09 10
Showing posts with label evolution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label evolution. Show all posts

08 September 2010

Habit vs. Nature

While the power supply on my computer was dying a lingering, stinky death, I've been thinking about my blog. Specifically, I've been wanting to blog about some of Charlotte Mason's ideas. I was given a copy of Laying Down the Rails about 2 weeks ago, and I'm loving it! I have the original series, but it's a tough read, and it got put into storage a while ago. Not doing me much good there. The thing I'm loving about this new book is that it's got Miss Mason's ideas grouped by topic. I kept getting bogged down in trying to read the original series, but this book makes me think AND keeps me turning the page. Can't argue with that combination!

Right off the bat, Mrs. Shafer, who compiled the book from Miss Mason's original writings, with some additions of her own, starts with a section on the importance of habits. A lot of this is section is stuff that I'd read from the original already, but having it all together like this, arranged topically, I saw it differently, and understood better what Miss Mason was getting at.


'Habit is ten natures.' If that be true, strong as nature is, habit is not only as strong, but tenfold as strong. ... But habit runs on the lines of nature: the cowardly child habitually lies that he may escape blame; the loving child has a hundred endearing habits; the good-natured child has a habit of giving; the selfish child a habit of keeping.

But habit, to be the lever to lift the child, must work contrary to nature, or at any rate, independent of her.
(Page 12, emphasis added)


The idea of habit as a lever really caught my attention; it made me sit up and think. Of course, Miss Mason's emphasis is on education, and as Monkey gets closer to "school age" my desire to practice being consistent with doing school has increased. That is, I want to make sure that my habit of attending to my children's education is firmly in place before we get to our state's compulsory school age.

We're not doing too badly in that department, I don't think. It's a rare day that slips by without reading several stories at some point in the day. Allowing a little more wiggle-room for my efforts to NOT go into preterm labor this summer, I think we really did pretty well. Monkey is in the early stages of becoming a reader, and although there was very little forward progress in his reading this summer, we did well enough that there wasn't really any loss of skill either. Now I need to shore up the habit of doing school and I think we'll see some nice progress over the next few months.

However, the interesting thing about Miss Mason is that so much of her emphasis is not on the subjects one learns in school, such as reading and math, but rather on the virtues that make education possible and effective. Laying Down the Rails divides them into several chapters: Decency and Propriety Habits, Mental Habits, Moral Habits, Physical Habits, Religious Habits, and the book gives a whole chapter to the family's habit of reading aloud. She talks about habits of cleanliness, attentiveness, remembering, integrity, and many others. I've scanned through some of the sections already, and I'm looking forward to reading more!

One thing that surprised me when I first started looking through this book is the emphasis on character development in an educational philosophy. Many, perhaps most, of the habits she touches on are things that I would have placed under a religious, not an educational, heading, were I to have made a list of things that I'd like to teach my children. Perhaps this is a result of my own public school education, where the focus was, of necessity, on subjects such as reading, math, science, and music, rather than on the formation of character. Good character is closely bound up in religion and morality, and thus a sticky, dangerous topic when dealing with public education. But I'm beginning to realize that this is a false separation.


The old classicists called theology the "queen of sciences" because it ruled over all other fields of study. Theology still does, either in its presence or its absence. In it's most honest form, the debate over the teaching of creation and evolution in public-school science classes is not about whether the species evolved over unimaginable years or were created in the span of one word. ... the debate is over the presence of absence of a Creator. This presence of absence has immense implications for every area of the curriculum: Are we animals or something slightly different? Do math rules work because of the coincidental shape of space and time or because God is an orderly being, whose universe reflects His character? Is a man who dies for his faith a hero or a fool?

Public schools, which have the impossible task of teaching children of many different faiths, must proclaim neutrality.
We don't deal in matters of faith, the teachers explain. We're neutral.

Think about this for a minute. Arguing for the presence of God is generally considered "biased." Assuming His absence is usually called "neutral." Yet both are statements of faith; both color the teacher's approach to any subject; both make a fundamental assumption about the nature of men and women.

To call this neutrality is intellectually dishonest. ...

