The Dispersal of Darwin

Creation book at Powell's City of Books in Portland

Although the Darwin film Creation is out on DVD (see my collection of reviews), it will be featured as the finale film for the Portland Humanist Film Festival from October 1-3. The festival is being put on by the Center for Inquiry (CFI), Freethinkers of Portland State University, and the Humanists of Greater Portland (HGP). Check out the full schedule here.

Oh, and all the films will be free to attend!

… outside! (at this place)

Tualatin Hills Nature Park, Beaverton, OR

On his blog for a course entitled “History of Science for the Science Classroom,” science educator Ron Gray at Oregon State University shared a link to The Story Behind Science, a new website for an NSF-funded project:

What is science? How does science work? What are scientists like?

Misconceptions regarding the answers to these questions abound. Too often science comes across to students as unapproachable an devoid of human involvement. These mistaken ideas can interfere in understanding science concepts, cause students to avoid prursuing careers involving science, and result in poor social decision-maiking by citizens and policy-makers.

Thirty stories spanning five disciplines help students explore the development of key science concepts through the eyes of scientists who were involved. Supplemental resources are provided for teachers to help achieve the greatest impact from the stories.

The project team included folks in biology, geology, chemistry, astronomy, and physics, a few science educators, and, I’m happy to report, an historian of science (Matthew Stanley of NYU, who is a participant in the Tyndall Project).

There are thirty stories, six each in Astronomy, Biology, Physics, Geology, and Chemistry. Be sure to check out the support materials, and for more on the goal of the project, research presented at the Tenth International History, Philosophy, and Science Teaching Conference, “Humanizing Science to Improve Post-Secondary Science Education” (PDF).

Readers of this blog may like to check out the stories about Darwin (PDF) and Wallace (PDF).

Inform your teacher/educator friends & colleagues!



For any Darwin stamp collectors out there:

The May-June issue of Topical Time, a philatelic (stamp) magazine, has a great article by Barry N. Floyd titled, “Charles Darwin: the great naturalist.”  There have been (apparently) 140 stamps honoring Darwin, his work, or his travels, and for those you who are stamp-collecting evolution fans, the American Topical Association has produced a checklist for you (you have to join first…then they’ll send you the list). I don’t have access to the checklist, but I can’t seem to find any Darwin stamps released by the United States.  (I know, I know — you are shocked.)  One might argue that the United States wouldn’t bother to issue a stamp honoring somebody who never even came to the country…but that didn’t stop  North Korea (see stamp block below), Democratic Republic of Congo, and many others.

Anyone a member of ATA and have access to the article and checklist?

Also, see here.

Via PZ:

Before 2004 I drew this, and posted it on my Flickr page on March 12, 2009:

Today I came across this, from May 21, 2009:

Hmmm…

Here we have another quote-mine of Charles Darwin, from “Darwin Recant?” on the blog for the book Darwin, Then and Now by Richard Nelson, which is:

a journey through the most amazing story in the history of science; encapsulating who Darwin was, what he said, and what scientists have discovered since the publication of The Origin of Species in 1859.

…

Darwin, Then and Now examines Darwin’s theory with more than three hundred quotations from The Origin of Species, spotlighting what Darwin said concerning the origin of species and natural selection using the American Museum of Natural History Darwin exhibit format.

With over one thousand referenced quotations from scientists and historians, Darwin, Then and Now explores the scientific evidence over the past 150 years from the fossil record, molecular biology, embryology, and modern genetics.

While we receive this tired argument:

The rise of atheism early in the twentieth century, rather than bringing an age of enlightenment, became the breeding fields for the bloodiest century in history—largely at the hands Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, and Mao. Contrary to Dawkins contention, the theory of evolution unleashed worldwide insanity—not peace.

I am more interested in another claim. Earlier in the piece the author provided information concerning the myth that Darwin recanted evolution of his deathbed, and asked to be saved, which we know to be false. Then:

Certainly, Darwin was critical of his own arguments for evolution in The Origin of Species. In a letter to Hugh Falconer in October 1862, Darwin wrote,

I look at it as absolutely certain that very much in the Origin will be proved to be rubbish

In the wake of 150 years of unprecedented scientific research on the fossil record, embryology, molecular biology, and genetics, the theory of evolution remains as it started —“rubbish.” However, any recanting document prior to his deathbed experience in April 1882 continues to escape the reach of historians.

