by Bernie Dehler
10-28-07
The following are my notes from the book "What It Means to be 98% Chimpanzee," by Prof. Jonathan Marks. Click here to see the book at Amazon.com . Click here for his homepage.
In general, the book looks like a collection of his essays, which seem to mainly teach, by sharing examples, how sometimes scientists overstate their beliefs as "scientific" when they are really just beliefs. One prime example is showing how blacks are neither inferior (mentally) to whites, or superior (athletically) to whites. Prof. Marks says there is no noticeable differences between the "races." Races are really more of a cultural demarcation. Here are my notes from the book (2002 edition):
Pg. 114. This whole section talks about the nonsense of trying to pinpoint homosexuality being due to genetics, as some claim. It may or may not be; the point is, there is no valid scientific reason for stating such... even if the pronouncement comes from the mouth of a scientist.
Pg. 117 summarizes it with this quote (emphasis mine):
The question is not ," Do you believe homosexuality is genetic?"... The question is, "What have we actually shown scientifically about it?" And the answer is, almost nothing.
Pg. 120-121. He speaks in this section about earlier attempts at eliminating undesirables, as based on their genetics. That NAZI-type movement is dead, but was called "eugenics." The idea was that bad thoughts and deeds came from a bad mind, which comes from bad genes; and that these immoral people should be regulated. In response to that, Prof. Marks says on pg. 121:
It's not stupid or illogical, but it is dead wrong.
The scientific viewpoint (of wiping-out mental misfits) was so widespread in that day, that Prof. Marks says (on the same page):
In fact, you can pick up literally any textbook of genetics from the 1920's and find those ideas.
Pg. 141. In this area, he talks about how humans are connected across the races. We are all pretty much the same. Will this knowledge help eradicate "racism" from our world? He says no... racism is a fear of "others" and is cultural... a form of "group hatred." He says on pg. 141 (emphasis mine):
The problem, as a molecular anthropological perspective can reveal, is that group hatreds are not genetic but folk-hereditary issues.
Pg. 188. In this section, he criticizes those who try to overstate how much chimps are like humans. They even "make love" as humans do. Yeah, right, says Prof. Marks. Far from it. He says on pg. 188:
(Regarding the sexual antics of chimps) Doesn't sound the least bit like love-making in humans, at least the way most of us been fortunate enough to experience it, and it quite possible says more about the author than it does about chimpanzees.
Quote from page 189:
Apes are not subhuman, they are nonhuman.
On pg. 190 he mentions some researches who claim that chimps are like retarded people, and again responds that no, they are nonhuman. He says:
Not only are apes not like mentally handicapped humans, but more important, mentally handicapped humans are not like apes. Nor are blacks, Jews, hunter-gatherers, or New York cabbies. All people are perfectly human, and all apes are not human at all. That's the simple biology.
Pg. 191 had an interesting tidbit about Huxley, who was called "Darwin's bulldog," who said this regarding the evolution/creation debate:
The nonwhite peoples of the earth, argued Huxley, are the forms of life that connect the races of Europe to the ape as surely as the duck-billed platypus connects mammals to the lower vertebrates.
Good thing scientists don't believe this now... but it is some embarrassing prior scientific dogma.
To summarize the section on animal rights, he says it is important to treat animals "humanely," but be sure that they aren't "human." (There are a animal rights activates who disagree and want to blur all species as the same, according all species with the same "human" rights.)
Pg. 199. This section deals with the Human Genome Diversity Project (HGDP) (which came after the Human Genome Project; mapping the human genome). He goes into detail as to how this was a flawed idea from the beginning and wasted millions of taxpayer's dollars. The whole science establishment was carried away with nonsense; Prof. Marks was trying to be a voice of reason.
Pg. 219 talks about the theoretical question of "what would a chimp/human half-breed be like?" He looks at aspects of the question, including considering how a thing might be raised (as a chimp or a human).
Pg. 225 discusses the difficulty of science vs. descendents when digging up old human remains. Scientists want to test these bones, destroying them in the process. Descendents want to properly bury their ancestors. Sometimes the fight went to the Supreme Court. Even Congress is involved in passing laws on the issue.
Pg. 256. This section describes the creation vs. evolution wars, and how it suppressed the teaching of evolution in America for quite some time. (I grew up in the 1970's and 80's, and think I experienced this; I didn't hear much at all about evolution while in school.)
Pg. 257. Some discussion of Phillip Johnson, the "Father" of the Intelligent Design (ID) movement.
Pg. 266. This section deals with the history of studying science and scientists. I thought this was interesting and informative. I think this general knowledge is very helpful for getting a good perspective in which to view the creation/evolution debate and science in general.
Pg. 282-283. In this section, Prof. marks mentions Richard Dawkins who states that there is no meaning for the universe. Prof. marks points out how that is a non-scientific statement, and should not be confused with science. it is just an opinion.
Overall, I thought it was an interesting book. It was definitley worth the price (as I got it from the local public library). Overall, the main point was to keep the science to science... and know when scientisits are "overplaying their hand."
Comments