This Sternberg character, the creationist at the Smithsonian who has made a career out of his pseudo-martyrdom, has been “vindicated” in a Republican report. Well, he would have been vindicated, if the report hadn’t been a thin tissue of lies.
Most books that teach the basics of evolutionary biology are fairly genteel in their treatment of creationism—they don’t endorse it, of course, but they either ignore it, or more frequently now, they segregate off a chapter to deal with the major claims. There are also whole books dedicated to combating creationist myths, of course, but they’re not usually the kind of book you pick up to get a tutorial in basic biology. In my hands I have an example of a book that does both, using the errors of creationism heavily to help explain and contrast the principles of evolutionary biology—it’s fascinating. This is what we should do if we were to “teach the controversy” in the classroom; it’s not what the other side wants, because teaching it honestly would mean the creationists would be the comic relief and endless whipping boy of the course, as they should be.
The book is The Science of Evolution and the Myth of Creationism(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll) by Ardea Skybreak. It’s very good, but right up front I’ll mention its flaw, and one reason few scientists write books from this perspective: the frequent comparisons with creationism mean we’re also hoping the book will someday be hopelessly obsolete, if ever we can get those myths treated like the jokes they are. Scientists who are not engaged in the culture war are going to regard the book rather quizzically, since it does raise up nonsensical issues frequently; it really requires a peculiarly modern American context to make it all work. It’s one of those books that, the more it is read, the less relevant its approach would become.
But it does work in that context. Skybreak covers all the key concepts, but does so in a passionate, refreshingly aggressive way. She doesn’t hesitate to call a stupid idea stupid, and back up the charge with the evidence. If your interest in evolution isn’t simply academic, this is an excellent book to simultaneously inform and instruct, and supply the reasoning to deal with creationist foolishness. It’s also refreshing to see a book that isn’t timid about pointing out that fundamentalist religion is the source of the problem, and that isn’t afraid of offending creationists. It makes for an invigorating read, and I recommend it highly.
It’s not too late to order it for Christmas! It’s perfect for that person who wants to learn some solid biology, but also wants to be an activist for good science.
I do feel obligated to mention one thing that didn’t disturb me at all, but some readers might be concerned about. The book began as a series of articles in The Revolutionary Worker. There are a few hints of sympathy for socialist ideals in a few of the sidebars and endnotes, a sympathy I share (perhaps with significant reservations not held by the author), but otherwise, this is not an ideological work. Read it for the good science and the healthy slams against creationism without reservations about the source.
Over on Uncommon Descent, Sal Cordova quotes Lauren Sandler from her book Righteous, in a self-congratulatory attempt to claim the Dover decision as a victory for ID (oh, my, but aren’t they desperate). However, if you look at Cordova’s quote, there are…ellipses. Seeing an ellipsis in a creationist quote really ought to make you automatically wonder. Fortunately, Steve Story pulled out the actual, original quote over at Antievolution.org, so you too can see what was edited out.
|
The actual text:
|
The message is simple: NEVER EVER TRUST A CREATIONIST.
Wow. That’s got to be a record: a creationist frankenquote that contains an ellipsis spanning seven chapters. And that’s only one piece of the bad scholarship Lynch demolishes.
Didn’t I tell you Casey Luskin would weigh in on the DI’s take on Judge Jones’ “plagiarism” in his own inimitably bumbling way? What do you know, he did, and he has already been shot down. John West has also floundered in trying to address the issue, and he too has felt Sandefur’s fists of fury. Poor Discovery Institute. Isn’t media management supposed to be their area of expertise? How can they be sucking so badly at it?
Since I was just mean to the British press, here’s a compensatory accolade: here’s a nice, sharp editorial from James Randerson.
ID was itself designed as a Trojan horse for creationism, with its origins in the Discovery Institute, a thinktank in Seattle whose stated aim is “to replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God”.
Even a conservative judge in Dover, Pennsylvania, saw through the sham last year when he heard a case brought by parents who objected to ID being taught in their school. “Intelligent design is a religious view, a mere re-labelling of creationism, and not a scientific theory,” he wrote in his judgment.
Let’s be honest: despite its scientific-sounding frills and baubles, ID is pure religion. It is a reincarnation of an old idea that Darwin dispensed with and it has no place in a science class.
Is anyone else getting a “look how stupid Americans are” vibe from all the British coverage of Ken Ham’s creation ‘science’ museum? It’s another story from the European press that politely echoes Ham’s overblown claims for his grandiose edifice to ignorance, and mostly recycles the same old stuff we’ve heard over and over again. It really does seem to simply parrot whatever the Answers in Genesis con men say with complete credulity…for instance, I’ve seen this strange comment repeated multiple times in these kinds of stories.
Two-thirds of the US population lives within six hours’ drive of Cincinnati, but Mr Ham has bigger ambitions for tackling agnostics further afield.
Hold it. Think. Check your facts. Look at a map, and you’ll see that that domain outside of a circle with a radius of 300 miles includes everything west of Chicago, the entire urban Northeast, and most of the major cities of the South, such as Atlanta. It includes Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, etc., a populous region to be sure, but how can one argue that a small area that excludes California, Texas, New York, and Florida contains the bulk of the nation’s people? That’s an area of about 280,000 square miles in a country of 3,700,000 square miles—shouldn’t that make a reporter stop and think, especially when it is an area that does not include our regions of highest population density?
I’m beginning to feel a “look how stupid the BBC can be” vibe right now, myself. Does anyone know where this mysterious number comes from? Is it Ken Ham lying, or is it the Cincinnati Chamber of Commerce lying?
I am amused that now the Disco Institute is reduced to complaining that Judge Jones adopted the ACLU’s findings of fact in the Dover trial. It’s true that Jones didn’t write a big chunk of his decision, because he literally accepted the opinion of the DI’s opponents.
Apparently, this is a common judicial practice. I didn’t know that, but shouldn’t the DI know about it? Don’t they have a lawyer or lawyers working for them (they sure have a scientist deficiency)? Couldn’t they have asked someone on their staff whether this was ordinary procedure before they started complaining?
Oh, wait.
Casey Luskin. No wonder they screwed up. That boy has a reputation for rank incompetence and getting the facts wrong.
He manages to accomplish something I cannot: Larry Moran reviews Francis Collins’ book, The Language of God. It’s negative, of course, but far fairer and more generous than I could have been. I was afraid the snarl I wore when I was struggling through that awful book was going to be permanently stuck on my face.
A while back, I mentioned this essay contest by Answers in Genesis in which the prize was a $50,000 scholarship to Liberty University. If you’re curious about the winner and one of the runners-up, Zeno has the story: the winner’s essay is all about how anti-matter supports the Bible, and the third place winner has become the official advisor on ID to a presidential candidate (in the sense that my crazy second cousin was a presidential candidate, once upon a time). It’s all rather creepy and sad—poor kids. So young and already sucked into the lunatic fringe.