Surprisingly, the author provides a link to the actual letter in which Darwin wrote this, on the Darwin Correspondence Project website. Here’s the before and after:

Nevertheless just to explain by mere valueless conjectures how I imagine the teeth of your elephants change; I should look at the change, as indirectly resulting from changes in the form of the jaws, or from development of tusks, or in case of the “primigenius” even from correlation with the woolly covering; in all cases natural selection checking the variation. If indeed an elephant could succeed better by feeding on some new kinds of food, then any variation of any kind in the teeth, which favoured their grinding power would be preserved. Now I can fancy you holding up your hands and crying out what bosh! To return to your concluding sentence; far from being surprised, I look at it as absolutely certain that very much in the Origin will be proved rubbish; but I expect and hope that the frame-work will stand.

The author, rather unsurprisingly for an anti-evolutionist, purposefully leaves out a crucial portion of the quote – “but I expect and hope that the frame-work will stand.” Surely Darwin is not writing against his theory as a whole, only stating that details about it may change. Nelson said that historians should pay attention to “I look at it as absolutely certain that very much in the Origin will be proved rubbish,” as it provides evidence that Darwin recanted before 1882. But this is clearly not a recanting, if you just look at the quote in context.

But, reading “any recanting document prior to his deathbed experience in April 1882 continues to escape the reach of historians,” is   Nelson still perpetuating that Darwin did recant in 1882? Ken Ham doesn’t even believe it. If so, Nelson, I suggest you read a book: The Darwin Legend by James Moore.

All this, despite the description on the book reading, in part: “encapsulating who Darwin was, what he said” (emphasis mine).

The Spring 2009 issue (PDF) of ReVista: The Harvard Review of Latin America has some articles about Darwin and the Galapagos, including a piece from Janet Browne about Darwin in South America and another about teaching evolution.

The 2010 annual meeting of the British Society for the History of Science is going on right now in Aberdeen. I just posted to my Tyndall blog about a Tyndall session put together by folks from the Tyndall Correspondence Project – here. While you can view the whole programme (PDF), these are the various talks concerning Darwin and one on Wallace:

“Darwin and the Tree of Life: The Roots of the Evolutionary Tree,” Nils Petter Hellstrom:

To speak of evolutionary trees and the Tree of Life is presently routine in evolution studies. Until the nineteenth century however, the same tree grew in Paradise and was rather a common image in religious discourse. It is only since Darwin that the Tree of Life has also been understood as a genealogical tree of all life, rooted in common origins. Although many see Darwin‘s tree as a secondary illustration to his theory—an analogy with which to communicate his findings—it is clear from Darwin‘s private notes that he visualised his genealogical Tree of Life before he developed his theory of descent by natural selection, and before he drew any diagrams to illustrate it. In fact, the tree was not secondary to evolutionary theory; it was the theory. Recent studies of prokaryote evolution have called into question the suitability of the tree model and have fuelled anti-arboreal sentiments within parts of the research community. Despite this, the tree prevails as the privileged evolutionary model. Because it is not immediately obvious why a tree is best suited to represent evolution—for a start woodland trees don‘t have their buds in the present and their trunk in the past—the reasons why trees make sense to us are rather historically and culturally predicated. This paper will thus explore the particular context in which Darwin came to represent the classification and history of life with a tree, and to call his tree the Tree of Life.

“Charles Darwin really was the naturalist on HMS Beagle,” John van Wyhe:

For decades the orthodox view amongst historians of science has been that Charles Darwin was not the “naturalist” or “official naturalist” during the 1831-6 voyage of HMS Beagle but instead Captain Robert FitzRoy’s “companion”, “gentleman companion” or “dining companion”; that is, foremost a companion and only secondarily a naturalist. Although this view has been upheld by many able historians and repeated in countless accounts of Darwin, this presentation will argue that it is incorrect. Almost everyone educated in the history of science will be highly suspicious of such an argument. The “companion” interpretation is one of a number of distinguishing views that card-carrying historians of science believe to correct earlier views. The “companion” hypothesis has, after all, opened up the history of Darwin and the Beagle voyage to far richer social and contextual approaches. Nevertheless the “Darwin was the captain’s companion” view can be demonstrated to be incorrect. The original journal articles which established this view cannot stand up to critical scrutiny. The ship’s surgeon was not, as is almost universally claimed, the “official naturalist”. Whether we consider the appointment of the Admiralty, the title for Darwin all contemporaries used before, during and after the voyage, “official” or private, or what Darwin actually did during the voyage, “naturalist” is, I will argue, the overwhelming conclusion.

