I finally died
Which started the whole world living

Carl Safina blames the term “Darwinism” for holding up science, and I think he’s wrong.

Darwinism Must Die So That Evolution May Live

Science has marched on. But evolution can seem uniquely stuck on its founder. We don’t call astronomy Copernicism, nor gravity Newtonism. “Darwinism” implies an ideology adhering to one man’s dictates, like Marxism. And “isms” (capitalism, Catholicism, racism) are not science. “Darwinism” implies that biological scientists “believe in” Darwin’s “theory.” It’s as if, since 1860, scientists have just ditto-headed Darwin rather than challenging and testing his ideas, or adding vast new knowledge.

As I’ll get to below, I don’t think it’s the scientists you have to worry about here.

Using phrases like “Darwinian selection” or “Darwinian evolution” implies there must be another kind of evolution at work, a process that can be described with another adjective. For instance, “Newtonian physics” distinguishes the mechanical physics Newton explored from subatomic quantum physics. So “Darwinian evolution” raises a question: What’s the other evolution?

What’s the other evolution? We discuss time evolution of the wave function in quantum mechanics. Evolution is used generically as a term to mean change over time in many non-biological systems. So while Darwinian evolution may not be the best term, there are non-biological kinds.

And Darwinian selection is synonymous with natural selection, at least as far as I understand the terminology. The other kind? How about artificial selection?

Into the breach: intelligent design. I am not quite saying Darwinism gave rise to creationism, though the “isms” imply equivalence. But the term “Darwinian” built a stage upon which “intelligent” could share the spotlight.

Maybe I just hang out with the wrong crowd, but it’s been my experience that the worst offenders in this category are the cdesign proponentsists, not the scientists. I’d argue that anyone who regularly uses Darwinism to describe evolution should fail the biology portion of any scientific literacy test. In other words, it’s the ones who don’t understand evolution, even at a superficial level, who are turning it into an -ism. I strongly suspect that it’s either intentional, for the purpose of casting it as an ideological belief system rather than science, or stems from the almost complete cluelessness of someone parroting arguments they don’t understand. And removing Darwin isn’t really going to stop this, even if you could, because in my younger days hanging out on talk.origins I saw many uses of evolutionism. They are going to portray this as ideology no matter what. They have to. It’s one of the fallacious arguments they try and use to tear down evolution. To place the blame on Darwin’s name is to not understand the argument — it’s a symptom, not the disease itself.

The second half of the article is fine, in documenting things that happened after Darwin framed the theory. I just think that it makes almost no difference to the problem — the ones doing the most to promote the objectionable terminology are the ones least likely to care about getting these facts right. The truth is their enemy in this fight, so they have nothing to gain. To expect them to stop churning out straw-man arguments and start discussing the real theory of evolution is highly optimistic.

The Serious Need for Play

[H]is data suggest that a lack of opportunities for unstructured, imaginative play can keep children from growing into happy, well-adjusted adults. “Free play,” as scientists call it, is critical for becoming socially adept, coping with stress and building cognitive skills such as problem solving. Research into animal behavior confirms play’s benefits and establishes its evolutionary importance: ultimately, play may provide animals (including humans) with skills that will help them survive and reproduce.

Most of my childhood play was unstructured. Decent-sized back yard, and a dad who resisted the urge to yell at us when we trampled it. (There were several patches where grass did not grow for about 12 years, from all the foot and bike traffic.)

I also live by the adage It’s never too late to have a happy childhood
(though I would never describe my childhood as being unhappy)

via

Scars Reveal How Triceratops Fought

It’s the iconic dinosaur battle, seared into every kid’s imagination from picture books and cartoons: Tyrannosaurus rex lunges, mouth agape, and Triceratops parries with its horns and bony neck frill. This scene probably did unfold in North American forests 65 million years ago, but new research suggests Triceratops also used its headgear in fights against its own species.
Paleontologists have proposed this idea before. It makes sense, given that other animals with horns or antlers, such as deer, use them against their own kind in battles for dominance or mating rights. The new study, published Wednesday in the journal PLoS ONE, documented wounds on Triceratops fossils, backing the idea up with hard data for the first time.

Graphic Encouragement to Wash Your Hands

Each batch of agar contained a little bit of cefoxitin, an antibiotic that should prevent any ordinary bacteria from growing on the plates.

After a little bit of incubation, the first plate (left) was covered in bright red colonies. It provided damming evidence that the infection can easily be spread by hand.

The second plate (right) was completely free of bacteria. It showed that disaster can be averted very easily. By taking just a minute to lather up, anyone who works with patients can fight the spread of antibiotic-resistant bugs.

NEJM abstract