Thursday, October 15, 2009

A Critical Standpoint


Over at Phi Beta Cons, David French discusses creationism, evolution, and related stuff about things. The occasion of his remarks is an interesting article detailing conflicts at Christian colleges "between those Christian biologists who...believe that God created the heavens and earth through evolutionary processes, those who believe in a six-24-hour-day creation and a 'young earth,' and those who fall somewhere in between." (Believe it or not, some Christian college professors can actually lose their jobs for teaching standard biology; I thought only intelligent design theorists suffered that sort of persecution.)

French's basic position is that religious schools are not obliged to hire professors who believe in evolution. Which is quite true. But somehow, he gets from there to here:

In many ways, the community of Christian schools represents a "marketplace of ideas" far more open than the parallel community of secular schools — where ideological orthodoxy is rigidly enforced not just within but among the institutions.
Amen, brother! Christian schools are at liberty to teach that God created the cosmos in six days, or six years, or six millennia, or whatever: Thus do a hundred flowers bloom and a hundred schools of thought contend. But secular schools are prejudiced in favor of dreary dogmas like descent with modification, and an earth that's older than 7,000 years. And where's the fun in that?

It sounds as though French would like to see colleges teach different versions of biology. Yale could focus on neo-Lamarckism, MIT on evo-devo, Patrick Henry on craniometry and psychometrics, and so forth. (As for community colleges, they can teach whatever theories are popular in their respective locales. After all, the customer is always right!)

I'm as committed to problematizing exclusivist metanarratives and delegitimating monologic desire as the next gink. And yet, I can't quite manage to take French's brand of cultural pluralism seriously. Although I don't know where he stands on ebonics, I remember that conservatives tended to be very upset by the idea that anyone would dream of teaching it. And I've read Phi Beta Cons regularly enough to know that its authors will often cast aspersions on a given college simply by noting that it offers a course in Latina/o studies or postcolonial literature.

Apparently, it'd be intellectually healthy for evolutionary biology to fracture into five thousand bickering splinter groups...but God forbid anyone should suggest that there's more to studying literature than defending the reputation of Teh World's Greatest Authors against the upstart claims of ethnic arrivistes. Certain fields need more orthodoxy, not less, and the folks at PBC know 'em when they see 'em.

Here's a theory you've probably never heard before. According to French, schools that teach young-earth creationism are still teaching students what they need to know about evolutionary biology, if only to reveal it as a snare and a delusion:
I would be surprised if the principles of evolutionary biology were not taught even at schools dominated by a "young Earth" viewpoint. Professors know evolutionary biology and students learn it. They may learn it from a critical standpoint, but they still learn it.
If a teacher were to tell me, on the authority of Lord Kelvin, that airplanes can't fly because they're too heavy, I don't think I could say that I'd learned the basic principles of aviation. Putting that little detail aside, I'm sure French would be just as happy to apply this clever argument to, say, the Marxist critique of imperialism: Students may be learning about the Spanish-American War from a "critical standpoint," but they're still learning about it! And if David Horowitz doesn't like it, he's cordially invited to go fuck himself.

And another thing:
I hate the use of the term "literal" or "literalist" when describing those who believe the Bible is God's word. I have never in my entire life met any single person who believed there was no metaphor in the Bible. So, the actual debate within orthodox Christianity is not between "literalists" and others; it's between those who disagree over the meaning and intent of words, when both sides believe those are the words God intended to use.
He's right, in the trivial sense that no one takes every word of the Bible literally. Most of the people who claim that the universe was really created in six days, and that Eve was really fashioned from Adam's rib, are still able to recognize suggestions like "go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor" as confoundingly polyvalent metaphors.

But he's wrong in the context of his own goddamn post, since the conflict he's discussing is not "within orthodox Christianity," but between scientists and young-earth creationists. And since the latter treat the Bible's account of Creation and the Flood as actual events whose traces are detectable by science, calling them "literalists" seems pretty reasonable. So there.

As for the strife at Christian colleges, we can only hope that it'll be resolved amicably once the Conservative Bible is wrested at last from the world of Ideal Forms.

13 comments:

Makarios said...

Neo-Lamarckism? At Yale? Oh, dear. Of course you know where that will lead *cough*Lysenko*cough*

But, all kidding aside, I'm reminded of what Joseph Campbell once said (sorry I can't track down the citation)--that the biggest mistake of Christianity is to read the Bible as prose rather than as poetry.