Let's take biology as an example. Mammals are characterized by, among other things, their tendency to care for and protect their young. Do mothers love their babies because of sheer biological imperative? If so, why do we come down so hard on fathers who neglect their children? It's a rare male mammal that pays much attention to its young. Do fathers love their children because fathers reflect the character of the father God? How should a father treat a defective child? Why?

We don't blame the public schools for sidestepping these sorts of questions. In most cases, it's the only strategy they can adopt.

Yet this separation of religious faith from education yields an incomplete education. We're not arguing that religion should be "put back" into public schools. We'd just like some honesty: an education that takes no notice of faith is, at the very least, incomplete.

The Well Trained Mind, pages 204-205



Morality, the contents of a "good character," these are things that are unavoidably bound up in questions of faith. My own Christian faith teaches that "men are that they might have joy." This is in direct opposition to the first of Buddhism's Four Noble Truths: "Life means suffering." Which you believe will unavoidably impact what you value in a good character. It will most certainly affect what sort of habits you want your children to acquire.


But habit, to be the lever to lift the child, must work contrary to nature, or at any rate, independent of her. (Page 12, emphasis added)


For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father.
-Mosiah 3:19



Education is the formation of habits. (Page 12)


The habits of the child produce the character of the man. (Page 14)

13 January 2010

The Origin of Man

Contrast the ideas of the last few centuries with the ideas that God has revealed from heaven. They would make man look for his origin down to the very reptile and the worm that crawls upon the earth, and to the fish of the sea—as the first father, the first origin, the first oyster. Such is the reason of the learned of the last few centuries—the evolution theory; in other words, that which you learn from books, the creation of man's folly and foolishness. But when we learn through the revelations of God that instead of man's coming up from the poor worm of the dirt, he descended from that being who controls the universe by his power; that he descended from that being who is the fullness of all knowledge, and who sways his scepter over more planetary systems than there are sands upon the seashore. We are his offspring, we are his sons and his daughters, we are his children, he has begotten us, and we existed before the foundation of the world.
-Orson Pratt, 1878

25 September 2007

My Point, Precisely

So, Andy's working on his Anthropology, which has spawned a discussion a discussion among his classmates about Creation vs. Evolution. In the process, it's got me thinking about it again. I wrote this a while back, and today some random wanderings around the internet led me to an article by an MD, a Texas urologist. He says a lot of the same things I did, only since he's a scientist, he looks deeper & gives specific examples. With footnotes and everything.

And I still like what Orson Scott Card has to say about it all - even if it is published on Meridian & I can't recommend them at all.

21 December 2005

Thinking About Evolution

Given that the whole Evolution vs. Intelligent Design debate has been in the news so much recently, I did some thinking on the matter. At the beginning of the process, I found Evolution to be a little ridiculous. There are some pretty glaring problems: the one that bothers me most is that pesky Second Law of Thermodynamics: If things tend to become less and less organized over time, how on earth is Evolution going to somehow continually produce newer, better adapted species over time - by accident. I'll be the first to admit that I am at best a hobby physicist - all that math intimidated me, or I might have grown up into an astrophysicist rather than a piano teacher. Still, I enjoy reading Stephen Hawking's books and discussing experimental vehicles and power sources with my husband. Maybe somewhere some enterprising disciple of Evolution has taken on the Second Law and I just missed it. But I've never heard of that sort of work being done. At least not yet.

Thing is, I like to keep an open mind. As my own high school education lacked any kind of emphasis on Evolution, I went out and found a nice Evolution primer from a reputable source with a name that I recognize - in this case Berkeley and I did my best to set aside my skepticism while I read it.
Berkeley.edu: Evolution 101


Here's some of what I learned:

1. Evolution is a hypothesis. Even Berkeley doesn't tout Evolution as FACT. It's a work in progress.

2. Evolution - both macroevolution (the evolution of new species over long periods of time) and microevolution (changes within a species over one or more generations) happen by way of a couple of very basic processes: mutation, genetic drift, and natural selection. Microevolution, according to the Berkeley site, can lead to macroevolution.

