The Questioning Librarian

   There are some books that one enjoys reading. There are others that one reads because they have to know the contents of it, whether the journey is enjoyable or not. Thomas Frank's The Wrecking Crew is definitely in the latter category. It is a book that is not a pleasant read, but one that should be read nonetheless. I've had it in my possession for years, but I long held off reading it because I still thought myself a conservative at the time it was given to me. The subtitle ( How Conservatives Rule ) and my own biases made it all too easy to push off to the side. When I was no longer a conservative--or at least when those who claimed the name conservative in the public sphere had grown so offensive and ignorant that I could no longer share the label--I suspected that the book would not be a joy to read, rather along the lines of Crimes Against Nature by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. I was right on that account, but I should have read it sooner nonetheless. ...

In the years I've spent watching the walking, babbling idiocy that is young earth creationism, I have learned never to underestimate what they will do, never to be surprised at what they claim, and certainly never to think that most of those who believe this way will be open to reason. No claim is too absurd, no denial of reality too patently ridiculous for the proponents of a literal Genesis. Belief is a powerful thing, especially a belief that refuses to see objective evidence, and such are the beliefs of young earth creationism. Whether it is Ken Ham or Eric Hovind, they are united in their conviction that true Christianity requires that the Bible be taken literally, especially the creation myth of Genesis. Further, they believe that to accept, as many Christians do, that evolution is reality is to join the ranks of the compromisers, and to risk eternal damnation.   While there is no debate among scientists as to the fact of evolution, this has no meaning to ...

I had the distinct pleasure of watching Peter Jackson's newest film "The Hobbit" in the company of friends on Saturday. It was a pleasure distinct because it is a pleasure I never thought that I would have. It was a film that at many moments seemed doomed never to reach the theaters, with the squabble over the film rights to The Hobbit (previously held by that easily-forgotten company which produced a cartoon version of the story several decades ago), the bickering between New Line Cinema and Jackson over money from The Two Towers film, the departure of Guillermo del Toro as director, and a few other bumps in the road. Especially in the early stages, I did not think that I would see the day when "The Hobbit" was a high-quality film. Combine that with the fact that the story is one of my favorite books, one that I re-read at least once a year (and I rarely re-read any book once I'm done with it, no matter how good it was), and it did not surprise me at all t...

Distinctions are important. Distinctions have meaning, and they have purpose. They help us sort out reality from fantasy. If we needed any reminder of this fact, the hype over Robert Ballard's latest work should be sufficient to reinforce just how useful distinctions are. Imagine my surprise, after years arguing that the Flood of Genesis is a myth, to read that no less a respected authority than Robert Ballard, the man who discovered the location of the Titanic , "says Noah's Ark evidence comes to light," as this story from MSN has it. But if one reads the actual story, Ballard claims no such thing. After working with his team in the Black Sea region, Ballard announced his support of the hypothesis advanced by William Ryan and Walter Pitman that an ancient flood substantially raised the water level of the Black Sea, a flood event which formed the basis of many of the Flood myths. But trust the media to never let reality get in the way of a good headline! The hype co...

The universe is a strange and wondrous place; children seem to know this instinctively, as we always note a "child-like sense of wonder." But this sense of wonder need not be limited to children--everyone should experience this sense of wonder, at so many points in their lives. If one can pass through this life and never experience this sense of wonder at some of the marvelous things in the world, then I truly feel sorry for them. Sometimes science is accused of "unweaving the rainbow," to quote John Keats, but even the most basic understanding of science shouldn't destroy one's sense of wonder, it should heighten it! Science has solved a number of the mysteries of the world, and is hard at work explaining the currently unexplained. The Earth is not, in fact, at the center of the solar system, nor is the Earth the center of the universe, the entire cosmos formed for the sole purpose of entertaining humanity. Our species was not the result of a special creati...

I suppose the occasion for this post is not only the winding down of grad school for me, but also the intersection of two most interesting people. Ken Ham, former biology teacher out of Australia and know-nothing creationist head of "Answers in Genesis", has reissued his old saw "The Lie: Evolution" under a new subtitle, namely "The Lie: Evolution/Millions of Years," no doubt to creationist acclaim. I suspect, however, that the content will be just as stale as the first edition of this man's magnum opus, the same hackneyed arguments that patient scientists and educated non-scientists have deconstructed and debunked for just as long as Ham's been saying them. Not having read this new edition, how can I say this? Quite simply, the book's description on Ham's website contains the same arguments that I've been hearing and reading from the AiG emissaries for years, whether it was from the man himself or his legion of pseudo-scientific proxie...

