Here I would like to continue my review of Eric Cline’s book, From Eden to Exile, Unraveling the Mysteries of the Bible (2007), The National Geographic Society. My thoughts regarding the Introduction can be found here.
In the first chapter of From Eden to Exile, Eric Cline addresses the archaeological and textual evidence for the biblical “Garden of Eden”. Of all the bible “mysteries” to be addressed in upcoming chapters, Cline identifies this as the most difficult to evaluate scientifically…and with some justification: outside of the biblical narrative there is almost no additional textual or archaeological evidence to corroborate the story.
Unfortunately, as we noted in the introduction, most ancient historians and archaeologists generally want several separate sources of evidence before they will believe something to be factually substantiated, and that is simply not possible in the case of the Garden of Eden (p. 1).
The first problem in attempting to assess any real-world historical correspondence between the biblical Garden of Eden and the current geography of that region of the world today is that of the rivers. The biblical texts refer to four rivers within Eden[1]. As Cline notes, two of the four rivers are well known: the Tigris and Euphrates and we must make of these descriptions “…what we will” (p.2). Their biblical names were not as we know them today; however, there is apparently sufficient concordance with other biblical texts to be relatively confident that these are the two rivers being discussed. The other two rivers are the Pishon (which flowed around the land of Havilah) and the Gihon (surrounding the land of Cush). It is not known to what flowing bodies of water these two place names refer, although there has been much speculation. Cline cites Scafi (Mapping Paradise: A History of Heaven and Earth) who suggests that there was wide agreement among scholars from the 1st century A.D. Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus (who first brought the idea forward) through the Renaissance, that the Gihon and the Pishon were the Nile and the Ganges, respectively. Later biblical references refer to the land of Cush as being in Africa, but Cline notes that the Genesis texts seem to nonetheless link its location with Mesopotamia. In effect, the biblical texts are ambiguous with reference to geographic location and (more importantly in my mind) scale.
Cline next discusses mention of Eden in Sumerian texts that pre-date Genesis and which may themselves have been borrowed from an earlier culture, the Ubaidians (approximately 7500 – 5500 BP). He also notes the existence of additional creation stories from the region that have “striking similarities” to the story found in Genesis. All of these pre-date the biblical account:
Scholars generally agree that the Hebrew Bible as we have it today was compiled from various sources, which were written down as early as the tenth or ninth century B.C. and as late as the sixth or fifth century B.C. Even the earliest parts of the Bible, such as the source called J by biblical scholars, do not date earlier than the tenth or ninth century B.C., hundreds of years after Enuma Elish was written.
Cline argues that these stories are “transmitted narratives” – oral history handed down from generation to generation and culture to culture, and eventually captured in a written language. Such narratives provide the best explanation for both the similarities and the differences between the biblical narratives and other stories from the region. This is an idea that makes good anthropological sense and is supported by anthropological, archaeological, ethnographic and historical data worldwide. We know that prior to written language (or in absence of such a language) oral transmissions of cultural knowledge were vital to maintaining cultural cohesiveness. Cline suggests that such oral traditions in the Near East were probably transmitted between cultures at a time scale on the order of centuries if not longer. I would suggest that oral traditions may in fact be passed for thousands of years. And of course, their content and concepts changed over time. It is also important to realize a primary function of such transmitted narratives: to “explain” the world around them in terms that were culturally meaningful, given their level of scientific and historic knowledge at the time. Of course, by today’s standards, this was not very much. As a result, while their explanations for world origins were culturally meaningful to them, they were not necessarily historically or scientifically accurate.
I have digressed from Cline’s theme for a moment to make a point. This is, again, an area where I perceive a primary difference of approach between the so-called “minimalists” and “maximalists”. As I have mentioned elsewhere, and as most scholars are aware, these terms get bantered around with little or no explanation or definition. But here, I think the distinction explains itself in the way in which biblical texts are used. Perhaps because of my personal theological biases, it is easy for me to set aside theological interpretations and recognize bible narratives solely in the context of cultural transmission. They are important historic texts, not because of their accuracy in identifying historical phenomena, but because they give us insight into first millennium B.C. culture. Treating the biblical narratives solely in terms of their cultural origins and evolution (including assessing cultural, societal and political motivations for constructing such narratives) makes one a “minimalist” in the eyes of most. This is especially true for those who believe the biblical accounts must be referring not just to historically accurate information, but information that is historically correct by 21st century standards. Yet this approach has nothing to do with demonstrating the “accuracy” of the bible as its primary goal. Like Gould’s spandrels at San Marcos, biblical “accuracy” is but a by-product of cultural motivations and perspective. I can fully appreciate that biblical texts may, in some cases, contain accurate historical information – but the degree of accuracy is going to be highly variable, and clearly relative to the cultural level of knowledge (or political influence) at the time of writing. And in this approach, biblical texts are no more accurate than any other ancient text, precisely because they are all share the same broad cultural characteristics: they are written by newly emergent societies, with limited knowledge of the world, that have only recently invented the ability to translate oral history into the written word. I would not expect such texts to be historically, and consistently, accurate in all details. This does not mean they are not important.
Cline hints at a potentially important link between the early Garden of Eden narratives, the paleoenvironmental conditions of the Middle East at the close of the Pleistocene, and the rise of agricultural systems and complex societies. This general time period (the post-Pleistocene, roughly 7-10,000 years BP) witnessed the origin of many economically prominent domesticates (although not nearly all, as we now know domestication of many plant and animal species occurred independently among societies around the world). Cline suggests, as many have, that emerging agricultural systems provided a bounty of plant and animal species, particularly after the introduction of irrigation methods, which must have appeared as something of a “Garden of Eden” to those engaged in this pursuit.
There is something, however, that nags at me regarding “Garden of Eden” stories stemming from emergent agricultural societies – contrary to popular perception, the switch from hunting-gathering economies to agricultural ones was not necessarily a natural transformation – it most likely was forced by deteriorating environmental conditions through the Holocene. Agriculture, relative to hunting-gathering, is labor-intensive, less nutritional, entails greater risk, and produces significant societal “hurdles”: although most foraging societies are aware of agricultural (or at least horticultural) practices, almost none choose that route unless forced by other circumstances. If early agricultural societies thought of their systems as a “Garden of Eden” they probably did so grudgingly. I wonder if a better Garden of Eden may have actually been delta regions to which some societies retreated during the drying Holocene. These would have been true areas of bounty, where emergent agricultural could be sustained, but also where game abounded (unglulates, waterfowl, fish) and hunting could easily supplement the economy. Deltaic regions can also be quite extensive and from the perspective of smaller human groups could easily appear in oral tradition as “one river branching into four”.
Regardless, it is probably true that such stories find their origin in the cultures of those earliest societies, be they dependent on agriculture, foraging, or some combination. Cline continues the chapter by reflecting on the archaeological and historical strengths and weaknesses of various scholarly proposals for the actual location of the Garden of Eden: Juris Zarin’s hypothesis of coastline inundation of a potential location; James Sauer’s suggestion that it was located on the Arabian Peninsula; David Rohl’s claims that it is located in Iran; Gary Greenberg’s identification of it in Egypt; and Michael S. Sanders’ location of the Garden of Eden in Turkey. Cline evaluates each of these in turn, finding the Greenberg and Sanders hypotheses the least backed by proper archaeological and historical method, and the Sauer and Rohl hypotheses plausible, but less likely. Cline clearly favors the Zarin view (originally conceived by Ephraim Speiser) that posits an area off the Persian Gulf coast, now under water. This view makes sense on several levels, not the least of which is the fact that the Persian Gulf coastline would have risen dramatically as Pleistocene glaciers melted over the course of the early Holocene. This view makes further sense for me in that such an area would have been an extensive delta – the kind of environment constituting a Garden of Eden from a forager’s perspective in the early Holocene.
This view also considers the cultural perspective of cultures ultimately responsible for the oral traditions eventually captured in early texts. Differing origin perspectives are not typically considered with current biblical “interpretations” – at least those more popularly perceived. One of the problems is making sense of the relatively different views of scale. The Jewish historian Flavius Joseph may have agreed with other learned scholars at the time that the biblical description encompassed large river systems such as the Ganges and the Nile. From the perspective of a much larger world known from the 5th century, the economic importance of such large river systems would have focused attention on these as the source of the rivers in the biblical narrative. But late Pleistocene hunter-gatherers and the early Holocene farmers were often constrained by areas of economic exploitation. Their “catchment” areas were more on the scale of single rivers or, more likely, resource rich delta systems with single rivers making multiple branches at their mouth.
Ultimately, however, Cline concludes that, although there may be a kernel of historical truth to the Garden of Eden stories (the writer was, after all, referring to some kind of geographical reality, although at what scale remains debatable), the final historical “truth” will probably remain elusive:
It is hard to put the Garden of Eden into historical context, for it belongs to the realm of prehistory, if not myth or legend (p. 13).
From my perspective as an archaeologists and researcher, Cline also offers a much-welcomed assessment of current views: any future evidence announced will have to be backed by legitimate scholars following proper archaeological and historical methodology. Cline raises this important problem, too often ignored by the media and professionals in the field, in greater detail in later chapters of the book.
[1] Technically the text refers to a single river flowing out of Eden to “…water the garden”; from here the single river divides into four branches – geomorphologically speaking, this description is quite different from four separate rivers.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Bosnian Pyramid Update
I am sorry I missed this earlier, but Hot Cup of Joe has a great piece on psuedo-archaeology of the "Bosnian Pyramid". Check it out...
Being Blunt
I can appreciate bluntness. (I work for a federal agency where we avoid being blunt like the plague - otherwise it might be interepreted as a "hostile work environment"). So I really enjoy it when someone quits beating around the bush and tells it like it is:
There is this old myth about a god who has sex with his human mother to give birth to himself, who grows up to be killed (but not really), and this depreciated sacrifice somehow means everyone else gets to go to heaven when they die. If they believe it, that is; otherwise they go to hell and suffer for eternity.
Now I'm supposed to…
…believe in this fairy tale myself;
…believe that accepting this fairy tale helps people be better human beings;
…believe that accepting this fairy tale helps people be better scientists;
…regard people who swallow this fairy tale with the same respect I do those who see through the nonsense;
…refrain from criticizing this fairy tale; and/or
…pretend this fairy tale isn't a load of ridiculous bullshit.
No, it's never going to happen. I will never accept or even respect your fairy tale.
Sorry.
There is this old myth about a god who has sex with his human mother to give birth to himself, who grows up to be killed (but not really), and this depreciated sacrifice somehow means everyone else gets to go to heaven when they die. If they believe it, that is; otherwise they go to hell and suffer for eternity.
Now I'm supposed to…
…believe in this fairy tale myself;
…believe that accepting this fairy tale helps people be better human beings;
…believe that accepting this fairy tale helps people be better scientists;
…regard people who swallow this fairy tale with the same respect I do those who see through the nonsense;
…refrain from criticizing this fairy tale; and/or
…pretend this fairy tale isn't a load of ridiculous bullshit.
No, it's never going to happen. I will never accept or even respect your fairy tale.
Sorry.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Are the Critics of Evolution Just Maintaining Cultural Boundaries?
Both Abnormal Interests and Afarensis picked up on my previous posts regarding Richard Colling and I notice that Professor Colling also left a message at Chris Heard's blog, Higgaion. (By the way - I noticed that every comment, email, etc. written by Rick Colling and posted online somewhere was mostly original in content. In other words, he is not simply "cutting and pasting" the same message at numerous locations to get the word out. I think there can be no criticism of Professor Colling's professional integrity - he just wants to continue to educate students in the best science possible; a science, furthermore, that Colling has personally found supportive of his faith).
Afarensis draws an important anthropological consideration regarding all the furor over Colling teaching evolution at an evangelical university. Afarensis writes:
In essence, those "...few profoundly scientifically ignorant individuals..." have decided that Dr. Colling is no longer christian enough to teach biology at the university. This is a good example of why framing won't work. Dr. Colling comes across as an intelligent individual with a sophisticated grasp of christian theology, yet he has run afoul of fundamentalist members of his community.
I am afraid I have not kept up with all the commentary on "framing" going through the science blogs of late, so I cannot really comment on whether this incident runs counter to the idea of framing. However, I fully agree with Afarensis' assertion that this is an example of groups maintaining their cultural boundaries:
It all gets back to boundary maintenance (a mechanism to prevent ideas from eeping across porous cultural boundaries - in effect boundary maintenance mechanisms serve to separate culture groups and provide a rigid, well defined marker between "us" and "them") and Dr. Colling strayed too far across the boundary. For his local community Dr. Colling has become one of "them".
Afarensis cites Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann's book, The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Again, I have not read the book, but the idea of a sort of "cultural immune system" is talked about with some frequency in anthropological circles. I would argue from my own currently limited understanding of boundary maintenance in anthropological theory (including its archaeological applications) that political motivations are often underwritten (or masked) by other aspects of culture, including religion. I can easily see much of the creationist movement (particularly "intelligent design") being fueled more by political and economic considerations than by sincere belief. As an example, I sometimes wonder if Ken Ham's creationist position has more to do with the ability to talk donors out of $28 million dollars for a museum (plus, no doubt, a healthy lifestyle for himself) than a sincere commitment to the idea that the earth is only 6,000 years old and tyrannosaurs were vegetarians prior to The Fall. Ken Ham, Rick Warren, Bill Donahue and others have far more to lose (in terms of economic and political power) than a scientific argument. And I find it interesting that those opposed to Rick Colling seem to be wielding financial threats (read: economic power) in a way that is more suggestive of a concern to maintain a cultural boundary where they are in control on one side. Put another way, I am very suspicious of those with power (economic or political) espousing religious or other cultural "values" - one has to constantly wonder whether they do it out of a sincere belief, or simply to maintain their economic "base".
