OT: language origin and creationism

[Salikoko S. Mufwene]

Cohen, Gerald Leonard wrote:
> I believe students were created to keep professors on their toes with ever new challenges. I see one has come through again. :)
>
> If this were my student I would first focus on the concept of "best source."  Have the creationist ideas in the article of the three authors been evaluated in any reputable scholarly linguistic journal?  If all linguists in reputable linguistic programs regard creationism in language as belonging to religious belief rather than scholarship, how can the article be advanced as "the best source"?
>
SSM: Shame on you! This is an invalid argument of authority. It sounds
like no sound argument can emerge from obscure sources (and from the
underdogs in science) and as if authoritative publications have always
been correct. I don't believe in creationism, but I would consider
addressing the subject matter from down the pedestal. If authorities
have always been correct, the books would have been closed on several
issues today.
>
> I would then ask the student as to whether the English language she uses is the product of creationism or evolution? Isn't modern English different from the English of Beowulf or Shakespeare?  Have not changes occurrred?  Have not changes occurred in other languages?  I.e., is not change an integral part of the nature of language?
>
SSM: Taking creationism at face value, post-creation change is not
precluded.
>
> Btw, what fields do the three authors have their doctorates in?
>
> Gerald Cohen
> P.S. If the student is insistent on presenting her ideas in class, I would permit her to do so and then engage in a discussion as to why they're not convincing.
SSM: Now, this is a good beginning.
>  I assume she considers that the language of Adam and Eve was Hebrew, and she'd be hard pressed to find any historical linguists agreeing with her.
>
>
> *    *    *   *
>
>
> Original message from Amy West, Wed 3/31/2010 2:54 PM
>
> I have to say that I was utterly gobsmacked/stunned by this one. I'm
> used to dealing with students coming up with white supremacist
> sources in my Vikings class now. But we're using "language" as our
> theme in my Academic Writing class, so I wasn't expecting creationist
> material to be showing up.
>
> As a preliminary step to their research papers, I have students
> presenting their "best" source in class. One student -- and I didn't
> catch this problem soon enough because she didn't submit a proposal
> -- wants to write about the origin of language in her 5-7 page paper,
> and wants to present this as her "best source":
>
> The True.Origin Archive
> Exposing the Myth of Evolution
>
> http://www.trueorigin.org/language01.asp
>
>   From the abstract:
>
> "The following paper examines the true origin of speech and language,
> and the anatomical and physiological requirements.  The evidence
> conclusively implies that humans were created with the unique ability
> to employ speech for communication."
>
> I was just stunned. This thing has the "look" of scholarship: 3
> authors with PhDs, has an abstract, notes and sources, etc. But it
> wasn't published in a scholarly journal or by a scholarly press.
>
> She wrote about this source in her annotated bibliography and all she
> said was that it quotes from the Bible a lot. Nothing, nothing about
> the obvious bias and agenda. She said "it has valid biological
> information." (The annotated bib. was just turned in Monday; she just
> sent me this link yesterday.)
>
> I'd like to hear from more experienced teachers either off-list (or
> on if it's deemed relevant) how you'd handle this. Tell her "no"
> because it's not scholarly/not appropriate for the topic? Let her
> present it and discuss the problems in front of the class?
>
> ---Amy West
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org