“Wallace, spiritualism, and anthropology at the BAAS: A new interpretation,” Juan Manuel Rodriguez Caso:

From the time of its foundation in 1831, the British Association for the Advancement of Science (BAAS) allowed its annual meetings to serve as a forum for the scientific study of man, including anatomy, physiology and ethnology. But there was no section dedicated to anthropological issues until 1866 — a year when, as is well known, two societies dedicated to anthropological issues, the Ethnological Society of London (ESL) and the Anthropological Society of London (ASL), were in the middle of a struggle for the domination of the emergent discipline. At such a delicate juncture, the man of science elected president of the new section was Alfred Russel Wallace. A naturalist whose interest in man had led him to embrace transmutation, Wallace had acquired a great deal of experience as an ethnographer thanks to his travels to the Amazon (1848-1852) and the Malay Archipelago (1854-1862). In 1864, he presented a famous paper on the origins of man by means of natural selection. He was not aligned with the ESL or the ASL — a point which may have weighed in his favour in the considerations about who should serve as section president. At the same time, however, Wallace by 1866 had already begun to express public sympathy for spiritualism, notably in a pamphlet entitled The Scientific Aspect of the Supernatural — an attitude which seemed to clash with longstanding BAAS principles. Certainly it is striking that the anthropology section was absent from the programme at the following year’s BAAS meeting. Using previously little-explored documents, this paper will offer a new answer to the question of why Wallace was chosen as section president for the anthropologists in 1866, instead of other people much more involved and better recognized in anthropology, and also perhaps more obviously acceptable in their scientific attitudes and beliefs. The paper will also consider the question of why the section disappeared so rapidly after Wallace’s term of service.

“Gavin de Beer and the notion of mosaic evolution,” Silvia Caianiello:

The paper will deal with the notion of ―mosaic evolution‖ developed by de Beer in his 1954 paper “Archaeopteryx and Evolution.” His authorship of this fortunate expression in later biological theory, however, was and still is mostly unrecognized. I will argue that, notwithstanding its fleeting appearance in de Beer’s scientific production, the roots of “mosaic evolution” lay deep in his thinking and synthetic endeavour. I will also tackle the significance of the “conceptual transfer” of the notion of “mosaic” from development to evolution, as well as its implication for his approach to macroevolution. I will finally investigate some possible reasons for the uneasiness that de Beer‘s formulation of his principle might have unleashed at a time of “hardening” of the Modern Synthesis, and its relevance in foreshadowing major Evo-Devo themes.

“The evolutionary archive,” Katrina Dean:

Accounts addressing the recent history of British evolutionary science have not yet fully benefited from research using archives held at British Library including the papers of W.D. Hamilton, George R. Price and John Maynard Smith. This paper offers a preview of the John Maynard Smith archive, which primarily contains correspondence, original research records and offprint collections. I’ll explain how the archive is structured and what work is being undertaken to make it accessible to researchers, and mention some of the challenges. Using the papers as a guide, a survey of the work of Maynard Smith might suggest some potential lines of inquiry in the recent history of evolution and raise issues of more general interest to the history of twentieth century science in Britain. I will also invite feedback about what researchers would find helpful in the way of making these archives more accessible and seek guidance on priorities. This paper may be of interest to specialists in the history of evolution, of recent British science and anyone who is curious (or has some good advice to offer) about curating contemporary research collection.

“‘Everything gives way to experiment’: empiricism and beauty through the history of the Wedgwood family,” Chiara Ceci and Stefano Moriggi:

Seeking beauty does not mean you get lost in the taste for decoration, but that you imagine the style of an era and the meaning of society. The aesthetic empiricism of Josiah Wedgwood I evolved into a pedagogical approach within the family. For generations after him, boys and girls in his family and their circle, were brought up following these ideals: cultural and political awareness are conveyed by an education leading to freedom and tolerance through his technical and scientific approach to the experience of beauty. In particular, political, cultural and social ideals can be traced in the education of women and in their sensibility to the importance of knowledge as public good for the development of citizenship. From the Grand Tour and many abroad experiences to Sunday schools, Wedgwood women embody an educational attitude almost as a civil duty. They had not just the passion for art, literature, music and openness to sciences typical of the Victorian middle and high classes, but they carried concrete efforts, also due to their common Unitarian background, in the opening and management of schooling centres for poor, filling the lack of state and public institutions. Emma Darwin, née Wedgwood, is one of these women: analyzing some steps of her Bildungsroman and then following her life, we can see how the aesthetic education of her youth evolved into her cultural and civil commitments towards society. Even towards her husband‘s ―dangerous idea‖ she never failed to recognized the social importance of the advancement of scientific knowledge, even when that conflicted somehow with her religious believes: this attitude blooms from that cultural seed whereby “everything gives way to experiment.”

