Montreal Police Finally Investigating David Mabus (UPDATE)
(UPDATE)Montreal police have arrested Dennis Markuze.
So it looks like the Montreal authorities are finally taking Dennis Markuze, AKA David Mabus, seriously enough to act. (Thanks, Greg Laden.)
Markuze has spent the last several years spamming the inboxes and comment threads of various and sundry scientists and bloggers. He tends to target skeptical, scientific, and atheist folks, although he's not above assuming guilt by association and firing off some of his well-written and insightful prose verbal effluvia to anyone he finds interacting with his usual targets.
A typical Mabus missive might contain death threats, links to sites he thinks are somehow relevant, healthy doses of vulgarity and profanity, and possibly some random sprinkles of batshit crazy raving. He generally confines himself to cyber-threats, but on at least one occasion he's turned up at a skeptical conference in person. There's quite a bit of concern that he might eventually act on one of his threats.
One of his more >ahem< interesting threats was that he was going to crawl out of the TV and kill my associate Skippy, rather like the evil ghost girl from Ringu.
As it is, that didn't happen.
Mabus is often characterized as a crazy extreme Christian, but I think it's probably more accurate to say that he's a guy with some serious issues who happens to be a Christian.
I hope that the authorities in Montreal are able to build a solid case against DM. He clearly needs some help before he harms someone. There should be no shortage of evidence against him, as many folks have forwarded his messages to the police. (ObDisclosure - my comment and email filters don't let much of his material through. I kept a couple of emails for a while, but deleted them a while ago.)
I'm sure there will be more news to follow as the folks up north conduct their investigation.
-Jay
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.
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.
Disclosure and Some Background
I'm working on a book review right now that's a bit of a departure from the sort of things that I usually read. I'll refrain from too many details just yet, but just to keep everything above-board, the author contacted me about writing a review and provided a review copy of the book on the strength of some previous posts of mine.
With that out of the way, I'll provide some background.
The book in question is about a fundamentalist Christian1 girl trying to sort out her love of science (specifically her interest in evolution) and her religious background.
This is a topic of personal significance to me for several reasons, but the one I'll focus on here is that nobody ever approaches the evolution/creationism issue from the perspective of the kids.
Pretty much every forum or blog out there that routinely covers the topic deals with it from an adult perspective. When kids enter into the discussion at all, it's most often (these days) in the context of discussion about the Dover trial or of creationist school board candidates and textbook selections in Texas2, or somehow in connection with Ken Ham's Creation Museum.
While the adult-side discussions of evolution and creationism (and the broader discussions of science, religion, and whether or not they can coexist) are certainly important, even crucial, it's all too easy to forget that on the other side of the court cases and the school board elections and the museum exhibits are tens or hundreds of thousands (or more) of kids who are directly impacted by the outcomes of those events. In the U.S., most of those children will be from religious backgrounds that are at best ambivalent towards evolution and at worst outright hostile to the concept3.
Some of these kids may respond to material about evolution by simply ignoring it, or learning enough to pass a test, or challenging it with what they may believe are strong, well-reasoned objections that they read in a book or on a website somewhere4, but some of them will start to engage with the material, and that engagement will lead to some questions that may well fly headlong into the face of religious doctrine and foundational beliefs.
This is a difficult enough situation for adults to work through, and it's easy to suppose that it's much harder for kids, since the parents and family members that they would normally go to for answers might not be receptive to discussing the subject - few topics are more capable of dividing people than religious disagreements - but it's a situation that I suspect is more common than people might think, particularly as increasingly unfettered access to the internet means that more children will be exposed to different points of view than they have been in the past.
So, all that being said, I was intrigued by the opportunity to review a book that deals with the evolution/creationism issue from the perspective of a child trying to sort things out. It should be interesting.
-Jay
----------
1Still wishing there was a word that was equally descriptive but less pejoratively loaded...
2Why Texas, you ask? It seems that Texas is a huge influence on textbook publishers because of the number of students in the state. Texas buys a lot of textbooks. Textbook publishers want to sell textbooks to Texas. Therefore curriculum decisions in Texas can influence the textbooks that are used in many other states.
3I'm operating on the assumption that parents teach their kids according to their own beliefs, and based on the numbers shown here.
4When I was active on some of the E/C forums, it wasn't uncommon to see the same arguments pop up nearly word-for-word in many different threads. Once you're familiar with them, it's even possible to tell where they originally came from.
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.
Phil Plait on TV!
Phil Plait of Bad Astronomy fame is getting his own Discovery Channel show sometime this fall - Phil Plait's Bad Universe.
I'm looking forward to this show - I haven't been terribly impressed with the Discovery Channel for several years now, but I've read enough of Phil's work to know that he"ll do this right, and it will be fun.
If, by some chance, you're not familiar with Phil, click over to his blog at the link above and browse around.
-Jay

