Here We Go Again - Monkey Trials

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/journaleditorialreport/052705/qa1.html
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/journaleditorialreport/052705/briefing.html

The interesting thing about "Intelligent Design" theorists is that so few are scientists. Consider Philip Johnson, a lawyer and author of "Darwin on Trial." He is one of the main proponents of ID. There are a few exceptions, such as biochemist Michael Behe and mathematician William Dembski, whose ideas have been published in monographs (Which incidentally have been published respectively in the popular Free Press, and the religious InterVarsity Press - not scholarly peer-reviewed presses). However, their assertions have been rejected by the overwhelming majority of their peers. Where are the articles arguing for ID in the respected scientific journals? The promotion of ID is then left chiefly to preachers, attorneys, and "scientists" with suspect credentials (Carl Baugh, Ken Hovind, ...).

The impetus for the appeal to Intelligent Design is born more of seeking ways to reconcile the dissonance between fundamentalist/ literalist biblical views of natural history and scientific theory. It is a battle to retain deeply held belief over historical and inferential evidence to the contrary. Let's let the preachers and lawyers decide what to teach our children in science classes. Let's become the laughingstock of the civilized world. In the end, the children lose.

Of course, for those intelligent enough to realize that the Bible cannot be taken as a verbatim message from God, evolutionary theory need not reject the idea of a God initiating the sequence of life. The fact however that adaptation and speciation subsequently occurred is solidly established. The absurdity of the entire debate boggles the mind.

While My Guitar Gently Weeps

Cultural-Political Dissonance

Just some things to mess with our neatly drawn cultural maps of the world:

Mennonites of Mexico?
http://www.calnative.com/stories/n_mennon.htm

Jews of Iraq?
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/iraqijews.html

Jews of China?
http://www.haruth.com/AsiaJewsShanghai.htm

Celts of France?
http://www.rickross.com/reference/general/general79.html

Academic Freedom

Given recent outrage over the statements and behaviors of some academics, it is not surprising that the hoi polloi is calling for restraint of expression in colleges, particularly public universities. David Horowitz's "Students for Academic Freedom" movement is gaining popularity among some of our states' legislatures. Calls for professors to cease expressing certain views have reverberated throughout the nation.

It seems that the reactionaries are building strawman arguments in most of these cases by selecting the most outrageous and egregious examples in order to indict academia as a whole. Such pressure upon state governments may have a chilling effect on the freedom of research and dissemination of results. One viewpoint trumpeted by right-wing commentators is that state institutions, funded by tax dollars, should follow the dictates of public sentiment. Consider the absurdity of such a notion. The acquisition of knowledge and understanding cannot be dictated by the capricious winds of the prevailing moods. For this same reason, judges are insulated - in theory - from public opinion (at least at the federal level, where they are not elected).

There has been a recent trend away from tenured positions. This is unfortunate, as tenure provides the chief means of mitigating undue political and administrative pressure against academics and their work. This is not to say that a professor has absolute liberty - no one does. Universities have termination options for behaviors such as plagiarism, falsifying data, unprofessional conduct, etc. Not to mention the legal ramifications imposed upon all citizens for acts of slander or libel. Every academic is subject to ostratization by his peers as well. If one's research or interpretation is apparently tendentious, sloppy, ot irrelevant, the community of scholars will most assuredly make it known. However, neither unpopularity nor unconventionality of views should ever become the impetus for either termination or discipline.

Critical Thinking in High School Curricula

As the information deluge shows no signs of abating, it is essential that teens be trained in the science/art of critical thinking. Many states require "economics," "American history," and "government" in order to produce an equipped citizenry. I applaud these requirements. It is however as important to train students to be savvy with regard to commercial, political, and ideological pitches.

I realize that thinking-skill development is inherent in many classes such as English and Math classes. Furthermore, many instructors present their students with such exercises in reasoning for the same reasons I have mentioned. It would however be beneficial to engage students' minds in explicit applications of both quantitative and qualitative reasoning to practical scenarios. Consider the usefulness of at least an introductory knowledge of statistical concepts in analyzing advertising, campaign publications, and the tendentious propaganda of dogmatic interest groups. Even teaching students a few of the most prevalent logical fallacies would benefit these future consumers and citizens.

