Pharyngula::A cruel present

Pharyngula has moved to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

Tuesday, January 03, 2006

A cruel present

PZ Myers • 19 Comments

Chris Clarke has been reading a gift book: an A Beka Book, one of the worthless creationist texts that the UC system refuses to accept for credit. Ever wonder why?

"The sequence of study found in all other current biology texts can implant a subtle evolutionary philosophy in the students' minds. The Christian teacher will find that the unique A Beka Book approach to biology eliminates the conflict which results when evolutionary philosophy is combined with truth. Students and teachers alike will feel more comfortable when they realize that it is not biology that is in conflict with Scripture, but rather the ungodly philosophy of some biologists."
So reads the prologue of Biology: God's Living Creation, sent to me as a gift by a friend with a disturbing sense of humor. The controversial textbook - and here I use "textbook" to mean "cruel practical joke played on unsuspecting high school biology students" and "controversial" to mean "filled with lies" - made the news recently when a group of Southern California fundamentalists sued the University of California over UC's refusal to credit biology classes for which the book served as text. The UC regents were right to so decide: the book is garbage.

From there, he dissects one of those persistent delusions, that there is a ladder of creation with us at the top. There, it's not just creationist drivel that peddles that notion—there is a ghastly sum of verbiage wasted in legitimate biology texts trying to find a metric or somehow justify putting humanity on a pinnacle. It's never convincing. What nature generates is variety, not a ranking system.

We are one species among millions, one flimsy twig in a forest. The whole history of the biological sciences has been confirmation and reconfirmation of this fact. Copernicus and Galileo took us from the center of the universe. Thousands of biologists still work to dethrone us from the seat we had long usurped at the head of the table of life. This is a planet of bats and rats, of sparrows, of beetles and ants, but mainly - to a first approximation - this is a planet of bacteria. One could call us an afterthought, if one granted that thought played a role in our steppping onto life's stage, which I do not. I find this point of view exhilarating, like looking at a starry sky and imagining the impossible distances. There is grandeur in this insignificance. There is an imperative not to take more than our share.

Hear, hear. What a shame that so many kids' minds are constrained by the puerile piddlings of Scripture rather than the messy, complicated, expansive glories of the whole universe.

Trackback url: http://tangledbank.net/index/trackback/3662/

Comments:

#56119: coturnix — 01/03 at 09:20 PM
Yet another reminder why it is worth checking "Creek Running North" on a regular basis!

#56121: MJS — 01/03 at 09:31 PM
<blockquote>Students and teachers alike will feel more comfortable when they realize that it is not biology that is in conflict with scripture, but rather the ungodly philosophy of some biologists."</blockquote>

So I guess my godly philosophy that ID is a pile of capyberra offal will make them comfortable as well? After all, comfort is the key.

Nighty-night, whack-a-mole deists. Don't let the antideluvian bedbugs bite.

+++

#56122: — 01/03 at 09:37 PM
In the classical ladder or 'Chain of Creation', Mankind is not at the top. That place is reserved for Ghod. Mankind was usually place around the two thirds mark, underneath the forces of Heaven.

Mind you it has been some time since I brushed up on my Medival Christian Mythology.

#56126: greensmile — 01/03 at 09:52 PM
...conflict which results when evolutionary philosophy is combined with truth...

Not sure whether my head or my bowels will explode first.
simply amazing narishkeit

#56132: — 01/03 at 11:26 PM
"Mind you it has been some time since I brushed up on my Medival Christian Mythology."

It's trendy in some sects to argue that the angels and such are inferior to humanity because they can't willingly choose good or evil. Since they never risk hell, they can't possibly be as good as someone who can. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

How this applies to Jesus (who as I recall my mythology never did more than have a chat with Satan...something that any angel could claim just as easily) is carefully avoided like any other real question about religion is in theological circles.

#56158: — 01/04 at 06:21 AM
There are ranking systems. Clarke mentions one major: success of species and/or phyla, shortterm or longterm, as number of individuals or biomass.

It's just that we do so poorly on them.

BTW, IMO gods should rightly be lowest on any moral ranking. They _invented_ evil...

