The Catechism Versus the Data (Part 5): When Did Neo-Darwinism Become a Dirty Word?

This is the fifth installment of a series responding to John Timmer’s online review of the supplementary biology textbook Explore Evolution (EE). The first part is here, the second here, the third here, and the fourth here. 5. When Did Neo-Darwinism Become a Dirty Word? Timmer objects to Explore Evolution‘s subtitle, “The Arguments For and Against Neo-Darwinism,” claiming that “[d]uring the roughly 20 years I was directly involved in biology research, I’d never come across the term ‘Darwinism.’” EE‘s subtitle actually uses the word “neo-Darwinism,” not “Darwinism,” but regardless, Timmer’s complaint reveals more about his own ignorance than it does about any inaccuracy on the part of EE. Terms like “Darwinism” and “neo-Darwinism” (or similar cognates like “Darwinian,” “neo-Darwinian,” or Read More ›

Proving Evolution, Doggy-Breeding Style

I admit it: I’m something of a Snoop Dogg fan. We’re from the same hometown, went to the same high school, and Snoop is basically revered like a god among my hometown friends. In Snoop’s words, “I’m somewhat brain boggled” by a recent press release issued by Darwinist researchers at the University of Manchester who are claiming that evolution is supported because “changes to the shape of [the St Bernard] breed’s head over the years can only be explained through evolution and natural selection.” And what is their evidence for “evolution and natural selection”? You have to see this to believe it: “over time … breeders selected dogs that had the desired physical attributes. … we can be confident that Read More ›