The Clever Badger I'm not dead yet!

8Dec/107

Book Review – Mary Mae And The Gospel Truth by Sandra Dutton

(NOTE: Updated to fix a bad tag.)
What happens when a precocious ten-year-old from a conservative religious family encounters fossils in her school yard and starts asking questions?

Sandra Dutton offers a look at this situation through the eyes of Mary Mae Krebs in her book Mary Mae and the Gospel Truth.

Mary Mae and the Gospel Truth

Mary Mae and the Gospel Truth

We meet Mary Mae at a church service in Ohio, circa 1988, where she's singing with her visiting grandmother.   It seems that Mary Mae isn't content to simply accept everything she's told, and she manages to attract some attention to herself by asking uncomfortable questions about the Genesis creation stories.

"The world is six thousand years old.  You look in your Bible."

"Where?"

"Well, Genesis.  Where else?  You got the whole Creation, right there."

Soon as we get home, I get my Bible out and run my finger down every line of Genesis.  I'm looking for six thousand, whether it's in numbers or spelled out in letters.  I go through it twice.  Second time I'm reading with a flashlight in bed.  Only six I find is on the "sixth day," what God created, and in different folks' ages, like Enoch living three hundred and sixty-five  years.

I tell Mama Sunday morning I can't find no six thousand, and she says she don't have time to look, she's got too much work to do. (pg. 12)

Mary Mae's questions and her refusal to let other people think for her provide sources of tension between her and her mother, her pastor, her Sunday school teacher, and her friends.  At various points, she questions a number of issues that she spots in Genesis:

  • Light and dark existing before light sources like the sun.
  • Varying lengths of generations.
  • How all the animals could possibly have fit on the ark, and the logistics associated with their care.

The answers and explanations given to her tend to be in the vein of  "you just have to have faith" or "if the Bible says it, it must be true", but these don't deter her.  I think that's admirable, and anyone who has ever had a child respond to every answer with "why?" should be able to understand Mary Mae's persistence.

At school, Mary Mae's teacher, Miss Sizemore, is teaching her students about fossils, and the ancient age of the Earth, and how the rock layers visible where the local highways are cut through the mountains represent different geological periods.  She finds herself fascinated by the trilobite fossils that she finds in the rocks exposed by an excavation at the school yard and in other places, and she comes to realize that explanations like "God put them there to test us" just don't wash.

A large measure of my interest in this book flows from the fact that I have no life experiences to compare with Mary Mae's.  I grew up as a liberal Catholic, and (try as I might) I cannot recall any time in my school-age years where I learned something in (public) school that caused tensions at home or at church.  I was, of course, familiar with the Genesis creation stories (although it was much later before I realized there were two stories instead of just one), and the story of Noah's flood (again, the actual text suggests two versions of the story), but my Sunday school classes never tackled them in any detail (which I now consider to be a failing...).  For me, the science-vs-religion question is really a no-brainer:  we learn about the observable world by observing it, and science is the framework for making sense of those observations.

As I consider Mary Mae's conundrum, I have to cast it in terms of what I expect the people around her to say and do.  Through this preconceptual lens, Dutton's characters serve their purposes quite well - Miss Sizemore as the voice of secular science for example, or Mary Mae's mother presenting the extremely conservative religious perspective - although the only supporting character with much complexity is Granny (who really serves as an older and wiser version of Mary Mae's own conscience).  While there might be a small risk that a reader could be trapped by stereotypes, Dutton made a smart choice to avoid overdeveloping the ancillary characters beyond Mary Mae's perspective.

The book touches on a number of related topics, and Dutton exposes several important ones just enough to spark some discussion:

  • Kids in public schools being given alternative work when the curriculum conflicts with religious beliefs.
  • Parents pulling their kids out of school for homeschooling and realizing that it's not as easy as they expected.1
  • Parents of different religious backgrounds deciding how to raise their children.
  • People believing whatever their pastor happens to tell them on any given day.

In the end, Mary Mae and her family come to a compromise position that, from the perspective of a ten-year-old is probably sufficient.  In many real-life situations similar to Mary Mae's, some sort of compromise may be the best anyone can hope for, and I think Dutton realizes that.

But it's also a little troubling, in my view, for a couple of reasons.

The first has to do with the audience of the book.  A few obvious candidates are:

  • Kids who are in the same situation as Mary Mae - they're learning things at school that contradict what they've been taught at home or in church, and they're trying to figure out a way to reconcile these views.
  • Parents of such kids who are trying to deal with challenges to their belief system.
  • Pastors/clergy or teachers of such kids who are looking for ways to help the kids work through the issues.

The compromise position that the book takes means that a lot of parents (who want their kids to believe the same way as they do) and clergy (whose livelihood depends on people believing certain things) won't find the book useful - they may want books that reinforce their beliefs.  The kids who are in situations most like Mary Mae's are also likely to be kids from families and churches with very conservative religious beliefs for whom compromises simply aren't acceptable.

