Damned if You Do and Damned if You Don't

S. Dilley, Nicholas Tafacory
{"title":"Damned if You Do and Damned if You Don't","authors":"S. Dilley, Nicholas Tafacory","doi":"10.33014/ISSN.2640-5652.1.2.DILLEY.1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We argue that a number of biology (and evolution) textbooks face a crippling dilemma. On the one hand, significant difficulties arise if textbooks include theological claims in their case for evolution. (Such claims include, for example, ‘God would never design a suboptimal panda’s thumb, but an imperfect structure is just what we’d expect on natural selection.’)  On the other hand, significant difficulties arise if textbooks exclude theological claims in their case for evolution.  So, whether textbooks include or exclude theological claims, they face debilitating problems. We attempt to establish this thesis by examining 32 biology (and evolution) textbooks, including the Big 12—that is, the top four in each of the key undergraduate categories (biology majors, non-majors, and evolution courses). In Section 2 of our article, we analyze three specific types of theology these texts use to justify evolutionary theory. We argue that all face significant difficulties. In Section 3, we step back from concrete cases and, instead, explore broader problems created by having theology in general in biology textbooks. We argue that the presence of theology—of whatever kind—comes at a significant cost, one that some textbook authors are likely unwilling to pay.  In Section 4, we consider the alternative: Why not simply get rid of theology? Why not just ignore it? In reply, we marshal a range of arguments why avoiding God-talk raises troubles of its own. Finally, in Section 5, we bring together the collective arguments in Sections 2-4 to argue that biology textbooks face an intractable dilemma.  We underscore this difficulty by examining a common approach that some textbooks use to solve this predicament. We argue that this approach turns out to be incoherent and self-serving. The poor performance of textbooks on this point highlights just how deep the difficulty is. In the end, the overall dilemma remains.","PeriodicalId":114457,"journal":{"name":"Communications of the Blyth Institute","volume":"54 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-06-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Communications of the Blyth Institute","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.33014/ISSN.2640-5652.1.2.DILLEY.1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

We argue that a number of biology (and evolution) textbooks face a crippling dilemma. On the one hand, significant difficulties arise if textbooks include theological claims in their case for evolution. (Such claims include, for example, ‘God would never design a suboptimal panda’s thumb, but an imperfect structure is just what we’d expect on natural selection.’)  On the other hand, significant difficulties arise if textbooks exclude theological claims in their case for evolution.  So, whether textbooks include or exclude theological claims, they face debilitating problems. We attempt to establish this thesis by examining 32 biology (and evolution) textbooks, including the Big 12—that is, the top four in each of the key undergraduate categories (biology majors, non-majors, and evolution courses). In Section 2 of our article, we analyze three specific types of theology these texts use to justify evolutionary theory. We argue that all face significant difficulties. In Section 3, we step back from concrete cases and, instead, explore broader problems created by having theology in general in biology textbooks. We argue that the presence of theology—of whatever kind—comes at a significant cost, one that some textbook authors are likely unwilling to pay.  In Section 4, we consider the alternative: Why not simply get rid of theology? Why not just ignore it? In reply, we marshal a range of arguments why avoiding God-talk raises troubles of its own. Finally, in Section 5, we bring together the collective arguments in Sections 2-4 to argue that biology textbooks face an intractable dilemma.  We underscore this difficulty by examining a common approach that some textbooks use to solve this predicament. We argue that this approach turns out to be incoherent and self-serving. The poor performance of textbooks on this point highlights just how deep the difficulty is. In the end, the overall dilemma remains.
做也该死,不做也该死
我们认为,许多生物学(和进化)教科书面临着一个严重的困境。一方面,如果教科书包含进化论的神学主张,就会出现重大困难。(这些主张包括,例如,“上帝永远不会设计出一个次优的熊猫拇指,但一个不完美的结构正是我们在自然选择中所期望的。”)另一方面,如果教科书排除了进化论的神学主张,就会出现重大困难。因此,无论教科书是否包含或排除神学主张,它们都面临着令人衰弱的问题。我们试图通过检查32本生物学(和进化)教科书来建立这一论点,其中包括Big 12,即每个关键本科类别(生物专业,非专业和进化课程)的前四名。在我们文章的第二部分,我们分析了这些经文用来证明进化论的三种特定类型的神学。我们认为,所有这些都面临重大困难。在第三节中,我们将从具体的案例中退一步,转而探讨生物学教科书中普遍存在的神学所带来的更广泛的问题。我们认为,神学的存在——无论何种形式——都需要付出巨大的代价,一些教科书的作者可能不愿意付出这样的代价。在第4节,我们考虑另一种选择:为什么不简单地摆脱神学?为什么不直接忽略它呢?作为回答,我们整理了一系列的论据,为什么避免谈论上帝本身就会带来麻烦。最后,在第5节中,我们将第2-4节中的集体论点汇集在一起,论证生物教科书面临着一个棘手的困境。我们通过研究一些教科书用来解决这一困境的常见方法来强调这一困难。我们认为,这种方法原来是不连贯的和自私的。教科书在这一点上的糟糕表现凸显了难度有多深。最后,总的困境依然存在。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信