My addiction is pretty plain and simple. It is books. It always has been, likely always will be. For that, if anything, is illustrative of some consistency in my life. I am enamoured with writing, how authors compose sentence structure and arguments. I marvel more so at the pre-20th century writers where conviction and prose matter most even if their words, in sum, amounted to only a hill of beans. Very dry, pruned beans at times. And yet, I wonder at how they do it.
My addiction, and there is no other way to explain it, leads me to buy and read books about books. Their history as an object, their evolution, their impact on culture and society. For this books are written about. But I also found a niche of fiction; of booksellers' unwittingly caught in a web of intrigue and danger. And this is harder to find. Yes, there are exceptions. There are a few authors who have capitalized on this genre, if it's meagre size qualifies as a "genre", and who have likely made some good coin on it. Paul Robertson, however, won't be one of them. According to their Deeds is a cardboard, thinly put together tale of a bookstore owner who discovers a few items in a book that lead him to discover and offer forgiveness to a blackmailers list and the soul of the blackmailer. For this to work the characters are in need of some depth beyond simple dialogue, in need of fleshing out, in need of forgiveness by the reader. And Paul Robertson sadly fails.
There was potential. A thread of flashback scenes between the saintly protagonist and the spider laying his web of deceit. Here they meet, unwittingly of one, across an aged chess board, the dichotomy of good and evil, in game, and in words. Philosophers are argued, their lives summed up, their worth measured and weighed. Here was Robertson's potential to explore and develop a heartful plot. Here, across a chess board, life and lives could have been explored. Instead, we endure the booksellers pun-ish nature with a past that would have been punishingly heavy if were allowed to unfold.
And instead, my craving moves on. Pleading forgiveness for my bookish sins (and there have been a few), now myself even wary of the absurdity of wanting to read everything I can. Something I couldn't say at a bibliophile anonymous meeting a few years ago. I have other titles to go to. And there certainly are other literary fictions in want of a reader. And I would certainly recommend others to avoid this one. Another sin awaits behind another dust jacket.
No. 0848
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Sunday, June 14, 2009
"Almost There" and "Are You Somebody" by Nuala O'Faolain
The O'Faolain books are wonderful diversion from the heady stuff in life. But only for a moment.
"Are You Somebody", her first autobiography, is a summation of who she was. A middle aged Irish woman, writer for the Irish Times among others, at the rim of celebrity status, as a writer only can. The title, "Are You Somebody" speaks to that position; on the rim of public awareness. Her life, from family and onwards, was trying for sure. Abandoned in spirit, anyways, by her father, a small "c" celebrity in his own right, and by a mother whose attachment to her was always suspect. Her savior in all this strict anti-woman Catholicism was her reading. "The most useful thing I brought out of my childhood was confidence in reading."
Breaking through the Irish stereotypes and maleness of 60s and 70s culture was no small feat. She explored the culture of writing and the arts with the uncertainty of belonging; of knowing that at any one moment, this was her life. One of her mentors, a historian Raphael Samuel, "was a pioneer of the interdisciplinary approach. He believed that anyone who had done a specialist degree had been trained in incuriousity about everything else. He believed in starting again, from ignorance. I was rich in ignorance" O'Faolain writes. "I count it as one of the great lucky things in my life...".
It is probably this complete lack of hubris that make O'Faolain interesting. If you Google her name you will inevitably come across some radio interviews she did. And the sense of wonder, humor, and the purpose of literature is beguiling. Her second autobiography, "Almost There" is more of the present journey to where she wants to be. "Middle age is the least talked about of all the seasons of life, and yet it seems to me the most exacting. It is adolescence come again at the other side of adulthood - the matching bookend - in its uneasiness of identity, its physical surprises and the strength it takes to handle it." The book is less literary and more personal. Excluding the numerous and numerous times pointing to her first autobiographical volume "Almost There" is about finding place; of having a bit of breathing room; and the societal clumsiness of not being wed or having (or wanting) children. "It has been shouted at us for so long that we're second rate if we're not in a pair with someone else, that we've come to deeply believe it."