A new book looks at the author of Darwin, and after Darwin, 3 vols (1892–97), George Romanes, a young biologist and supporter of Darwin:

Darwin’s Disciple: George John Romanes, A Life in Letters by Joel G. Schwartz:

Darwin’s Disciple is a careful biographical study of the life and letters of George John Romanes (1848-1894), who was a strong advocate for Darwinian evolution. “Because of his cental role in definding evolution and his close relationship with Darwin during the last decade of Darwin’s life, Romanes’s life and career deserve a fresh look.” This publication by Joel Schwartz is the culmination of more than thirty-five years of work in this history of biology, particularly nineteenth-century natural history and the role played by prominent early evolutionists in shaping the debates in evolutionary biology.

Thanks to Glenn for the info.

From the NCSE:

“Biology, the Bible, and the First Amendment”. Genie Scott and Stephen Meyer tangle over First Amendment issues in February 1997:

Much more from the NCSE here.

I really think we should have a book with Darwin quotes much like  The New Quotable Einstein.

What are your favorite Darwin quotes?

I am extremely happy that my son has recently enjoyed having his picture taken. From the last few days:

From the Journal of Evolutionary Biology [V. 23, N. 8 (August 2010): 1732-43]:

Using creation science to demonstrate evolution: application of a creationist method for visualizing gaps in the fossil record to a phylogenetic study of coelurosaurian dinosaurs

P. SENTER

Abstract It is important to demonstrate evolutionary principles in such a way that they cannot be countered by creation science. One such way is to use creation science itself to demonstrate evolutionary principles. Some creation scientists use classic multidimensional scaling (CMDS) to quantify and visualize morphological gaps or continuity between taxa, accepting gaps as evidence of independent creation and accepting continuity as evidence of genetic relatedness. Here, I apply CMDS to a phylogenetic analysis of coelurosaurian dinosaurs and show that it reveals morphological continuity between Archaeopteryx, other early birds, and a wide range of nonavian coelurosaurs. Creation scientists who use CMDS must therefore accept that these animals are genetically related. Other uses of CMDS for evolutionary biologists include the identification of taxa with much missing evolutionary history and the tracing of the progressive filling of morphological gaps in the fossil record through successive years of discovery.

From Peter:

We are working flat out to see that the country that gave the world HMS Beagle and all the discoveries that flowed from her decks and crew has a sailing replica of this great ship too. We know times are tight, but if you have £5 million to spare there is little better you could do to help lighten the nationally austere mood than by helping us build and launch a sailing replica of the ship that changed the world.

If you have not donated what you can to this cause, go here. If you happen to know someone with a spare £5 million, go here.

HMS Beagle made from two Darwins (photo by A. Faherty)

This is the banner for Ray Comfort’s blog, Atheist Central. Such an odd name for such an anti-anything-but-fundamentalist-Christianity blog (I guess he decided on that name to drive up traffic). Down in the sidebar, then, Comfort lists some quotes from Einstein that show he believed in God – not a personal God, Comfort notes, but a god nonetheless. He was no atheist.

Okay, yes, Einstein was no atheist. He was a Jew, but for cultural and not religious reasons. This quote I think nicely sums up his view:

I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

For Einstein, “God” represented the harmony of the universe. Comfort is annoyed by atheists claiming Einstein as one of their own, yet turns around and claims him for his side. Einstein’s religious views are complex, and he does not fit neatly into any one side. It is interesting, though, that Comfort does not share this quote from Einstein, newsworthy in 2008 because the letter in which it is found sold at auction for a lot of cash:

[...] The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These [...] interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text. For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything ‘chosen’ about them.

Why, Comfort, do you have Einstein all over your blog?

—–

Also see: Einstein’s God at The Lippard Blog

After Patrick and I played at Sand in the City in downtown Portland this morning, we headed over to the Central Library, the main branch of the city’s library system. On the first floor there was a display about ants:

Ant display, Central Library, Portland

After we looked at the display and started walking away, Patrick said he saw a real ant in the case. I told him that they were fake ants, but he insisted he saw a real ant, and dragged me back to the case. Lo and behold, a real ant:

Real ant on display, Central Library, Portland

We shared this discovery with a library worker nearby, and she went and shared it with her supervisor, whom laughed quite loud, for a library.

