dru_plus_spike ([info]dru_plus_spike) wrote,
@ 2008-02-13 20:17:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Current mood: tired
Entry tags:books, holidays, science

Happy (Belated) Darwin Day


February 12th was Charles Darwin's birthday. In honor of his birthday, I've decided to review the book Monkey Girl: Evolution, Education, Religion, and the Battle For America's Soul by Edward Humes.
Dover, Pennsylvania became the unlikely battleground over science versus religion in America, leading to an eventual victory for science and reason (From a conservative judge, nonetheless!)
Humes recounts the first famous science vs. religion trial in America--the Scopes Monkey Trial, which led to the town of Dayton, Tennessee becoming an unwitting laughingstock. The Scopes Trial was a calculated move by a town council seeking ways to increase revenue and publicity for their small town. Instead, it led to the town being portrayed as a backwater hillbilly breeding ground by journalists of the time, including H.L. Mencken.
While recounting these past trials and court decisions, Humes provides a context for what happened in Dover. By 2004, creationism in public school had been revamped as intelligent design, replacing god with an unnamed designer (aka god). The problem is that science refrains from attributing what can't be explained to the supernatural, which is exactly what intelligent design does. We gave that up when we realized that seizures weren't caused by demons and that the sun is at the center of the solar system.
Of course, the point was never about good science. The point was a minority group of fundamentalist Christians hijacking a local school board with intimidation tactics seeking a way to legally return god to the classroom (Of course, their idea of god, not a Muslim, pagan, or Shinto god). Humes tells of William Buckingham, the oxycontin-addicted former cop and current fundamentalist who was prone to rants such as, "Jesus died on a cross for us 2,000 years ago, won't someone stand up for him now?" At the trial, he failed to recall making such statements, and the tapes of the meetings were conveniently missing. Buckingham, undoubtedly guided by the kind, giving spirit of Jesus, attacked anyone who disagreed with him. The shame (For him) is that he attacked moderate Christians, people that probably shared similar beliefs with him.
For me, the highlight of the book was when Humes recounted Michael Behe's--Discovery Institute wunderkind--testimony where he confesses that by his definition, astrology is science:
"When you call it [intelligent design] a scientific theory," Rothschild asked, "you're not defining that term the same way that the National Academy of Sciences does?"
Behe nodded. "Yes, that's correct."
...
Rothschild then reviewed the National Academy's definition of a scientific theory, which did not include ID: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses. Then Rothschild asked Behe: "Your definition is a lot broader?"
Behe preferred a definition that excluded "well-substantiated."
"That's right, intentionally broader..."
"Sweeps in a lot more propositions?" Rothschild asked.
"It recognizes that the word is used a lot more broadly than the National Academy of Sciences defined it."
"And using your definition, intelligent design is a scientific theory, correct?"
"Yes."
And then the next trap was sprung. "Under that same definition, astrology is a scientific theory, correct?"
Astrology. Horoscopes. Magic. Behe hesitated and at first did not answer directly, but when Rothschild pressed him, he admitted, "Yes, that's correct." The definition he used to qualify ID as a scientific theory also encompassed astrology (301)

At its heart, this book is an indictment of American scientific illiteracy, and the illiteracy of the people in charge of choosing our children's curriculae. Several of the school board members in the book admitted to not understanding EITHER evolution or intelligent design, but choosing ID because it felt morally right.
Monkey Girl was a gripping read that illuminated scientific concepts in terms that laypeople could understand. Beyond that, it also explains legalese behind court decisions regarding creation and evolution in the classroom.
At the end of the book, I could only hope that the state of science education in America gets better. Not only because evolution is right, but if we want to compete globally in fields outside of reality tv, then we really have to step up what is taught to our children.

(Post a new comment)


(Anonymous)
2008-02-14 03:40 pm UTC (link)
For me, the highlight of the book was when Humes recounted Michael Behe's--Discovery Institute wunderkind--testimony where he confesses that by his definition, astrology is science:

If the highlight of the book is an intentional misrepresentation of Behe as holding the position that astrology is a modern scientific theory, then the book's cartoon version of history is isn't worth the paper it's printed on, except for whatever propaganda value you can manage to squeeze out of it. As with the movie, "Inherit the Wind", who needs an accurate history or a logical argument when ridicule and misrepresentation will suffice?

