Corante

Corante: technology, business, media, law, and culture news from the blogosphere
<$MTBlogName$> OUR PUBLICATIONS:
Corante Blogs

Corante Blogs examine, through the eyes of leading observers, analysts, thinkers, and doers, critical themes and memes in technology, business, law, science, and culture.

The Press Will Be Outsourced Before Stopped

Vin Crosbie, on the challenges, financial and otherwise, that newspaper publishers are facing: "The real problem, Mr. Newspaperman, isn't that your content isn't online or isn't online with multimedia. It's your content. Specifically, it's what you report, which stories you publish, and how you publish them to people, who, by the way, have very different individual interests. The problem is the content you're giving them, stupid; not the platform its on."
by Vin Crosbie in Rebuilding Media

Travels In Numerica Deserta

There's a problem in the drug industry that people have recognized for some years, but we're not that much closer to dealing with it than we were then. We keep coming up with these technologies and techniques which seem as if they might be able to help us with some of our nastiest problems - I'm talking about genomics in all its guises, and metabolic profiling, and naturally the various high-throughput screening platforms, and others. But whether these are helping or not (and opinions sure do vary), one thing that they all have in common is that they generate enormous heaps of data.
by Derek Lowe in In the Pipeline

Disrobing the Emperor: The online “user experience” isn't much of one

Now that the Web labor market is saturated and Web design a static profession, it's not surprising that 'user experience' designers and researchers who've spent their careers online are looking for new worlds to conquer. Some are returning to the “old media” as directors and producers. More are now doing offline consulting (service experience design, social policy design, exhibition design, and so on) under the 'user experience' aegis. They argue that the lessons they've learned on the Web can be applied to phenomena in the physical and social worlds. But there are enormous differences...
by Bob Jacobson in Total Experience

Second Life: What are the real numbers?

Clay Shirky, in deconstructing Second Life hype: "Second Life is heading towards two million users. Except it isn’t, really... I suspect Second Life is largely a 'Try Me' virus, where reports of a strange and wonderful new thing draw the masses to log in and try it, but whose ability to retain anything but a fraction of those users is limited. The pattern of a Try Me virus is a rapid spread of first time users, most of whom drop out quickly, with most of the dropouts becoming immune to later use."
by Clay Shirky in Many-to-Many

The democratisation of everything

Over the last few years we've seen old barriers to creativity coming down, one after the other. New technologies and services makes it trivial to publish text, whether by blog or by print-on-demand. Digital photography has democratised a previously expensive hobby. And we're seeing the barriers to movie-making crumble, with affordable high-quality cameras and video hosting provided by YouTube or Google Video and their ilk... Music making has long been easy for anyone to engage in, but technology has made high-quality recording possible without specialised equipment, and the internet has revolutionised distribution, drastically disintermediating the music industry... What's left? Software maybe? Or maybe not."
by Suw Charman in Strange Attractor

RNA Interference: Film at Eleven

Derek Lowe on the news that the Nobel Prize for medicine has gone to Craig Mello and Andrew Fire for their breakthrough work: "RNA interference is probably going to have a long climb before it starts curing many diseases, because many of those problems are even tougher than usual in its case. That doesn't take away from the discovery, though, any more than the complications of off-target effects take away from it when you talk about RNAi's research uses in cell culture. The fact that RNA interference is trickier than it first looked, in vivo or in vitro, is only to be expected. What breakthrough isn't?"
by Derek Lowe in In the Pipeline

PVP and the Honorable Enemy

Andrew Phelps: "Recently my WoW guild has been having a bit of a debate on the merits of Player-vs.-Player (PvP) within Azeroth. My personal opinion on this is that PvP has its merits, and can be incredible fun, but the system within WoW is horridly, horribly broken. It takes into account the concept of the battle, but battle without consequence, without emotive context, and most importantly, without honor..."

From later in the piece: "When I talk about this with people (thus far anyway) I typically get one of two responses, either 'yeah, right on!' or 'hey, it’s war, and war isn’t honorable – grow the hell up'. There is a lot to be said for that argument – but the problem is that war in the real historical world has very different constraints that are utterly absent from fantasized worlds..."
by Andrew Phelps in Got Game

Rats Rule, Right?

Derek Lowe: "So, you're developing a drug candidate. You've settled on what looks like a good compound - it has the activity you want in your mouse model of the disease, it's not too hard to make, and it's not toxic. Everything looks fine. Except. . .one slight problem. Although the compound has good blood levels in the mouse and in the dog, in rats it's terrible. For some reason, it just doesn't get up there. Probably some foul metabolic pathway peculiar to rats (whose innards are adapted, after all, for dealing with every kind of garbage that comes along). So, is this a problem?.."
by Derek Lowe in In the Pipeline

Really BAD customer experience at Albertsons Market

Bob Jacobson, on shopping at his local Albertsons supermarket where he had "one of the worst customer experiences" of his life: "Say what you will about the Safeway chain or the Birkenstock billionaires who charge through the roof for Whole Foods' organic fare, they know how to create shopping environments that create a more pleasurable experience, at its best (as at Whole Foods) quite enjoyable. Even the warehouses like Costco and its smaller counterpart, Smart & Final, do just fine: they have no pretentions, but neither do they dump virtual garbage on the consumer merely to create another trivial revenue stream, all for the sake of promotions in the marketing department..."
by Strange Attractor in Total Experience

The Guardian's "Comment is Free"

Kevin Anderson: "First off, I want to say that I really admire the ambition of the Guardian Unlimited’s Comment is Free. It is one of the boldest statements made by any media company that participation needs to be central to a radical revamp of traditional content strategies... It is, therfore, not hugely surprising to find that Comment is Free is having a few teething troubles..."
by Kevin Anderson in strange
Don't Miss The AppGap, a blog on the future of the office and small business. Sponsored by QuickBase.