E.O. Wilson would be proud!

What better way to introduce the second anniversary edition of the history of science blog carnival The Giant’s Shoulders than to share this photo of me, standing on the sholders of one such giant, Albert Einstein. As you may know, this summer I am a science education intern at the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry in Portland for their exhibit Einstein. We allow kids to climb on this comical bust of Einstein up to his ears, but no farther. We must keep things safe!

Standing on the shoulders of a giant

“If I have seen further it is by standing on ye sholders of Giants.” – Isaac Newton to Robert Hooke, February 1676, Newton praising Hooke’s contributions to optics

To begin this edition, which I believe has received the most submissions of any edition to date, let us note that the Royal Society is celebrating 350 years of science this year:

On November 30th 1660 a dozen men gathered to hear the young Christopher Wren give a lecture on astronomy. In the discussion that followed they decided to form a society for the study of the new and still controversial Experimental Philosophy. Two years later Charles II made it his Royal Society and in the 350 years since it was founded, its Fellows have given us gravity, evolution, the electron, the double helix, the internet and a large part of the modern world. In 2010 we celebrate 350 years of scientific brilliance and fearless doubt.

Also, the Royal Society has made their digital archive freely accessible through the end of July. Get to it! Now for the history of science posts. Since there are so many, it’s tough to find some theme to weave through them, so I will list them chronologically from the most recent to the oldest, referring not to the post date, but to the history which is being discussed in the them. (Do inform me of any history of science-themed posts during the last month that I overlooked.)

___________________________________________

General, MZ Skeptica: The Value of Learning History of Science: One Student’s Perspective

General, Reflexivepractice: Being scientific about science

General, The New York Review of Books: The Other Side of Science (book review of Never Pure)

General, Ether Wave Propaganda: Life at the Boundary

General, Ether Wave Propaganda: Wave Three in the Sociological SEE

General, News and Views: The History of Science in America: American Birds

General, Seiler on Science: The Birth of a New Physics, a book by I. Bernard Cohen

General, Heterodoxology: Lawrence Principe and the Rehabilitation of Alchemy (also, info about a thesis workshop on alchemy)

General, Slate: Blogging the Periodic Table

Present, petri dish: prototyping participation over presentation: “the children’s darwin” & “undergrads at the collections”

Present, Panda’s Thumb (Nick Matzke): Luskin, Haeckel, Richardson, and Richards (also see What do Haeckel’s embryo’s signify?)

Late 20th C., Point of Inquiry (podcast): Naomi Oreskes – Merchants of Doubt

Late 20th C., Sandwalk: False History and the Number of Genes

Late 20th C., Thoughts in a Haystack: Science Wars (a quote on Kuhn)

1975, Skulls in the Stars: Invisibility physics: Kerker’s “invisible bodies”

1960, Jane’s Journal: Excerpt from July 14, 1960 (this year is the 50th anniversary of Goodall’s chimp research)

1955, Ptak Science Books: History of Dots #27: Killing Bacteria – Human Experimentation with Conscientious Objectors, 1955

Mid-Late 20th C., PACHSmörgåsbord: Cold War Science Is Everywhere (also see this from Advances in the History of Psychology)

1945, Pauling Blog: The Independent Citizen’s Committe for the Arts, Sciences and Professions

1945, Science: Righting a 65-Year-Old Wrong

1930s – 40s, The Dispersal of Darwin: The shit that refuses to be flushed (on the Darwin-Hitler link)

1935, Pauling Blog: A Theory of the Denaturation of Proteins

1924, Brian Switek (formerly Laelaps): Taung, 2.3 Million Years Ago – Scratched bones and fossil primate bones as keys to a lost world

1913, Are You Scicurious?, Friday Weird Science: The Human Penis Bone

1909, Ptak Science Books: The Medical History of Curing Cancer with Limburger Cheese, Glycerin and Alcohol

Early 20th C., PACHSmörgåsbord: Pluto is not Planet X

Early 20th C., Deep Thoughts and Silliness: More on Mendel’s Manuscript

20th C., Science After Sunclipse: Textbook Cardboard and Physicist’s History

20th C., News and Views: The History of Science in America: Laserfest!