There are a couple of problems with Rothschild's silly word game. First, if his reasoning were taken seriously it would render any scientific hypothesis on par with astrology. And second, the irony is that the NAS definition of what constitutes a scientific theory was not even itself derived from any scientific study of how the word is actually used by scientists in the literature. It is really funny to to see people who purport to be defenders of science having to rely, not on scientific arguments, but on naked appeal to ecclesiastical authority. My, how the tables have turned since Galileo's day.

Do scientists really want shyster lawyers and courts determining what science is? Be careful what you wish for. You just may get it.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]dru_plus_spike
2008-02-14 05:11 pm UTC (link)
If the highlight of the book is an intentional misrepresentation of Behe as holding the position that astrology is a modern scientific theory, then the book's cartoon version of history is isn't worth the paper it's printed on, except for whatever propaganda value you can manage to squeeze out of it. As with the movie, "Inherit the Wind", who needs an accurate history or a logical argument when ridicule and misrepresentation will suffice?
The whole problem with intelligent design is that it leaves room for a supernatural explanation for things not yet understood. That's not science, that's superstition.
Also, Humes actually dissects the Inherit the Wind version of history. Maybe you should actually try reading the book before you rag on it.
First, if his reasoning were taken seriously it would render any scientific hypothesis on par with astrology.
Actually, it doesn't. What's significant is Behe's leaving out "well-substantiated." Without that, anything can be science. Why not reiki or ESP?
It's interesting how people rag on lawyers when they've never needed one themselves. Frankly, I'd rather have a scientifically literate lawyer and judge define science than an idealogically influenced tool for a creationist institute.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]rachelsummers77
2008-02-15 01:42 am UTC (link)
Anon, you might want to avoid relying on straw-manning here. You have no evidence that Behe was intentionally misrepresented, especially as you obviously haven't even read the book. And Inherit The Wind, despite its flaws, was not intended to be a docu-drama. Hell, the play even has a disclaimer to that effect; again, it's doubtful that you've either read or seen it.

There are a couple of problems with Rothschild's silly word game. First, if his reasoning were taken seriously it would render any scientific hypothesis on par with astrology.

Except that for any scientific hypothesis to be taken seriously, it must be well-substantiated, unlike astrology. Behe is the one buying into the overly broad definition here, not Rothschild.

And second, the irony is that the NAS definition of what constitutes a scientific theory was not even itself derived from any scientific study of how the word is actually used by scientists in the literature.

Why should it be? The scientific study of how the word is used is etymology, a completely different topic. Saying that the scientific community should determine what "theory" means because of how scientists (or for that matter, anyone) uses it is like saying that Webster's should revise their definitions based on how words are used in day-to-day life, even if they're completely misused. Which, obviously, is the issue here.

It is really funny to to see people who purport to be defenders of science having to rely, not on scientific arguments, but on naked appeal to ecclesiastical authority.

Since when is the National Academy of Science an "ecclesiastical authority"? You're either completely misunderstanding what "ecclesiastical" means, or speaking of another entity, in which case you'll have to be more specific.

My, how the tables have turned since Galileo's day.

Not really. Religious groups and individuals are still trying to impose their dogma in areas in which they have no jurisdiction or expertise. The only difference is that they can't legally torture people over it now, at least not in this country.

Do scientists really want shyster lawyers and courts determining what science is?

No, the scientists are determining what science is, with the assistance of the judicial system. Your pejorative usage of "shyster" is amusingly close to those instances of people complaining about "activist judges" because of a ruling made in an area which they simply didn't agree with, like gay rights.

Be careful what you wish for. You just may get it.

...a country in which faith and science flourish side-by-side without interfering in each other's domains? Sounds great to me. But then, I'm for separation of church and state, not theocracy.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]dru_plus_spike
2008-02-15 04:27 am UTC (link)
Awesome rebuttal. Your icon sums it up pretty well, too.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…