Kosmo

True indeed.

It was #100 though. ;-)

Valentine Pontifex

I don't see anything wrong with that disclaimer. One does not have to completely agree with the book or most of its most advid fans to think it belongs on a list of great books. And since many in the intended audience might think it is a strange choice an explanation was in order.

gcameron

It's not that there's anything wrong the the disclaimer per se, it just tips the hand that this is a "conservative" list for "conservative" people and you have to provide a comfortable context for a book about (gasp!) environmentalism.

At least they acknowledge it is an important topic... I've never understood why environmentalism should have anything to do with either liberalism or conservatism... It seems to me to be a completely "other" topic and all of us should go where the evidence leads us.

And yes, I know NR is a conservative magazine. I just find it funny how, you know, a certain mindset has to be preserved. It'd be the same thing if the "American Prospect" included a William F. Buckley book on their list. They'd have to write a little prelude so as not to offend liberal sensibilities.

Just funny is all.

gcameron

On the other hand, I may be completely wrong about all of this. In fact, I probably am...

WinAce

The thing that really pisses me off about Behe's book is that the exact same argument of IC were refuted by Darwin when he gave recipes for the eye and other complex multipart arrangements to evolve. I see nothing in Behe's book where he explains why IC on the molecular scale (immune system, flagella) is less accessible to evolution than IC on the macro scale (eye, heart, anvil-hammer-stirrup... ).

It's like he's either grossly ignorant, wilfully blind or intentionally dishonest.

gcameron

Yes, Chapter 6 of OOS seems to suggest that Darwin was conversant with "irreducible complexity" in all but name.

KC

I do agree with their inclusion of Orwell's essays (anyone who wishes to write clearly in English should read 'Politics and the English Language'), but Homage to Catalonia I question. It was a wonderful book, but not one of the greatest of the 20th Century. Funny how they left out Orwell's equally good Down and Out in Paris and London


That they would include Behe over Sir Ronald Fisher's The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection shows how mud-fucking stupid the committee that drew up the list really is.

KC

RufusAtticus

These dolts know very little biology or they've included Dobzhansky's Genetics and the Origins of Species, the book responsible for the "synthesis" in the Modern Synthesis of Evolutionary Biology.

And who in their right mind considers Behe's book non-fiction?

lpetrich

The occurrence of irreducible complexity is recognized in mainstream biology -- I've seen some discussions of evolution refer to "Roman arches" in this context.

This refers to a true arch of stone blocks. Building one requires placing some scaffolding to hold up the blocks as they are put into place. But when the construction is done, the scaffold can be removed, creating an irreducibly-complex structure.

One good example is the sort of society that honeybees have. Queens are totally dependent on their workers, while only the queens can start off new workers. And queens can only found new hives with the help of swarms of workers that they recruit. Irreducible complexity, yes. But there are lots of social insects with simpler societies, a circumstance that suggests a path to honeybeehood. Bumblebee queens found hives in isolation and raise their first generation of workers all by themselves. Imagine some bumblebee queen who takes some workers with her, and you've got swarming. And if queens can depend on their workers to help found new hives, they do not need to be able to do so in isolation.

pangloss

Indeed..

Can't win at the ballot box, try 'winning' in the other guy's bedroom...