselves feel better by not believing in Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ?
You like attention, don't you? Here's some attention for you. Doesn't that feel good?
posted by Azazel Fel at 2:49 PM on August 15, 2010
...
the emotional crutch of unbelief
I'm sorry Faze but this is an unsupported assertion. Would you care to back it up with some evidence? Or would you prefer to bless us with yet another hit-and-run trollish comment from bizzaro world where atheists are desperately trying to make themselves feel better by not believing in Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ?
You like attention, don't you? Here's some attention for you. Doesn't that feel good?
posted by Azazel Fel at 2:49 PM on August 15, 2010
It's beginning to sound quaintly "wrong" for some reason we can't put our finger on
Who's this 'we'?
posted by pompomtom at 4:35 PM on August 15, 2010
Who's this 'we'?
posted by pompomtom at 4:35 PM on August 15, 2010
they're pushing the atheism angle to hang onto those disciples who can't let go of the emotional crutch of unbelief.
posted by Faze at 10:29 PM on August 15 [+] [!]
You know, the "I'm rubber, you're glue" tactic might work on Digg or YouTube, every now and then, but I'd ask you to seriously consider the possibility that it's just a tad embarrassing to attempt it on MeFi. You know, in case you're ever tempted to try it again.
posted by Decani at 4:41 PM on August 15, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by Faze at 10:29 PM on August 15 [+] [!]
You know, the "I'm rubber, you're glue" tactic might work on Digg or YouTube, every now and then, but I'd ask you to seriously consider the possibility that it's just a tad embarrassing to attempt it on MeFi. You know, in case you're ever tempted to try it again.
posted by Decani at 4:41 PM on August 15, 2010 [1 favorite]
It's beginning to sound quaintly "wrong" for some reason we can't put our finger on. The new wisdom has yet to coalesce out of the growing mass of genetic and proteomic data, so we can't write Darwin off just yet. But the inner circle is uncomfortable, and like the Freudians, they're pushing the atheism angle to hang onto those disciples who can't let go of the emotional crutch of unbelief.
Well, if and when the new wisdom does coalesce, I'll be sure to check it out. Until then evolutionary theory is still the best damn fit we have for the evidence.
Darwin's own writings might sound 'quaint', due to all the new pieces of the evolutionary jigsaw puzzle we've slotted into place since (Mendelian genetics, etc.). But that is no more a problem for the theory of evolution than the fact that we've discarded Newton's absolute time and space are problems for the theory of gravity.
posted by AdamCSnider at 4:49 PM on August 15, 2010
Well, if and when the new wisdom does coalesce, I'll be sure to check it out. Until then evolutionary theory is still the best damn fit we have for the evidence.
Darwin's own writings might sound 'quaint', due to all the new pieces of the evolutionary jigsaw puzzle we've slotted into place since (Mendelian genetics, etc.). But that is no more a problem for the theory of evolution than the fact that we've discarded Newton's absolute time and space are problems for the theory of gravity.
posted by AdamCSnider at 4:49 PM on August 15, 2010
Darwinism seems to be going the way of Freudianism. It's beginning to sound quaintly "wrong" for some reason we can't put our finger on.
Speak for yourself.
posted by Anything at 8:21 PM on August 15, 2010
Speak for yourself.
posted by Anything at 8:21 PM on August 15, 2010
I'm hoping Darwin Fest offered lots of opportunity to put natural selection into high gear. Sperm and egg donation clinics. Wedding chapel. Extreme sports. Singles events. Baby bibs with "Conceived at Darwin Fest 2010" and "My biological parents attended Darwin Fest 2010 and all I got was this fucking life."
posted by pracowity at 11:40 PM on August 15, 2010
posted by pracowity at 11:40 PM on August 15, 2010
I'm imagining something like a key party but with moths and orchids.
posted by hattifattener at 12:22 AM on August 16, 2010
posted by hattifattener at 12:22 AM on August 16, 2010
The "emotional crutch of unbelief"? A crutch consisting of the absence of being-convinced-by-evidence? Wha?
The "inner circle" (and by that I guess you must mean "scientists") are "uncomfortable" with the increasingly superstitious, anti-rational and even theocratic direction the world in general and the US in particular are taking. Evolution via natural selection is only controversial in the public, not among actual scientists, so having public talks from those same scientists to try to bring facts to light is a good idea.
posted by DU at 5:06 AM on August 16, 2010
The "inner circle" (and by that I guess you must mean "scientists") are "uncomfortable" with the increasingly superstitious, anti-rational and even theocratic direction the world in general and the US in particular are taking. Evolution via natural selection is only controversial in the public, not among actual scientists, so having public talks from those same scientists to try to bring facts to light is a good idea.
posted by DU at 5:06 AM on August 16, 2010
It's great that the conference included Robert J. Richards, who has done a lot of work on exposing Darwin's teleological assumptions. Look at the title of his talk, for example: "Darwin's Biology of Intelligent Design." In his article "Darwin's theory of natural selection and its moral purpose" (in The Cambridge Companion to the Origin of Species), Richards writes:
posted by No Robots at 9:12 AM on August 16, 2010
Darwin's vision of the process of natural selection was anything but mechanical and brutal. Nature, whil it may have sacrificed a multitude of its creatures, did so for the higher "object," or purpose, of creating beings with a moral spine--out of death came life more abundant. We humans, Darwin believed, were the goal of evolution by natural selection.Richards is suggesting that Darwin's thought was shot through with a lot of religious, metaphysical and moralistic assumptions, and that these continue to infect our thinking about biology.
posted by No Robots at 9:12 AM on August 16, 2010
Space is the final frontier for evolution, study claims: Charles Darwin may have been wrong when he argued that competition was the major driving force of evolution.
How Much Did Darwin Get Wrong?
posted by homunculus at 11:05 PM on August 25, 2010
How Much Did Darwin Get Wrong?
posted by homunculus at 11:05 PM on August 25, 2010
« Older Your Lucky Day | Emotional eavesdropping Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by gene_machine at 1:49 PM on August 15, 2010