Category: History of Science
A mass of tusks, teeth, and bones. From William Buckland's Reliquiae diluvianae.
The problem with a lot of folks tapped as "authorities" on Charles Darwin is that they don't seem to know much about history. We assume that eminent evolutionary biologists and vocal personalities in the creation/evolution public controversy have a firm grasp of the context and content of Darwin's work, but they often do not. I would much rather hear what Janet Browne, Adrian Desmond, or Martin Rudwick have to say about Victorian science than E.O. Wilson, James Watson, or Richard Dawkins. (Stephen Jay Gould was an exception to this trend, but even he got some things wrong. See John's paper for more on this.)
What got me all riled up about this is Michael Shermer's endorsement quote for a new volume called For the Rock Record. It is a collection of essays refuting creationism by geologists and paleontologists, and it sounds like it will be an interesting book. It is frustrating, then, to see Shermer pay homage to St. Darwin (a construct which does not represent Darwin as he was, but as some wish him to be) in his endorsement;
Creationism began with the fossil record and there it shall end. Before Darwin, the geological strata with their accompanying fossils formed the first geological theory of life on earth--creationism coupled to flood geology. It was Darwin who stood that theory on its head and showed that, in fact, these same fossils could be used to support his new theory of evolution by natural selection. Ever since Darwin, geology has unequivocally supported evolution and not creationism, and yet today Intelligent Design thrives in popular culture. Here at last we have a definitive collection of world-class geologists and paleontologists who systematically demonstrate precisely why geology destroys all design arguments, and reveals instead a deep and rich history of life on earth. A perfect companion to all science courses.
Creationism began with the fossil record, eh? Somehow I doubt whoever wrote the Pentateuch was much concerned with paleontology, but let's assume that Shermer meant that early paleontologists were somewhat similar to the "Flood geologists" of the 20th century. This is a squishy sort of statement because even some paleontologists who believed there was geological evidence of a Flood, like William Buckland, did not attribute to it the entire fossil record. Geologists like Buckland tried to match their reading of the Bible with science, but it was not the same as creationism as we know it now.
Indeed, some early paleontologists like Georges Cuvier did not support a literal reading of Genesis. Cuvier did not publicly support evolution, that is true, but neither was he a "biblical catastrophist" who attributed all geology to events written of in the Bible. Charles Lyell, likewise, was not a flood geologist, and while many early-mid 19th century geologists were religious they were not fundamentalists who believed in a literal Genesis. To essentially equate the founders of geology & paleontology with modern day creationists is an insulting false equivalency.
In Shermer's mind St. Darwin came to the rescue and set everyone straight, but this was not actually so. Paleontology posed some big problems for Darwin, most of all that the fossil record did not contain the finely-graded transitions evolution by natural selection predicted. The fossil record was not inconsistent with his theory, yet it did not provide overwhelming support for it. (If we want to pin down who first applied the idea of evolution to the fossil record, Richard Owen preceded Darwin, if he was not the first to do so.) This was pointed out among some of the earliest paleontological critiques of On the Origin of Species, and Darwin often relied of what could be observed in the present to extrapolate what occurred during the past.
Even those who affirmed that evolution had happened did not always agree on what the mechanism was, and some paleontologists relegated natural selection to a subsidiary role relatively unimportant to evolutionary change. On the creationist side of things, the beginnings of what really could be called "Flood geology" did not begin until the beginning of the 20th century with figures like George McCready Price. Even then, the creationism associated with the American fundamentalist movement had more to do with defending the Bible from a perceived threat than scientifically proving the Bible to be true, and this is where creationism as we now know it is most firmly rooted.
I am not suggesting that the geological record supports creationism or intelligent design, only that the relationship of geological sciences & evolution has been so complex that "Ever since Darwin..." statements only spread confusion. As I have learned while researching the book I am working on the fossil evidence for many major evolutionary transitions has only become known recently. Discoveries made during the past 30-40 years, particularly, have filled in many of the gaps that were frustratingly open (like the origin of birds, whales, humans, etc.).
When confronting creationism it can be tempting to make grand pronouncements that things have been straightforward "ever since Darwin." That isn't the truth, but it makes us feel comfortable. As we enter the "Year of Evolution", though, I hope more people dig a little more deeply into history. The complexities of the history of evolution as an idea make it all the more fascinating, and we shortchange ourselves when we idolize St. Darwin.
[Hat-tip to PZ]
Posted by Brian Switek at 1:27 PM • 5 Comments
Category: The Great Book Project
Just because I have not been writing much here doesn't mean I have not been writing. This week I have devoted most of my energy to tidying up the chapter of my book on human evolution, and I am pleased to say that it is now practically complete.
