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...