#56195: — 01/04 at 10:44 AM
Of course one the key themes of Christianity is that high, noble things can start out in low, even ignoble places. C. S. Lewis wrote about one of his fictional demons stumbling on the reality that a human, "conceived in a bed in a fit of lust" could choose to do noble things.

In short, that we rise from very low beginnings is one of the lessons of Christianity that Christians should get. That it is only by grace and our constant hustling that we can progress, do good, do well, and stay alive, is another. That we are nothing particularly special is yet a third idea (which also permeates through the OT, the Judaic scriptures).

I do wish, and I constantly urge, that mainline sects wake up and comment on the obvious theology errors in these books. Not only are they abominations to science, they are abominations to Christianity, too.

Or, at least they are abominations to thinking Christians.

[heavy sigh]

#56214: pdf23ds — 01/04 at 12:56 PM
There is an objectivly simple ranking system on which humans come out light-years ahead of other species, and that's in the ability to generate complexity. We create things with thousands or millions of times more variety of complexity than any other species. (All species create copies of themselves, and that counts, but it's only one thing. We create all different sorts of things as well as copies of us.) Defining "complexity" may be just a little tricky, but I think it's a good system.

Ray Kurzweil talks about this in The Singularity is Near. I still reccommend this book to PZ and anyone else interested in technology or the future of humanity.

#56218: — 01/04 at 01:12 PM
The other day I was in the Field Museum in Chicago, enjoying some winter break downtime by looking at bones and taxidermied beaties (and a great Pompeii exhibit they're showing right now, highly recommended). In the reptile section, I was looking at a mounted Python when a little boy, about 6, came up and asked his mom what the little bony nub sticking out of the snake's side about 2/3 of the way down was. I explained that it was a remnant of the legs that snake ancestors had. The kid said "cool!" but his mom gave me a dirty look and said "well, that's one explantion, and hustled her son away." As they left, I say that he had "Wheaton Christian Academy" printed on his sweatshirt.

There's such great curiosity about the worl in kids that age. I guess what angers me the most about creationism is the lengths it takes to snuff that out.

#56220: PZ Myers — 01/04 at 01:15 PM
Ants.

Ever looked at a biofilm?

I don't think anything any human society has built approaches the complexity of a cell.

Kurzweil's publisher sent me a copy of his book. I started it, gave up, need to get going on it again -- it isn't promising.

PZ Myers
Division of Science and Math
University of Minnesota, Morris

#56226: BronzeDog — 01/04 at 01:45 PM

I find this point of view exhilarating, like looking at a starry sky and imagining the impossible distances. There is grandeur in this insignificance. There is an imperative not to take more than our share.

I pretty much agree. In a D&D; campaign setting of mine, even the deities are tiny, compared with the uni/multi/omniverse.

There's such great curiosity about the world in kids that age. I guess what angers me the most about creationism is the lengths it takes to snuff that out.

I should mention that sometime, alongside one of the people at my grandmother's retirement home: He doesn't look up at the night sky "because they're trying to trick us."

Thank Ed my grandmother (former teacher in biology) is a much more enlightened person.

#56228: — 01/04 at 02:04 PM
As a homeschooling mom, I can't tell you how hard it is to have to screen every book in an effort to avoid "christian" content. (Sadly, the closest homeschoolers group requires a husband's permission to join and a pledge that you and your children will adhere to the highest moral standards and certainly avoid all those wicked books about Darwin and Copernicus. That one of my boys, then age 4, looked at the bible on a shelf and said happily "Look mommy, they have the mythology book for christians" didn't endear us to them either. )

Sometimes I'll let it slide - the bible verses at the bottom of a pre-writing workbook weren't a problem since the child playing with the book couldn't read. Other times despite my best efforts I end up stamping because the author inserts god's will into places it has no place being, a book on the elements for example.

Gross generalization here, but if the author mentions having more than 3 or 4 kids I avoid the book.

Thanks for blogs like this, a place to come and rejoice in the complexity of life as it is.

#56232: BronzeDog — 01/04 at 02:16 PM
I haven't had kids (or the opportunity to produce them) yet, but with the sad state (Texas) of affairs over here, I've contemplated homeschooling. Doesn't seem easy for a not-fundy-psycho to find the appropriate resources.