The two books are as much a cathartic experience for O'Faolain as anything else, the "needing to shed ballast for the rest of the journey", as she put it. And likely so as most writers of self and fiction, and artist do. And yet, the purpose or hook for reading any one of these books might be suspect. Maybe there is no "hook". I would suppose if you were a young male with a preoccupied here-and-now view of life there would be no experience enjoyed in reading these. If you're middle-age (man or women), a woman of youth or experience, or cross both gender boundaries and are literary minded, then, the O'Faolain autobiographical volumes should be consumed.
#0844 and #0846
"Are You Somebody", her first autobiography, is a summation of who she was. A middle aged Irish woman, writer for the Irish Times among others, at the rim of celebrity status, as a writer only can. The title, "Are You Somebody" speaks to that position; on the rim of public awareness. Her life, from family and onwards, was trying for sure. Abandoned in spirit, anyways, by her father, a small "c" celebrity in his own right, and by a mother whose attachment to her was always suspect. Her savior in all this strict anti-woman Catholicism was her reading. "The most useful thing I brought out of my childhood was confidence in reading."
Breaking through the Irish stereotypes and maleness of 60s and 70s culture was no small feat. She explored the culture of writing and the arts with the uncertainty of belonging; of knowing that at any one moment, this was her life. One of her mentors, a historian Raphael Samuel, "was a pioneer of the interdisciplinary approach. He believed that anyone who had done a specialist degree had been trained in incuriousity about everything else. He believed in starting again, from ignorance. I was rich in ignorance" O'Faolain writes. "I count it as one of the great lucky things in my life...".
It is probably this complete lack of hubris that make O'Faolain interesting. If you Google her name you will inevitably come across some radio interviews she did. And the sense of wonder, humor, and the purpose of literature is beguiling. Her second autobiography, "Almost There" is more of the present journey to where she wants to be. "Middle age is the least talked about of all the seasons of life, and yet it seems to me the most exacting. It is adolescence come again at the other side of adulthood - the matching bookend - in its uneasiness of identity, its physical surprises and the strength it takes to handle it." The book is less literary and more personal. Excluding the numerous and numerous times pointing to her first autobiographical volume "Almost There" is about finding place; of having a bit of breathing room; and the societal clumsiness of not being wed or having (or wanting) children. "It has been shouted at us for so long that we're second rate if we're not in a pair with someone else, that we've come to deeply believe it."
The two books are as much a cathartic experience for O'Faolain as anything else, the "needing to shed ballast for the rest of the journey", as she put it. And likely so as most writers of self and fiction, and artist do. And yet, the purpose or hook for reading any one of these books might be suspect. Maybe there is no "hook". I would suppose if you were a young male with a preoccupied here-and-now view of life there would be no experience enjoyed in reading these. If you're middle-age (man or women), a woman of youth or experience, or cross both gender boundaries and are literary minded, then, the O'Faolain autobiographical volumes should be consumed.
#0844 and #0846
Monday, June 8, 2009
"Darwin's Sacred Cause. How a Hatred of Slavery Shaped Darwin's Views on Human Evolution"
The tandem of Adrian Desmond and James Moore have a lengthy history in deciphering the inner depths of archives, libraries, museums, and literature. Both have contributed with numerous books and journal articles to the workings of science and culture, specifically that one exists in the other. Their latest challenge is no different. "Darwin's Sacred Cause" is also, however, a significant challenge.
The premise is that evolution, particularly human evolution, as Darwin would come to understand it and contribute to, was in part do to his own misgivings of slavery, both in England, but also in America. "We aren't out to prove the uncorrupted purity of Darwin's corpus" they write, "...or indeed deify his corpse." "The real problem" they argue "is that no one understands Darwin's core project, ...No one has appreciated the source of that moral fire that fuelled his strange, out-of-character obsession with human origins."