I've rambled here, but I think Afarensis has hit on an idea that deserves further reflection and comment.
Afarensis draws an important anthropological consideration regarding all the furor over Colling teaching evolution at an evangelical university. Afarensis writes:
In essence, those "...few profoundly scientifically ignorant individuals..." have decided that Dr. Colling is no longer christian enough to teach biology at the university. This is a good example of why framing won't work. Dr. Colling comes across as an intelligent individual with a sophisticated grasp of christian theology, yet he has run afoul of fundamentalist members of his community.
I am afraid I have not kept up with all the commentary on "framing" going through the science blogs of late, so I cannot really comment on whether this incident runs counter to the idea of framing. However, I fully agree with Afarensis' assertion that this is an example of groups maintaining their cultural boundaries:
It all gets back to boundary maintenance (a mechanism to prevent ideas from eeping across porous cultural boundaries - in effect boundary maintenance mechanisms serve to separate culture groups and provide a rigid, well defined marker between "us" and "them") and Dr. Colling strayed too far across the boundary. For his local community Dr. Colling has become one of "them".
Afarensis cites Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann's book, The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Again, I have not read the book, but the idea of a sort of "cultural immune system" is talked about with some frequency in anthropological circles. I would argue from my own currently limited understanding of boundary maintenance in anthropological theory (including its archaeological applications) that political motivations are often underwritten (or masked) by other aspects of culture, including religion. I can easily see much of the creationist movement (particularly "intelligent design") being fueled more by political and economic considerations than by sincere belief. As an example, I sometimes wonder if Ken Ham's creationist position has more to do with the ability to talk donors out of $28 million dollars for a museum (plus, no doubt, a healthy lifestyle for himself) than a sincere commitment to the idea that the earth is only 6,000 years old and tyrannosaurs were vegetarians prior to The Fall. Ken Ham, Rick Warren, Bill Donahue and others have far more to lose (in terms of economic and political power) than a scientific argument. And I find it interesting that those opposed to Rick Colling seem to be wielding financial threats (read: economic power) in a way that is more suggestive of a concern to maintain a cultural boundary where they are in control on one side. Put another way, I am very suspicious of those with power (economic or political) espousing religious or other cultural "values" - one has to constantly wonder whether they do it out of a sincere belief, or simply to maintain their economic "base".
I've rambled here, but I think Afarensis has hit on an idea that deserves further reflection and comment.
More News on Richard Colling...And A Good Idea
Richard Colling has also been exchanging comments on Henry Neufeld's blog, Threads From Henry's Web. I would recommend adding Henry's blog to your blogroll lists, particularly if you are at all interested in thoughts on the intersection of science and theology. Colling's comment to Neufeld is another straight-from-the-heart account of the current situation at Olivet Nazarene University, where his book has been banned from classroom use and he is no longer allowed to teach the biology class - simply because he has a theistic view of evolution. Colling has also been posting at The Panda's Thumb...with some encouraging news:
Actually, the feedback I have received in the past few days has been overwhelmingly positive and supportive. Only one hate mail this morning. I thanked her for taking the time to communicate her views to me.
The students and alums who know me are really beginning to mobilize. I heard that the president’s office is receiving many very upset phone calls and emails from people supporting me and my work. Remember, I have been here for 26 years loving and caring and investing my life in the lives of my students. Calculate ~25 major graduating each year for 26 years. This translates into a large number of alumni who know that these accusations of eroding the faith of students with my book or teaching is a complete fundamentalist fabrication.
(Anyone surprised that fundamentalists are fabricating issues and evidence?). The good news is that Colling seems to now be getting support from students, faculty and parents who actually know something about the subject of his courses rather than his critics who are largely making it up as they go. An anonymous reader on my previous post suggested another good strategy that Colling's supporters might want to try:
If I were a student on Dr. Colling's campus, I'd try to organize a peaceful gathering on the quad or under the flagpole, where his book would be read aloud, paragraph by paragraph, to anyone who would listen.
An absolutely fantastic idea! We have enough prayer-around-the-flagpole events anyway...why not one is support of an earthly cause for a change?
There is another theme running through all these emails, posts and comments regarding Colling's situation - his teaching is not at odds in the least with Church of the Nazarene theology. Another anonymous reader indicated the following:
THERE IS NOTHING IN OUR DOCTRINE OR MANUAL OF BELIEF THAT CONTRADICTS EVOLUTIONARY THEORY! We believe that God created the Earth, but we have never had the small-minded, rather stupid view that He could not use evolution to do that. And no one I know, at least in our local church, holds to a 'young earth' viewpoint. Nor is that view an accepted one in our doctrine. That is one of the saddest things about Dr. Colling's plight--that he is being pilloried for teaching biology in a way that does not even contradict our doctrine.
Professor Colling said as much again in his comment on Threads From Henry's Web:
They can’t stand the apparent public endorsement of evolution in spite of the fact that our denomination and university statements are fully accepting of verifiable scientific discoveries - including evolution. I teach all my biology courses with accuracy and integrity, and then encourage those students who come from the more conservative homes to keep an open mind. I try to help them explore ways in which these remarkable evolutionary mechanisms might actually be considered compatible (or at least not inconsistent with) with belief in God. This approach to teaching is shared by all the biology faculty here.
This is really the crux of the problem. Whether or not you believe in a deity, the fact is that MOST theologies do not have an issue with evolutionary theory, or the fossil record, or the fact that Lucy may have been one of our ancestors. The problem starts when an ignorant few suddenly decide they are going to re-interpret standard theology to make it appear that churches have an issue with evolution. I know a lot of people often cite my former, Catholic Church as a light of evolutionary acceptance, but I can no longer accept that description. Despite Pius (who was lukewarm toward evolution, I grant you), despite John Paul, despite Benedict's recent proclamations, there are many(mostly American) Catholic writers who seem to still insist that, "No, that's not what they meant....the only science Catholic doctrine really supports is intelligent design". And these writers are gaining more ground within the Catholic pews than all three popes put together. They are, in effect, attempting to re-package theology so that it is more accepting of their personal views.
And Colling and others are right to worry about the long-term effect this theological insistence on anti-science will ultimately have on the long-term survival of Christianity. Many of us were pushed toward atheism (or at least, out of organized religion) largely because the loudest voices in the church still promote faulty science (be it creationism, erroneous "biblical" archaeology, or something else). If church leaders (and supporters) can fabricate science, then what other aspects of doctrine (historical, theological, or otherwise) are they also fabricating?
Actually, the feedback I have received in the past few days has been overwhelmingly positive and supportive. Only one hate mail this morning. I thanked her for taking the time to communicate her views to me.
The students and alums who know me are really beginning to mobilize. I heard that the president’s office is receiving many very upset phone calls and emails from people supporting me and my work. Remember, I have been here for 26 years loving and caring and investing my life in the lives of my students. Calculate ~25 major graduating each year for 26 years. This translates into a large number of alumni who know that these accusations of eroding the faith of students with my book or teaching is a complete fundamentalist fabrication.
(Anyone surprised that fundamentalists are fabricating issues and evidence?). The good news is that Colling seems to now be getting support from students, faculty and parents who actually know something about the subject of his courses rather than his critics who are largely making it up as they go. An anonymous reader on my previous post suggested another good strategy that Colling's supporters might want to try:
If I were a student on Dr. Colling's campus, I'd try to organize a peaceful gathering on the quad or under the flagpole, where his book would be read aloud, paragraph by paragraph, to anyone who would listen.
An absolutely fantastic idea! We have enough prayer-around-the-flagpole events anyway...why not one is support of an earthly cause for a change?
There is another theme running through all these emails, posts and comments regarding Colling's situation - his teaching is not at odds in the least with Church of the Nazarene theology. Another anonymous reader indicated the following:
THERE IS NOTHING IN OUR DOCTRINE OR MANUAL OF BELIEF THAT CONTRADICTS EVOLUTIONARY THEORY! We believe that God created the Earth, but we have never had the small-minded, rather stupid view that He could not use evolution to do that. And no one I know, at least in our local church, holds to a 'young earth' viewpoint. Nor is that view an accepted one in our doctrine. That is one of the saddest things about Dr. Colling's plight--that he is being pilloried for teaching biology in a way that does not even contradict our doctrine.
Professor Colling said as much again in his comment on Threads From Henry's Web:
They can’t stand the apparent public endorsement of evolution in spite of the fact that our denomination and university statements are fully accepting of verifiable scientific discoveries - including evolution. I teach all my biology courses with accuracy and integrity, and then encourage those students who come from the more conservative homes to keep an open mind. I try to help them explore ways in which these remarkable evolutionary mechanisms might actually be considered compatible (or at least not inconsistent with) with belief in God. This approach to teaching is shared by all the biology faculty here.
This is really the crux of the problem. Whether or not you believe in a deity, the fact is that MOST theologies do not have an issue with evolutionary theory, or the fossil record, or the fact that Lucy may have been one of our ancestors. The problem starts when an ignorant few suddenly decide they are going to re-interpret standard theology to make it appear that churches have an issue with evolution. I know a lot of people often cite my former, Catholic Church as a light of evolutionary acceptance, but I can no longer accept that description. Despite Pius (who was lukewarm toward evolution, I grant you), despite John Paul, despite Benedict's recent proclamations, there are many(mostly American) Catholic writers who seem to still insist that, "No, that's not what they meant....the only science Catholic doctrine really supports is intelligent design". And these writers are gaining more ground within the Catholic pews than all three popes put together. They are, in effect, attempting to re-package theology so that it is more accepting of their personal views.
And Colling and others are right to worry about the long-term effect this theological insistence on anti-science will ultimately have on the long-term survival of Christianity. Many of us were pushed toward atheism (or at least, out of organized religion) largely because the loudest voices in the church still promote faulty science (be it creationism, erroneous "biblical" archaeology, or something else). If church leaders (and supporters) can fabricate science, then what other aspects of doctrine (historical, theological, or otherwise) are they also fabricating?
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Richard Colling: Scientist, Christian...and Martyr
Some of you will remember that I previously posted on Dr. Richard Colling, a professor at Olivet Nazarene University in Illinois, who defended evolution as God's process, contrary to the strict literal interpretation of Genesis preferred by the Church of the Nazarene, the denomination in control of ONU. Colling is a man of faith who also clearly recognizes that the real world tells a story that may ultimately be closer to God's truth than that portrayed in primitive biblical texts. In a 2004 article, Colling describes his perspective:
Colling is one of a small number of conservative Christian scholars who are trying to convince biblical literalists that Darwin's theory of evolution is no more the work of the devil than is physicist Isaac Newton's theory of gravity....
Usually, the defense of evolution comes from scientists. But Colling has another motivation.
"People should not feel they have to deny reality in order to experience their faith," he says.
Since that time, however, the forces of darkness and ignorance influencing the administration at ONU have decided that Richard Colling should not be allowed to teach science when it contradicts stubbornly held myth. Colling's personal struggle to bring peace between science and religion has come to a head, and now Professor Colling faces a situation more reminiscent of conditions in Iran than America. A pre-release Newsweek on Colling and other scientists of faith shows how these courageous individuals are being persecuted for their ideas, much in the same fashion as Galileo was persecuted for his. Because of his attempts to reconcile faith with the facts of science, ONU, under pressure from some "irate parents, pastors, and others" has brought the inquisition to Professor Colling:
Colling is prohibited from teaching the general biology class, a version of which he had taught since 1991, and college president John Bowling has banned professors from assigning his book. At least one local Nazarene church called for Colling to be fired and threatened to withhold financial support from the college...
...Yet with the new term, Bowling banned "Random Designer" [Colling's book] from all courses; it had been used in at least one history class, an advanced biology course and the general biology course.
The science blogosphere has picked up on Colling's current plight. Although Richard Colling is a lifelong member of the Church of the Nazarene, a graduate of Olivet Nazarene University and believes in a God that is "...bigger, far more profound and vastly more creative than you may have known", the reaction from Church of the Nazarene despots would lead you to believe he is another Christopher Hitchens. As PZ notes at Pharyngula:
He must have done something truly horrible! Why, he sounds like some kind of godless atheist who is trying to pry his students away from the loving embrace of the church.
At EvolutionBlog, Jason comments:
You would think that even at a Christian university a person's religious views are not really relevant to what gets taught in science class. And I wouldn't have thought that theistic evolution was such an outre position among Christians that Colling would come in for this kind of flak for writing a book about it.
Panda's Thumb comments on the expected (and so far, attained) Discovery Institute hypocrisy over "teaching the controversy":
ID proponents are quick to argue ‘viewpoint discrimination’ whenever their attempts to introduce their scientifically vacuous ideas fail....
So when can we expect a cry of outrage from the Discovery Institute, demanding that Colling will be allowed to teach his usual classes?
Has Hell frozen over? Oh the irony…
Yes, where is Casey Luskin? Anika Smith? Michael Egnor? Denyse O'Leary?
