Steve Steve in London

Ben Stein?

Richard Dawkins?

Steve Steve looks like he needs more than a new jacket. He needs a bath.

That's Too Easy!

Isaac Newton, of course.

fusilier
James 2:24

GrrlScientist, of course!

Steve also had a trip to Hutton's Unconformity on the coast of Scotland earlier this summer; see here for details.

I know Grrl has a trapped nerve, but her am isn't that stiff.

Prof. Steve has been enjoying him self a bit too much, he's about to chair the final session in the meeting.

fusilier said: That's Too Easy! Isaac Newton, of course. fusilier James 2:24

Hoping that there might be a beer on the line I'll delurk for the first time ever and say Mr. Darwin. I find the distinctive rock formation in the background fairly convincing evidence. And it's in London.

It's the Lawgiver from "The Planet of The Apes".

I think it might be the statue of Darwin in the London Museum of Natural History.

PSS is not explaining anything; he's gazing adoringly at Darwin, and reflecting upon the advances since Chas died in 1882.

Looks to me like the Statue of Michael Faraday at the Royal Instititution. Faraday is quoted as saying "Nothing is too wonderful to be true if it be consistent with the laws of nature, and in such things as these, experiment is the best test of such consistency." But on the other hand, according to Wikipaedia,

'Faraday was a devout Christian and a member of the small Sandemanian denomination, an offshoot of the Church of Scotland. He later served two terms as an elder in the group's church.'

I haven't found any direct references to his views on Darwin, but according to the Discovery Institute, responding to critical comments from Time Magazine's science editor http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/04/mike_lemonick_time_magazines_n.html

"Michael Faraday's life was a seamless blend of science and faith, and his life of passionate Christian belief would equal or exceed that of many of the scientists who have signed the Discovery Institute's Dissent from Darwin List. Faraday would be appalled to see his work used as an example of science divorced from faith in God and from the inference to design in nature."

So I think our Learned Panda will find Faraday hard to convince unless his views have mellowed somewhat since his death in 1867. Who knows, maybe Someone has already taken him aside and pointed out the wonderful truth !

I thought perhaps the Professor was commiserating with Darwin about having to deal with morons like Ben Stein. Of course, Darwin mostly left it to Huxley.

Jonathan A said: Looks to me like the Statue of Michael Faraday at the Royal Instititution.

Jonathan A said: "Michael Faraday's life was a seamless blend of science and faith, and his life of passionate Christian belief would equal or exceed that of many of the scientists who have signed the Discovery Institute's Dissent from Darwin List. Faraday would be appalled to see his work used as an example of science divorced from faith in God and from the inference to design in nature."

In the common terminology of the day, there was no essential distinction between science and philosophical thought. Faraday always referred to himself as a `philosopher', not a `scientist'. He was nevertheless at pains to draw the distinction between his scientific `philosophizing' and his Christian commitment. This must be understood in the context of a society in which the predominant approach to theology was a rationalistic one, exemplified by the liberal Anglicans. They sought to base their religion not on revelation or history - which higher criticism had begun cast doubt upon, in their minds - but on intellectual theorizing, centering around the argument from design. Faraday disavowed their approach, as he stated explicitly in his lecture `Observations on mental education'(1859):

Let no one suppose for a moment that the self-education I am about to commend in respect of the things of this life, extends to any considerations of the hope set before us, as if man by reasoning could find out God. It would be improper here to enter upon this subject further than to claim an absolute distinction between religious and ordinary belief. I shall be reproached with the weakness of refusing to apply those mental operations which I think good in respect of high things to the very highest. I am content to bear the reproach.

[Emphasis added.]

Let me add that I find the taste of irony heavy in Hutchinson's MIT series on the Faith of Great Scientists lecture on Faraday. The theology of the Sandemanians were apparently a retreat to a more substantial reading of the religious texts, and they rejected the then modern and religiously liberal argument from design.

Now both that argument and substantial readings are used by ridiculously reactionary religious groups to disempower the substance of the Sandemanians' retreat, which now looks modern in comparison. Granted that the purpose of theology is to retreat more or less gracefully in the face of facts, but the actions of reactionary groups really puts a distinct relief to the bland results.