Thankfully, Darwin provided much of the original material for this project as one of the most notorious note-takers of the 19th century; the authors reviewed over 15,000 letters, plus all the drafts of publications to be, as well as those of his close family. And it is here where it all begins. His family, and later the in-laws, many of whom were abolitionists in their own right, provided an atmosphere of the unity of all men and women. Emma (nee Wedgewood) was a singular force in Darwin's life and with religious piety helped center Darwin (but let's not forget, many of the arguments for the plurality of human origins comes from the same good book).
Much of the evolution of Darwin's abolitionist nature, from boy-hood, through the discomforting trials aboard the Beagle voyage, at times seeing humanity shredded, to his more reclusive days can be documented. The problem the authors face, however, is the certainty of the early influences on Darwin. Too often Desmond and Moore bridge suppositions with 'must haves' and 'likely's". Yet "Sacred Cause" is a thorough going of the relationship between British and American rationality and irrationality. Though racism was an integral part of both countries (the Brits through trade, the Americans, through labor), the sensibility, at least on paper, was born earlier across the pond than on American soil. And on this soil, the challenger to abolitionism (and evolution by natural selection, but more so sexual selection), whose "long arm unsettled Darwin", was in many ways headed by the renowned Harvard zoologist Louis Agassiz. And it is this interplay that is the most interested for much of the American 19th century racism rest equally so on the 'science of the day.'
"Darwin's Sacred Cause" is a wonderful tour of 19th century science and how two countries, one emerging, the other at the peak of its colonial game, began to intertwine. That alone is worth reading. How much did Darwin's abolitionism influence his views? The authors show time and again the Darwin spared the public with his views on the unity of humans until he was sufficiently armed with evidence and a mechanism. And the problem is that Darwin, even amongst his thousands of correspondence, never is sufficiently clear. And the problem with 15,000 pieces of authored paper is that it only fuels the need for more. More questions for the few answers.
#0845
The premise is that evolution, particularly human evolution, as Darwin would come to understand it and contribute to, was in part do to his own misgivings of slavery, both in England, but also in America. "We aren't out to prove the uncorrupted purity of Darwin's corpus" they write, "...or indeed deify his corpse." "The real problem" they argue "is that no one understands Darwin's core project, ...No one has appreciated the source of that moral fire that fuelled his strange, out-of-character obsession with human origins."
Thankfully, Darwin provided much of the original material for this project as one of the most notorious note-takers of the 19th century; the authors reviewed over 15,000 letters, plus all the drafts of publications to be, as well as those of his close family. And it is here where it all begins. His family, and later the in-laws, many of whom were abolitionists in their own right, provided an atmosphere of the unity of all men and women. Emma (nee Wedgewood) was a singular force in Darwin's life and with religious piety helped center Darwin (but let's not forget, many of the arguments for the plurality of human origins comes from the same good book).
Much of the evolution of Darwin's abolitionist nature, from boy-hood, through the discomforting trials aboard the Beagle voyage, at times seeing humanity shredded, to his more reclusive days can be documented. The problem the authors face, however, is the certainty of the early influences on Darwin. Too often Desmond and Moore bridge suppositions with 'must haves' and 'likely's". Yet "Sacred Cause" is a thorough going of the relationship between British and American rationality and irrationality. Though racism was an integral part of both countries (the Brits through trade, the Americans, through labor), the sensibility, at least on paper, was born earlier across the pond than on American soil. And on this soil, the challenger to abolitionism (and evolution by natural selection, but more so sexual selection), whose "long arm unsettled Darwin", was in many ways headed by the renowned Harvard zoologist Louis Agassiz. And it is this interplay that is the most interested for much of the American 19th century racism rest equally so on the 'science of the day.'
"Darwin's Sacred Cause" is a wonderful tour of 19th century science and how two countries, one emerging, the other at the peak of its colonial game, began to intertwine. That alone is worth reading. How much did Darwin's abolitionism influence his views? The authors show time and again the Darwin spared the public with his views on the unity of humans until he was sufficiently armed with evidence and a mechanism. And the problem is that Darwin, even amongst his thousands of correspondence, never is sufficiently clear. And the problem with 15,000 pieces of authored paper is that it only fuels the need for more. More questions for the few answers.