The chapter, as it is now, stretches about 41 pages long. I asked my wife to read it and tell me what I could cut out or compress, but she told me she could not think of anything. I will give it one more round of editing, but it is unavoidable that this will be the longest chapter in the book. It is not meant to be a summary of everything you need to know about human evolution but a story of how we have come to understand what T.H. Huxley called "[our] place in nature." I think I have contributed an original synthesis, but now comes the tricky part.
Up until this point the main factor stifling my progress has been myself. Whenever I wrote something I was not sure of I admonished myself for being a poor researcher and went back to the literature to make sure I could support what I was saying. I have spent what feels like an eternity editing this chapter to make sure it is as up-to-date and accurate as I can make it. Now, though, I am nearly ready to send out my proposal to agents. I am going to look over the chapters on whales and dinosaurs/birds to make sure they are as good as I can make them, but soon I will be presenting my work to people who can (hopefully) turn my hobby into a paying gig.
more animals
While my proposal is making the rounds I will move on to other chapters, even though I am not sure which I will tackle first. Perhaps the early tetrapods. I hope that someone will take an interest before I complete the entire manuscript, but I guess I will just have to wait and see.
Here is the latest Wordle for the chapter;
For previous posts dealing with this project, see the "Books" and "Great Book Project" archives.
Posted by Brian Switek at 12:38 PM • 0 Comments
Category: Mammals • Nonsense • Photography
I knew it would happen someday; someone has found one of my photographs, captioned it, and posted it to icanhascheezburger.com. I stumbled across it while flipping through the "Upcoming" section.
see more crazy cat pics
I took that photo in August of 2006 at the Animal Kingdom Pet Store & Zoo (it's about as crummy as it sounds). For anyone interested in captioning more pictures, I think some of my recent sea lion pictures are good candidates (like this one, or this one). Just don't say you "dunno source."
Posted by Brian Switek at 12:59 PM • 4 Comments
Category: Blogging • Shameless Plug
- I'm a little late to the game on this tidbit, but in case you haven't heard, please welcome the newest addition to the Sb family, Rebecca Skloot! She's a (*GASP*) journalist who has written some fantastic pieces for the New York Times and she also has a new book in the works called The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks. Her blog, Culture Dish, can be found here.
- Anne-Marie Hodge, author of Pondering Pikaia, is one of my favorite science bloggers, and she has just started up a new science blog on the Nature Network. Even though Pondering Pikaia will remain active, Anne-Marie will be shifting most of her science posts to the new blog, Endless Forms. Be sure to check it out!
- Another of my favorite bloggers, Michael Barton, has moved The Dispersal of Darwin to Wordpress. You can keep up with his excellent work here.
Posted by Brian Switek at 6:44 AM • 4 Comments
Category: Books • Creationism
The best thing about Frank Peretti's 2005 novel Monster was that it was over quickly. I was able to zip through the 419-page yarn in about five hours, although after about five minutes I felt I had wasted too much time on this anti-evolution screed.
I was loaned the novel by a friend who thought I might enjoy it, but I already knew I was in trouble when I glanced at the Acknowledgments page;
Jonathan Wells, postdoctoral biologist and senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, whose book, Icons of Evolution, first got my creative wheels turning, and who helped me clarify my main idea over a pleasant lunch.
Dr. David DeWitt, director of the Center for Creation Studies at Liberty University, who, besides being a brilliant scientist and technical advisor, is quite an imaginative story crafter in his own right.
Wells... why did it have to be Wells? That creationists were technical advisors on the scientific aspects of the book did not instill me with optimism. My fears were confirmed when I noticed there was a little Q&A section in the back of the book where Peretti explains his motivation for writing Monster;
Q: What are some of the different issues you have dealt with in your books?
A: In This Present Darkness, it was spiritual warfare and intercessory prayer. In Piercing the Darkness, it had to do with the encroachment of neo-paganism into the educational and legal system. ... And in Monster - whoooh! - there's a whole lot of different messages. My first idea was evolution. One of evolution's best-kept secrets is that mutations don't work. They're not beneficial. I believe that if I can just create a story that somehow addresses that one leg of evolution, I can get people thinking. I can't make a big scientific argument. I can just tell the story. One of the best ways to really combat the fortress of Darwinism is to allow people to wonder about it, to acquaint them with the controversy so that they know there is one.
Great! Evangelical-Christian conspiracy theories and regurgitated creationist bile, all in one package! I am half-surprised that the makers of Expelled did not try to tie in their film with Perotti's New York Times-bestseller (?!), as a major point of the story is the academic coverup concerning "the truth" about evolution. Peretti does not try very hard to disguise his targets in the book. Not only do academic institutions expel anyone who questions the "Darwinian orthodoxy", but the "American Geographic" association, "Public Broadcasting," and the "Evolution Channel" are in on it, too.
