Goldilocks
and the 20 million-year-old fossilised porridge
“Is it a good thing to
go along with the fantasies of childhood, magical as they are? Or
should we be fostering a spirit of scepticism? I think it's rather
pernicious to inculcate into a child a view of the world which
includes supernaturalism – we get enough of that anyway.
-
Richard Dawkins
At the Institute of Rational Scepticism
in Bluemore, California, Professor Mary Jane Hart is explaining to a
class of visiting kindergarten children why the fairy tale Goldilocks
and the Three Bears probably never happened.
“The fossil records clearly
demonstrate that the kind of anthropomorphic bears your parents and
teachers have told you were encountered by Goldilocks were a dominant
species 20 million years ago during the Ursidean Era. These bears
lived in small family units in forested areas on the European
continent. They had the technology to build houses and simple
furniture but had no electricity and were reliant on wood as a source
of fuel. It is likely they were anatomical omnivores
supplementing a diet of raw meat with staples such as porridge.
“Unfortunately this particular
species of bear went extinct millions of years before the emergence
of modern humans. The only way that a girl called Goldilocks would
have encountered the three bears in the story would have been as an
archaeologist excavating one of their ancient settlements.
“Trust me on this. Over millions of
years even the hottest porridge you can imagine eventually turns
stone cold and fossilises. Nobody here would want to eat fossilised
porridge would they? That would be yucky.”
In the audience a couple of the
children start crying. Another, who is in the early stages of 'having
an accident,' has to be hastily scooped up off the floor and carried
in outstretched arms to a nearby bathroom.
~
Later, in the institute's Media Capsule,
the Founder and Director, Tim Archard, explains in detail the
long-term goals of the organisation:
“I felt the time was long overdue to
wage war on the pseudoscience of fairy tales that have been granted
free-reign in the classroom. Children need to recognise
that the issue of world hunger will not be resolved by a magic
cauldron that is apparently capable of churning out an infinite
supply of porridge. That just doesn't make any sense in the context
of our understanding of how the universe works. Our government should
stop frittering away resources searching for this fabled artefact and
instead redirect the money towards funding the agricultural sciences.
“Take another example: With the
exception of a study carried out by Morey and Morey in 1987, which we
think was based on flawed methodology, there is no credible,
peer-reviewed research proving that a kiss from a handsome prince
will awaken a girl from a toxin-induced coma. Even if the princess
has somehow remained in a state of miraculous physical preservation,
100 years of unconsciousness would likely result in extensive
cognitive impairment, rendering her unable to walk, communicate or
even recognise basic concepts. That's even before you touch upon the
ethics of kissing an unconscious, and, in all probability,
mentally-impaired woman.
“For decades fairy tales have helped
to a foster in our culture an erroneous belief that in moments of extreme peril
we can rely upon the timely arrival of a saviour galloping over the
horizon to rescue us. People have actually lost their lives waiting to be
saved by a handsome prince or a woodcutter instead of telephoning the
emergency services.”
Archard maintains his goal is to stem
the tide of resources that are wasted as a direct result of an
unquestioning belief in the authenticity of fairy tales. He cites the
millions of dollars that were recently spent researching a report
that assessed the risks posed by giant cloud castles to aircraft and
space missions.
“It beggars belief that serious
studies are being carried out in this area when all the evidence
shows that giants inhabit a networks of caverns at the earth's core,
and will only emerge during the time of Ragnarok when they will join
the wolf Fenrir in his battle against the gods. Until then the only
danger they pose to humanity are the earthquakes that they
occasionally cause whenever they stomp around.”
In 2011, the institute sought to
publicise its mission by offering a one million dollar prize to
anybody who could replicate the feat performed by the fairy godmother
in Cinderella and transform a pumpkin and some white mice into a
crystal carriage and a team of horses. So far over 5000 applicants
have taken up the challenge.
“Nobody has come even remotely close
to altering the organic structure of a pumpkin in a way that
resembles an ornately-gilded crystalline lattice,” says Archard.
“The nearest that anybody has come to manipulating the DNA of white
mice into something resembling a horse resulted in a quartet of
rodents the size of houses terrorising Chicago. I don't reckon we'll
be parting with that money any time soon. In fact I confidently
predict me and that cash will live together happily ever after. At least until I exchange some of it for a yacht.”
~
Back in the Education Centre another
Mary Jane Hart-led 'Introduction to Rational Scepticism for the Under
Fives' class is in full swing:
“Okay hands up anyone who can tell me
what's wrong with the story of Little Red Riding Hood.”
“The wolf ate the grandmother,”
shouts one girl with perhaps a little too much confidence.
Professor Hart ponders this response
for a few seconds.
“Sure, from a human perspective it's
definitely wrong to kill and eat another human being. What you
haven't taken into account is that wolves don't have the same
highly-developed system of ethics, morals and laws as human beings.
So actually your answer is quite blinkered, narrow minded and
xenophobic. Now can anybody tell me what is wrong scientifically
with the story...”
In the audience a child starts to cry.
My mother refuses to publish books if the turtle takes off its shell. Because that would kill the turtle and she loves turtles
ReplyDelete