Even a basic understanding of the scientific method and the parameters of scientific inquiry would mitigate much of the confusion today over scientific versus belief statements. Many today cannot distinguish between established theory and speculative musings. One may counter that science classes should be covering these issues. True; however, as my own two high-school students' experiences will attest, the rote memorization involved in some of these classes leaves little time or inclination for considering the broader implications of a scientific worldview and its meaning in their lives. Moreover, many classes simply give information, without analysis, and without practical experimentation (often due to budgetary constraints, space limitations, and class sizes/teacher shortage).

No, the sky is not falling. I've no doubt that many teachers share my perspective on this issues and are integrating such concepts into their materials. This is just my two cents worth on an issue of some importance for me. I have to deal with the products of high schools. I want young adults who are equipped to think, whether they enter college or go directly into the workforce.

Thoughts on Masculine/Feminine Dichotomies

As a historian, I am interested in the human experience and how that experience and our perceptions thereof changes over time. One telling example involves our conceptions of "manly" and "ladylike" attributes and behaviors. Of course, the non-reflective element among us deem their present gender milieu as self-evident, timeless, and "natural." In truth, however, virtually nothing transcends history. Everything - both sacred and profane - is affected by historical context and development.

Eighteenth-century aristocratic masculine norms, for example, would seem rather effeminate by present-day standards. Powdered wigs, braided hair, "pony tails", ruffled cuffs, knee-high stockings, and "genteel" mannerisms would be described as "delicate." With the evolution of American and - to an extent - British masculinity through the early nineteenth century and the Victorian decades toward the turn of that century, strict dichotomies of male-female roles and norms bifurcated society into feminine "domestic" and masculine "public" spheres. As these recent historical developments have become reified, and perpetuated throughout American culture ever since, many have come to assume that they are "natural" and axiomatic. "Everybody knows that men act this way!" "That's for girls!" "Be a man!" "Girls don't do that!" "Act like a lady!"

Although there are obvious biological differences and undeniable reproductive functions of men and women (for those who choose to reproduce naturally) and certain innate propensities or gravitations of each sex to certain activities, we need not accept the artificial dynamic cultural appendages outside of these static distinctions as "natural" or "normal." Such fields are best represented by subtle transitions of grays rather than by stark blacks and whites. The gender nexus is fluid, dynamic, amorphous, and undefined.

It seems to me to be a more worthy goal to produce offspring that aspires to human excellence, valuing the traits of compassion, empathy, aesthetics, creativity, honesty, love, gentleness, tenacity, courage, altruism, reasonableness, intelligence, love of learning..., rather than replications from simplistic gender molds. We are all complex - okay, well some more than others - creatures consisting of unique blends of stereotypically "masculine" and "feminine" traits. Just as eight basic notes (through multiple octaves) create infinite varieties of melodies, so do personality traits create the kaleidoscopic creation that is human.

Perplexing Unoriginal Thoughts

On "intelligent" design:

• Why do men have nipples?
• Why do chickens have wings?

On the soul:

• How does one explain amnesia in the context of an immaterial soul? How does a physical injury affect a non-physical entity?
• How do we explain diseases such as Alzheimer's and their effect on subjective identity? (There is a book called Chicken Soup for the Alzheimer's Soul - believe it or not)
• Are the thoughts, personality, and identity of a person resident in the soul?
• Should we henceforth say that the patient's soul (rather than brain) was injured in the wreck?

On heaven:

• How does one reconcile the primitive notion of "up" relative to God or heaven in light of our current understanding that up exists only as a relative direction, such as "left" or "right"? In reality, there is no "up"; there is only "out."
• What does such a terracentric perspective say about the authors of our ancient texts and their limited knowledge?
• How did Jesus ascend into heaven? Or for that matter descend into hell?

Prisoners of Our Times

It occurred to me today - once again and in vivid detail - how imprisoned we are sometimes by our accidental place in history. Too often, we accept the values inculcated into us in our youth without question or analysis. From our extremely limited vantage point in history we look back, morally assessing the relative ignorance of our ancestors (e.g., slavery, apartheid, segregation, disenfranchisement of women and minorities, "humors" as explanation for illness, geocentricity, flatness of the earth.. ad infinitum). Ironically, particularly for the reactionary social conservatives among us, we likely would have believed the same nonsense.

