Yes, I have _Natural Selection and Beyond_. Some of the essays are quite good, others have problems. I particularly take issue with the essays by Charles H. Smith and Steven J. Dick.

I highly recommend Fichman’s Elusive Victorian. It is, in my opinion, the best book-length biography of Wallace.

Bill gives it high praise in the foreward:
Flannery’s intriguing theses significantly revise previous historiography of both Darwin and Wallace.

Are you acquainted with:

Natural Selection and Beyond: The Intellectual Legacy of Alfred Russel Wallace

Would you recommend the book by Martin Fichman (footnote 44)?

I have Wiker’s book. Maybe I’ll have at that one next.

By the way, if you’re interested in an excellent biography of Darwin get Ben Wiker’s The Darwin Myth.

I knew that, Mung. I just wanted folks to understand why I elected to do it that way.

Hello Michael. It is not often that one gets to speak with an author of a published book on the internet!

I have your book, it is sitting on a shelf (sorry ). I will say, it is on the TOP shelf, lol. When i became aware of it, it immediately grabbed my attention.

I am interested in Wallace. While his “World of Life” is not currently in print, there are a few “Wallace centric” books available.

Can you give a me a reason to take your book off the shelf and begin to read it ahead of the other books currently available to me?

Thank you

Neo-darwinism is like the Blob, slowly suffocating under the weight of its own hedge bets.

“Adults” are helpless when subjected to the heavy propaganda against evolutionary theory. What percentage of adults make the effort required to understand the theory? If asked, would O’Leary be able to properly teach the theory of evolution to a typical adult?

While O’Leary has been following the intelligent design controversy for a decade, I have been interested in the origins of species and in particular our own species for most of my life – and yet I would have to spend a lot of time and effort if I wanted to teach the ToE to an average adult.

To Graham 1: Why in the world would describing ID as a bridge between science and theology be creationism?! Simply because a scientific theory has theological implications doesn’t mean it’s not science (that would rule out 90% of cosmology) and it most surely doesn’t mean it is creationism.

1) To Mung: I purposely elected not to include the chapters on Wallace’s discussion of nature and general evolution because some of the material is dated and much of it was a rehash of earlier work (esp. Darwinism, 1889).

Yes, nothing against your book. I understand it wasn’t intended to be a re-print.

I would like to see a couple of reviews about Yale Evo Course, the professor looks so dramatic.

This might be worth picking up or plucking apart.
kind regards,
sxussd13

What are you doing up so early? Isn’t it like 4 AM in Toronto?