Henry Neufeld, however, cuts right through to the main issue in a post entitled "Where Teaching the Controversy is Prohibited". The "Teach the Controversy" argument is nothing but pure propoganda - there is no expectation on the part of its advocates that any sort of "controversy" be taught. It is only the first step in getting control of the curriculum and weeding out evolutionary science altogether. As Neufeld argues:
I have suggested many times before that before one believes what IDC (intelligent design creationism) advocates say about their goals, one should look at the way they handle the matter where they are in control....
This action shows some of the destructive potential of ignorance, but it also removes any fig-leaf of respectability from the “teach the controversy” argument. The advocates of creationism generally do not want the controversy taught. They want to win. If they were to win a court case allowing their materials into the public school classrooms, their next move would be to prevent critical examination of those ideas, and then to prevent the teaching of evolutionary theory itself....
I believe that the Olivet example is what theistic evolutionists such as myself can expect from the ID movement. They want to shut us out. They certainly don’t want to “teach the controversy” about ID, a controversy that is very much alive amongst Christians.
You see, “teaching the controversy” is good when you want to wedge your way into the public schools, or force your way into universities. It’s not so good when someone wants to fairly examine the controversy inside a Christian school. They want a “heads we win, tails you lose” situation.
Other good discussions of Colling's situation can be found at Metacatholic and Higgaion. And while I'm sure other bloggers have also commented, we all can do no better than to let Richard Colling speak for himself. I have been privileged to have exchanged emails with Richard Colling over the past few days and he has written eloquently on his perspective, his plight and his desire to do nothing more than to teach students that they do not have to fear science in order to maintain personal faith. With Professor Colling's permission, I post the entire message I received this morning:
Hello Chris,
This article tells only the tip of the iceberg, but will give you a flavor...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20657204/site/newsweek/page/0/
Here is the actual truth. All I have ever wanted to do is to communicate and then cultivate a message of peace and harmony between Science and Faith. Unfortunately, what I have learned over the past two years is that some profoundly scientifically naive fundamentalist Christians only want war - apparently intent on destroying and discrediting anyone who does not conform to the fundamentalist creationist mindset.
I truly feel that I can empathize with Galileo of 1633 when the Catholic church placed restrictions on him. I suppose it was inevitable that it would someday come to this: The battle fought against the scientifically naive religious authority and won by Galileo (albeit it took 400 years for vindication) was in the physical sciences. (The earth is NOT the center of the universe.) In contrast, regarding the emancipation of evolution (biological sciences) from the self-appointed religious authorities has not yet occurred in the United States. Perhaps it is time.
I believe that it is a matter of when, not if, the evolutionary paradigm WILL be integrated into the evangelical Christian theology. If not, the Christian faith will be relegated to cultural obsolescence. With the genetic data derived from the human genome project and other sources, the evolutionary connectedness of life on earth can no longer be denied. Therefore to build the foundation of the Christian faith on opposition to evolution is not only silly, it is suicide for the long-term viability and credibility of the faith.
It has been a rude and very unsettling experience. While promoting a message of peace, and after 26 years of faithful devotion to Christian higher education and investment in the lives of thousands of our college men and women, it is difficult to describe the depths of my disappointment that a few profoundly scientifically ignorant individuals have been allowed to create such discord and damage to to me and the university in the public's eye - by convincing a university president to acquiesce to their demands. (even though the president privately continues to say that he has identified nothing in my teaching or writing that is scientifically or theologically deficient.) The truth is this: My students love me, I love them, and we are all getting along fine. The outside critics notwithstanding...
I have been told in essence in a letter from the president of the university that although it may seem unfair, the truth and facts will not matter here. Perception is what is guiding his actions. I am still numbed by these words coming from a university president when discussing the teaching of biology in a university setting. Therefore, it seems that the only tools allowed for this discussion and commitment to truth and principle are political tools. Sad. I have always held that it is truth and education that sets us free, not uninformed political perceptions.
I am under no illusion that certain members of the board of trustees who have been uniformly hostile toward my teaching and writing may now attempt to manufacture something to use to retaliate against me. Oh well. I stand on truth and principle.
I include here for you a written statement I provided to the local newspaper. The article should come out today. Feel free to disseminate any of this commentary and information.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All I have ever wanted in my 26 years of writing and teaching is to communicate a message of peace and harmony between science and faith. I believe I have faithfully fulfilled this work in a manner that models the stated ideals of an Olivet Nazarene University faculty member. Therefore, I am very disappointed by these unwarranted and unnecessary actions which seem to suggest otherwise.
I believe these measures, made in response to off-campus scientifically uninformed critics of evolution, cannot help but cast a negative, and up until this time, an undeserved reflection on Olivet's reputation as a bona fide institution of higher education. As a proud ONU alumnus (Class of 1976) and veteran faculty member of 26 years who devoted my entire professional career to upholding the Olivet mission of "Education with a Christian Purpose", this seems like a medieval blow to the university's dedicated professional faculty and the institution's educational standing in the greater academic community.
In a culture and society increasingly driven by advances in science and technology, it is a sad day in the life of a Christian university when new understanding and insights into God's creation revealed by biology and genetics are viewed as a threat to faith. Students deserve better. Those who continue set biology at odds with the Bible do a terrible disservice to both.
Let the whole world know. It is time for truth and transparency.
Rick Colling
Not much else to say. Professor Colling is another of those rare men of honor and integrity who might just bring someone like me back to the fold. I will tell you one thing: I no longer believe creationism is merely misguided...in many manifestations (such as this) I think it is actually evil. I can no longer give creationism or its proponents any quarter....
Colling is one of a small number of conservative Christian scholars who are trying to convince biblical literalists that Darwin's theory of evolution is no more the work of the devil than is physicist Isaac Newton's theory of gravity....
Usually, the defense of evolution comes from scientists. But Colling has another motivation.
"People should not feel they have to deny reality in order to experience their faith," he says.
Since that time, however, the forces of darkness and ignorance influencing the administration at ONU have decided that Richard Colling should not be allowed to teach science when it contradicts stubbornly held myth. Colling's personal struggle to bring peace between science and religion has come to a head, and now Professor Colling faces a situation more reminiscent of conditions in Iran than America. A pre-release Newsweek on Colling and other scientists of faith shows how these courageous individuals are being persecuted for their ideas, much in the same fashion as Galileo was persecuted for his. Because of his attempts to reconcile faith with the facts of science, ONU, under pressure from some "irate parents, pastors, and others" has brought the inquisition to Professor Colling:
Colling is prohibited from teaching the general biology class, a version of which he had taught since 1991, and college president John Bowling has banned professors from assigning his book. At least one local Nazarene church called for Colling to be fired and threatened to withhold financial support from the college...
...Yet with the new term, Bowling banned "Random Designer" [Colling's book] from all courses; it had been used in at least one history class, an advanced biology course and the general biology course.
The science blogosphere has picked up on Colling's current plight. Although Richard Colling is a lifelong member of the Church of the Nazarene, a graduate of Olivet Nazarene University and believes in a God that is "...bigger, far more profound and vastly more creative than you may have known", the reaction from Church of the Nazarene despots would lead you to believe he is another Christopher Hitchens. As PZ notes at Pharyngula:
He must have done something truly horrible! Why, he sounds like some kind of godless atheist who is trying to pry his students away from the loving embrace of the church.
At EvolutionBlog, Jason comments:
You would think that even at a Christian university a person's religious views are not really relevant to what gets taught in science class. And I wouldn't have thought that theistic evolution was such an outre position among Christians that Colling would come in for this kind of flak for writing a book about it.
Panda's Thumb comments on the expected (and so far, attained) Discovery Institute hypocrisy over "teaching the controversy":
ID proponents are quick to argue ‘viewpoint discrimination’ whenever their attempts to introduce their scientifically vacuous ideas fail....
So when can we expect a cry of outrage from the Discovery Institute, demanding that Colling will be allowed to teach his usual classes?
Has Hell frozen over? Oh the irony…
Yes, where is Casey Luskin? Anika Smith? Michael Egnor? Denyse O'Leary?
Henry Neufeld, however, cuts right through to the main issue in a post entitled "Where Teaching the Controversy is Prohibited". The "Teach the Controversy" argument is nothing but pure propoganda - there is no expectation on the part of its advocates that any sort of "controversy" be taught. It is only the first step in getting control of the curriculum and weeding out evolutionary science altogether. As Neufeld argues:
I have suggested many times before that before one believes what IDC (intelligent design creationism) advocates say about their goals, one should look at the way they handle the matter where they are in control....
This action shows some of the destructive potential of ignorance, but it also removes any fig-leaf of respectability from the “teach the controversy” argument. The advocates of creationism generally do not want the controversy taught. They want to win. If they were to win a court case allowing their materials into the public school classrooms, their next move would be to prevent critical examination of those ideas, and then to prevent the teaching of evolutionary theory itself....
I believe that the Olivet example is what theistic evolutionists such as myself can expect from the ID movement. They want to shut us out. They certainly don’t want to “teach the controversy” about ID, a controversy that is very much alive amongst Christians.
You see, “teaching the controversy” is good when you want to wedge your way into the public schools, or force your way into universities. It’s not so good when someone wants to fairly examine the controversy inside a Christian school. They want a “heads we win, tails you lose” situation.
Other good discussions of Colling's situation can be found at Metacatholic and Higgaion. And while I'm sure other bloggers have also commented, we all can do no better than to let Richard Colling speak for himself. I have been privileged to have exchanged emails with Richard Colling over the past few days and he has written eloquently on his perspective, his plight and his desire to do nothing more than to teach students that they do not have to fear science in order to maintain personal faith. With Professor Colling's permission, I post the entire message I received this morning:
Hello Chris,
This article tells only the tip of the iceberg, but will give you a flavor...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20657204/site/newsweek/page/0/
Here is the actual truth. All I have ever wanted to do is to communicate and then cultivate a message of peace and harmony between Science and Faith. Unfortunately, what I have learned over the past two years is that some profoundly scientifically naive fundamentalist Christians only want war - apparently intent on destroying and discrediting anyone who does not conform to the fundamentalist creationist mindset.
I truly feel that I can empathize with Galileo of 1633 when the Catholic church placed restrictions on him. I suppose it was inevitable that it would someday come to this: The battle fought against the scientifically naive religious authority and won by Galileo (albeit it took 400 years for vindication) was in the physical sciences. (The earth is NOT the center of the universe.) In contrast, regarding the emancipation of evolution (biological sciences) from the self-appointed religious authorities has not yet occurred in the United States. Perhaps it is time.
I believe that it is a matter of when, not if, the evolutionary paradigm WILL be integrated into the evangelical Christian theology. If not, the Christian faith will be relegated to cultural obsolescence. With the genetic data derived from the human genome project and other sources, the evolutionary connectedness of life on earth can no longer be denied. Therefore to build the foundation of the Christian faith on opposition to evolution is not only silly, it is suicide for the long-term viability and credibility of the faith.
It has been a rude and very unsettling experience. While promoting a message of peace, and after 26 years of faithful devotion to Christian higher education and investment in the lives of thousands of our college men and women, it is difficult to describe the depths of my disappointment that a few profoundly scientifically ignorant individuals have been allowed to create such discord and damage to to me and the university in the public's eye - by convincing a university president to acquiesce to their demands. (even though the president privately continues to say that he has identified nothing in my teaching or writing that is scientifically or theologically deficient.) The truth is this: My students love me, I love them, and we are all getting along fine. The outside critics notwithstanding...
I have been told in essence in a letter from the president of the university that although it may seem unfair, the truth and facts will not matter here. Perception is what is guiding his actions. I am still numbed by these words coming from a university president when discussing the teaching of biology in a university setting. Therefore, it seems that the only tools allowed for this discussion and commitment to truth and principle are political tools. Sad. I have always held that it is truth and education that sets us free, not uninformed political perceptions.
I am under no illusion that certain members of the board of trustees who have been uniformly hostile toward my teaching and writing may now attempt to manufacture something to use to retaliate against me. Oh well. I stand on truth and principle.
I include here for you a written statement I provided to the local newspaper. The article should come out today. Feel free to disseminate any of this commentary and information.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All I have ever wanted in my 26 years of writing and teaching is to communicate a message of peace and harmony between science and faith. I believe I have faithfully fulfilled this work in a manner that models the stated ideals of an Olivet Nazarene University faculty member. Therefore, I am very disappointed by these unwarranted and unnecessary actions which seem to suggest otherwise.
I believe these measures, made in response to off-campus scientifically uninformed critics of evolution, cannot help but cast a negative, and up until this time, an undeserved reflection on Olivet's reputation as a bona fide institution of higher education. As a proud ONU alumnus (Class of 1976) and veteran faculty member of 26 years who devoted my entire professional career to upholding the Olivet mission of "Education with a Christian Purpose", this seems like a medieval blow to the university's dedicated professional faculty and the institution's educational standing in the greater academic community.
In a culture and society increasingly driven by advances in science and technology, it is a sad day in the life of a Christian university when new understanding and insights into God's creation revealed by biology and genetics are viewed as a threat to faith. Students deserve better. Those who continue set biology at odds with the Bible do a terrible disservice to both.
Let the whole world know. It is time for truth and transparency.