If we are mindless followers of the status quo, is it unreasonable to assume that we would have been then? To be sure, such a charge runs the risk of ahistoricism or presentism. Still, it may be fruitful to consider whether we are leaders or followers - whether we passively or actively affirm the conventions we were born into, or challenge those conventions - affirming some and discarding others. Ultimately, it is an epistemological question: On what basis do we as individuals determine knowledge?

That is not to say that we glibly discard tradition indiscriminately. Nor am I endorsing some neophilic fallacy. My point rather is that we ought to assess the merits of our inherited mores, folkways, morals, and conventions on a case-by-case basis, elevating reason (based upon the current state of human knowledge) - not slavish submission to tradition - to the position of arbiter; and regularly reevaluating those cases. Such a position requires a certain liberality of mind. Alas, some are precluded from such thought, owing to their rigid, reified - even petrified -schemas.

Moderation

Given the current atmosphere in Washington, it's a good time to consider a little moderation. "Compromise" is not a dirty word. A wise man once noted that "politics is the art of compromise." As intelligent citizens we should always be open to reasonable arguments. Unfortunately, politics today is dominated by those who can scream the loudest and insist on not giving an inch.

Despite all of the rhetoric about "red states" and "blue states," Americans are more complex than political lines on a map. As one observer has noted, America is actually made up of "purple states" with varying intensities of red and blue. See: http://www.boingboing.net/images/Purple-USA.jpg

The system used by so many pundits colors a state red if 51% of the popular vote (and thus 100% of the perfunctory electoral vote in most states) goes to the Republican candidate. The same holds for narrow Democratic victories coloring a state blue. This system is very misleading.
Such an inaccurate system plays into the hands of the "two Americas" partisan punditry. In the end, it is the citizens who lose.

Jonah Goldberg's Historical Errors

Reading the local newspaper today, I ran across an op-ed piece by Jonah Goldberg. While certainly not as extreme as Ann Coulter, he has written some real howlers. In today's piece titled "Invasion of the America Snatchers" - Goldberg's attempt at a humorous reference to the movie "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" - after dividing America up into two neat clearly defined and simplistic camps, goes on to bemoan the recent influence of "European" ideas on American culture and politics. In a jeremiad - not unlike that of a fundamentalist preacher - Goldberg declares that "At the time of our founding, there were a bunch of Americans who clung to European values. Today, we call their descendants 'Canadians.' ... For many generations after the American Revolution, the idea of emulating European politics was nigh upon heresy. It wasn't until Woodrow Wilson, ... that borrowing ideas from Europe became fully politically acceptable." Goldberg further sneers, "If you look closely and study body language and speech, you may just discover that the liberals screeching at conservative aren't in fact Americans at all. They are Europeans taking on the form of Americans."

Setting aside Goldberg's inane parochial definition of "Americans," his reductionistic statements regarding European influence are simply wrong. Where does he think the revolutionary ideas of Jefferson, Madison, Paine, Adams, and Franklin sprang from? the mind of God? These ideas were historical developments articulated by the likes of Rousseau (French), Montesquieu (French), Voltaire (French), Diderot (French), Locke (English), Plato (Greek), Cicero (Roman), Smith (Scottish), ....... Furthermore, America was essentially culturally and politically European.

The myth of American exceptionalism isn't even obscured by a sophisticated veneer in Goldberg's rant. The relationship between our European heritage and our response to a new world has been a contested one from the beginning: a love/hate affair. To radically extricate what is "American" from what is "European" is to ignore history. It is a shameful triumph of ideological rhetoric over historical accuracy and fairness.

Goldberg later notes in a dripping bit of romantic nostalgia that George Keenan reminisces - in reference to the pre-New Deal "rugged individualism" (such as that advocated by the utterly oblivious and politically tone-deaf Herbert Hoover) - about"when 'times were hard... as they often were, groans and lamentations went up to God, but never to Washington.' "

By this quote, does Goldberg suggest that we dismantle Social Security, Medicare, the SEC? (we all know big business can regulate itself). The FDIC? (Hey, if the bank folds due to poor investment of funds or macroeconomic problems beyond its control, too bad). Perhaps, we should do away with the Department of Agriculture’s meat inspections, the “meddlesome” FDA’s drug safety regulations? After all, according to Goldberg's logic, we should take our complaints to God, not government.

Like most reactionary jeremiads, Goldberg's transparent demagoguery depends on the intellectual laziness of his audience by appealing to both profound ignorance and prejudice. His piece offers neither a much-needed dose of moderation nor an appeal to common sense.