Too..Something
I enjoy reading about the creation/evolution debate. I like seeing science and reason defeat lunacy. Lately, the blogs have been a-roaring over the Expelled brouhaha with PZ Myers and his mystery guest. Tonight served up some more delicious drama when PZ crashed their promotional conference call.
This is all, of course, tangential to the truly important thing I discovered tonight, buried in the comments of that thread.
At first glance, I thought this was creationist-made, in support of that Expelled movie. After several more delightful viewings, I have come to the following conclusion. This video required far too much talent, too great of rap skillz, and to much genuine humor to have possibly been made by a religious fundamentalist or creationist. It just has that certain…je ne sais quois. I cannot stop laughing at the Daniel Dennet..and the Sam Harris..and the Darwin…
And I love it.
Geologic Timescale
Here is one of the best illustrations of Geologic Time I’ve seen in a while, and certainly the best I’ve seen online. Most of them, inadvertently or not, end up magnifying our time at least a little, so that it is somehow disproportionate to the rest. This one seems much better about that. Check it out, and have fun scrolling along!
(Saw this on Pharyngula)
Why I Hate Archeology, and moving beyond it
Don’t get me wrong..I’m sure archeologists are, on the whole, wonderful and intelligent people, doing some fantastic science. I didn’t always hate archeology either. When I was quite young, I simply didn’t care about it. Sure, we occasionally spent an inordinate amount of time on ancient Egypt in my elementary school, but this was simply a mild annoyance, learning about something for which I truly felt not the slightest spark of interest.
Things began to change once my interest in dinosaurs turned into an interest in paleontology. Or, perhaps, once I learned/decided that paleontology is what people who love dinosaurs do. Regardless, archeology began to intrude into my life and conversations with disturbing frequency. Whenever I told anyone of my interest in paleontology, they somehow must have heard ‘archeology’ because they would immediately talk about it: “Oh, I like archeology too!” or “So you like dinosaurs and stuff? Yeah, well I think those pyramids in Egypt are great.” or “Did you hear about that recent archeological find in _____?” The last one was far and away the most common, putting me in the awkward position of either pretending to care about ancient human history or trying to find a polite way of explaining that, no, I really do not care about that particular find in the least, and it’s nothing against that discovery, just that I find the whole enterprise entirely devoid of interest. As these conversations repeated over and over, every time I tried to tell someone new about my passion for dinosaurs and other long-dead animals, I became increasingly frustrated, and resentful of archeology. It came to symbolize for me humanity’s obsession with itself, our focus on studying ouselves instead of the world around us. I mean, how could anyone interested in ancient life not be primarily interested in ancient human civilizations??
In college I met an archeology major at a party once.. She went to a different school, and I’ve never seen her since. It was an eye-opening experience for me because she had the same problem! Whenever she told anyone about her archeology studies, they would immediately begin talking to her about dinosaurs! I began to feel sympathy for the archeologists, always being forced to talk about the spotlight-stealing, movie-grubbing dinosaurs instead of their true passion.
I just recently finished reading the Best American Science and Nature Writing for 2004. An archeology piece stood out for me. Written by Garrett G. Fagan, it was about pseudoscience and television. He lamented the preponderance of pseudoscience showing up in archeology shows, even on channels like Discovery or The Learning Channel. He delved a little bit into some reasons behind this… TV shows have to sell a story, and even documentary ones must do this. A common and successful formula is that of what I will call the vindicated visionary, (called The Vindicated Thinker in Fagan’s piece, but I like alliteration), a scientist with the courage to go against the mainstream and follow the evidence, who faces ridicule at first, but is, of course, eventually proven right as the evidence mounts and the mainstream comes around. The problem arises because this format is particularly easy to fit to pseudoscientists. Pseudoscientists almost always see themselves in this light. Indeed, someone comparing him or her self to Galileo or Newton as a misunderstood or suppressed scientific revolutionary is a dead giveaway that they are really off their rocker. The Baez Crackpot Index might be useful here. Check it out, particularly the later ones. Then, if you haven’t already, go read some pseudoscience and see how well the Index works. Anyhow, with pseudoscientists already telling their own, autobiographical, vindicated visionary stories, TV producers have an easy time buying into it, or at least, making a show out of it. And tadaa! we get pseudoscience in some prominent TV spots. Fagan goes on to suggest some ways to make exciting, but still accurate, archeology television.
After reading that piece, I found myself suddenly feeling some kinship with the archeologists. They’re facing the same attacks on good science that the paleontologists, geologists, and especially biologists are facing. That’s plenty reason for me to get over my own personal feelings about archeology.