20th C., Uncertain Principles: Are Communication Skills Holding Science Back?

20th C., Science: Belief, Reason, and Insight & Nature: A life both kind and strange (book reviews of The Price of Altruism: George Price and the Search for the Origins of Kindness)

20th C., Evolving Thoughts: Homology

20th C., Providentia: Unmaking the disease, Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3

Early 20th C., OU History of Science Collections: Einstein Papers and Archives Project

Late 19th C., PACHSmörgåsbord: History of Science in Philadlephia – The E.D. Cope Residence

Late 19th C., Dinosaur Tracking: When Diplodocus Invaded Europe

Late 19th – Early 20th C., Gambler’s House: Wetherill Day

1895, bit-player: The thrill of the chase

1865, archy: Petermann’s polar lands

1849, Ptak Science Books: History of Dots #26: a Picture of the Speed of Light

Mid-19th C., Hafan Martin: Charles Darwin and I

Mid-19th C., Poseidon Sciences: Charles Darwin’s other passion: rediscovering the origins of barnacle research

1824, archy: Return of the killer mastodons

1817, From the Hands of Quacks: Curtis’ 1817 Letter to the London Asylum

Early 19th C., From the Hands of Quacks: Research Frustrations! RDDE and Lost Records

19th C., Ptak Science Books: A Taxidermological Satirist Adventurer and PsychoBon-Vivant: a few Paragraphs in the History of Boredom

19th C., Ether Wave Propaganda: Walter Bagehot on Ancient and English Civilization

19th C., Southern Fried Scientist: Louis Agassiz and a brief history of early United States marine biology

19th C., Science: Imagination in Chemistry (book review of Image and Reality)

19th C., Ptak Science Books: History of Dots #28: Cellular, Topical and Astronomical (1512-1888)

Late 18th C., PACHSmörgåsbord: A Monument to Joseph Priestley

1830s, The Red Notebook: Reading Darwin’s first masterpiece, Darwin collects a specimen, Darwin performs a blind test… on some condors, The Falklands fox: foolish dog of the South, How to get a large animal into a boat, and Darwin eats an excellent cat

18th C., The Renaissance Mathematicus: The scientific potter

1770, OU History of Science Collections: Longitude at Sea: J.T. Mayer (1770)

Late 17th – Early 18th C., OU History of Science Collections: The Chymistry of Isaac Newton Project

17th C., Aquarium of Vulcan: Oedipus Egypticus

1664, The Renaissance Mathematicus: Birth of the guinea pig

1660s, Quodlibeta: Boyle’s List

1625, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Centraal: First Published Microscopy Article?

Early 16th C., PACHSmörgåsbord: Renaissance Art of Neuroanatomy, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3

16th C., Dinosaur Tracking: Leonardo da Vinci – Paleontology Pioneer

16th C., The Renaissance Mathematicus: Gunfight at the Cubic Corral

Late 15th C., PACHSmörgåsbord: Exploring Collections: Tracts on the French Disease in the College of Physicians

15th C., PACHSmörgåsbord: Making Science Fun: Joseph Moxon’s Astronomical Playing Cards

15th C., Cipher Mysteries: Visually mapping Cusanus and Bessarion

1325, PACHSmörgåsbord: Exploring Collections: Walter Burley in the College of Physicians

10th C., In Our Time (podcast): Muslim scholar Al-Biruni (mp3)

6th C., Greg Laden’s Blog: The Myth of Christianity Founding Modern Science and Medicine (graph)

4th C., The Renaissance Mathematicus: Going to the movies (on Agora)

1st C., In Our Time (podcast): Pliny’s Natural History (mp3)

5th – 4th C. BCE, The Renaissance Mathematicus: The Book of Nature is written in the language of mathematics

12th C. BCE, Beyond the Bench: Eclipse in The Odyssey: Science Meets Mythology

14th C. BCE, PACHSmörgåsbord: HoS Micropost: King Tut, again

___________________________________________

Thanks for checking out this special edition of GS and hope you enjoyed some of the posts and, most of all, learned something new! Props to gg for maintaining this blog carnival for two years and hopefully more to come, since we can all use more history of science in our science blogging; and to Thony C. for submitting many of the posts for this edition.

I previously hosted The Giant’s Shoulders in August 2009. Do consider submitting your history of science-themed blog post to the next edition of The Giant’s Shoulders to Scicurious at Are You Scicurious? Alternatively, you can use the carnival submission form.