This article ran in The Textbook Letter
for November-December 1991.
It accompanied reviews of Biology: The Dynamics of Life, a high-school
textbook issued by the Merrill Publishing Company.
When the Shark Bites with His Teeth, Dear,
Remember That It's All for the Best
William J. Bennetta
The idea that organisms have been fashioned directly by a divine
creator, and that they play divinely ordained roles in nature, is
ancient. Yet it was promoted to greatest effect only 190 years ago,
by the English churchman William Paley. In 1802 Paley published a
book called Natural Theology, in which he recommended the
study of nature as a way of apprehending the creator's existence
and attributes. These could be inferred from the examination of
living things, Paley said, because the physical intricacies of
organisms -- like the physical intricacies of a watch -- are marks
of purposeful design and of a skillful designer.
One result of Paley's analogizing was the pervasive popularity of
natural history in Britain during the 19th century. It gave rise to
a quaint subculture of amateur naturalists who were amateur
theologians as well. They found supernatural perfection in every
organism's form, discerned godly goodness in every organism's way of
life, and discovered that every organism was playing a role in a
grand scheme that had been created for the benefit of the most
perfect organism of all: man.
Of course, this subculture had its own literature, which Lynn Barber
has described in her delightful book The Heyday of Natural
History, issued in 1980 by Doubleday & Company (New York City).
Look at her page 76:
The . . . conventional line, preferred by the majority of
natural history writers, was to talk vaguely about the "balance" or
"harmony" of Nature. Some species were necessary to keep down
other species which would otherwise run amok. Insectivorous birds,
for instance, were "commissioned by an all-wise and beneficent
Providence to free us from the clouds of insects, which would
otherwise infest our dwellings, and destroy the labours of the
field." This was quite a promising line of attack, but, since the
state of ecological knowledge was low, and since in any case it was
based on the false premise that everything in Nature must be
ultimately beneficial to man, it often led to circular arguments.
What is the use of ladybirds? one writer asks. Why, to help the
gardener, by keeping down aphids. And what is the use of aphids?
Why, to feed ladybirds, of course. This solution was deemed
sufficient.
The passage that Barber quotes (about birds' being "commissioned" to
control insects) is from The Note-book of a Naturalist,
written by one E.P. Thomson and published in London in 1845.
Though the religious speculations of William Paley and his followers
have no scientific significance at all, they persist conspicuously
in Biology: The Dynamics of Life. Merrill's writers clearly
imagine that organisms exist to be helpful, and Merrill's book even
retails the mystical, scientifically meaningless notion of a
"balance" of nature. On page 520, for example, we read about "The
Importance of Birds":
Birds have many roles in the environments in which they are
found. Birds help to maintain balance in the environment. Some
birds eat insects that would otherwise increase in number so much
that they would overwhelm natural habitats. Predatory birds feed on
rats and mice and keep them in check.
That first sentence tells us that Merrill's writers care as little
for logic as did those amateur naturalists of 150 years ago: Could
birds possibly have roles in environments in which they were
not found? The more important point, however, is that
Merrill's passage obviously reflects a devotion to natural theology
and is strikingly similar to what E.P. Thomson wrote in 1845
(though Thomson's "destroy the labours of the field" was more poetic
than Merrill's meaningless, pseudoscientific phrase "overwhelm
natural habitats").
On pages 491 and 492, the writers rhapsodize on "The Importance of
Fish." Please neglect that incorrect plural, but do notice this
notion about sharks:
In the sea, sharks fulfill the same role as do lions and tigers
on land. As predators, sharks keep prey populations healthy by
limiting the sizes of the populations. Without sharks, prey species
would increase in number and be subject to starvation and
disease.
So again, mystical foolishness. Why would the "prey species" not be
eaten by other predators if there were no sharks? Why do the
writers imagine, as they obviously do, that predation is more
proper than starvation as a population-limiting agent? And just
what are those prey species anyway? Do they include Homo
sapiens? When a shark kills a man, shall we rejoice that the
shark has helped to keep our population healthy? If so, what shall
we say when a man kills a man? So much for natural theology.
I can't object to Merrill's publishing a book about antiquated
religious doctrines, but I object strongly to Merrill's calling such
stuff "biology."
William J. Bennetta is a professional editor, a fellow of the
California Academy of Sciences, the president of The Textbook
League, and the editor of The Textbook Letter. He writes
often about the propagation of quackery, false "science" and false
"history" in schoolbooks.
|
return to top