Biocurious is a weblog about biology through the eyes of physicists. More...
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
Evolgen
Freelancing Science
The Futile Cycle
Good Math, Bad Math
iMechanica
in singulo
Incoherently Scattered Ponderings
Juniorprof
Life of a Lab Rat
The Loom
Malletrivia
Metadatta
Mixed States
Not Even Wrong
Notes from the biomass
Notional Slurry
OpenScience Project
Pharyngula
PLoS Blog
Ponderings of a fool
Recombinants
The Sandwalk
SciAm Observations
ScienceBlogs
Shtetl-Optimized
Three-toed Sloth
Uncertain Principles
What's New by Bob Park



Physicists sometimes say things about evolution. Sometimes they’re good and sometimes they’re bad:
“If we compare the debate over the theory of evolution with the debate over the theory of global warming – global warming’s a whole lot more certain at the moment.”
That’s Jim Drummond, a physicist at the University of Toronto that studies climate change quoted in the Star Tribune. Maybe he didn’t think that one through, or maybe the reporter didn’t notice the air quotes he was making with his hands. I don’t know, but it does seem that a little media savvy would go a long way in this case. Not all controversies are legitimate. Was that his point?
Couldn’t he have made a better comparison if he felt a comparison was necessary? Any suggestions? PZ points out that this is already being jumped on by heroes like Doug Tice.
Thanks to Jason Robertshaw from Cephalopodcast for pointing this out to me. I hope Bob Park has a comment for us on Friday.
Boulder School Indulges its Biocuriosity [Funding Update!] Blood Clot Mechanics at the Molecular Level
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.
I remember being horrified at some of the things Stephen Hawking said related to biology in Universe in a Nutshell. This small gem was only the tip of the iceberg:
No, it’s not taken out of context, unfortunately.
Penrose on consciousness is equally worrisome.
I do hope that was just an oopsies by Drummond or the reporter.
Neat blog, by the way. I always believe that cross-contamination between the sciences can only be a good thing, since there is much niftiness to be had combining physics, chemistry and biology knowledge in myriad ways.
Someday we’ll have to publish that paper. Maybe our Erdös numbers will improve from all the cites we get…. ;)
But I promised myself we’d wait until it was no longer able to be considered a mean satire of a living physicist. Looks like we’re still on for that….
I hope that someday is soon. It seems like I link to that paper in every other post… I need some more variety. I think it will always be a satire of some living physicist, but that shouldn’t stop you!