P. Drāno said...

This sort of thing just makes me want to cry bitter tears of frustration. Is that what you were aiming for?

The Kenosha Kid said...

I'm as committed to problematizing exclusivist metanarratives and delegitimating monologic desire as the next gink.

Guh?

roger said...

what the kid said!

Phila said...

what the kid said!

Don't worry about what it means. It's supposed to be lulling, like a sound generator.

charley said...

well there you go. big words. i like big words. a buddy and i have a game at work. one of us will use what might not even be a big word, say reiterate. we then proclaim that as word of the day. you can be sure that word will be used in every sentence for the rest of the day.

how about monkeys, which clearly have a form of communication. if a big snake is coming they damn sure know how make sure all the other monkeys know "hey, a big snake is coming, run for the hills (or would it be trees?). anyways, i like when people use big words in a clearly wrong manner, and yet, you know exactly what they are saying.

like the utterances of monkeys. it's hard for me to believe that people don't think were related. monkeys, "kind" of smart, and "kind" of mean. that's proof enough for me.

tedexua: word verification for the day.

grouchomarxist said...

"[A]s the next gink"? Nice to see there are some Perelman fans still lurking about.

Wow. I had no idea there was such intellectual diversity in Creation Scientism. Take that, Mr. Smarty-Pants Evolutionist!

It's like that waitress in The Blues Brothers: "We got both kinds of music - Country and Western!"

Jazzbumpa said...

For me to believe that we're related to monkeys, they would have to be both dumber and meaner.

Though, to be fair, their poo flinging does support the claim.

And evolution is clearly counter-indicated by the observable fact that American society has become measurably dumber since the 70's

I'm as committed to problematizing exclusivist metanarratives and delegitimating monologic desire as the next gink.

I love this so much, I put it on MY blog. Ahhh - the lulling tintinnabulations. Or are they suserrations?

Cheers
JzB the sound generating trombonist

WV: smsnutsu - the state of having been lulled by such phrases as "I'm as committed to problematizing exclusivist metanarratives and delegitimating monologic desire as the next gink."

Jazzbumpa said...

For what it's worth, my favorite polyvalent simile is, "prophylactic as permanganate."

No extra charge (so to speak) for the purple prose.

I never was one to eschew obfuscation.

Cheers!
JzB the transition metal trombonist

WV: uminineo - sounds cool, and is fun to say

Phila said...

"[A]s the next gink"? Nice to see there are some Perelman fans still lurking about.

I think I originally picked that one up from George Herriman, actually (Baron Bean, to be exact). But I certainly do know Perelman's usage...it was a quote from a thirties pulp author whose name I've forgotten (like the rest of the world).

I'll cheerfully admit that Herriman + Perelman = 97% of my schtick. I was basically raised on 'em.

Phila said...

For me to believe that we're related to monkeys, they would have to be both dumber and meaner.

[insert laughing emoticon here]

Chin's Calypso Sextet has a song called "Monkey's Opinion" that makes the same argument. "We monkeys are the superior race...."

grouchomarxist said...

I was basically raised on 'em.

I keep a copy of Archy and Mehitabel by my bedside.

"Toujours gai, and there's a dance in the old dame yet!" is about as good a philosophy of life as I've yet come across. Marquis and Herriman made quite a combination.

But who could ever top the opening sentence of Perelman's "Block that Kick, Captain Future!"

I guess I’m just an old mad scientist at bottom. Give me an underground laboratory, half a dozen atom-smashers, and a beautiful girl in a diaphanous veil waiting to be turned into a chimpanzee, and I care not who writes the nation’s laws.

Sorry for going wildly off-topic, but I miss the playfulness with language Perelman exemplified, which seems sadly missing in our relentlessly optics-oriented pop culture.

Phila said...

I miss the playfulness with language Perelman exemplified, which seems sadly missing in our relentlessly optics-oriented pop culture.

Yeah. Which I think ties into this discussion re: "big words." Krazy Kat and Perelman's stuff are ludicrously verbose in a way that's self-deflating and oddly egalitarian, in addition to being a lot of fun.

While I don't consider myself worthy to lick either man's boots, if I use some phrase like "Vesuvian wrath," I'm always aiming for that tone, rather than anything literary or academic.