On 24/01/2009, at 2:58 AM, Nick Arnett wrote: > On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 4:50 PM, Charlie Bell > <char...@culturelist.org>wrote: > >> >> >> It's interesting, but I'm really sick of the "evolution can't explain >> this" schtick. Evolution explains how diversity occurs. Extinction >> events are known, some are understood. That we don't know the >> specific >> causes of certain extinction events says nothing at all about >> evolutionary theory. > > > I didn't read that as a criticism of evolution. It sounded to me > akin to a > statement like "monetary policy falls short of explaining inflationary > cycles." In other words, related, but not particularly germane... > which > seems to me to be your point. > Or are you suggesting that mentioning > evolution in the context of extinction events is as germane as > bringing > up fluoridation of water when analyzing football strategies?
It's closer to the first example you suggest than the second, but it's part of a general trope of less-good science writing that pitches every new minor spin on science as rewriting the whole body of theory that is really starting to wind me up. We need more better science writers - there aren't enough Ben Goldacres and Carl Zimmers out there... Charlie. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