Rick Colling
Not much else to say. Professor Colling is another of those rare men of honor and integrity who might just bring someone like me back to the fold. I will tell you one thing: I no longer believe creationism is merely misguided...in many manifestations (such as this) I think it is actually evil. I can no longer give creationism or its proponents any quarter....
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
A Science Cafe in Susanville?
I just received my E-newsletter from American Scientist and saw that WGBH Boston and Sigma Xi have teamed up to help promote the idea of Science Cafes:
The joint venture is the product of an ongoing partnership that began in 2004. That's when Sigma Xi chapters around the country started holding informal public discussions in restaurants, pubs, coffee shops, science museums and other venues, drawing on themes presented in the PBS television series NOVA scienceNOW, produced by WGBH.
At Science Cafés, scientists and engineers share their expertise in a relaxed, friendly setting. Topics have been wide-ranging, from bird flu, human space flight, chaos and global warming, to the Irish Potato famine, green building, the ivory-billed woodpecker, honeybees and dark energy/dark matter.
I'm thinking it might be a good idea to get one of these going here in Susanville (I'm thinking Starbucks...). More information on organizing and maintaining a science cafe can be found at the Science Cafe website.
The joint venture is the product of an ongoing partnership that began in 2004. That's when Sigma Xi chapters around the country started holding informal public discussions in restaurants, pubs, coffee shops, science museums and other venues, drawing on themes presented in the PBS television series NOVA scienceNOW, produced by WGBH.
At Science Cafés, scientists and engineers share their expertise in a relaxed, friendly setting. Topics have been wide-ranging, from bird flu, human space flight, chaos and global warming, to the Irish Potato famine, green building, the ivory-billed woodpecker, honeybees and dark energy/dark matter.
I'm thinking it might be a good idea to get one of these going here in Susanville (I'm thinking Starbucks...). More information on organizing and maintaining a science cafe can be found at the Science Cafe website.
An Opportunity for Lassen County Libraries
Here's a unique opportunity from the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) for librarians in Lassen County to add back issues of Creation/Evolution and NCSE Reports to their shelves so that area students can get accurate information regarding evolution and the various forms of creationism (like "intelligent design"):
Tell your librarian...
NCSE is now extending a special offer to libraries. Both because we are eager for libraries to maintain holdings of our journals, and because we are eager to make space in our storage facility, we are offering free copies of any or all of the back issues of Creation/Evolution (ISSN 0738-6001, nos. 1-39, 1980-1996), NCSE Reports (ISSN 1064-2358, vol. 9 through vol. 16, 1989-1996), and Reports of the NCSE (continuing both, ISSN 1064-2358, vol. 17 ongoing, 1997-present) to libraries. Libraries can take advantage of the offer to replace missing or damaged individual copies or to extend the range of their holdings.
Probably academic libraries will be most interested -- and we urge our members and friends who work at colleges and universities to bring the offer to the attention of the periodical departments of their libraries -- but the offer is open to public and school libraries as well. Interested librarians should write to Archivist, NCSE, PO Box 9477, Berkeley CA 94709-0477, fax (on letterhead) to (510) 601-7204, or e-mail the NCSE archivist at archivist@ncseweb.org to request further information or order back issues at no cost to their libraries. The offer is good only while supplies last, and may be withdrawn at any time at NCSE's sole discretion.
I certainly hope Susanville Library and Lassen Community College library take NCSE up on their offer. I would hope other Lassen County libraries consider adding these important issues to their collections.
Tell your librarian...
NCSE is now extending a special offer to libraries. Both because we are eager for libraries to maintain holdings of our journals, and because we are eager to make space in our storage facility, we are offering free copies of any or all of the back issues of Creation/Evolution (ISSN 0738-6001, nos. 1-39, 1980-1996), NCSE Reports (ISSN 1064-2358, vol. 9 through vol. 16, 1989-1996), and Reports of the NCSE (continuing both, ISSN 1064-2358, vol. 17 ongoing, 1997-present) to libraries. Libraries can take advantage of the offer to replace missing or damaged individual copies or to extend the range of their holdings.
Probably academic libraries will be most interested -- and we urge our members and friends who work at colleges and universities to bring the offer to the attention of the periodical departments of their libraries -- but the offer is open to public and school libraries as well. Interested librarians should write to Archivist, NCSE, PO Box 9477, Berkeley CA 94709-0477, fax (on letterhead) to (510) 601-7204, or e-mail the NCSE archivist at archivist@ncseweb.org to request further information or order back issues at no cost to their libraries. The offer is good only while supplies last, and may be withdrawn at any time at NCSE's sole discretion.
I certainly hope Susanville Library and Lassen Community College library take NCSE up on their offer. I would hope other Lassen County libraries consider adding these important issues to their collections.
Another Archaeology Blog
I have been remiss in pointing out a wonderful blog I discovered, Looting Matters. The blog deals with "Discussions of Archaeological Ethics Regarding the Collection of Antiquities" and provides some interesting perspectives on this topic.The blog is owned by David Gill, Department of Classics, Ancient History and Egyptology at Swansea University, Wales. Check it out....
Sunday, September 02, 2007
The War To Rescue "Biblical" Archaeology
Following Jim West’s recommendation on his blog some time ago, I listened to Eric Cline’s interview with the Chronicle of Higher Education. Dr. Cline is Chair of the Department of Classical and Semitic Languages and Literature at George Washington University and has written several books on the subject of biblical archaeology. After listening to the interview I immediately ordered his new book, From Eden to Exile, and started reading through it this week.
In the introduction, Cline clearly spells out a dilemma facing serious scholars of biblical archaeology today. The field of biblical archaeology, at least as its results are presented to the general public, has been largely confiscated by charlatans with little or no training in archaeology (or serious scholarship in general) and yet who present their views as “scientific”:
While doing the research for this book, I became amazed and, frankly, appalled by the amount of pseudoscientific nonsense that has been published on these topics, especially on the Internet but also in book form. The vast majority of this work has not been produced by professional scholars but rather by amateur enthusiasts…These enthusiasts…all work outside of academia. As such, they are not held to the same standards of rigor, peer review, and scrutiny as professional scholars employed by colleges, universities, and other institutions of higher learning.
Cline is, of course, referring to the usual array of the intellectually vacuous who appear to speak authoritatively on the subject of biblical archaeology, but who in reality have not the foggiest clue about the nature of archaeological research: the Ron Wyatts and Bob Cornukes of the world, for example. But there is a continuum of problem enthusiasts here, some not as extremely ignorant, who nonetheless uncritically use archaeological data to advance their proselytizing efforts:
Some biblical maximalists – particularly those working outside of mainstream academia – seem to be closer to the enthusiasts in setting out with their own a priori set of assumptions, which are often stated outright in the mission or message statements on their Web sites. Others dilute their good and careful analysis of archaeological material and ancient literary sources with uncritical thinking or blatant proselytizing. In addition, both the maximalist and minimalist camps harbor individuals who abuse and occasionally distort the information.
It is refreshing to finally hear a professional archaeologist recognize the fact that spokesperson responsibility for the serious discipline of “biblical” archaeology has to be rescued from the public malfeasance that typically passes for legitimate commentary these days (I continue to use quotations around “biblical” only because I personally prefer the term Syro-Palestinian archaeology). This includes the local minister providing uncritical “archaeology proves the bible” assessments as equally as the crackpot Noah’s Ark investigators or creationists masquerading as archaeologists. Cline intends to raise the needed alarm:
Thus, one of the reasons I have written this book is to sound both a word of warning and a call to arms, because I believe that the general public deserves-and wants-better. It is high time that professional archaeologists, ancient historians, and mainstream biblical scholars take back their fields from the amateur enthusiasts, psuedoscientists, uninformed documentary filmmakers, and overzealous biblical maximalists and minimalists who have had, for the most part, free reign to do what they wish, without any regard to scientific method or an unbiased investigation for the truth.
Forgive my over-generalizing passion for this, but it is about time the battle cry was sounded. Archaeological science has been polluted by those Cline describes and we professional archaeologists should start being blunt (and public!) about the danger posed by both charlatans and proselytizers. Some of you know I have fought my own battles here in Lassen County with a local media willing to portray ignorance as science and I am pleased that the call for a rigorous defense of archaeological integrity is being made internationally. I look forward to continuing with Dr. Cline’s book. I am sure it is just the first salvo in the upcoming war to reclaim archaeology.
UPDATE: My apologies to Jim West - if I had been paying a little closer attention I would have realized he commented on some of the very same issues in an initial assessment of Clines book way back in May. Whoops...I'm just excited about the book!
In the introduction, Cline clearly spells out a dilemma facing serious scholars of biblical archaeology today. The field of biblical archaeology, at least as its results are presented to the general public, has been largely confiscated by charlatans with little or no training in archaeology (or serious scholarship in general) and yet who present their views as “scientific”:
While doing the research for this book, I became amazed and, frankly, appalled by the amount of pseudoscientific nonsense that has been published on these topics, especially on the Internet but also in book form. The vast majority of this work has not been produced by professional scholars but rather by amateur enthusiasts…These enthusiasts…all work outside of academia. As such, they are not held to the same standards of rigor, peer review, and scrutiny as professional scholars employed by colleges, universities, and other institutions of higher learning.
Cline is, of course, referring to the usual array of the intellectually vacuous who appear to speak authoritatively on the subject of biblical archaeology, but who in reality have not the foggiest clue about the nature of archaeological research: the Ron Wyatts and Bob Cornukes of the world, for example. But there is a continuum of problem enthusiasts here, some not as extremely ignorant, who nonetheless uncritically use archaeological data to advance their proselytizing efforts:
Some biblical maximalists – particularly those working outside of mainstream academia – seem to be closer to the enthusiasts in setting out with their own a priori set of assumptions, which are often stated outright in the mission or message statements on their Web sites. Others dilute their good and careful analysis of archaeological material and ancient literary sources with uncritical thinking or blatant proselytizing. In addition, both the maximalist and minimalist camps harbor individuals who abuse and occasionally distort the information.
It is refreshing to finally hear a professional archaeologist recognize the fact that spokesperson responsibility for the serious discipline of “biblical” archaeology has to be rescued from the public malfeasance that typically passes for legitimate commentary these days (I continue to use quotations around “biblical” only because I personally prefer the term Syro-Palestinian archaeology). This includes the local minister providing uncritical “archaeology proves the bible” assessments as equally as the crackpot Noah’s Ark investigators or creationists masquerading as archaeologists. Cline intends to raise the needed alarm:
Thus, one of the reasons I have written this book is to sound both a word of warning and a call to arms, because I believe that the general public deserves-and wants-better. It is high time that professional archaeologists, ancient historians, and mainstream biblical scholars take back their fields from the amateur enthusiasts, psuedoscientists, uninformed documentary filmmakers, and overzealous biblical maximalists and minimalists who have had, for the most part, free reign to do what they wish, without any regard to scientific method or an unbiased investigation for the truth.
Forgive my over-generalizing passion for this, but it is about time the battle cry was sounded. Archaeological science has been polluted by those Cline describes and we professional archaeologists should start being blunt (and public!) about the danger posed by both charlatans and proselytizers. Some of you know I have fought my own battles here in Lassen County with a local media willing to portray ignorance as science and I am pleased that the call for a rigorous defense of archaeological integrity is being made internationally. I look forward to continuing with Dr. Cline’s book. I am sure it is just the first salvo in the upcoming war to reclaim archaeology.
UPDATE: My apologies to Jim West - if I had been paying a little closer attention I would have realized he commented on some of the very same issues in an initial assessment of Clines book way back in May. Whoops...I'm just excited about the book!
A Lesson In Creationist "Kinds"
My current edition of American Scientist has a wonderful article by Elaine Ostrander entitled “Genetics and the Shape of the Dog”. The piece generally focuses on the results of the dog genome project and its implications for understanding the genetics of canine diseases and potential changes to dog breeding programs. More specifically, the article discusses how an understanding of the dog genome demonstrates how tiny genetic changes lead to tremendous physical variation within the species.
In reading the article I could not help but be struck by the potential implications for creationism (both kinds – young-earth and intelligent design). Most creationists trot out the “kinds” argument for explaining the differences they see between different species: God created the basic kinds of animals (dogs, cats, horses, etc.) and all the species we see today are essentially variations on a theme. In other words, they can accept the relationship between genotypic change and phenotypic change only to the extent that these changes are limited to the same “kind” of animal. Dog variation (stand a Chihuahua next to a Great Dane, for example) can easily be the result of minor fluctuations in the genome – but the differences between a Chihuahua and a Siamese cat are the result of God’s creative separation of the species.
Creationists engaged in a cursory reading of Ostrander’s article (and can we expect creationists to engage in anything but a cursory reading?) will find the vocabulary necessary to proudly proclaim that “science” has verified the “kind” hypothesis of speciation. Of course, the “kind” hypothesis can only be supported if your knowledge of the animal world is extremely limited. Scientists working with either morphological (physical) or genetic variation among species understand that this discrete categorization of animals doesn’t work. One can easily envision the variation among dogs (most of us own one or more) and think that the “kind” hypothesis makes sense; but how many completely understand the range of variation within the genus Canis? The Family Canidae? The Order Carnivora? It’s easy to envision the “kind” separation between cats and dogs, but where does one “kind” end and another begin?
