I shall update this post as the day goes on.
Olivia Judson writes that Darwin “makes an easy hero”:
His achievements were prodigious; his science, meticulous. His work transformed our understanding of the planet and of ourselves.
At the same time, he was a humane, gentle, decent man, a loving husband and father, and a loyal friend. Judging by his letters, he was also sometimes quite funny. He was, in other words, one of those rare beings, as likeable as he was impressive.
Boingboing harshes everyone’s buzz with depressing poll numbers.
It’s Alive makes snarky hay of Darwin’s Victorian approach to conservation.
On Deep Thoughts and Silliness, Bob O’Hara uses Darwin’s ignorance of the mechanism of inheritance as a jumping-off point for a nice thought about the collaborative nature of science.
Propterdoc worries about whether over-promotion of Darwin’s 200th is bad for biology’s image.
The Daily Mammal discusses Darwin’s speculations about land-to-aquatic transitions in mammals.
ScienceBlogs, as usual, has more going on than I can follow and still do my work. But it looks great.
On Morning Edition, the inimitable Robert Krulwich considers how Darwin’s work was shaped by his wife’s faith and the death of their eldest daughter.
… progressive Christian theology … has long emphasized the continuity of the human with the rest of creation. Progressive Christians by and large oppose regarding human nature as fixed and static and a unique “lord of creation.” The inescapable learning from evolutionary biology is that human beings are deeply creatures. We share 90% of our genes with mice. If that doesn’t take the “lords of creation” down a peg, I fail to see what will!
Sally Steenland suggests that the big day should prompt religion and science to kiss.