Academics Andre's Research Biocuriosities Books Graduate School History of Science Hot off the Press Igor's Research Interdisciplinarity Molecule of the Month Open Access Philip's Research Philosophy of Science Physics Physicsworld.com
Backreaction Ceclia's Blog at PHD Comics Cocktail Party Physics Cosmic Variance The Daily Transcript Easternblot Everyday Scientist The Evilutionary Biologist Freelancing Science The Futile Cycle Good Math, Bad Math iMechanica in singulo Incoherently Scattered Ponderings Juniorprof Klara Stefflova Life of a Lab Rat The Loom Metadatta Mixed States Morning Coffee Physics Not Even Wrong Notes from the biomass Notional Slurry OpenScience Project Pharyngula PLoS Blog Ponderings of a fool Recombinants The Sandwalk SciAm Observations ScienceBlogs Scientific Clearing House Shtetl-Optimized Three-toed Sloth Uncertain Principles What's New by Bob Park
This week’s What’s New has picked a winner from their question last week as to what should be asked of all future Supreme Court nominees. The winner?
How does being descended from a monkey affect your judicial philosophy?” – from Abi Soffer at SLAC.
The hardcore biologists in the audience are of course cringing – we aren’t descendents of monkeys, monkeys are more like our evolutionary brothers! Because of this (though I still think it is a fine question), I think I prefer Bob’s own:
Good stuff. In other What’s New news, the trial in Dover, PA has brought about an interesting revelation. According to creationist intelligent design proponent Michael Behe, our current definition of “science” as given in the Oxford English Dictionary is too limiting, but then acknowledged that `scientific theory’ by his definition would fit astrology as well as intelligent design.”
Doesn’t sound like a very good definition to me.
Biocurious is written by Andre Brown and Philip Johnson, since 2005. Content of the weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.
