The Rap Guide to Evolution
3 June, 2011 | Richard P. Grant |
|
|
Last Wednesday I found myself at the Prince Charles Theatre, Leicester Square, for the premiere of rapper Baba Brinkman’s new project, the teaching version of The Rap Guide to Evolution. I had been looking forward to this, having come across Brinkman at a rather dodgy bar in North London last year.
The evening was introduced by Charles Darwin’s great-great-grandson, Randall Keynes. The project is a collaboration with the Wellcome Trust, with the aim of making the teaching the science behind evolution more accessible to schoolchildren. Brinkman’s successful stage show, The Rap Guide to Evolution, is being split into 12 videos which will be available for free online, complete with links to further resources so people can do their own research and learning. There’ll also be DVDs for use in the classroom.
The Prince Charles seemed pretty full last week. Brinkman is popular, after all. But the evening didn’t get off to an auspicious start: we were late starting, and the very first video didn’t run. Brinkman said that there was a bit of conflict behind the scenes, behind those who wanted to demo the project and the editors of the videos who were saying they weren’t ready, and you could either have a working demo or a project that finishes on time. Darned editors, hey? So there were apologies on and off throughout the evening, and this must have been very frustrating for someone as talented and polished as Baba Brinkman.
Brinkman himself is very good. He has the whole rapper shtick down pat, and his work is thought-provoking and full of humour. His lyrics are also peer-reviewed by real scientists! (Brinkman himself is an English major.) But I came away from the show with a sense of unease.
Rap is, by its nature, combative. The idea of a breakdance-off between Charles Darwin and various intellectual opponents must have seen like a good idea on paper, but it fell flat. Sarah Palin is hardly an intellectual challenger, and nobody seriously believes that the right-wing cadre she was meant to represent is anything other than a political movement, rather than a scientific one. Michel Foucault, although certainly a worthy intellectual opponent, also seems to be a missed target–he talks about the framework in which we do science rather than opposing scientific method or evolution. And God? A barn full of straw men, I’m afraid.
There’s a funny and interesting video of the Brinkman family at dinner, complete with creationist cousins and hippy sisters (all characters played by Brinkman himself) which while entertaining didn’t seem to be overly educational. The style of argument seems to be a mix between shouting louder, blasting the opponent with contextless scientific data, mocking religion and being convinced of one’s own rightness. A lot like Science. It works, bitches. There’s no discussion of the method, there’s no sense of the joy in finding out things that are new, it’s purely confrontational and it’s not the way to win hearts or minds.
One of the cleverer videos is titled ‘Performance, Feedback, Revision.’ This draws a parallel between writing a song and the evolutionary process: multiple drafts, trying to find out what works. My quibble here is that evolution doesn’t have a guiding intelligence behind it, trying to find what the audience likes. Evolution isn’t ‘trying’ anything–it can’t! It’s random, and the organisms that randomly reproduce fastest in each niche will produce more offspring than any other. While clever, this analogy could play right into the hands of the Intelligent Design crowd, the very people Brinkman was railing against two videos previously.
‘Survival of the Fittest‘ places violent crime and teenage pregnancy into an evolutionary context. This video comes complete with graphs from published papers, comparing murder rates with life expectancy and describing how evolutionary theory might predict the very behaviour we see in under-privileged communities. There was a lot here, too much for a single song, and it would be worthwhile going into the numbers more carefully. Relevant rap.
There was a bit of heckling in the Q&A session at the end of the show. Someone accused Brinkman of being misogynistic, because one of his (most famous) lyrics has the line “See, I’ve been reading up on you scheming sluts.” Now, there’s a simple answer to that–it’s a literary device and it’s in character for a misogynist rapper (is that redundant? Probably). In context it makes sense, and it’s not part of the educational material. But there is, if not misogyny then at least sexism, in two of the videos that are part of the Wellcome package. After the first, which has Brinkman surrounded by scantily clad women, he called it his ‘male wish-fulfilment’ fantasy. It was his Robert Palmer moment, fair enough. But he immediately followed it up with another track that was eye-candy for heterosexual males. I’m not entirely convinced that any of this is appropriate, let alone necessary, in a classroom setting.