Teachers of such kids may be justifiably reluctant to suggest that children challenge the beliefs of their parents.  Teachers that do so may well find themselves looking for work.

That leaves the kids themselves, and I'm honestly not sure how many kids would find this book on their own.  That's a shame, because a clever child reading about Mary Mae's journey could come away much  better prepared to engage with their parents about questions of belief.

There is one other audience for the book, and I think it's probably a large one (though difficult to count):  close friends or relatives of families with Mary Maes who might find themselves involved in the situation.

So, in effect, Dutton's compromise solution to the problem at hand might have the unintended consequence of keeping the book out of the hands of many of the people who would benefit the most from it.  I think that's just a reflection of the nature of the subject and not any fault of hers.

The other reason I find the compromise troubling is that I don't think that it is a stable equilibrium.  This is beyond the scope of the book, but I think it's relevant to mention.

We leave Mary Mae at a point where she's been told that there are some gaps in the Biblical narratives, and science can step in to fill those gaps.  If her interests never went beyond trilobite fossils, that might be sufficient.  But is that likely?  I'm not at all sure that it is.

At some point, she'd learn some world history and find out that Egypt had a well-documented culture and civilization that continued moving right along during the time when, according to the Bible, the world was under water and Noah's family was all that was left of humanity.  She might learn of solid evidence of human habitation in the Americas dating back well over 11,000 years - older than the Earth by some Biblical reckoning.

Maintaining a claim of Biblical truth vis-a-vis science and history becomes an increasingly untenable goal, unless "science" and "history" are redefined to bend around the Bible.

At the end of the day, Dutton has put together a sensitive, gentle story that validates the message that it's OK for kids to ask questions and look outside of the beliefs they've been raised in.  That's the first step of many.  I would hope that the book can find its way into the hands of families facing circumstances like Mary Mae's, and that it might help nurture the spark of curiosity that all children seem to have.

-Jay

----------

1I am of two minds about homeschooling.  I can see how, if it's done properly, it could be rewarding for both parents and children, but I've seen far more instances of it being done poorly than of it being done well.  That's all I'll say about it now.  It's a topic for another time, perhaps.

7Aug/106

A Short Evolution Refresher

Geeks are Sexy has a nice post from a bit over a year ago giving a solid, high-level overview of evolution.  It also includes an excellent 10 minute video that I'm including below, because it deserves as wide an audience as possible (I may have posted this before.  If I haven't, I should have).

The article and video hit a number of frequent objections to evolution.  Actually, it would be more correct to say that the article and video address a number of objections to a strawman caricature of evolution.

The distinction is important because more often than not, the vocal evolution deniers out there will start their sales pitch by claiming that "evolution says <something>", and typically that <something> is either something that evolution doesn't "say" at all, or else "says" quite a bit differently than the denier suggests.  Some examples:

  • Have you ever seen a dog give birth to a cat?
  • Evolution says that man came from monkeys, so why are there still monkeys?
  • DNA evidence proves that all humans came from one woman!
  • Most mutations are harmful and would kill an organism!

The first two, of course, are the same concept phrased slightly differently, and reflect at least three misunderstandings - that individual organisms evolve directly into other individual organisms like some sort of Pokémon,  that one species will cease to exist once it gives rise to a new species, and that humans are descended from monkeys.  (There's a part in the video starting at 5:33 that covers these with a nice little graphic.)

The third one is a distortion of the concept of the Most Recent Common Ancestor (MRCA). We commonly see the term applied to the unfortunately named idea of a Mitochondrial Eve - the most recent common female ancestor of all living humans.1

The reason that it's a distortion is that the MRCA depends on what group you're looking at.  The MRCA of all living humans is not required to be the MRCA of all humans that have ever lived:

(From Wikipedia)

The MRCA of everyone alive today could thus have co-existed with a large human population, most of whom either have no living descendants today or else are ancestors of a subset of people alive today. The existence of an MRCA does therefore not imply the existence of a population bottleneck or first couple.

At this point, some alert individual might assert that even if you expand the pool to all humans that have ever lived, you still necessarily end up back at a first couple, but you'd be wrong because there isn't a requirement that the female MRCA and the male MRCA live at the same time.  Think about it.  If our notional female MRCA had children by two different men, and descendants of all of those children survived to the present day, then neither of her partners would be the male MRCA - her father would be.  (There's also the little matter of identifying exactly where you draw the line between human and non-human.  For a very relevant graphical demonstration, see here.)