The Loom

« Okay, It's Not A Nobel, But It's Still Nice | Main | Attention Nutmeggers »

October 04, 2005

Evolution's Emily Litella?

Email This Entry

Posted by Carl Zimmer

In July Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn of Vienna wrote an eyebrow-raising op-ed in the New York Times that favored Intelligent Design over evolution. Now, as far as I can tell from this Reuters story, he's claiming he was misunderstood.

"Maybe one did not express oneself clearly enough or thoughts were not clear enough," he said. "Such misunderstandings can be cleared up."

Now he's saying that evolution's fine as long as biologists don't conclude that evolution proves there's no creator. Darwin's theory is "one of the very great works of intellectual history."

Compare this with his claim in July that "neo-Darwinism" was invented "to avoid the overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science."

I'd be curious to see the entire speech on which the report was based. As far as I can tell from the report, Schoenborn seems to be doing his best impression of Emily Litella: "Never mind."

Comments (6) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Evolution


COMMENTS

1. Jason Malloy on October 4, 2005 06:26 PM writes...

Well, back in July, Reed Cartwright predicted that Schoenborn was just confused (Victim of the Wedge?) and that his statement didn't illustrate support for ID or signify a shifting of the Catholic stance like many were saying.

Permalink to Comment

2. Porlock Junior on October 5, 2005 12:51 AM writes...

I don't like to hint darkly at backstage maneuvers in such an august institution, but could it be that the bishop got a little note from the distinguished theologian who is now Pope, to the effect that he'd misread the tea leaves and there's no change planned in John Paul II's position on evolution? One may not like Mr. Ratzinger much, but he's not stupid.

Permalink to Comment

3. Bruce Amiata on October 5, 2005 07:57 AM writes...

... Except Pope Benedict has said that John Paul II was misquoted - and Schonborn agrees - that nothing he said should be construed to mean that evolution is unguided:

The problem, according to Schonborn, is that this quotation is only part of the commission's statement on philosophical questions linked to Darwinism. In particular, its statement warned that a much-quoted -- and misquoted -- 1996 letter on science by Pope John Paul II cannot be "read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe."

The commission's verdict was especially blunt: "An unguided evolutionary process -- one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence -- simply cannot exist."

Once again, stressed Cardinal Schonborn, the crucial distinction for Catholic believers is that they are not supposed to embrace versions of Darwinism that teach that evolution was and is an impersonal and random process.

Sounds like Intelligent Design to me.


Permalink to Comment

4. Geoff on October 5, 2005 12:10 PM writes...

If one presupposes a truly sovereign God, then by definition everything that happens is directly caused by divine providence. This makes questions about whether this or that particular event was an "act of God" moot.

If Calvin came after Darwin, we might be arguing a lot less about this today.

Permalink to Comment

5. John A. Davison on October 9, 2005 07:36 AM writes...

Of course neoDarwinism was invented. So was Darwinism. Wallace and Darwin, both having read Lyell and Malthus, naturally dreamed up the same scenario. Wallace completely abandoned his youthful enthusiasm in his later book - "The World of Life; A Manifestation of Creative Power, Directive Mind and Ultimate Purpose."

Science is discovery of what is there and what was there. It is interesting that the so-called "Age of Enlightenment" includes a view of evolution that is purely a matter of faith, a concept for which discovery played no role whatsoever and that flies in the face of everything we know from centuries of human experience, the experimental laboratory and the undeniable reality of the fossil record.

Phlogiston died in the eighteenth century, the Ether in the nineteenth century and Darwinism should have died about the same time when St George Jackson Mivart asked the simple question - how can Natural selection affect a structure which has not yet appeared?

There is only only one explanation for the persistence of neoDarwinism. It is the only intellectual refuge for mentalities which are incapable of accepting any role for an Intelligent Designer even one that, as I believe, is no longer present and does not need to be as the design has been fully realized.

We are all victims of our destinies which includes our view of the world. Don't take my word for it.

"Everything is determined... by forces over which we have no control."

"Our actions should be based on the ever-present awareness that human beings in their thinking, feeling, and acting are not free but are just as causally bound as the stars in their motion."

"The main source of the present-day conflicts benween the spheres of religion and science lies in the concept of a personal God."

"Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as the religious fanatics, and it springs from the same source.... They are creatures who cannot hear the music of the spheres."

Albert Einstein

Permalink to Comment

6. steve dupey on October 19, 2005 12:00 PM writes...

Let's stop the euphemisms. What the word "intelligent" in "intelligent design" means is quite clearly "magical". Or as near as we all can tell.. derived from a supernatural spook in the sky somewhere waving a magic wand. It just doesn't sound as stupid to call it by this euphemism. There is no question about the magical supernatural power of the Christian creator...it has nothing whatsoever to do with intelligent scientific planning and meticulous creation in a science lab somewhere by angels wearing white lab coats.
The primary resistance to the acceptance of the science of evolution... as a proven and accepted fact.. by creationists hiding as so called id proponents may be that doing so would be tantamount to recognizing that ones formerly cherished creation myths were intellectually no more sophisticated than those of any New Guinea stone age tribesman's. People dont like to recognize their own simplemindedness. Ignorance and stupidity is not a compliment, especially in an age of science.

Permalink to Comment

POST A COMMENT




Remember Me?



EMAIL THIS ENTRY TO A FRIEND

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):




RELATED ENTRIES
Talking at Woods Hole
Invisible Gladiators in the Petri Dish Coliseum
Synthetic Biology--You are There
Manimals, Sticklebacks, and Finches
Jakob the Hobbit?
Grandma Manimal
Hominids for Clinical Trials--The Paper
The Neanderthal Genome Project Begins