Monkey Girl: Evolution, Education, Religion, and the Battle for America's Soul

[RamboLiberal]

Heard the author this morning on Pittsburgh local liberal talk host Lynn Cullen's show. Sounds like a fascinating book about the Dover PA school board trial where the school board instituted intelligent design in the classroom and the resulting court battle. Sounds like it also goes behind the scenes on what the students and parents opposing intelligent design. For instance one teacher family and parents had to endure some idiot who would stalk them and do monkey dances on their lawn.

From Amazon.com

Some see the 2005 case of Kitzmiller v.Dover, concerning a small-town school board's adding an "intelligent design" (i.e., anti-Darwinian) text to the ninth-grade science curriculum, as the second Scopes trial. But whereas evolution lost in 1925, it won in 2005. Also, Kitzmiller was a federal andScopes a state case. Yet as Humes sees it, Kitzmiller won't end the battle over evolution any more than Scopes did. That fracas, he opines, doesn't die; it evolves. Hence, religion was central in the earlier, science in the later, trial. While thoroughly presenting the personalities and events ofKitzmiller, Humes fills in so much of the story of evolutionary theory and literalist biblical reaction to it--especially the intelligent design, originally "creationist," then "creation science," movement--that the book is an engrossing community drama and a character-centered, topical history-of-science primer. Humes' clear reportorial style and sympathy for all the principals in Kitzmiller (except, perhaps, for the school board's hired-gun lead attorney) ensure the high interest of both aspects of the book. Ray Olson
Copyright © American Library Association. All rights reserved

Book Description

What should we teach our children about where we come from?

Is evolution good science? Is it a lie? Is it incompatible with faith?

Did Charles Darwin really say man came from monkeys? Have scientists really detected "intelligent design"—evidence of a creator—in nature?

What happens when a town school board decides to confront such questions head-on, thrusting its students, then an entire community, onto the front lines of America’s culture wars?

From bestselling author and Pulitzer Prize– winning journalist Edward Humes comes a dramatic story of faith, science, and courage unlike any since the famous Scopes Monkey Trial. Monkey Girl takes you behind the scenes of the recent war on evolution in Dover, Pennsylvania, the epic court case on teaching "intelligent design" it spawned, and the national struggle over what Americans believe about human origins.

Told from the perspectives of all sides of the battle, Monkey Girl is about what happens when science and religion collide.

[varun]

1. Why dont the fundies challenge the "Theory of Gravitation"?

after all, that is a "Theory" too?

In fact all the sciene we know is a "Theory". Why do they go after Evolution only?

[unpossibles]

2. interesting. I wonder what the creationists think of DNA testing

which - in my opinion - seems pretty compelling evidence that we not only share a common ancestor, but that some species are more closely genetically related than others.

How do the creationists see variations of humans? Asiatic, black, caucasian - we are all obviously the same species/race since we can breed together successfully, so what exactly is God's image in which we were created? Why would he make humans that have different features, both superficially and not, as in some people being more prone to lactose-intolerance? How do they explain the genetic breadth of humanity, and how could that occur in the few thousand years they say the earth existed? And if humans did change - evolve - to become black, white, brown or what have you - does that mean that a perfect God created an imperfect being, one which would need to evolve, to improve so to speak, on purpose? It makes no sense.

I guess I'm just confused how anyone can think that evolution is wrong - sure, we may not understand the mechanics of it, hence the scientific "theory" part, but that does not mean the underlying process which said theory tries to explain is not there. Then again, I'm not sure they're very literate about how to define a scientific theory. hell, I'm not even sure most of the proponents of creationism really understand anything even when reading their own favorite book....

[Jim__]

3. I started reading this yesterday.

I've read about the first 100 pages. So far, it's about the political battles. It's an intersting read; but my preference is for the scientific arguments.

[CrispyQ]

4. I am reading "The God Delusion" by Dawkins.

I did not know about irreducible complexity. RD explains it so wonderfully.

'What is the use of half an eye?' and 'What is the use of half a wing?' are both instances of the argument from 'irreducible complexity'. A functioning unit is said to be irreducibly complex if the removal of one of its parts causes the whole to cease functioning. This has been assumed to be self evident for both eyes and wings. But as soon as we give these assumptions a moment's thought, we immediately see the fallacy. A cataract patient with the lens of her eye surgically removed can't see clear images without glasses, but can see enough not to bump into a tree or fall over a cliff. Half a wing is indeed not as good as a whole wing, but it is certainly better than no wing at all. Half a wing could save your life by easing your fall from a tree of a certain height. And 51 per cent of a wing could save you if you fall from a slightly taller tree. Whatever fraction of a wing you have, there is a fall from which it will save your life where a slightly smaller winglet would not. The thought experiment of trees of different height, from which one might fall, is just one way to see, in theory, that there must be a smooth gradient of advantage all the way from 1 per cent of a wing to 100 per cent."

I remember with fondness the Vonnegut discussion.

What have you been reading?

B-)