Ostrander provides an interesting figure showing the phylogenetic grouping of “dogs” based on a comparison of genetic sequences. Our domestic dog is grouped with an impressive array of wild species and the question to creationists begs itself: when is a dog not a dog? Wolves are clearly “dog-like”, as are coyotes. That’s easy. What about dholes and jackals? How about foxes? Certainly dog-like, but clearly some differences (to make it easier on our creationist friends reading this, we’ll follow their preferred methodology and ignore the morphological differences that don’t quite “fit” the “kind” hypothesis – foxes are dogs!). But we’re not even close to the end of the dog-like animals within the Canidae. Hyenas? What “kind” would they fall under? How about mustelids (mink, ermine, weasel, ferret)? Mephitids (skunks)? – are skunks more like dogs or cats? Or are they a separate “kind”? On Ostrander’s diagram “raccoon dogs” are listed. What about raccoons? Are they dogs…or are they bears? Some bears are awfully dog-like (particularly the smaller ones).
Of course all of my evolutionary biology friends understand this dilemma perfectly – and it is one reason we buy into evolution as an explanation for this huge variety of life we see around us. Taxonomy, like Sesame Street, certainly reflects the human propensity for grouping animals that are not like another. Very basic groups (dogs and cats) are simple to understand. But when you have knowledge of the entire range of animals represented in a group (Carnivores, for example) you spend a lot of time scratching your head (or arguing in the literature!) over a huge number of animals that do not quite fit in one group or another. And here I am just talking about living species. Add in the fossil record and (contrary to creationist claims) transitional species – species that don’t easily fall within one group or another because they share characteristics of both - are suddenly a dime a dozen. Of course the Ken Hams of the world are not interested in explaining the totality of the evidence – their only interest is in sifting the data for the few nuggets that support their own ideas. Contrary to Ham’s claims, creationists and evolutionary biologists are not looking at the same set of data!
In my college courses I generally prohibit students from writing papers on creationist ideas (unless it is from a strictly historical comparative perspective). I sometimes wonder if that is not a mistake. If the idea is to get a creationist student to “think outside the box”, then perhaps allowing a paper on creationism would be a better learning tool, provided it adhered to strict scientific guidelines. Could a creationist student learn something from the following assignment?...
Write a term paper on the creationist “kind” model. Compare and contrast a minimum of three family level groups of animals within the same order (Ursidae, Canidae, Procyonidae, for example). Re-group all genera and species from these families according to biblical “kinds” and then justify, in detail, the characteristics you used to organize them into separate kinds and why these characteristics are discrete for each kind.
For the intelligent design creationists out there I would modify the essay requirements:
Write a term paper on the creationist “intelligent design” model of species origins. Compare and contrast a minimum of three family level groups of animals within the same order (Ursidae, Canidae, Procyonidae, for example). Discuss, in detail, the mechanism for species divergence within each. At what taxonomic level is the designer likely to have intervened to define a new group of organisms (what criteria would you use to define the point at which a designer intervened? What drives the mechanism for the divergence (why did the designer intervene at this particular point and not another?).
It would certainly be interesting to see the results of such an exercise.
In reading the article I could not help but be struck by the potential implications for creationism (both kinds – young-earth and intelligent design). Most creationists trot out the “kinds” argument for explaining the differences they see between different species: God created the basic kinds of animals (dogs, cats, horses, etc.) and all the species we see today are essentially variations on a theme. In other words, they can accept the relationship between genotypic change and phenotypic change only to the extent that these changes are limited to the same “kind” of animal. Dog variation (stand a Chihuahua next to a Great Dane, for example) can easily be the result of minor fluctuations in the genome – but the differences between a Chihuahua and a Siamese cat are the result of God’s creative separation of the species.
Creationists engaged in a cursory reading of Ostrander’s article (and can we expect creationists to engage in anything but a cursory reading?) will find the vocabulary necessary to proudly proclaim that “science” has verified the “kind” hypothesis of speciation. Of course, the “kind” hypothesis can only be supported if your knowledge of the animal world is extremely limited. Scientists working with either morphological (physical) or genetic variation among species understand that this discrete categorization of animals doesn’t work. One can easily envision the variation among dogs (most of us own one or more) and think that the “kind” hypothesis makes sense; but how many completely understand the range of variation within the genus Canis? The Family Canidae? The Order Carnivora? It’s easy to envision the “kind” separation between cats and dogs, but where does one “kind” end and another begin?
Ostrander provides an interesting figure showing the phylogenetic grouping of “dogs” based on a comparison of genetic sequences. Our domestic dog is grouped with an impressive array of wild species and the question to creationists begs itself: when is a dog not a dog? Wolves are clearly “dog-like”, as are coyotes. That’s easy. What about dholes and jackals? How about foxes? Certainly dog-like, but clearly some differences (to make it easier on our creationist friends reading this, we’ll follow their preferred methodology and ignore the morphological differences that don’t quite “fit” the “kind” hypothesis – foxes are dogs!). But we’re not even close to the end of the dog-like animals within the Canidae. Hyenas? What “kind” would they fall under? How about mustelids (mink, ermine, weasel, ferret)? Mephitids (skunks)? – are skunks more like dogs or cats? Or are they a separate “kind”? On Ostrander’s diagram “raccoon dogs” are listed. What about raccoons? Are they dogs…or are they bears? Some bears are awfully dog-like (particularly the smaller ones).
Of course all of my evolutionary biology friends understand this dilemma perfectly – and it is one reason we buy into evolution as an explanation for this huge variety of life we see around us. Taxonomy, like Sesame Street, certainly reflects the human propensity for grouping animals that are not like another. Very basic groups (dogs and cats) are simple to understand. But when you have knowledge of the entire range of animals represented in a group (Carnivores, for example) you spend a lot of time scratching your head (or arguing in the literature!) over a huge number of animals that do not quite fit in one group or another. And here I am just talking about living species. Add in the fossil record and (contrary to creationist claims) transitional species – species that don’t easily fall within one group or another because they share characteristics of both - are suddenly a dime a dozen. Of course the Ken Hams of the world are not interested in explaining the totality of the evidence – their only interest is in sifting the data for the few nuggets that support their own ideas. Contrary to Ham’s claims, creationists and evolutionary biologists are not looking at the same set of data!
In my college courses I generally prohibit students from writing papers on creationist ideas (unless it is from a strictly historical comparative perspective). I sometimes wonder if that is not a mistake. If the idea is to get a creationist student to “think outside the box”, then perhaps allowing a paper on creationism would be a better learning tool, provided it adhered to strict scientific guidelines. Could a creationist student learn something from the following assignment?...
Write a term paper on the creationist “kind” model. Compare and contrast a minimum of three family level groups of animals within the same order (Ursidae, Canidae, Procyonidae, for example). Re-group all genera and species from these families according to biblical “kinds” and then justify, in detail, the characteristics you used to organize them into separate kinds and why these characteristics are discrete for each kind.
For the intelligent design creationists out there I would modify the essay requirements:
Write a term paper on the creationist “intelligent design” model of species origins. Compare and contrast a minimum of three family level groups of animals within the same order (Ursidae, Canidae, Procyonidae, for example). Discuss, in detail, the mechanism for species divergence within each. At what taxonomic level is the designer likely to have intervened to define a new group of organisms (what criteria would you use to define the point at which a designer intervened? What drives the mechanism for the divergence (why did the designer intervene at this particular point and not another?).
It would certainly be interesting to see the results of such an exercise.
Atheist Convention Sold Out
For anyone who is interested...
Apparently the Atheist Alliance Convention in DC September 28-30 is SOLD OUT. However, the Alliance is providing an alternative for you to listen to the incredible lineup of speakers through streaming video:
The Atheist Alliance International's Crystal Clear Atheism 2007 convention is a complete sell out. That's the bad news. Now for the good news--AAI is pleased to offer you an opportunity to view all of the convention proceedings as a live Internet video stream. You will be able to see speeches by Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Julia Sweeney and many others from the comfort of your own home (at 1/10 of what it would have cost for you to attend in person). For more program details, please see the convention schedule at:
http://www.atheistalliance.org/conventions/2007/aaicon2007_schedule.php
(click on the "Download Schedule" link)
You must receive a password by September 19, 2007 so please go to the following link to connect to the AAI Convention Live Video Stream Website where you can make your password purchase through Pay Pal or credit card. http://www.onsitestreaming.com/
Apparently the Atheist Alliance Convention in DC September 28-30 is SOLD OUT. However, the Alliance is providing an alternative for you to listen to the incredible lineup of speakers through streaming video:
The Atheist Alliance International's Crystal Clear Atheism 2007 convention is a complete sell out. That's the bad news. Now for the good news--AAI is pleased to offer you an opportunity to view all of the convention proceedings as a live Internet video stream. You will be able to see speeches by Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Julia Sweeney and many others from the comfort of your own home (at 1/10 of what it would have cost for you to attend in person). For more program details, please see the convention schedule at:
http://www.atheistalliance.org/conventions/2007/aaicon2007_schedule.php
(click on the "Download Schedule" link)
You must receive a password by September 19, 2007 so please go to the following link to connect to the AAI Convention Live Video Stream Website where you can make your password purchase through Pay Pal or credit card. http://www.onsitestreaming.com/
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Syro-Palestinian Archaeology and Isolated Artifacts
Using isolated artifacts with no associated provenience data seems to be all the rage amongst biblical archaeologists of late. First we have the controversies surrounding the Talpiot, or Jesus Family Tomb – an isolated artifact said to simultaneously verify (because it formally names Jesus and members of his family) and repudiate (because a resurrected body would leave no bones to bury) the authenticity of Jesus. Earlier we had issues regarding the James ossuary as a potential artifact authenticating the existence of James as the brother of Jesus. We also have the Jehoash Inscription describing repairs made to the temple in Jerusalem by Jehoash, son of King Ahaziah of Judah – an artifact authenticating biblical references in 2 Kings. There has also been King Solomon’s Tablet of Stone and more recently online discussions regarding authenticity of the Ivory Pomegranate, said to be a relic from King Solomon’s temple. Much is written evaluating the potential of these items for archaeological interpretation and there seems to be no end to the controversies surrounding their potential meaning for Syro-Palestinian archaeology. Setting aside for the moment the problem that interpretation in Syro-Palestinian archaeology is hamstrung by theological entanglements that inherently force it outside the proper bounds of scientific application (I shall return to that below), the question at hand is just how useful are unprovenienced artifacts in archaeological research?
Here in northeastern California, we maintain a collection of approximately 100,000 items confiscated from a looter caught illegally digging on national forest lands in the mid-nineties (he paid fines and served jail time in addition to having his collection confiscated). As archaeological collections from northern California go, this one is splendid – replete with all those “diagnostic” artifacts we find important for determining chronology, tracking population movements, even understanding ideology, including several classes of projectile points, beads, copper and sandstone pipes, burial goods, and a variety of additional items. In effect, these items were looted from significant assemblages that undoubtedly would address many of the important archaeological questions in California and Great Basin prehistory – questions that are analogous to those asked in Syro-Palestinian archaeology. Unfortunately for us, these artifacts are not merely of limited archaeological value, they offer us nothing of interpretive value whatsoever. Without the necessary provenience data (location (both geographic and site), depth, mapped association with other artifacts, etc.) and discussion of excavation methodologies, the only legitimate interpretations given would have to be tagged with the following disclaimer: “trust me”. Oh, some graduate student might get creative and propose an interesting analysis using inherent characteristics of the artifacts themselves (using obsidian hydration, for example, one might date various point styles to assess the consistency of style and chronology) but the best that could be accomplished is descriptive analysis that skirts the larger questions of archaeological importance. The collection has been most useful for public displays and classroom talks. It is one of the few collections I can afford to allow school children to directly handle - an accidently dropped and broken arrowhead results in no net loss to the “interpretive value” it lacked in the first place.
From a strictly archaeological perspective then, isolated artifacts with no associated provenience are simply useless for archaeological interpretation. Information offered on their basis is nothing more than un-testable speculation. I would suggest this goes for Syro-Palestinian archaeology as much as it does for Californian archaeology. The unfortunate difference, of course, is that assemblage interpretation in Syro-Palestinian archaeology is not simply a function of applying archaeological principles and methods as it is elsewhere. It also tainted by religious zealotry that demands “archaeology proves the bible”. Long-proven methods of archaeological analysis are called into question when the results don’t conform to pre-conceived theological interpretations, data are ignored or “explained away” when they contradict biblical passages or stories, or worse…data are outright fabricated to demonstrate the authenticity of sacred texts. The degree to which these efforts occur are subject to debate, but one conclusion cannot be avoided: the potential for archaeological malfeasance of one type or another is extremely high in Syro-Palestinian archaeology. Much higher than it is in other areas of archaeology. It is not surprising that controversy surrounds the proliferation of “biblical” artifacts suddenly making the news. Christianity has a long history of miraculously coming up with “sacred artifacts” (none with verifiable provenience) that offer the faithful some history upon which to hang their theological positions. To the faithful, there can be no objective doubt offered regarding such artifacts, and the complexities of scientific knowledge can be sufficiently tweaked to minimally open the possibility of authentication. For a broader public uneducated to such matters this is more than sufficient to ignore or denigrate whatever contradictory science is available. The Shroud of Turin and Juan Diego’s cloak, both “appearing” in the 16th century, can be added to this laundry list of items proving Christianity’s authenticity (and conveniently lacking the history and provenience necessary to confidently address claims of authenticity). The Ivory Pomegranate and Talpiot Ossuary are merely the current extension of such efforts.
