APES and Creationists
August 15, 2007Sitting down to finish up my environmental science homework today, I realized that something was bothering me about the way the book was written. I couldn’t quite place it until I came to a discussion in Chapter 11 on “The Value of Wild Species.”
As we study the problem of loss of species, we find that some claim that no species on Earth except Homo sapiens has any intrinsic value. However, if no other species are held to have intrinsic value, then it is difficult to justify preserving many that are apparently insignificant or very local in distribution.
And the textbook proceeds happily on its way, having satisfactorily demonstrated that species other than Homo sapiens must indeed have intrinsic value.
What’s wrong with this picture? This seems like the kind of reasoning only the authors of Of Pandas and People would consider putting in a serious scientific textbook. Indeed, Environmental Science: Toward a Sustainable Future (8th edition) shares a deeper similarity with the folks that came up with intelligent design. Both carry an underlying, unproven assumption on which all following arguments are based. Now, there’s nothing wrong with unproven assumptions like that – ordinary people call them axioms (things like “An object in motion tends to remain in motion”). In the case of ID, the assumption is that the there hasn’t been enough time for evolution to happen. For APES, it’s this:
It is worthwhile returning the global ecology to a pre-neolithic state
With this in mind, the intrinsic value problem makes sense, as does the rest of the book. But it’s not an axiom – the assumption is never stated (ID also has a problem because their assumption is so obviously untrue). It’s painful – our textbook is so close to being legitimate science, but they miss that one little detail that brings everything else tumbling down.
ok the fact that you are bothered by this let alone have read the book this carefully is sad you fucking nerd. i am getting you high.
Aaron Macholl-Stanley — August 16, 2007 @ 1:28 am
ok sorry i didnt read all of your note bc i have ADD, but its APES… there are certain truths that must be held self evident in that class. in order for the class to be at all valid and relevant.one must assume that-the planet is on a slippery slope and most everything in the biosphere as we know it will perish within a couple hundred years if present practices continue-Homo sapiens is no more important than any other species-indeed, homo sapiens are evil and the cause of all harm to the earthetcwhether these are true or not is beside the point. if you dont consider APES from this perspective its going to be a loooooong year and just shoot yourself now.
Emily-Hella Tyrannasaurous — August 16, 2007 @ 4:22 am
My point exactly. If they want to be scientific about it they need to make those things clear.After all, saying that "Homo sapiens is no more important than any other species" is a fairly bold claim to make as it would seem to go against basic evolutionary principles (keep in mind that I just finished bio in which we learned that Homo sapiens is more important than any other species and Michael geluardi is more important than any other Homo sapiens).
Jacob Andreas — August 16, 2007 @ 12:36 pm
Science…hahaha. Like, phrenology? Feel free to join/ridicule the American Phrenelogical society. I’d link you their page, but they seem to have lost any sort of intrinsic value…assuming of course that they had any to begin with.
Nice site.
Josh T. — September 28, 2007 @ 7:38 am