Stones & Bones by Char Matejovsky

So, here's how it happened:

I was at work, manning the register when this guy comes in all white of beard and quiet of manner and he asks for his special order and I hand it over, intrigued by the cover, which, as you can see, shows a dinosaur painting a picture of a white-bearded guy.


Oh, dear, I think, this could be very bad or it could be pretty cool. - I will now admit that I have a suspicion of pictures of old men with big fluffy white beards. Usually some kind of santa or god is going to be involved. My prejudice proves wrong, I am happy to say, when the man who has ordered the book and who is receiveing it with obvious glee says, "It's evolution in verse."

The guy with the white beard is Darwin, or a reasonable and amiable facsimile. The verse itself is catchy, and does not give in to simplistic language- mitochondria, for example, appears in one stanza (and, remarkably, does not feel forced). The illustrations by Robaire Ream are well-done, at once intricate and clear.

Included with the book is a cd with the book sung by a children's choir quite charmingly.

Among my favourite bits:

Evolution's the solution
to the data that we find,
when we study bones and fossils
and we keep an open mind.

Along the way, we get a time-frame, and an acceptance that not everything is known, but that we have not given up on learning what we can and are looking for more knowledge. In all, a very exciting view of scientific discovery and interpretation.

Since this is from a small publisher (Polebridge Press), the book is a bit pricey (it was about $19.00), but it is library bound (which means durable), and highly enjoyable by both the four-year-old and the thirty-nine-year old. The next oldest generation also liked it.

www.stonesandbonesbook.com is their web address if you have trouble finding it in your local bookshop. I am also going to recommend a visit there to click on things- as there is a really neat timeline, and resources for parents and kids about evolution. I am rather thrilled about this.

General Complaint

There is the saying, "So many books, so little time". Well, as any reader knows, it's true. I am trying to prioritize my reading list, which grows every day. There are books which I read of political or educational necessity, books which I read because I missed them the first time around (having not been born in time to catch the first release of most 18th century literature), and books which Look Darned Nifty.

They pile up. I have a grand plan involving shelving everything in such a way as to have what needs reading isolated from what's been read. Or something. I have one involving a calendar and an actual plan- X in January, Y in February. Yah, sure. I have also agreed to co-chair a reading group for romance novels. (I know. I know- really, I do. We'll see what happens.)

This past year I read more non-work/politics-related stuff than I had in about a decade. I also read more politics stuff than the year before. I also decided that if I do not like a book, or if I do not properly hate a book (also valuable), then I do not have to continue.

For example- I hated the Christmas Box. A lot. But I lost my place and didn't want to re-infect my brain by accidentally re-reading any of it, so I let it slide. (It was horrible in every way I expected; bad plot, poor writing, and overwrought tugs at the heartstrings. Plus it brought back memories of Salt Lake in wintertime, which is a definite strike against it as far as I am concerned.)

I also did not totally read Blackwater- though it was informative in many parts. It just was not really anything new, since I'd been paying attention to the situation beforehand. I might still pick it up, but maybe not.

In any event, I look forward to finding some good books in the new year, and to finishing the good ones or really really bad ones I already have laying around.

I am hoping to discover a new hated author in the same way I look forward to discovering a new favourite. If I could find the opposite equivalent of Max Brooks next year, I will be happy to spend time underlining the especially egregious parts. I have not had a good underlining since Stan Rice died. Well, Harris came close.

The thing is, in order to really find such things, I have to go into it cold, or expecting the best. I need to keep an open mind in order to be either pleased or dismayed. I went into The Christmas Box expecting to hate it, and I did, but not gleefully.

Anyhoo. I am working on a plan. Or two. To organize my reading. Or I might just continue at it willy-nilly.

Also....Spreading the word

For those who cannot get enough of Carl Sagan, there is an interesting thing happening here:

http://kasranov.blogspot.com/

Kasranov has made a rather nice 40-minute episode of Sagan's Pale Blue Dot- using footage from here and there and scoring it very nicely indeed. He writes about the process of making the film as well. I am impressed and hoping for more. Now, more than ever, it's good to remember that rational thought can be expressed with grace, humour, and humanity. Thanks, Kasranov, for the reminder.

The Little Book of Atheist Spirituality

By Andre Comte-Sponville.

I'm on page 62 of this little book so far. Written for the lay-reader (ie, non-professional philosopher), Comte-Sponville's work is a contemplative and personal examination of atheism, morals, and history as it regards the building of ethics. Unlike many now-popular works on atheism, it does not exhort a complete abandonment of Judeao-Christian traditions as far as a code of living goes, rather he posits that we are best served by building on these materials- the teachings, he avers, are valid with or without God. I am inclined to agree with many of his ideas so far, though not totally with his interpretation of political history (into which he does not go deeply, so it is almost a non-issue. At least at this point).

A run-down of the contents (and questions):

I. Can We Do Without Religion?

II. Does God Exist?

III. Can There Be an Atheist Sprituality?

Conclusion: Love and Truth.


So far he has taken both nihilism and post-modernism to task -citing the rejection by post-modernists of the ideals of the Enlightenment, to wit- the denial of knowledge and humanity by its insistence that it is impossible to know truth, or that there even is such a thing as truth. While not proclaiming that there is One Big Truth, Comte-Sponville decries the idea which follows so often in that line that since we can not find it, it is not worth looking for. Nihilism and Post-Modernism are, it seems, linked in their common denial of history and their lack of will to affect the future. (After all, if there is no way to know the past, what business do we have trying to do anything in the future?)

Interestingly, he delineates two kinds of Barbarism-

There are two types of barbarism, however, which it is important not to conflate: The first, irreligious, is merely generalized or triumphant nihilism; the second, fanaticized, attempts to impose its faith on others through use of force. Nihilism leads to the former and leaves the field open to the latter.

The dangers of these barbarisms are clear- in the case of the first, there is an unrootedness, a committment only to the whims of the holder, and a denial of ideal or ideologies, an abandonment of culture and cummunity in toto. Indeed, the very idea of culture is antithetical to nihilism.

I think of a number of people in the "atheist world" who do not appeal to reason in favour of atheism, but spend their time in the excoriation of religions, and people who have faith in any form, without regard to whom they are alienating, or why, and with the idea only of shouting down any questions or challenges (Hitchens, particularly of late, as well as many angry forum participants). There is often to be found the expression that religion and faith need to be utterly abandoned, that they have contributed nothing to human thought or history (I know, but what is history, anyway- yes, yes.).

In the case of the latter- we see it in many ways:

They know everything there is to know about Truth and Goodness. Of what use is science to them? Of what use democracy? Everything worth knowing is in the Book. One need only believe and obey. Between Darwin and Genesis, human rights and Sharia, the rights of peoples and the Torah, they have taken sides once and for all.

Examples greet us on the front pages of the papers every day.