#0845
Sunday, June 7, 2009
"Against All Gods" by A. C. Grayling
For those of you who are familiar with this line of discussion A. C. Grayling's "Against All Gods, Six Polemics on Religion and an Essay on Kindness", a slim volume, should sit nicely beside Richard Dawkins "The God Delusion" and anything by Christopher Hitchens.
Grayling's premise and passion is obvious. That any form of religion is a special interest group, nothing more, just the same as a rotary club, or another; and that as a religion, belief in the supernatural is "...the negation of thought". Don't get him wrong. Even though those that are religious are given, without thought special status, it doesn't mean they deserve disrespect. It just means that "[i]t is time to demand of believers that they take their personal choices and preferences in these non-rational and too often dangerous matters into the private sphere, ...". And that [e]veryone is free to believe what they want, providing they do not bother (or coerce, or kill) others; but no one is entitled to claim privileges merely on the grounds that they are votaries of one or another of the world's religions."
One has to consider the specific words here; "providing they do not bother (or coerce, or kill) others." Grayling argues that coercion begins young, long before "mature" minds prevail. This is similar to Dawkins line of thinking.
"Against All Gods" is not strictly an anti-religion polemic. It is a statement of an even more stronger root. That if the supernatural is lifted (a category of all religions according to Grayling) a stronger unifying force can blossom. A humanitarian approach. For it is in this view that "we can have a proper discussion about the ethical principles of mutual concern, imaginative sympathy and courageous tolerance on which the chances for individual and social flourishing rest. We need to meet one another as human individuals...in a pubic domain hospitable to us all..." (p. 38).
Grayling makes many strong points but it comes down to this. Who am I to judge? And with the power invested in me by the evolutionary line that I come from, riddled with chance and circumstance, I have, in this 21st century, Youtube, hyped up sensationalism, the ability to finally turn the off the tube, or not read this book. Or, one can dare to read something outside their comfort zone.
#0847
Grayling's premise and passion is obvious. That any form of religion is a special interest group, nothing more, just the same as a rotary club, or another; and that as a religion, belief in the supernatural is "...the negation of thought". Don't get him wrong. Even though those that are religious are given, without thought special status, it doesn't mean they deserve disrespect. It just means that "[i]t is time to demand of believers that they take their personal choices and preferences in these non-rational and too often dangerous matters into the private sphere, ...". And that [e]veryone is free to believe what they want, providing they do not bother (or coerce, or kill) others; but no one is entitled to claim privileges merely on the grounds that they are votaries of one or another of the world's religions."
One has to consider the specific words here; "providing they do not bother (or coerce, or kill) others." Grayling argues that coercion begins young, long before "mature" minds prevail. This is similar to Dawkins line of thinking.
"Against All Gods" is not strictly an anti-religion polemic. It is a statement of an even more stronger root. That if the supernatural is lifted (a category of all religions according to Grayling) a stronger unifying force can blossom. A humanitarian approach. For it is in this view that "we can have a proper discussion about the ethical principles of mutual concern, imaginative sympathy and courageous tolerance on which the chances for individual and social flourishing rest. We need to meet one another as human individuals...in a pubic domain hospitable to us all..." (p. 38).
Grayling makes many strong points but it comes down to this. Who am I to judge? And with the power invested in me by the evolutionary line that I come from, riddled with chance and circumstance, I have, in this 21st century, Youtube, hyped up sensationalism, the ability to finally turn the off the tube, or not read this book. Or, one can dare to read something outside their comfort zone.
#0847
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
"Up From Methodism. A Memoir of a Man Gone to the Devil"
It's hard not to like Up From Methodism. Well, for me it is easy. Yes, it was written in the 1920s (and recently reprinted in paperback), and yes there is a tinge of vernacular than would fall on the political incorrect list (and others certainly fell on the same list back then). But when you grow up in a strong, strong Christan community - that is Christian with a emblazoned "C" - he had some standing to counter his up-bringing, fraught with bigotry, hypocrisy, and irrationality - all of the religious kind. "I became increasingly annoyed not only by the mental mannerisms of these people" he twanged in that southern intellect, "but their physical mannerisms as well. Not only did they walk as if their soles were greased, sliding and slipping about, but they talked as if their tongues were greased also. Their language was oily; they poured out their words unctuously, with much roundabout phrasing and unnecessary language."
