Ecolog:
What a pity that evolution scares away religious students. With the
exception of some professional bible-thumpers and other immoral
manipulators, I find most religious people attracted to various dogma
because they are fundamentally (npi) good, and are as sick and tired of
institutionalized indifference of the domineering quality of civilization as
the rest of us. Belief is only easier than thinking because the dominant
cultures do not want their victims challenging their authority; thus there
is no "Thinking 101" taught anywhere that I know of. Princeton? Fifth grade?
Thinking is the natural, easy, hard-wired brain function. To overcome this
automatic habit, children "have to carefully taught." It "has to be drummed
in[to] their dear little ears" to quote the song from "South Pacific."
Thinking and believing can't be done at the same time, but if the cataracts
of dogma can be lifted a bit, with patience rather than mimicking the very
kind of fundamentalism that created them in the first place (in "scientific"
clothing), the thought process can begin to soften the sclerotic encasement
that confines the mind.* Perhaps one place to start is to stop asking
whether or not people "believe in" evolution.
Science is about questioning one's assumptions; religion is about what's
right and what's wrong. A real reading of, say, the Vedic "scriptures," the
Koran, the Bible, and other ancient tracts of uncertain and probably
multiple authorship, rather than taking the rantings of some self-righteous
demagogue as "gospel" will reveal that much thinking has gone into those
once flexible tracts that have been perverted through mistranslation and
modification to suit the expediencies of money-changers in priestly shrouds
that have constructed hierarchies that have silenced the custom of
consultation that once was an integral part of their development.
The Demagogues of Dogma (title of an essay upon which I am still working)
find it expedient and effective to demonize "unbelievers," and "science"
itself tends to silence heretics, hence it is not immune from some of the
same processes that have perverted religions, which once were centers, foci,
of honest philosophy as "disciplined" (not conformist) thought.
Why "scientists" fear religion is no mystery. The fear has an origin common
to both what passes for science but is actually restrictive, in much the
same way as dogma insists upon conformity to the interpretations of the
current crop of authoritarians. There is much in the history of religious
thought to interest scientists; there is much in science that is not
inconsistent with true religion. They both are signposts in the history of
human thought, and both contain elements which, if subject to continuous
challenge, might contribute to a transformation from the rigidities of
civilization to a reconciled state of being which has been my life-quest
since the age of fifteen: To reconcile the needs and works of humankind with
those of the earth and its life.
WT
*I strongly recommend "Breaking Through: Essays, Journals, and Travelogues
of Edward F. Ricketts" By Katherine A. Rodger, with a foreword by Susan F.
Beegel. It is not a text, but I am reluctant to term it "additional
reading."
----- Original Message -----
From: "Madhusudan Katti" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 9:08 AM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] evolution for non-scientists textbook
Just following up on my earlier suggestion, there is a positive review
of "The Tangled Bank" in the recent American Biology Teacher:
http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1525/abt.2010.72.3.13
“For students of evolution or scholars who want to know the specifics
about particular evolutionary processes, this is an excellent read. The
fact that it is understandable to beginners and fascinating to
scientists makes this book truly unique and valuable.”
I would also recommend Carl Zimmer's excellent blog The Loom
(http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom) as a companion to any course on
evolution.
I like some of the other suggestions in this thread as well, especially
Sean Carroll's book. Coyne is very good too, and Dawkins new book is
probably dependable in getting the students' attention (I haven't read
it). The Selfish Gene is too old to be used as a general text for a
course on evolution. Moreover, with Coyne and Dawkins, I'd worry about
alienating some of the religious-minded students. I would hesitate to
use those in a non-majors class here in the central valley of
California, for example. In fact, I suspect that Coyne's book may have
played a role in pushing one of my own students (a grad student no
less!) away from Biology because the evidence/arguments in that book
were too strong for this religious student to handle. Of course that end
result was good in some ways, but it depends on what your goals are with
the class. Besides, your audience in Princeton (presuming it hasn't
changed in the decade since I was there) will be rather different from
what I face here in Fresno - so your mileage may vary!
__________________________________________
Madhusudan Katti
Assistant Professor of Vertebrate Biology
Department of Biology, M/S SB 73
California State University, Fresno
Fresno, CA 93740-8034
+1.559.278.2460
[email protected]
http://www.reconciliationecology.org/
__________________________________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.437 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2869 - Release Date: 05/12/10
06:26:00