Indeed, Peretti canonizes the faithful "good guys" who are constantly wondering things like "Why, oh God, did you let that Sasquatch steal my toilet paper?" (more on that in a minute) while anyone remotely associated with evolution is evil, stupid, or both. Indeed, Peretti has clearly imbibed a lot of Jonathan Wells' teaching, and that is certainly not a compliment.
But what of the story itself? The story follows our hero Reed (described as "a six-foot hunk", which made me wonder "A six-foot hunk of what?") as he tries to rescue his wife Beck from some creature that absconded with her during a camping trip. While Reed and his friends (one of whom is a creationist ex-professor who was expelled from academia for his views) try to figure things out, Beck is carried along by a female Sasquatch (one of a family of four) who took a liking to her.* But there's something else out there, something that makes size-18 feet scamper off to safer places. That something is a genetically modified and highly aggressive chimpanzee, created by a mad-evolutionist who wanted to prove that beneficial mutations are a reality.
*[One particular howler that appears early in the book is that the apes apparently have a tapetum lucidum, a layer of tissue in the eyes of some vertebrates that reflects light. It is the tissue that makes "eye shine" you see in flash photos of cats and dogs. Apes don't have a tapetum lucidum, but some primates, like lemurs, do. When I read Peretti's mistake, I have to admit that I got the idea for a horror story of my own involving killer lemurs (perhaps something like Megaladapis), but I don't think I'll ever commit such a tale to print.]
I won't apologize for spoiling the big "gotcha" revelation. That Beck is among a group of Sasquatch is made clear in the first quarter of the book, and there are near-constant references to some even nastier menace in the forest. It was not that difficult to figure out. Nor was it a stretch to imagine those "devilutionists" creating some kind of monster in a last-ditch effort to prove evolution, and the villains ramble on and on about "survival of the fittest." They are villains because, being evolutionists, they obviously have no morals (or so the likes of Wells and Peretti would have us believe), and therefore anything is permissible. This is a bunch of rot, of course, but I'm sure Peretti's morality tale had a sympathetic audience among those who wish to read the Bible as a science text.
[I am not going to recount the overwhelming evidence for evolution here. I will instead point you to the Talk Origins archive and Expelled Exposed! if you want to know more about evolution and the intelligent design manufactroversy.]
Strangely, Peretti never questions where the Sasquatch came from. If they existed in nature and were not manufactured monsters, what was their origin? This is never considered, and I can only assume that Peretti believed that they were "created" at some point, just as we were. Depending on the situation, their ape-like or human-like characteristics are played up, but Peretti makes sure to remind us that apes are just animals. In one particular instance, Beck's superiority over the apes is asserted because she was able to use a hairbrush and Peretti's Sasquatch could not.
All of this nonsense might have been mitigated if Peretti was a good writer. He is not. His character descriptions typically consist of what a character is wearing, what kind of hat they have on, and whether they have facial hair. Minor characters buzz in and out of the story to the point where it was a relief to see repetitive references to "the one in the Mariners hat" because otherwise I wouldn't know who the hell these people were supposed to be! Even though Peretti claims that he wants to write cinematic, visually-oriented stories in the Q&A section at the end of the book, I often found it difficult to get a mental image of what was going on. I had to strain to fill in the gaps that Peretti left open in his descriptions.
Peretti also mentions that his favorite author (and chief writing influence) was Michael Crichton, and this makes sense. Not only does the book have an anti-science bent, but it reads as a sort of mash-up between Jurassic Park, Congo, and Icons of Evolution. Even though it is a monster story, the author makes it clear that the real monsters are the immoral evolutionists who will stop at almost nothing to uphold their crumbling intellectual doctrine. I have been involved in this issue enough to see through Peretti's fictional diatribe, but I am sure that many readers were nodding in agreement with his treatment of scientists.
The chief problem with Peretti's book is that, like many fiction authors specifically targeting Christians, he is so concerned with getting his theological message across that the story is overwhelmed by heavy-handed religious rhetoric. The only reason I read it all the way through was to see whether my guesses to the conclusion of the story were correct. Given its target audience, I don't think many (any?) readers of this blog had intended to pick it up, but unless you're in the mood for a real howler, I'd say leave this one alone. Your time is better spent elsewhere.
[If you're in the mood for a good monster book, check out The Relic. If you want to read something cheesy but without the religious overtones, check out Fatalis, one of the worst books I think I have ever read.]
Posted by Brian Switek at 3:12 PM • 13 Comments