Growing up in small town Missouri was trying for many people. Jobs were hard to come by, communities harder to fit in. There were rules to living here or there, even if they weren't written. And if you didn't believe,...I mean BELIEVE...well, there was no hope for you; but not for want of trying. "Religion poured down my throat in dose that strangled me and made me sick of the soul" Asbury laments. What ever religion he had was soon choked out of him. Old time Methodism was at the fore for prim and proper to the nth degree. An atmosphere today we would describe as not only strict, but cultish as well.
Up From Methodism is a knee-slappingly painful (if those two descriptors can be slapped together) picture of a struggle for being. One full of preaching, sin governed by mere mortals, or hell fire damnation. With a smile and a twinkle, Asbury triumphs: "Without religion I thoroughly enjoy the business of living". And in that all so rare slap-stick repertoire familiar to readers of H. L. Menchken (commentator, among other trophy's, of the Scopes trial, another southern, rural debacle), Up From Methodism at least - the very least - provides the last laugh of irrationality. "[F]ew things can destroy religion quicker than a hearty giggle." Amen.
#0414
Growing up in small town Missouri was trying for many people. Jobs were hard to come by, communities harder to fit in. There were rules to living here or there, even if they weren't written. And if you didn't believe,...I mean BELIEVE...well, there was no hope for you; but not for want of trying. "Religion poured down my throat in dose that strangled me and made me sick of the soul" Asbury laments. What ever religion he had was soon choked out of him. Old time Methodism was at the fore for prim and proper to the nth degree. An atmosphere today we would describe as not only strict, but cultish as well.
Up From Methodism is a knee-slappingly painful (if those two descriptors can be slapped together) picture of a struggle for being. One full of preaching, sin governed by mere mortals, or hell fire damnation. With a smile and a twinkle, Asbury triumphs: "Without religion I thoroughly enjoy the business of living". And in that all so rare slap-stick repertoire familiar to readers of H. L. Menchken (commentator, among other trophy's, of the Scopes trial, another southern, rural debacle), Up From Methodism at least - the very least - provides the last laugh of irrationality. "[F]ew things can destroy religion quicker than a hearty giggle." Amen.
#0414
Monday, February 23, 2009
My Ignorance is No Longer Bliss
In Canada, we do not have “separation of Church and State”, but rather a mention in the Preamble of the Canadian Charter of Rights that states “Canada is founded upon the principles that recognizes the supremacy of God.” Is it the timidity of our Canadian culture that allows this? Can anyone say with a straight face that the God in this statement is not a Christian God?
Is anyone else affronted by mandatory prayer before public meetings? This is accepted in this country (see http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2004/2004canlii13978/2004canlii13978.html). Is anyone else insulted by statements by public officials broadcasting their versions of religiosity onto others?
What if you were a Buddhist? Agnostic. Atheist, or even a card carrying member of any of the other traditional religions, that wasn't part of the 'Christian Nation”? You certainly wouldn't hope to win an election.
I've searched high and low to find some understanding. There really is none. At least none that define a secular humanist approach on a national level, never mind regional. But on this score, there are many counts of sabotage from the Christian right. Yes, we can certainly hear from that end of the spectrum. For the Christian right it is time “to stake out a clear Christian position, and to use this Christian position to take back confidently and relentlessly the ground stolen by Secular Humanists in their campaign to become the driving force and establishment voice in Canada” (see http://www.christiangovernment.ca/book_intro.php for a good laugh; people will have to assess whether this, and comments like this are only from an extremest view, or more closer to the norm that we could possibly admit).
For myself I am ashamed of my ignorance and timidity. I am sincerely despondent of the void beyond my simple ramblings, though for certain I know I am not alone. It is our collective acceptance and complacency without mature, healthy dialogue that worries me even more.