The last point is simply untrue.  Most mutations aren't fatal.  Most are neutral.  The fatal ones tend to get removed from the population pretty quickly for obvious reasons.  Neutral ones can just sort of drift around in the gene pool without any particular consequences.  Beneficial ones tend to increase in frequency.2

We could go on with this, and we'd see the same thing over and over again.  That suggests to me that the evolution deniers out there aren't at all interested in addressing the subject on the basis of facts and evidence, but rather seek to turn it into an exercise in emotional manipulation.3

The lesson here, as always, is to do some fact checking when you run across references to cats birthing dogs and such.  If nothing else, ask yourself  "if this is such a simple and obvious flaw in evolution, then why on Earth does anyone still accept it?"   Your answer should be "maybe this supposed flaw has already been addressed, or maybe whoever proposed it doesn't understand evolution very well."

-Jay

----------

1So named because mitochondria within cells come from the mother - sperm lack mitochondria. Similarly, we can talk about a Y-chromosomal Adam.

2But remember that beneficial depends on the environment, and may be a tradeoff.  Conspicuous physical displays may increase the chances of finding a mate, but may also increase the chances of getting eaten.

3Ken Ham is perhaps the current master of this approach. What the man actually knows about evolution is unlikely to fill a thimble, so he takes the fear-mongering approach of linking evolution to everything that is bad in the world. Ham also attracts attention for his horribly distorted theology. James McGrath recently had a post up summarizing some of the criticism Ham has been receiving from within the evangelical community of late.

20May/084

Grading on a (Squashed) Curve

This article in the 19 May McNews USA Today attempts to make a case for changing the way that schools account for failing grades. In a nutshell, the idea is, given a 10-point scale (e.g. 90-100 is an A, and so forth), all failing grades below 50 should be rounded up to 50 for purposes of calculating grade averages.

The main argument here is that very low performing students can't catch up. (Mathematically, that's true in some cases. The article shows some examples - one is a student with 0, 70, 70, and 70 as quarter grades, that averages out to a failing 52.5 under the standard grading scale, but when the 0 is replaced with a 50, it becomes a passing (barely) 65.)

Whether or not this is really a bad thing is a discussion for another day. What I'm more interested in is the misinformation and fear-mongering present in these two paragraphs from the article:

Their argument: Other letter grades A, B, C and D are broken down in increments of 10 from 60 to 100, but there is a 59-point spread between D and F, a gap that can often make it mathematically impossible for some failing students to ever catch up.

"It's a classic mathematical dilemma: that the students have a six times greater chance of getting an F," says Douglas Reeves, founder of The Leadership and Learning Center, a Colorado-based educational think tank who has written on the topic. "The statistical tweak of saying the F is now 50 instead of zero is a tiny part of how we can have better grading practices to encourage student performance."

First off, let's look at the way the grades discussed here actually break out:

  • 90 - 100 = A
  • 80 - 89 = B
  • 70 - 79 = C
  • 60 - 69 = D
  • 59 and below = F

A couple of things jump out right away. Reeves' statement - students have a six times greater chance of getting an F - makes no sense whatsoever. Six times greater than what? Passing? Were this the case, our schools across the nation should be failing 86% of their students, which clearly isn't the case. Than getting any other specific grade? Only if students get graded by random draw and don't actually have to do any work. As the founder of an educational think tank, one would expect Reeves to demonstrate a better grasp of the grading system he's working to change. Reeves also makes a subtle shift in his second sentence - The statistical tweak of saying the F is now 50 instead of zero is a tiny part of how we can have better grading practices to encourage student performance. (Emphasis mine.) He's now made the implication that all failing students under currently common grading systems get get zeroes, which of course they don't. The net effect of his statements seems to be to convince parents that their kids are passing school by the skin of their teeth, and that setting a lower limit on failing grades will dramatically change the situation.

Now it could be that Mr. Reeves is more interested in selling his books. The Leadership and Learning Center website is basically a front end to sell their publications, training, and seminars. There isn't, so far as I could find, any way to gain further insight into Reeves' research other than to buy his DVD seminars on the subject. (To be fair, there's certainly nothing wrong with the man trying to sell his work. What bothers me is that he's made some fairly dramatic statements without providing anything to back them up.)

What's missing from the article, and what Thomas Guskey, the Georgetown College professor quoted in the article, alludes to, are hard statistics.

There are a couple of things that need to be looked at:

Of the kids that are failing, what is the distribution of the failing grades? How many of those kids would actually benefit by the proposed approach? Perhaps most importantly, does passing kids who really don't know the material really benefit them in the long run? Are other techniques, such as extra tutoring or smaller class sizes, more effective in increasing performance in poorly achieving students than setting an artificial lower limit on failure?

The fact of the matter is that kids don't fail suddenly. There are indicators - declining day-to-day performance, missed classes, attention issues - that teachers, parents, and indeed the students themselves should be sensitive to, which can be acted upon before a student has gotten to a point of no return. Early identification of problems and effective intervention will make far more of a difference than silly math tricks, methinks.

Clever Badger

Tagged as: 4 Comments