Unfortunately, the science of archaeology is being enlisted to aid theological confirmation of these relics and in the process archaeological integrity suffers. In the new issue of Biblical Archaeology Review, Editor Hershel Shanks protests use of the words “relics” or “curiosities” to refer such isolated artifacts of mostly dubious history. He writes,
Now I happen to disagree with that. I believe that, if these items are authentic, they have much to teach the scholar…If they are authentic, they connect me emotionally and even spiritually to times and events that give meaning to my life. I don’t like them referred to as mere “curiosities”.
Shanks’ arguments epitomize the problem with much of Syro-Palestinian archaeology: it is too enmeshed in theology to confidently consider it as a historical science. Archaeological research here will always be viewed with theological oversight. Mere possibilities from fragments lacking provenience will be elevated to the level of “proving the bible correct” and textual contradictions backed by solid research will be dismissed. This comes less from the discipline’s primary scholars, many of whom appear to make valiant efforts to separate the archaeological science from the theological implications, than from meddling groups outside the field. As someone who actively works to provide opportunities for non-professionals to participate in archaeological research it pains me to say this: Syro-Palestinian archaeology is far too “public” for its own good. Shanks seems to understand that the “mere curiosities” lack appropriate archaeological information, but he nonetheless wants to give them some sense of respectability. It is ironic that he later bemoans archaeologist Jonathan Reed’s assessment of the intellectual challenges facing Syro-Palestinian scholars:
In a recent book on the historical Jesus, archaeologist Jonathan Reed…tells his fellow scholars how “difficult” it is to “overcome the caricature of Biblical archaeologists seeking relics [there’s that word] or sinking their spades in the ground to find sites listed in the Bible or artifacts mentioned in the New Testament.” To his scholarly audience, Reed is making fun of the Christian pilgrim who comes to the Holy Land to find spiritual nourishment in its stones and antiquities…
I don’t know if Reed is making fun of the Christian pilgrim, but if he is not he should be. It is precisely this Christian pilgrim who will return to tell his home audience how archaeology “proves the bible” without understanding the nature of the archaeological research; it is precisely this Christian pilgrim who will sift the science so that theological implications are justified; it is precisely this Christian pilgrim who will ignore or dismiss contradictory evidence that doesn’t support his belief system; it is precisely this Christian pilgrim who will turn mere rocks into the hull of Noah’s ark. Shanks berates Reed and other professional archaeologists for discussing the relic-seeking caricature of “biblical” archaeology while simultaneously promoting such a caricature by refusing to take the discipline seriously. As long as Syro-Palestinian archaeology remains overshadowed by discussion of isolated artifacts with no provenience its professional respectability will be doubted.
Here in northeastern California, we maintain a collection of approximately 100,000 items confiscated from a looter caught illegally digging on national forest lands in the mid-nineties (he paid fines and served jail time in addition to having his collection confiscated). As archaeological collections from northern California go, this one is splendid – replete with all those “diagnostic” artifacts we find important for determining chronology, tracking population movements, even understanding ideology, including several classes of projectile points, beads, copper and sandstone pipes, burial goods, and a variety of additional items. In effect, these items were looted from significant assemblages that undoubtedly would address many of the important archaeological questions in California and Great Basin prehistory – questions that are analogous to those asked in Syro-Palestinian archaeology. Unfortunately for us, these artifacts are not merely of limited archaeological value, they offer us nothing of interpretive value whatsoever. Without the necessary provenience data (location (both geographic and site), depth, mapped association with other artifacts, etc.) and discussion of excavation methodologies, the only legitimate interpretations given would have to be tagged with the following disclaimer: “trust me”. Oh, some graduate student might get creative and propose an interesting analysis using inherent characteristics of the artifacts themselves (using obsidian hydration, for example, one might date various point styles to assess the consistency of style and chronology) but the best that could be accomplished is descriptive analysis that skirts the larger questions of archaeological importance. The collection has been most useful for public displays and classroom talks. It is one of the few collections I can afford to allow school children to directly handle - an accidently dropped and broken arrowhead results in no net loss to the “interpretive value” it lacked in the first place.
From a strictly archaeological perspective then, isolated artifacts with no associated provenience are simply useless for archaeological interpretation. Information offered on their basis is nothing more than un-testable speculation. I would suggest this goes for Syro-Palestinian archaeology as much as it does for Californian archaeology. The unfortunate difference, of course, is that assemblage interpretation in Syro-Palestinian archaeology is not simply a function of applying archaeological principles and methods as it is elsewhere. It also tainted by religious zealotry that demands “archaeology proves the bible”. Long-proven methods of archaeological analysis are called into question when the results don’t conform to pre-conceived theological interpretations, data are ignored or “explained away” when they contradict biblical passages or stories, or worse…data are outright fabricated to demonstrate the authenticity of sacred texts. The degree to which these efforts occur are subject to debate, but one conclusion cannot be avoided: the potential for archaeological malfeasance of one type or another is extremely high in Syro-Palestinian archaeology. Much higher than it is in other areas of archaeology. It is not surprising that controversy surrounds the proliferation of “biblical” artifacts suddenly making the news. Christianity has a long history of miraculously coming up with “sacred artifacts” (none with verifiable provenience) that offer the faithful some history upon which to hang their theological positions. To the faithful, there can be no objective doubt offered regarding such artifacts, and the complexities of scientific knowledge can be sufficiently tweaked to minimally open the possibility of authentication. For a broader public uneducated to such matters this is more than sufficient to ignore or denigrate whatever contradictory science is available. The Shroud of Turin and Juan Diego’s cloak, both “appearing” in the 16th century, can be added to this laundry list of items proving Christianity’s authenticity (and conveniently lacking the history and provenience necessary to confidently address claims of authenticity). The Ivory Pomegranate and Talpiot Ossuary are merely the current extension of such efforts.
Unfortunately, the science of archaeology is being enlisted to aid theological confirmation of these relics and in the process archaeological integrity suffers. In the new issue of Biblical Archaeology Review, Editor Hershel Shanks protests use of the words “relics” or “curiosities” to refer such isolated artifacts of mostly dubious history. He writes,
Now I happen to disagree with that. I believe that, if these items are authentic, they have much to teach the scholar…If they are authentic, they connect me emotionally and even spiritually to times and events that give meaning to my life. I don’t like them referred to as mere “curiosities”.
Shanks’ arguments epitomize the problem with much of Syro-Palestinian archaeology: it is too enmeshed in theology to confidently consider it as a historical science. Archaeological research here will always be viewed with theological oversight. Mere possibilities from fragments lacking provenience will be elevated to the level of “proving the bible correct” and textual contradictions backed by solid research will be dismissed. This comes less from the discipline’s primary scholars, many of whom appear to make valiant efforts to separate the archaeological science from the theological implications, than from meddling groups outside the field. As someone who actively works to provide opportunities for non-professionals to participate in archaeological research it pains me to say this: Syro-Palestinian archaeology is far too “public” for its own good. Shanks seems to understand that the “mere curiosities” lack appropriate archaeological information, but he nonetheless wants to give them some sense of respectability. It is ironic that he later bemoans archaeologist Jonathan Reed’s assessment of the intellectual challenges facing Syro-Palestinian scholars:
In a recent book on the historical Jesus, archaeologist Jonathan Reed…tells his fellow scholars how “difficult” it is to “overcome the caricature of Biblical archaeologists seeking relics [there’s that word] or sinking their spades in the ground to find sites listed in the Bible or artifacts mentioned in the New Testament.” To his scholarly audience, Reed is making fun of the Christian pilgrim who comes to the Holy Land to find spiritual nourishment in its stones and antiquities…
I don’t know if Reed is making fun of the Christian pilgrim, but if he is not he should be. It is precisely this Christian pilgrim who will return to tell his home audience how archaeology “proves the bible” without understanding the nature of the archaeological research; it is precisely this Christian pilgrim who will sift the science so that theological implications are justified; it is precisely this Christian pilgrim who will ignore or dismiss contradictory evidence that doesn’t support his belief system; it is precisely this Christian pilgrim who will turn mere rocks into the hull of Noah’s ark. Shanks berates Reed and other professional archaeologists for discussing the relic-seeking caricature of “biblical” archaeology while simultaneously promoting such a caricature by refusing to take the discipline seriously. As long as Syro-Palestinian archaeology remains overshadowed by discussion of isolated artifacts with no provenience its professional respectability will be doubted.
Sunday, August 26, 2007
Creationist Essay Winners Versus True Young Scientists
Answers In Genesis has announced its winners in the creationist essay contest for young people. Zeno and Bay of Fundie provide appropriate evaluations of these essays, which meet the predictions we would all expect from homeschoolers and the religiously educated who have been successfully sheltered from actual science. Zeno sums up the expected content of the essays:
While it's not fair to expect teenagers to write purely original essays, all of the winning papers suffer from the suffocating effects of their reliance on recycled creationist propaganda. Time and again the writers make demonstrably untrue statements (and they probably don't know any better). In this, of course, they simply mirror their elders.
Through random chance (or should I attribute it to divine intervention?) the very antithesis of an Answers In Genesis sponsored essay contest also published their winners this year. In my current issue of Natural History (arriving the day I first learned of the AIG essay winners) the American Museum of Natural History also announced its 2007 Young Naturalist Awards winners. From the article:
Every year scientists from the American Museum of Natural History travel far and wide on expeditions to learn more about the natural world. The Young Naturalist Awards, now in its tenth year, invites students in grades 7-12 throughout the United States and Canada to follow in those footsteps, embarking on their own expeditions in areas of biology, Earth science, or astronomy. Their research can be conducted as to home as their backyard or a local pond or stream.
This year's Young Naturalist Award winners are:
Ashley Hunt (Grade 7) - Algae in the Weiva River: Is it Helping or Hurting Water Quality?
Noah McDonald (Grade 7) - The Toads of Delaware County
Alexandria Day (Grade 8) - An Analysis of Water Quality on the Severn River over Two Years
Ryan Wham (Grade 8) - Lighter, Brighter, and Cooler: An Analysis of the Effects of Roofing Albedo on Ambient Temperature
Alex Nagler (Grade 9) - Investigation of Water Quality in Mercer County Lake
Jon Atkinson (Grade 9) - Barn Owls on the Side of the Road
Viola Li (Grade 10) - From the Desert to the Subalpine Forest
Nikola Champlin (Grade 10) - Thigmomorphogenesis in Pisum Tendril Development
Anastasia Roda (Grade 11) - Human Factor IV: The Impact of a Boiling Water Nuclear Reactor on the Plankton, Benthic, and Biofouling Communities in the Reactor's Intake and Discharge Creek
Arjun Potter (Grade 11) - A Survey of the Birds of Indroda Nature Park in Gujarat, India
Joanna Nishimura (Grade 12) - More Than Meets the Eye: Do Himasthla sp. B Cercariae Use Chemo-orientation?
Jeremy Koelmel (Grade 12) - Lichens as Indicators of Vehicle Pollution
More on the contest winners may be found here.
The distinction betwee these kids and the winners of the AIG creationist contest is quite clear. The Young Naturalist winners followed the dictates of science by asking questions, gathering data and then reporting on where those data led them in their interpretation. The ground rules of the contest made this quiet clear:
After identifying a question, students plan how they will gather information, conduct outside research to learn more about their topic and possible methodologies, observe their subjects, and record their findings. Finally, their data analysis results in conclusions that either answer the original questions or lead to further inquiry.
By contrast, the AIG essay contest winners had already determined their conclusions before even beginning any research. Research was largely confined to those sources that already agree to their position and anything presented in alternate sources was either falsified, mischaracterized or the data ignored so that the biblical mythology could be upheld.
So which group is conducting the better science?
While it's not fair to expect teenagers to write purely original essays, all of the winning papers suffer from the suffocating effects of their reliance on recycled creationist propaganda. Time and again the writers make demonstrably untrue statements (and they probably don't know any better). In this, of course, they simply mirror their elders.
Through random chance (or should I attribute it to divine intervention?) the very antithesis of an Answers In Genesis sponsored essay contest also published their winners this year. In my current issue of Natural History (arriving the day I first learned of the AIG essay winners) the American Museum of Natural History also announced its 2007 Young Naturalist Awards winners. From the article:
Every year scientists from the American Museum of Natural History travel far and wide on expeditions to learn more about the natural world. The Young Naturalist Awards, now in its tenth year, invites students in grades 7-12 throughout the United States and Canada to follow in those footsteps, embarking on their own expeditions in areas of biology, Earth science, or astronomy. Their research can be conducted as to home as their backyard or a local pond or stream.
This year's Young Naturalist Award winners are:
Ashley Hunt (Grade 7) - Algae in the Weiva River: Is it Helping or Hurting Water Quality?
Noah McDonald (Grade 7) - The Toads of Delaware County
Alexandria Day (Grade 8) - An Analysis of Water Quality on the Severn River over Two Years
Ryan Wham (Grade 8) - Lighter, Brighter, and Cooler: An Analysis of the Effects of Roofing Albedo on Ambient Temperature
Alex Nagler (Grade 9) - Investigation of Water Quality in Mercer County Lake
Jon Atkinson (Grade 9) - Barn Owls on the Side of the Road
Viola Li (Grade 10) - From the Desert to the Subalpine Forest
Nikola Champlin (Grade 10) - Thigmomorphogenesis in Pisum Tendril Development
Anastasia Roda (Grade 11) - Human Factor IV: The Impact of a Boiling Water Nuclear Reactor on the Plankton, Benthic, and Biofouling Communities in the Reactor's Intake and Discharge Creek
Arjun Potter (Grade 11) - A Survey of the Birds of Indroda Nature Park in Gujarat, India
Joanna Nishimura (Grade 12) - More Than Meets the Eye: Do Himasthla sp. B Cercariae Use Chemo-orientation?