PSS is not explaining anything; he’s gazing adoringly at Darwin, and reflecting upon the advances since Chas died in 1882.

— John Wilkins

Is that a duffle coat that Steve Steve is wearing? It rather looks as if he's been indulging in some "horizontal transfer" with Paddington Bear :)

(See http://www.paddingtonbear.co.uk/en/1/fachispad.mxs )

If this is the case, and given Paddington's association with the BBC TV children's program Blue Peter, can we expect Steve Steve to come home fully briefed and ready to show the Discovery Institute how they can make a scientific research program out of a couple of wire coathangers, a sheet of sticky-backed plastic and a yoghurt carton with the brand name carefully painted out. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Peter#Traditions )

Did Kristan fall of the Beer Wagon???

Thanks for your well-researched comments Torbjorn, should have realised that the DI was very likely to mis-represent the views of a deceased Christian scientist if it suited them. Seems possible from your 'third factor' that Faraday made no public comment on Darwin's Origin of Species, but if he did would be interested to know of it.

Still not sure who the statue is, hopefully Steve^2 will reveal all.

I notice that one of the two major parties has nominated an overt creationist and climate change denialist as vice presidential candidate.

No posts or comments allowed on "evolution defending" Panda's Thumb.

Panda's Thumb - defending science education except if "conservative Republicans" would be offended.

Which is about the same as defending a flock of sheep except if wolves and coyotes would be offended.

harold said: I notice that one of the two major parties has nominated an overt creationist and climate change denialist as vice presidential candidate. No posts or comments allowed on "evolution defending" Panda's Thumb. Panda's Thumb - defending science education except if "conservative Republicans" would be offended. Which is about the same as defending a flock of sheep except if wolves and coyotes would be offended.

Sorry, Harold. If PT has restrictions on discussion of candidates for the Presidential election, my guess is that it is because of Internal Revenue Service regulations regarding nonprofits, not enthusiasm for or against Republicans. The IRS is very strict about 501(c)(3) organizations engaging in any support or opposition to candidates. Same for NCSE: we won't be discussing candidate positions on evolution, either. Within the last two years, the IRS has in fact tightened up its regulations regarding nonprofits and elections. This is different from nonprofit lobbying, where the regs are looser.

I am sure that many people on PT have opinions on the election, and they have freedom of speech to express them on their private blogs or other non-nonprofit sites, and I hope they do! But a nonprofit like PT or NCSE does not.

Sorry, Harold. If PT has restrictions on discussion of candidates for the Presidential election, my guess is that it is because of Internal Revenue Service regulations regarding nonprofits, not enthusiasm for or against Republicans. The IRS is very strict about 501©(3) organizations engaging in any support or opposition to candidates. Same for NCSE: we won’t be discussing candidate positions on evolution, either. Within the last two years, the IRS has in fact tightened up its regulations regarding nonprofits and elections. This is different from nonprofit lobbying, where the regs are looser.

That robe-like material makes me think of Jesus, or maybe Jon Anderson of Yes, who often wears stuff like that.

Jonathan A said: ...according to the Discovery Institute... "Michael Faraday's life was a seamless blend of science and faith, and his life of passionate Christian belief would equal or exceed that of many of the scientists who have signed the Discovery Institute's Dissent from Darwin List. Faraday would be appalled to see his work used as an example of science divorced from faith in God and from the inference to design in nature."

Uncle Charles at the Natural history Museum, South Kensington, London.

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/about-us/news/2008/may/news_14391.html

(and, yes, it does look like Prof Steve Steve has been acquiring a new coat - wonder if the marmalade sandwich went with it?)

If the IRS is very strict about non-profit organizations (or their visitors?) dabbling in politics, then I wish that the IRS would get the lead out of its lingerie and investigate the church of a certain vice-presidential candidate for preaching that Democratic candidates are going to Hell. What was it someone once said about sauce for the goose being sauce for the gander?

Merci pour votre post.