When I checked my email the other day, I found creationist nonsense. As usual; a friend simply insists on sending me "Creation Moments" daily drivel. Each post makes some argument about how evolution is a) evil b) silly c) unable to explain the complexity of the biological world or d) all of the above. Some of them make me smile with their simple-minded caricatures of what the young-earth creationists seem to think evolution is. Others make me shake my head in wonder. The most recent email belongs firmly in the second category. The author argues that we only believe that "fossilized apes" are relatives because it nicely fits our pre-existing story and has nothing to do with actual evidence. This person makes the argument that if we believed humans to have evolved from birds and found a fossilized bird we would claim it as an ancestor. The hit-piece goes on to argue that science "has made up a lot of stories," as though science were based on ideas scient...

Sometimes I am asked why it is that I devote so much of my time to promoting evolution and attacking the certifiable lunacy that is young-earth creationism. Surely I have better things to do with my time, it is implied, like read Charles Dickens or plant flowers; after all, people believe lots of crazy things, why not let them have them, especially when it does no harm? That, however, is where the person asking the question goes astray. Creationism does do harm, real and verifiable harm. It is not harmless, like the belief that Elvis lives or the idea that Bigfoot strolls somewhere in the western United States. It is not a question of my opinion versus yours, not when the truth of evolution is verified scientific fact. At its heart, the struggle between creationism and evolution isn’t about a battle of ideas, for evolution is far more than just an idea. It isn’t even a struggle between religion and irreligion, though the young earth creationists might like you to think that, for ma...

As intellectually harmful as it is sometimes to listen to proponents of Young-Earth Creationism, it can often be instructive. Having read more articles from Answers in Genesis and listened to more YEC babbling than is healthy for a sane person, at the least I believe I understand how they operate. One such example is the look some creationists get when confronted with the "just one piece" of evidence for evolution. It is the look of a mind going right into autopilot, the glazed eyes of delusion. You can see an example of this process in Richard Dawkin's documentary series "The Genius of Charles Darwin" when he interviews Wendy Wright (both the clip from the documentary itself as well as the full interview can be found on YouTube). "Show me the evidence," the President of Concerned Women for America says; when Dawkins responds with evidence, she pleads for "just one" fossil, one "carcass," in her words, that shows the transition fr...

When creationists want to awe a credulous audience, preferably one in a church with limited education, they employ a variety of methods. One method is by trotting out one credentialed person to impress the audience with the fact that they have a Ph.D. or some other advanced degree; the person in question is usually old and may not even be a scientist, but they wave their doctorate around as though it makes them qualified to speak on DNA or geology. Often this scientist, generally well-spoken, employs another favored method in support of their rickety case. They will bring forth a natural process and say that if it is true, then the earth could not possibly be older than six thousand years because the phenomena would not exist as it currently does. One such example comes to us courtesy of the Creation Moments organization, which provides daily broadcasts of some example or another that either purports to “disprove” evolution or shed light on the glory of Creation as they see it. In a br...

While sometimes the struggle against the pseudoscientific tripe that is creationism seems never-ending, those of us on the side of science and reason occasionally get a win. This we have done in the past week; in yet another slap against creationism, the British government announced that "free schools", (local schools, often religious in nature but funded by the government and usually exempt from the educational curriculum of Britain), often called "faith schools" will lose funding if they attempt to teach creationism as science. Make no mistake, this is a victory for science. While Great Britain has traditionally ranked very high in public acceptance of evolution, the spread of these "faith schools" has led to a growing fear that this will be used to spread the religious doctrine of creationism. I am very grateful to Richard Dawkins and David Attenborough for spearheading this effort , making sure that Britain doesn't slide back from knowing and under...

An acquaintance and I engaged in polite conversation some time ago, discussing the nature of historical evidence and sources, and the discussion happened to go on to the evidence for the historical existence of Jesus. Both of us being students of history, we know how important sources are; sources are what we base the study of history upon. The acquaintance offered to loan me Josh McDowell's Evidence for the Historical Jesus: A Compelling Case for His Life and His Claims . I was reluctant to do so, but being polite I agreed to borrow and read it. The name of McDowell was familiar to me before the fact, but I admit that I didn't know much about him or his work. Now having read the book from beginning to end, paying close attention to the nature of the argument and the sources McDowell uses, I can say without a doubt that this is the finest piece of pseudoscholarship I have encountered since it was my misfortune to read Lee Stobel's The Case for a Creator . The numerous pro...