Odds and Ends

So let's move on to Nature v. 431, 16 Sept. '04. The cover story for this issue is a "Head to Head" comparison of the views of President Bush and Senator (and now loser) Kerry's views on science. I can't help but wonder if this isn't unusual for Nature, and if it is, was it politically motivated? At any rate, none of the questions relates directly to creation v evolution.

On page 237 is a "news in brief" item describing how a peer-reviewed journal bowed to the pressure from evolutionists and said it was sorry it "published a paper advocating creationist ideas" and "vowed not to print similar ideas again."

And some evolutionists claim that it isn't censorship that keeps creation science out of their journals! Of course, the Nature item doesn't describe this event as a bad thing, although I find the connotation of "as evolutionary theorists rounded on it decision to publish a paper on intelligent design..." tantalizingly close to recognizing the true nature of the journal's reversal.
-----------------------------------------------------------

Nature v. 431, 16 Sept. '04, p. 245: "Economic interests: Do strangers cooperate when they have to work together" is a book review of a book that goes beyond economy and current sociology. Herbert Gintis reviews The Company of Strangers: A Natural History of Economic Life by Paul Seabright. I think some selected quotes without commentary will suffice here: "Edward O. Wilson's call for the unification of biology and the social sciences some three decades ago came in for some rough treatment, and the notion of 'sociobiology' is still opposed by some traditionalists. Yet, despite this hostility, the process of integrating social science into natural science seems to be in full swing."

"The title...isolates a unique characteristic of human sociality: although several species have evolved a highly complex and decentralized division of labour, humans are the only species with extensive cooperation among unrelated individuals."

"One [of the "key strands of research"] is a broadened concept of sociality which recognizes that, from the emergence of multicellular organisms to the rise of Homo sapiens, major evolutionary transitions have required new mechanisms to bring about cooperation among the complex parts of biological entities."

"The novelty [of Seabright's approach] is that he consistently does so from a long-term evolutionary perspective."

"Seabright follows a long tradition in economics of considering reciprocity to be non-rational, using the term 'rational' to mean 'caring only about oneself'.

I think another review shows a bit of how ridiculous interpreting everything in evolutionary terms can get. "Back to the walls" by Clive Gamble (Nature v. 431, 16 Sept. '04, p. 248) reviews The Urban Cliff Revolution: New Findings on the Origins and Evolution of Human Habitats by Larson, Matthes, Kelly, Lundholm & Gerrath. Reviewer Gamble is not impressed by the authors' arguments, but his counter suggestion isn't much better.

Relating habitat to safety, and considering human habitat preferences in the light of our supposed evolutionary past, "When asked by evolutionary ecologists, the question becomes: would we be better off up a tree in a tropical rainforest, out on the savannah or lurking in reed beds around a lake? The answer must take into account our evolutionary history..."

According to this book, the answer seems to be "none of the above." Gamble notes "The 'urban cliff' hypothesis argues for the importance of cliffs and other rocky outcrops for a very productive group of species: humans and our commensals and mutualists." This is, domesticated animals and plants, and pests. "Sometimes the authors' enthusiasm for their hypothesis carries them away." They compare various buildings to slopes and caves. "They suggest that we are deeply attracted to cliffs because they once provided places of safety."

Silly, huh? But at least as silly is Gambles' comment: "But if there is a habitat comparable to the modern city, it is surely the tree tops." And he supports his comment by comparing Spiderman's swinging between skyscrapers with Batman's Batcave, "nothing more than a glorified garage." Hard to believe a professor of geography could stoop so low (BTW, I'm more of a fan of Spider-man than of Batman).

His concluding remarks are much better, though: "But there never was a rock-walled paradise with good homeland security against prowling predators...Our psychological response to the modern world does not depend on where we went for an untroubled night's sleep a few hundred thousand years ago." Eden didn't need a rock wall, and "we" weren't around a few hundred thousand years ago, so he's quite right there.

Until Next Time,

David Bump
Philippians 3: 13 Brethren, I
count not myself to have
apprehended: but [this] one thing
[I do], forgetting those things
which are behind, and reaching
forth unto those things which are
before, 14 I press toward the
mark for the prize of the high
calling of God in Christ Jesus.

http://home.att.net/~david.bump