Is anyone else affronted by mandatory prayer before public meetings? This is accepted in this country (see http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2004/2004canlii13978/2004canlii13978.html). Is anyone else insulted by statements by public officials broadcasting their versions of religiosity onto others?
What if you were a Buddhist? Agnostic. Atheist, or even a card carrying member of any of the other traditional religions, that wasn't part of the 'Christian Nation”? You certainly wouldn't hope to win an election.
I've searched high and low to find some understanding. There really is none. At least none that define a secular humanist approach on a national level, never mind regional. But on this score, there are many counts of sabotage from the Christian right. Yes, we can certainly hear from that end of the spectrum. For the Christian right it is time “to stake out a clear Christian position, and to use this Christian position to take back confidently and relentlessly the ground stolen by Secular Humanists in their campaign to become the driving force and establishment voice in Canada” (see http://www.christiangovernment.ca/book_intro.php for a good laugh; people will have to assess whether this, and comments like this are only from an extremest view, or more closer to the norm that we could possibly admit).
For myself I am ashamed of my ignorance and timidity. I am sincerely despondent of the void beyond my simple ramblings, though for certain I know I am not alone. It is our collective acceptance and complacency without mature, healthy dialogue that worries me even more.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Passion for Collecting. Some thoughts.
I can not say I have much in common with Charles Darwin (1809-1882). The weight of his research has not only lasted 150 years (one of the two celebrated anniversaries this year with the publication of On the Origin of Species), but it has spawned all manners of research, far beyond his imagination. However, unbeknownst to me (at least I never put the two occurrences together before, until recently), we do share a passion at least in methodology.
In his Autobiography, he writes about this passion for collecting. “I will give proof” he writes “of my zeal: one day, on tearing off some old bark, I saw two rare beetles, and seized one in each hand; then I saw a third and new kind, which I could not bear to lose, so that I popped the one which I held in my right hand into my mouth. Alas! It ejected some intensely acrid fluid, which burnt my tongue so that I was forced to spit the beetle out, which was lost, as was the third one” (p. 21).
The use of the mouth as temporary storage containers likely has been 're-invented' many times. Since my earliest days collecting fossils, the sites that contain hundreds if not thousands of little bone and teeth fragments (called microsites) has always been exhilarating. Little pieces of the past just sitting there, each one likely representing a different taxonomic beast from the other bone fragment just inches away. Collecting these sites means literally crawling the surface on your stomach, watching out for cacti and other intrusions, your face just inches away from the ground. For me, because of strained sight, retaining as much focus as possible without the distraction of putting each little fragment into a plastic vial, I just pick up the fossil fragment, retaining focus on the ground for the next bit, and put it in my mouth. I do this until the site is fully scoured, or I need to finally regurgitate cheek-fulls of saliva coated fossils into a vial. Unlike Darwin, however, I have never put anything poisonous into my mouth, but that is not to say that over the years a few relatively modern gopher bones did get wedged between cheek and gum.
I reminisce about this because this year marks both the birth of Charles Darwin (the second of the anniversaries), and of his publication. I ponder the breadth of his idea, and how it has influenced all manners of life, from medicine, art, philosophy, literature, and of course all the various avenues of science. But a recent article in the New York Times has clearly stated, we have to separate Darwin from evolution. That Darwin created the modern idea [for in fact evolution is much older than Darwin], pulling together a mass of information (his zeal for collecting was knowledge base, not just life's trophies), and since then, since the publication in 1859, evolution has evolved. It has answered, through the endeavors of the scientific community all over the world, many of the questions that Darwin could not answer. Genetics, DNA, ecology, further fossil discoveries, have all enhanced the theory of evolution. Science has moved beyond Darwin. Thus “Darwinism” is a misnomer. As the New York Times article states “”Darwinism” implies an ideology adhering to one man's dictates ... And “isms” [like Marxism, Fascism] are not sciences.” What Darwin did was solely science.