But then, you see, Brinkman goes and blows away your expectations with his cover of Dead Prez’s ‘I’m A African’:
Yeah, the red is for the blood in my arm – it runs in the veins
Of all my cousins from the same African mom
And the black is for the melanin, which I guess I lost
A mutation with benefits that offset the costs
At least in the North, after massive glaciation
My family passed through some adaptive radiations
We started as Africans, and then became Eurasians
And then one final migration made us Canadians
But it’s back to my origin, ’cause I understand
For every colour of man, Africa is the motherland
Baba Brinkman is extremely talented, and these are clever and provocative lyrics. But using a single form of music to make science seem cool is misguided. Science is already cool. I’d go so far as to say that he’s more likely to get scientists interested in rap rather than the other way round. I applaud the Wellcome Trust’s willingness to experiment with projects like this (Brinkman doesn’t need their help to be popular after all, but hey, it’s their money), but I think this one is a flop.
|
I’ve never quite understood why people think linking scientists or science to “cool” things like getting pictures of scientists with rock stars or doing science rap is going to make science interesting to the general public. It is somewhat insulting, assuming that no way of presenting science in a realistic light is interesting to other than a very small group of nerds. Especially when things like Mythbusters, the Exploratorium, and simply taking kids on field trips to the outdoors/ environmental projects and places like biotech companies or university labs to discuss science in action is so successful to many kids and adults alike. Not to say I don’t enjoy the occasional science rock song, but I don’t think this is going to draw people to understand or do science.
@Suzanne: quite. The whole pictures of rock stars thing confused me. I mean, there were rock stars, but here were some people doing some really amazing science. Who’s cool now?
I think the real problem is that (most) children have an intrinsic affinity for science, but it’s bashed out of them at school with a whole heap of rote learning &c. Dressing up science in something like this won’t change that.
You already wrote about Brinkman’s Rap Guide to Evolution two years ago. And the previous story even quoted the same lyrics to “I’m an African”!
http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/55622/
I know two years might seem like ages in the 24 hour news cycle, but it’s only a blink of an eye in evolutionary time, so can’t you find new stories to report?
‘Chuck D’, you might notice if you read the post more carefully that I was talking about a Wellcome Trust project to teach evolution in schools. And it’s not my fault people have no new material in two years.
The assisted evolution
Thank you for this article because I try sometimes to use the art masterpiece intervention in my spiritual evolution!
I am afraid that God is not quite a barn full of straw men.
I suppose that God speculated and assisted Evolution, because in Adam’s evolution He’s action was only to give human mind (neo-cortex) when He consider that everything is OK to achieve homo sapiens (Daniel 7.2-4). Paul in 1 Corinthians 15.45-47 (first Adam came from earth) and Moses in Genesis 1.12 (the earth produced all kinds of plants and God was pleased with what He saw) also specify this speculation.
We honour God for what he conceals, we honour kings for what they explain. (Proverbs 25.2)
In this condition, I suppose that Charles Darwin is one of the grate kings of the science.
Hi Alexandru,
what I meant was that Brinkman’s portrayal of God was a straw man. The idea of Darwin fighting God over evolution is silly.
“My quibble here is that evolution doesn’t have a guiding intelligence behind it, trying to find what the audience likes.”
Yes it does. Evolution is trying to reproduce. Baba’s show is trying to sell tickets. If the sperm doesn’t reach the egg, there is no next performance. If the show doesn’t get better, it remains the exact same show you saw two years ago. Was it really? Or did it evolve somehow?
No, but Mike, evolution isn’t trying. It just happens. If the sperm doesn’t reach the egg, there is no feedback to some author. If it does reach it, then that successful combination is selected, and other mutations happen to it.
There’s no ‘revision’ in the sense of going back and trying to improve on something that didn’t work.
Yes, it’s a metaphor. No, don’t try to push it too far.
Guiding intelligence
The wisdom transfer to the man from somebody can be one hypothesis of the Evolution.
I suppose it is not so stupid that an artist came with his own vision about Evolution or Creation. The known sculptor Constantin Brancusi said: *the art can save the men; in fact, the artist made the toys for the adults*.
I suppose that in fact the scientist doesn’t fight against God; he just “open the door to the house of knowledge” (Luke 11.52) to open the foolish eyes who just believe and do not search and are opposite to the intention that man try to reach the God wisdom. (Paul, 1 Corinthians 1.20-21)
Science originated from Bible. Scientific knowledge evolved trying to answer questions raised by Bible. the quotes from Bible by Alexandru support this view.