Darwin's Voyage Done Over, Live 147
thrill12 writes "Almost 178 years ago, Charles Darwin set sail in the HMS Beagle, to do the now famous explorations that formed the basis for Darwin's On The Origin Of Species. Now, a group of British and Dutch scientists, journalists and artists set sail again to redo the voyage of the Beagle. This time, they are taking modern equipment with them and they have live connections through Twitter, Youtube, Facebook and Flickr. As they re-explore, and (re)discover, we can join that 8-month-long trip, live over the internet."
Waste of time? (Score:5, Insightful)
Whoever thinks this should be tagged waste of time is just silly. Hell, if I were single and had the opportunity this would be a really interesting experience. If the media attention helps to remind people even a little of the fragility of the ecological balance on the planet all the better, and surely not a waste of time.
(Disclaimer: I don't believe that an "ecological balance" equals no changes, but we can't honestly claim not to be raping the planet in several aspects at the moment. IMHO anyway...)
Deification of Darwin (Score:5, Insightful)
Darwin certainly deserves to be remembered and respected for the amazing groundwork and insights he gave us. But I think there's a danger of looking too fixated on one personality and his centuries-old pronouncements at the expense of modern and more solid results. It sucks that we have to consider stuff like this, but like it or not there is an ideological battle going on. Because IDers and creationists are basing their arguments on emotion and strawmen, we have to consider what attacks we're exposing ourselves to, even (or especially) if they're unfair and totally illogical.
It does look like the ship will be packed with modern research equipment; hopefully the media they put out will heavily emphasise the modern data supporting evolution and acknowledging where Darwin's work has been improved upon, emphasising the success of the scientific method over the hero-worship.
So sayeth the book of Darwin (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Deification of Darwin (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Deification of Darwin (Score:2, Insightful)
yes, be redoing Darwin's voyage is also an tribute to one of the key features of the scientific method: repeatability.
Re:Deification of Darwin (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps Richard Dawkins talks about "Darwinian Evolution" as opposed to the other methods of evolution people have come up with. Darwin does deserve to be associated with the current Theory of Evolution since he got so much of it correct. That is not "Worship" as you say, but giving credit where credit is due.
From what you've said, me thinks you don't know what the Scientific Method is.
It isn't something to have faith in. It is a method of finding out truth from non-truth and it is the best way anyone has found to discern the difference. The Scientific Method is also self-correcting so if we have refined Darwin's theory, that is Science working as it should.
If we don't rely on the Scientific Method to find out the truth, what do you propose we use instead?
Re:Waste of time? (Score:3, Insightful)
"evolution" is still very controversial stuff
This is, quite unfortunately, true in America these days. I find it positively baffling that 60% of a modern society can find it appropriate to take the word of a goat herder who lived in a tent 4,000 years ago over the whole of modern science. We are all entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts. Evolution is a fact. It is no longer in dispute that all life on Earth evolved over about 3 billion years and that all life has a common unicellular ancestor, and that life tends to become more complex over time, the human race included. This has been proven by biology, archaeology, paleontology, anthropology, geology, chemistry, and virtually every field of modern science. It is astonishing that this is still controversial and makes it very clear why things like the War in Iraq and Income Taxes are possible -- the vast majority of people out there are maddeningly stupid and proudly ignorant.