Now for the Thinking Part:

Mutation
Evolution 101 has a glossary, which defines mutation as "a change in a DNA sequence, usually occurring because of errors in replication or repair." It goes on to say, "Mutation is the ultimate source of genetic variation." So, these mutations, these mistakes, are a positive thing. Interesting. I've also been reading Miscarriage: why it happens and how best to reduce your risks by Henry M. Lerner, M.D., OB/GYN. Chapter 2 is about chromosomal causes of miscarriages. Dr. Lerner writes that chromosomal miscombination is the number one cause of miscarriage, and talks about a couple different types. Abnormalities of chromosome number, abnormal chromosome splitting/nondysjunction, and translocations are discussed. Each of these things would be mutations, according to the Berkeley definition. Abnormal chromosomal numbers cause a number of problems, for instance that sperm with too much or too little chromosomes usually can't even fertilize an egg. Nondysjunction is when chromosomes split or pair up incorrectly, and it also leads to cells having the wrong number of chromosomes. Dr. Lerner writes:

"This situation will lead to the abnormal development of the embryo's structural or physiologic features. Usually, such an embryo will die and the pregnancy will miscarry. The most common example of aneuploidy see in living infants is Down syndrome, where each cell in the baby has three copies of chromosome 21.

...Trisomy - the presence of three copies of any of the chromosomes is the most frequent cause of first-trimester miscarriages. ... The chromosomes most often involved in these trisomies are chromosome 16, chromosome 21 (causing Down Syndrome), and chromosome 22. Why these chromosomes triple up more often than others is not known. It may be because other chromosomal trisomies are so lethal that they leave egg and sperm incapable of fertilizing one another - thus embryos with these chromosomal structures rarely form. alternatively, it may be that when other triosomies occur they result in miscarriages at such an early stage that not enough pregnancy material is recovered for their chromosomal makeup to be identified." (page 38)

The outlook an embryo with translocations in its chromosomes is equally grim. A lucky few will have "balanced" chromosomal translocations. These will probably survive into adulthood, but suffer from higher rates of infertility, miscarriage, and "fetuses with congenital anomalies". Not exactly good for introducing "positive" mutations into the species. And that's the best case scenario.

Dr. Lerner concludes his section on chromosomal abnormalities with these words:
This then is why abnormal chromosomal structures lead to miscarriages: Not only will abnormal chromosomes "miscode" for the development of the building blocks of all tissue, the proteins, but they will likely produce incorrect messenger signals as well. Either sort of biologic mistake - incorrect proteins or incorrect physiologic signaling - can be fatal to a developing embryo.

Genetic Drift
The Berkeley site comes right out and says that Genetic Drift is pure chance, and that it does not produce adaptations. Change, yes, but completely random change. Some organisms will leave more descendents than others, making their genes more common. So you might end up with a generation of people with big noses, if a large number of small-nosed parents are killed in accidents. Not exactly ground breaking "evolution." I'm really not sure how fluctuations in the frequency of any given trait in a population relates to evolution, even after reading Evolution 101, unless for some reason a trait goes extinct.

Natural Selection
Natural Selection is where I see the conflict with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The idea is that there are different traits. The example used by Berkeley was green and brown beetles. So, if the predators can find the green ones, but the brown ones are better hidden, then there will be more brown babies, because the green ones are eaten for lunch. As this happens, there are more and more brown beetles, until you just don't find any more green ones. At the end of the "selection" there are fewer varieties of beetle than there were at the beginning. But somehow, over time, the pattern is supposed to create more variety? The example that Berkeley shows follows the Second Law - there is less variation at the end. But the principle that they were trying to teach doesn't seem to follow either the example or the law.


So, at the end of the day, I find that I am still unconvinced by Evolution, in spite of the fact that Berkeley's Evolution 101 was very well done and very interesting. And given that Evolution is a hypothesis, I don't understand the fuss about having a competing hypothesis or two.


Further Reading:
Berkeley.edu: Evolution 101
The Society for the Study of Evolution
Interactive Documenary: Becoming Human
PBS: Evolution
NY Times: The Evolution Debate
Institue for Creation Research
Mormanity's Blog: Dec. 19 - Would we fly to pieces?

LinkWithin

Blog Widget by LinkWithin