Jeremy Koelmel (Grade 12) - Lichens as Indicators of Vehicle Pollution
More on the contest winners may be found here.
The distinction betwee these kids and the winners of the AIG creationist contest is quite clear. The Young Naturalist winners followed the dictates of science by asking questions, gathering data and then reporting on where those data led them in their interpretation. The ground rules of the contest made this quiet clear:
After identifying a question, students plan how they will gather information, conduct outside research to learn more about their topic and possible methodologies, observe their subjects, and record their findings. Finally, their data analysis results in conclusions that either answer the original questions or lead to further inquiry.
By contrast, the AIG essay contest winners had already determined their conclusions before even beginning any research. Research was largely confined to those sources that already agree to their position and anything presented in alternate sources was either falsified, mischaracterized or the data ignored so that the biblical mythology could be upheld.
So which group is conducting the better science?
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
A Question For The Archaeology Blogosphere
In my previous post on historical inscriptions at High Rock Canyon, I got sidetracked with the discussion of religious intolerance and neglected to pose a question to my fellow archaeology bloggers (or anyone who wants to weigh in on the matter): should sites like High Rock Canyon be opened to the public?
As someone who is in the business of managing the nation’s cultural resources, this is a constantly debated question. On the one hand, allowing public access and promoting the existence of a cultural site (be it historic or prehistoric) poses the risk of individuals who will vandalize, or worse, loot the site. Many of my colleagues in cultural resources management feel very strongly that public access to archaeological sites should be severely restricted. There are many of us, however, who believe (equally strongly) that the appreciation for history is collectively fostered by education and access. If we are not protecting sites for public benefit then why bother? Certainly there are all shades of opinion in between. No one arguing for public access is suggesting we post site records on the internet (although we have had interesting discussions locally whether certain high profile archaeological sites shouldn’t be on visitor/interpretive maps). The questions for me are 1) what are the costs/benefits of public access?...and 2) to what degree should access be afforded (advertise the site? Provide a location on a map people may or may not pick up? I’ll tell you if you ask?...)?
So, what do my fellow archaeologists around the blogosphere think about public access to sites?
As someone who is in the business of managing the nation’s cultural resources, this is a constantly debated question. On the one hand, allowing public access and promoting the existence of a cultural site (be it historic or prehistoric) poses the risk of individuals who will vandalize, or worse, loot the site. Many of my colleagues in cultural resources management feel very strongly that public access to archaeological sites should be severely restricted. There are many of us, however, who believe (equally strongly) that the appreciation for history is collectively fostered by education and access. If we are not protecting sites for public benefit then why bother? Certainly there are all shades of opinion in between. No one arguing for public access is suggesting we post site records on the internet (although we have had interesting discussions locally whether certain high profile archaeological sites shouldn’t be on visitor/interpretive maps). The questions for me are 1) what are the costs/benefits of public access?...and 2) to what degree should access be afforded (advertise the site? Provide a location on a map people may or may not pick up? I’ll tell you if you ask?...)?
So, what do my fellow archaeologists around the blogosphere think about public access to sites?
Gotta Love Sweden!
Here’s a nation that has its priorities right. From Martin at Aardvarchaeology I read this post on the nature of the “religion debate” in Sweden. Basically, the issue of whether religion should be discussed seriously as a alternative to other explanations of how the world works and humans should behave has been moot in Sweden:
The question posed is whether the same debate could rise in Sweden. The answer seems to be a definitive no. The role of religion in Sweden is peripheral, and the power of the religious communities is relatively weak. The major media; our national papers, the big tv channels and the national radio are all expressly secular. There simply aren’t any strong religious counterweights to the secular forces. There’s also a lack of numerous religious grassroots organisations that can mobilise the people in a defense of traditional superstition and bronze age morality.
The question, it seems, is not whether organized religion (as opposed to personal belief systems that carry no political weight) can bring anything substantive to the intellectual table. The question is whether a religious viewpoint should be tolerated at all. I don’t believe the author is implying that religious viewpoints should be legally restricted – and as an unapologetic defender of the First Amendment I would reject any notion that religionists should be unable to voice opinions – it’s that Swedish society at large has progressed beyond the need for primitive mythology to explain their world. There is simply no serious consideration within Swedish society that religious viewpoints would be tolerated as a likely explanation for anything. To borrow an idea from Dawkins, the Swedes apparently consider all religion in much the same light as American Christians consider Greek mythology – nothing more than an interesting historical experiment.
Americans, by contrast, aren’t even close to this phase of intellectual enlightenment. There are still too many in society who consider religious viewpoints not just as tolerable with respect to others, but actual believe them to be superior (otherwise we wouldn’t be having conversations about creationism, gay marriage and blastocyts as human beings while simultaneously justifying the war in Iraq on the basis of a few lines from a Bronze Age text).
Predictably, the American religionists are not happy with the Swedish take on things. And, like explaining lack of rainfall, or the high school team winning the championship, they are quick to invoke their personal knowledge of God’s feelings on the matter: God hates Sweden. And Sweden’s response? A classic comeback: they don’t care for Him too much either…
The question posed is whether the same debate could rise in Sweden. The answer seems to be a definitive no. The role of religion in Sweden is peripheral, and the power of the religious communities is relatively weak. The major media; our national papers, the big tv channels and the national radio are all expressly secular. There simply aren’t any strong religious counterweights to the secular forces. There’s also a lack of numerous religious grassroots organisations that can mobilise the people in a defense of traditional superstition and bronze age morality.
The question, it seems, is not whether organized religion (as opposed to personal belief systems that carry no political weight) can bring anything substantive to the intellectual table. The question is whether a religious viewpoint should be tolerated at all. I don’t believe the author is implying that religious viewpoints should be legally restricted – and as an unapologetic defender of the First Amendment I would reject any notion that religionists should be unable to voice opinions – it’s that Swedish society at large has progressed beyond the need for primitive mythology to explain their world. There is simply no serious consideration within Swedish society that religious viewpoints would be tolerated as a likely explanation for anything. To borrow an idea from Dawkins, the Swedes apparently consider all religion in much the same light as American Christians consider Greek mythology – nothing more than an interesting historical experiment.
Americans, by contrast, aren’t even close to this phase of intellectual enlightenment. There are still too many in society who consider religious viewpoints not just as tolerable with respect to others, but actual believe them to be superior (otherwise we wouldn’t be having conversations about creationism, gay marriage and blastocyts as human beings while simultaneously justifying the war in Iraq on the basis of a few lines from a Bronze Age text).
Predictably, the American religionists are not happy with the Swedish take on things. And, like explaining lack of rainfall, or the high school team winning the championship, they are quick to invoke their personal knowledge of God’s feelings on the matter: God hates Sweden. And Sweden’s response? A classic comeback: they don’t care for Him too much either…
Relilgious Graffiti At Historic Sites
This is part of the Applegate emigrant trail through the High Rock Canyon in northwestern Nevada. The trail was established in 1846, offering emigrants an alternative to the northern routes along the Columbian river. Why anyone would want to travel this route by oxen-drawn wagon is beyond me. We were in 4WD much of the time and had to negotiate steep inclines and large boulders. Obviously, the emigrants improved the trail as they went, possessed infinitely greater patience than we exhibit today, and were, how shall we say it?…a lot tougher (natural selection acted on these folks in ways we could not fathom today). Nonetheless, the going was rough for the emigrants passing this way. Upon entering the canyon in 1849, J. Goldsborough Bruff remarked:
“We found that generally the bed of the stream was unavoidably the line of travel through this very rugged mountain pass. This pass, for trail there was none- was filled with stumps of Cotton Wood Trees, large fallen trees, stones and rocks of every size. Dead cattle, broken wagons and carts, wheels, axels, tires, yokes, chains, etc- testimonials of its difficult character.”
Bruff would eventually make his way along the Nobles and Lassen trails across Lassen National Forest here in northeastern California, maintaining a wonderful diary with sketches that give us a fantastic glimpse of Euro-American emigrants during the mid 19th century.
Back on the Applegate Trail through High Rock Canyon we came to “Post Office Rock”: a place where many of the emigrants left their names and dates of passage. Sometimes short messages were left for emigrants traveling behind or returning through the route. The trail and the names carefully scratched or painted on the rock of High Rock Canyon provide a brief glimpse into the life of 19th century emigrants traveling across a rugged landscape. They are relics of a presence and activities that took place more than 150 years ago.
It is amazing what context and time will do to the remnants of human behavior. The majority of the names and dates scratched into the stone at the Post Office are, by today’s standards, nothing more than graffiti. But add time and a context, and the words become a priceless piece of history.
Graffiti, however, does exist alongside the historic gems of the Post Office. Here someone has much more recently added his or her own monogram alongside those from the 19th century. Several aspects of this recent addition immediately came to mind when I first saw it. First, it is an act of vandalism and desecration. The mere presence of these words bespeaks disrespect for history and for those who would follow this person to view what had previously been a pristine historical site. It also denotes lack of intellect and a demonstrably absent appreciation of historical context and respect for those who came before. The name “Calvary Chapel” further suggests that this individual holds his or her own spiritual values as more important than those maintained by anyone coming to this place either before or after. That the name of a church would be used to deface this sacred place also hints at the misplaced priorities of a nation. Any group of people who consider the possibility that religion should ascend above respect and deference to those who hold alternative views needs to reevaluate the basis for its assumptions. Consider this: had Jesus Christ himself written his own name on this place it would be considered defamation.
This is from one individual within a larger group. But context plays here as well: the social and cultural context this individual finds himself within clearly promotes the idea that their views should take precedence. And they no doubt justify their actions by appeal to an unseen, undemonstrated higher power. This is the point that Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and others have made – appeal to deities of any stripe, without recourse to reason and criticism, allows individuals to justify their behavior in any situation. I have to laugh when religionists claim morality exists only with belief and faith. On the contrary, history is littered with the human debris of religious subjectivity: ultimately anything is permissible if enough people are lead to the idea that “God wills it”.
Friday, August 10, 2007
A Lassen County Camp For Secular Kids?
I have posted several times on the issue of Virginia teachers suing the district for permission to hand out flyers and announcements on Christian bible camps, organizations, etc., but then refusing to hand out flyers promoting Camp Quest. Well, a good friend of mine in Lassen County (and a fellow LACIS member!) recently told me that he read about the camp on my post and attempted to enroll his kids in the California Camp Quest. Unfortunately California Camp Quest was overbooked (a good thing!, but...) and he couldn’t enroll his kids this year. However, that did spark a conversation on setting up a similar type of camp at Eagle Lake. I’ve been thinking about a Camp Quest/Lassen County Science Camp for a while and the two of us (plus some other folks) are going to try to pull one off next summer. This is all in the planning stages at the moment, although we’re looking into curricula, activities, etc. We also have an initial group of people to contact who we think would be interested in giving their kids and opportunity like this next year.
What I would like to know is if any Lassen County readers of Northstate Science (or anyone from surrounding areas) would be interested in having their kids attend something like this? Again, it’s still in the planning stages, but I’d like to get a sense of just how many might send their kids.
What I would like to know is if any Lassen County readers of Northstate Science (or anyone from surrounding areas) would be interested in having their kids attend something like this? Again, it’s still in the planning stages, but I’d like to get a sense of just how many might send their kids.
Talking To Kids About Science
I gave a talk on the interpretation of bones to the Summer Reading Session at the Lassen County Library last week and there was a nice little blurb in the Lassen County Times (for a change!). The audience was made up of about 20-30 kindergarteners through fourth graders. I had been asked to give a discussion on dinosaurs, which is not my forte; however I fortunately have a collection of fossils (including vertebrate fossils), shells, belemnoids, gastroliths, and a few other things. I think the highlight might have been the fossilized Carcharadon tooth (white shark) that all the kids thought must have come from the biggest shark in the world….until I showed them the Megalodon (extinct cousin of the white shark) tooth that was easily five times the size!
Before pulling out the fossils, however, we looked at bones of modern animals and talked about the kinds of things you can tell from bone: the species, how it might defend itself, sometimes the sex of the animal…but most importantly we talked about diet. One thing I’ve noticed about kids this age: they’re pretty smart, and most can use their reasoning skills to put two and two together. So, it became clear fairly quickly that the type of teeth an animal has is a really good indication of its diet. This is a point these early grade schoolers get but one that seems to be lost on Ken Ham and the Answers In Genesis crowd. I made it a point to talk to these kids and let them use their own reasoning to solve a problem based on an understanding of the natural world around us. Creationists like Ham won’t allow their children to reason, ask questions or explore alternative explanations – the only answers they accept are the ones they’ve contrived from biblical sources and the only science they’ll accept is that which gives them the answers they expect. (And if they get any political power, they won’t allow our children to reason and ask questions either!).