#56237: pdf23ds — 01/04 at 02:22 PM
Whatever complex things ants (of a given species) do, they all do it the same. Different individual members of a species doing the same thing don't count more than once as far as measuring the variety of complexity.

Any single thing humans have made doesn't approach the complexity of a cell, no. But I imagine the software, or the literature, created by humans, after you factor out all of the commonalities between different programs or books, would definitely rival the cell, or even that of the entire human body. Overall, evolution has created more complexity than humans have, sure. But humans are much better at it than evolution, and much better than any other species.

#56284: Chris Clarke — 01/04 at 04:26 PM
Whatever complex things ants (of a given species) do, they all do it the same.

This is simply wrong.

But humans are much better at it than evolution, and much better than any other species.

This is a mixture of tautology and speculation.

"I do not think we should antagonize the religious when it is not warranted, though I think we should be willing to do so whenever it is.”
-- Glen Davidson

#56296: — 01/04 at 05:07 PM

Doesn't seem easy for a not-fundy-psycho to find the appropriate resources.

I would have thought the internet made that easier these days. You have access to sites from less fundamentalist countries and can concentrate your choices on searches for material on university sites. I would have expected the basic curriculum items for what people are supposed to have studied to be outlined on some official/governmental site somewhere (though I gather the US is a little fragmented by states which may make a difference to the sort of places you'd need to look compared with the UK).

Also some businesses (Amazon?) should give you access to UK (for example) school materials. Blair's Labour government hasn't completely succeeded in trashing all education here yet (though the quality is certainly on its way down). BBC TV has been turning into trash too. But the older wildlife programmes and Open University productions were good - better than US norm (by most people's reckoning). Some programmes are available in book or video/DVD form and there is a somewhat delayed project to make various things available online.

#56334: Alon Levy — 01/04 at 09:01 PM
As a homeschooling mom, I can't tell you how hard it is to have to screen every book in an effort to avoid "christian" content.

Is it that hard to find secular school textbooks? Or are homeschooling textbooks different from public school textbooks?

#56377: — 01/05 at 09:51 AM
Fot those interested in secular homeschool resources, try using distance ed from vendors like CTY at jons Hopkins or EPGY at Stanford. They are a bit pricey, (and geared toward the gifted, whatever that really means) but actually very useful. A little research will turn up lots of other options.

BTY, I've seen homeschoolers with stuff even worse than A Beka.

#56537: — 01/05 at 07:31 PM
Now that I've got the knack of figuring out what works for us, it's easier but I'm still astounded by how much time it takes to evaluate resources particularly since I'm on a tight budget. In general, once a kiddo's learned to read in this house I've found that guidebooks for intelligent lay readers make the best resources. I guess, I'm just constantly surprised at how pervasive the christian mindset is in stuff marketed for homeschoolers. You order a book from amazon thinking, from the review, the publisher, the pages you look at that it's going to be another fun read about the elements (the 7yo loves chemistry and physics right now). It arrives and geez, the author's affiliated with the discovery institute (which isn't mentioned on amazon) and gee isn't it great that god's given us all these things to do his will with. You google plesiosaur and the first entry is the legitimate university of montana (I think) the second is some slick creationist crap.

I suppose this is true for all teachers, but the added challenge of homeschooling is that, unlike my physics teaching brother, I teach new material each year. There's overlap for sure, and to preserve what sanity I have left, the year I had a snotty 14yo, a sweet 11yo, a precocious 4yo, a frustrated 2yo and a stroke impaired mother to deal with everybody learned botany, ancient history, math (not much overlap there), they took turns reading to each other and there were great discussions about how some of Yeats' poems reminded the 4yo of "Good Night Moon' in their evocation of safe havens. I also drank a lot of scotch.

Not for everybody, but the first litter (18 and 14 now)is launching themselves successfully into the world, and the 18yo thanked me recently for a: putting up with her and b: teaching her how to think not what to think. Which is always my primary goal.

Page 1 of 1 pages

Next entry: That one is over

Previous entry: In praise of godless science

<< Back to main

Pharyngula has moved to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

Tuesday, January 03, 2006

A cruel present

Info