So the question is, do we “kill” Darwin for the sake of evolution? Can evolution overcome the social connotations of Darwinism if we leave the old man behind? Or do we take the effort to educate ourselves, appreciating the distinction between the historical aspects of Charles Darwin [despite my hagiographical tendencies], and the current understanding of evolutionary theory? Do we make the effort?
The diversity of places, institutions, large and small, that are celebrating the Darwin anniversaries can be found at www.darwinday.org. Take note, however, besides the obligatory biographies of Darwin, many will highlight the current developments in evolutionary theory. Many will illustrate the separation between Darwin, and evolution, utilizing local examples, and the scientists responsible for that particular research. “Darwinism” rarely comes up. When it does, it is often in a social context (depending on which insitution is presenting the respective event), or in fractured light of those who have little sense of what science is. Often in the guise of “creationism”, they lack the "zeal" of collecting - specimens or knowledge - and understanding.
In his Autobiography, he writes about this passion for collecting. “I will give proof” he writes “of my zeal: one day, on tearing off some old bark, I saw two rare beetles, and seized one in each hand; then I saw a third and new kind, which I could not bear to lose, so that I popped the one which I held in my right hand into my mouth. Alas! It ejected some intensely acrid fluid, which burnt my tongue so that I was forced to spit the beetle out, which was lost, as was the third one” (p. 21).
The use of the mouth as temporary storage containers likely has been 're-invented' many times. Since my earliest days collecting fossils, the sites that contain hundreds if not thousands of little bone and teeth fragments (called microsites) has always been exhilarating. Little pieces of the past just sitting there, each one likely representing a different taxonomic beast from the other bone fragment just inches away. Collecting these sites means literally crawling the surface on your stomach, watching out for cacti and other intrusions, your face just inches away from the ground. For me, because of strained sight, retaining as much focus as possible without the distraction of putting each little fragment into a plastic vial, I just pick up the fossil fragment, retaining focus on the ground for the next bit, and put it in my mouth. I do this until the site is fully scoured, or I need to finally regurgitate cheek-fulls of saliva coated fossils into a vial. Unlike Darwin, however, I have never put anything poisonous into my mouth, but that is not to say that over the years a few relatively modern gopher bones did get wedged between cheek and gum.
I reminisce about this because this year marks both the birth of Charles Darwin (the second of the anniversaries), and of his publication. I ponder the breadth of his idea, and how it has influenced all manners of life, from medicine, art, philosophy, literature, and of course all the various avenues of science. But a recent article in the New York Times has clearly stated, we have to separate Darwin from evolution. That Darwin created the modern idea [for in fact evolution is much older than Darwin], pulling together a mass of information (his zeal for collecting was knowledge base, not just life's trophies), and since then, since the publication in 1859, evolution has evolved. It has answered, through the endeavors of the scientific community all over the world, many of the questions that Darwin could not answer. Genetics, DNA, ecology, further fossil discoveries, have all enhanced the theory of evolution. Science has moved beyond Darwin. Thus “Darwinism” is a misnomer. As the New York Times article states “”Darwinism” implies an ideology adhering to one man's dictates ... And “isms” [like Marxism, Fascism] are not sciences.” What Darwin did was solely science.
So the question is, do we “kill” Darwin for the sake of evolution? Can evolution overcome the social connotations of Darwinism if we leave the old man behind? Or do we take the effort to educate ourselves, appreciating the distinction between the historical aspects of Charles Darwin [despite my hagiographical tendencies], and the current understanding of evolutionary theory? Do we make the effort?
The diversity of places, institutions, large and small, that are celebrating the Darwin anniversaries can be found at www.darwinday.org. Take note, however, besides the obligatory biographies of Darwin, many will highlight the current developments in evolutionary theory. Many will illustrate the separation between Darwin, and evolution, utilizing local examples, and the scientists responsible for that particular research. “Darwinism” rarely comes up. When it does, it is often in a social context (depending on which insitution is presenting the respective event), or in fractured light of those who have little sense of what science is. Often in the guise of “creationism”, they lack the "zeal" of collecting - specimens or knowledge - and understanding.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