It is extremely important that those of us in science fields get out to talk to kids as often as we can. First, to insure that they understand what science and reasoning is all about, but secondly, so that they will know they’re not alone when other adults in their lives start to close the cultural blinders on their curiosity. You never, ever know the full extent to which you’ve influenced a child, even if they seem to appear bored while you’re talking about zebra teeth. I know from experience that it’s the little things that make a difference.
It’s also quite rewarding on a personal level: kids really do ask great questions and make wonderful observations. Even when they’re off the mark, they’re not off it by much. I just shiver at the thought of kids living in Ken Ham-like households where truth is a construction of their parents’ fears and reality is limited to what can be supported by a two thousand year old text written by primitives. Kids have a right to explore the world around them – those of us in professional science fields have a duty to give them that opportunity as often as we can.
Before pulling out the fossils, however, we looked at bones of modern animals and talked about the kinds of things you can tell from bone: the species, how it might defend itself, sometimes the sex of the animal…but most importantly we talked about diet. One thing I’ve noticed about kids this age: they’re pretty smart, and most can use their reasoning skills to put two and two together. So, it became clear fairly quickly that the type of teeth an animal has is a really good indication of its diet. This is a point these early grade schoolers get but one that seems to be lost on Ken Ham and the Answers In Genesis crowd. I made it a point to talk to these kids and let them use their own reasoning to solve a problem based on an understanding of the natural world around us. Creationists like Ham won’t allow their children to reason, ask questions or explore alternative explanations – the only answers they accept are the ones they’ve contrived from biblical sources and the only science they’ll accept is that which gives them the answers they expect. (And if they get any political power, they won’t allow our children to reason and ask questions either!).
It is extremely important that those of us in science fields get out to talk to kids as often as we can. First, to insure that they understand what science and reasoning is all about, but secondly, so that they will know they’re not alone when other adults in their lives start to close the cultural blinders on their curiosity. You never, ever know the full extent to which you’ve influenced a child, even if they seem to appear bored while you’re talking about zebra teeth. I know from experience that it’s the little things that make a difference.
It’s also quite rewarding on a personal level: kids really do ask great questions and make wonderful observations. Even when they’re off the mark, they’re not off it by much. I just shiver at the thought of kids living in Ken Ham-like households where truth is a construction of their parents’ fears and reality is limited to what can be supported by a two thousand year old text written by primitives. Kids have a right to explore the world around them – those of us in professional science fields have a duty to give them that opportunity as often as we can.
Wednesday, August 08, 2007
And A Good Example Of Catholic Science
My father-in-law sent me a link to Bellarmine’s magazine, Connections, the current issue of which contains a number of articles on the school’s alumni and their take on various views of science, including evolution and intelligent design. Bellarmine is a Catholic college prep high school in San Jose, California and my father-in-law has always been proud of his attendance there. He should be. While reading the articles I again found a bit a hope that the Catholic educational system (of which I am a product, at least partially) hasn’t completely teetered to the side of anti-science advocacy. (Unfortunately, I merely have to read Michael Behe, Denyse O’Leary, Benjamin Wiker, Richard Newhouse and numerous authors in First Things, or visit a host of “Catholic Answers” web pages to realize there is still a large and vocal group of Catholics wanting to return science to the 12th century). Nonetheless, the articles clearly showed a group of scientists who, while maintaining their own faith, clearly understood that science pretty much tells us the truth about the way in which the world works. The article on “Finding Frontiers in Science” highlights the amazing scientific discoveries of the last decade, including “…new discoveries of hominid skulls in Kenya leading to breakthroughs in studying early man”. In an interview with several Bellarmine alumni scientists, Dr. Richard Nevle says
Now, it’s pretty clear that shallow seas once existed on the Martian surface. But back in the mid-eighties the notion of water on Mars was still very speculative. Holding pieces of Mars in my hand was pretty cool. And that is the reason, to this day in my geology class, I pass around meteorites to my students, because there’s nothing neater than holding on to a 4.6 billion year-old piece of history.
Bellarmine alumnus and science teacher Marty McKenzie:
People don’t realize it, but science is a great path for people who want to do something creative. To take a set of scientific observations, make sense of them, and come up with new experiments to test your theory — that is really a creative challenge.
No Answers in Genesis anti-science young earth creationists in this crowd of Catholic scientists. And while the Catholic journal First Things seems to be touting authors who doubt the existence, effects or human sources of global warming, these Catholic scientists view the issue less politically and more pragmatically:
Roman DiBiase:
Unfortunately, we do not have the convenience of waiting around for the best solution to appear before taking action. There are certain things we can do as a country that can help regardless of the exact nature of the problem. There is no reason not to build more energy-efficient houses, or fuel-efficient cars. Conservation is the key. The technology is available, but it requires a certain acceptance of failure on our part. People don’t want to change unless they absolutely have to, especially when the status quo is perfectly functional in our day-to-day lives. While I personally would not like to see gas go up to $6-8 per gallon, I’m sure it would jump-start a new era of energy efficient vehicles and alternative transportation.
(I agree: I’m not excited about $6-8/gallon gas, either – but it may be the only thing that gets us really serious about abandoning fossil fuels and moving into more efficient, cheaper and non-polluting sources of energy. Humans never seem to make radical jumps in their technology and cultural evolution until faced with a crisis).
Richard Nevle on the human causes of global warming:
So, with the birth of agricultural civilization about 8,000 years ago, humans began clearing land of forests to make it available for agriculture. The burning of those trees, by comparison to previous eras, was putting large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. Later on, the advent of rice cultivation began to introduce large amounts of methane to the atmosphere…I and my collaborator surveyed the existing natural records of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration from this time, and just as importantly, the records of the carbon isotope composition of CO2 — a chemical fingerprint, which together reveal a removal of CO2 in the atmosphere right after European arrival that is consistent with the signal expected from reforestation. All because so many indigenous Americans died from pandemics during the centuries of European conquest. Humans, we learned, seem to be changing climate even before the Industrial Era.
On the topic of Intelligent Design and Evolution, none of the Bellarmine alumni favored intelligent design. They were, however, unwilling to abandon faith completely, certainly something to be expected from Catholic scientists. I was interested, however, to read that they were exploring the intersection of faith and science beyond what we would normally read in the mainstream press. Charan Ranganath asks, “When is the imprimatur of God imposed upon matter? Is it at the very beginning of the universe — in the very nature of matter itself? For scientists who have a faith life, this is a very appealing notion. Einstein said he believed in the God of Spinoza, in other words, a god who is manifested in the order of nature…How does randomness fit with the notion of a God who is active in our lives? Now that’s an interesting question”.
There are vestiges of Gould’s NOMA (Non-Overlapping Magisteria) principle here, again something to be expected from Catholics and certainly something akin to what was presented during my early Catholic educational career. I am afraid that I have come to largely abandon the NOMA principle although there was a time when I advocated for it. During that period in my life, the randomness question was actually quite easy to solve: for a god of infinite time and space (which is presumably what we all believed in) is there such a thing as “random”? Randomness is a product of scale…and at the scale of human perception, things that appear random to us may not in fact be random to something at a much different scale.
Now, however, I think this is all a rather moot point. Personally I can no longer accept today’s religions as a window on the spiritual (I’ve read too much Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris; studied too much religious history, and know too much about human behavior). Religion (and by association, theology) is largely a product of human political agendas, disguised as something personal. But more on that later…
In the article, Charan Ranganath seems to look to further discovery in science as a way to bolster a personal faith, provided a mind is kept open: “I told him every time I’ve learned something about the brain, it gives me an appreciation of our complexity and of the delicate balance of factors that makes each of us unique. If you believe in God (or Gods), I would think that understanding our origins and our nature should reaffirm that belief, not undermine it”.
But Dr. Ranganath’s most impressive words on the subject of evolution and intelligent were the following:
When I hear about this issue, I can’t help but think that the blame falls squarely on scientists, not on the “religious right.” …Unfortunately, most scientists aren’t interested in engaging in a dialogue with the public, which is why you have the current state of affairs. If we want people to believe in science, we have to actually give them a reason, and say it clearly and consistently.
Certainly many scientists don’t engage the public on a regular basis. We need to step out of our ivory towers and discuss the method and results of scientific inquiry, whatever the discipline. As I’ve said countless times before, we need to compete with the creationists in constantly voicing why they are in error and we are correct. Those of us in the blogosphere are taking a good first step to counter the misinformation generated by the Discovery Institute, Answers in Genesis, and the like. It’s good to see that good Catholic institutions like Bellarmine are turning out scientists who feel the same way…
Now, it’s pretty clear that shallow seas once existed on the Martian surface. But back in the mid-eighties the notion of water on Mars was still very speculative. Holding pieces of Mars in my hand was pretty cool. And that is the reason, to this day in my geology class, I pass around meteorites to my students, because there’s nothing neater than holding on to a 4.6 billion year-old piece of history.
Bellarmine alumnus and science teacher Marty McKenzie:
People don’t realize it, but science is a great path for people who want to do something creative. To take a set of scientific observations, make sense of them, and come up with new experiments to test your theory — that is really a creative challenge.
No Answers in Genesis anti-science young earth creationists in this crowd of Catholic scientists. And while the Catholic journal First Things seems to be touting authors who doubt the existence, effects or human sources of global warming, these Catholic scientists view the issue less politically and more pragmatically:
Roman DiBiase:
Unfortunately, we do not have the convenience of waiting around for the best solution to appear before taking action. There are certain things we can do as a country that can help regardless of the exact nature of the problem. There is no reason not to build more energy-efficient houses, or fuel-efficient cars. Conservation is the key. The technology is available, but it requires a certain acceptance of failure on our part. People don’t want to change unless they absolutely have to, especially when the status quo is perfectly functional in our day-to-day lives. While I personally would not like to see gas go up to $6-8 per gallon, I’m sure it would jump-start a new era of energy efficient vehicles and alternative transportation.
(I agree: I’m not excited about $6-8/gallon gas, either – but it may be the only thing that gets us really serious about abandoning fossil fuels and moving into more efficient, cheaper and non-polluting sources of energy. Humans never seem to make radical jumps in their technology and cultural evolution until faced with a crisis).
Richard Nevle on the human causes of global warming:
So, with the birth of agricultural civilization about 8,000 years ago, humans began clearing land of forests to make it available for agriculture. The burning of those trees, by comparison to previous eras, was putting large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. Later on, the advent of rice cultivation began to introduce large amounts of methane to the atmosphere…I and my collaborator surveyed the existing natural records of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration from this time, and just as importantly, the records of the carbon isotope composition of CO2 — a chemical fingerprint, which together reveal a removal of CO2 in the atmosphere right after European arrival that is consistent with the signal expected from reforestation. All because so many indigenous Americans died from pandemics during the centuries of European conquest. Humans, we learned, seem to be changing climate even before the Industrial Era.
On the topic of Intelligent Design and Evolution, none of the Bellarmine alumni favored intelligent design. They were, however, unwilling to abandon faith completely, certainly something to be expected from Catholic scientists. I was interested, however, to read that they were exploring the intersection of faith and science beyond what we would normally read in the mainstream press. Charan Ranganath asks, “When is the imprimatur of God imposed upon matter? Is it at the very beginning of the universe — in the very nature of matter itself? For scientists who have a faith life, this is a very appealing notion. Einstein said he believed in the God of Spinoza, in other words, a god who is manifested in the order of nature…How does randomness fit with the notion of a God who is active in our lives? Now that’s an interesting question”.
There are vestiges of Gould’s NOMA (Non-Overlapping Magisteria) principle here, again something to be expected from Catholics and certainly something akin to what was presented during my early Catholic educational career. I am afraid that I have come to largely abandon the NOMA principle although there was a time when I advocated for it. During that period in my life, the randomness question was actually quite easy to solve: for a god of infinite time and space (which is presumably what we all believed in) is there such a thing as “random”? Randomness is a product of scale…and at the scale of human perception, things that appear random to us may not in fact be random to something at a much different scale.
Now, however, I think this is all a rather moot point. Personally I can no longer accept today’s religions as a window on the spiritual (I’ve read too much Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris; studied too much religious history, and know too much about human behavior). Religion (and by association, theology) is largely a product of human political agendas, disguised as something personal. But more on that later…
In the article, Charan Ranganath seems to look to further discovery in science as a way to bolster a personal faith, provided a mind is kept open: “I told him every time I’ve learned something about the brain, it gives me an appreciation of our complexity and of the delicate balance of factors that makes each of us unique. If you believe in God (or Gods), I would think that understanding our origins and our nature should reaffirm that belief, not undermine it”.
But Dr. Ranganath’s most impressive words on the subject of evolution and intelligent were the following:
When I hear about this issue, I can’t help but think that the blame falls squarely on scientists, not on the “religious right.” …Unfortunately, most scientists aren’t interested in engaging in a dialogue with the public, which is why you have the current state of affairs. If we want people to believe in science, we have to actually give them a reason, and say it clearly and consistently.
Certainly many scientists don’t engage the public on a regular basis. We need to step out of our ivory towers and discuss the method and results of scientific inquiry, whatever the discipline. As I’ve said countless times before, we need to compete with the creationists in constantly voicing why they are in error and we are correct. Those of us in the blogosphere are taking a good first step to counter the misinformation generated by the Discovery Institute, Answers in Genesis, and the like. It’s good to see that good Catholic institutions like Bellarmine are turning out scientists who feel the same way…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
