> eric brunsell

Chuck Norris wants to be the voice of reason in the Evolution vs. Intelligent Design debate.  In this well written essay, he bemoans schools that are isolating students from a diversity of opinions on the origin of life.  Chuck and his wife are here to save the next generation! Read it here.

Go get ‘em Chuck.  Yes, I said it was well written, but it is also very flawed.

 Exhibit A:

“Why can’t creationism or intelligent design be taught in public schools? Naturalists answer by saying that ID is not a science. Rather than debate classifications, however, I would ask further, Why can’t variant theories of the origin of life be presented even outside science courses?”

“Naturalists” is clever.  Why couldn’t you say, “Scientists?” Chuck, the legal rulings say that Intelligent Design can not be taught as a scientific theory in a science classroom.  However, it would be legal (and interesting) for ID and other versions of creation to be taught in a comparative religion or philosophy class.  This could even be done in a public school.

 Exhibit B

“Since when does science own the market on how life began? “

Evolution does not claim anything related to how life began.  Evolution explains the diversity of life since that origin.  Also, science is a specific way of looking at the world based on the use of natural evidence (not supreme beings, magic, gnomes, etc.).  Therefore, science does not claim to own the market for any explanation.  If you want to say the that the Hand of God is pushing things to the ground instead of gravity, fine -  Just don’t call it science (Thanks, Onion).

Exhibit C:

“If it is based largely upon empirical investigation of present, repeatable data, then the evolutionary theory for the beginning of life stands upon no more solid ground than ID”

Oh Chuck, you didn’t!  Please, get a clue about what science is before you write about it!  Here is a primer for you.

Exhibit D

“no branch of science can prove how inorganic matter produced organic cellular life. And evolution, even if accepted as factual, does not dispel a Creator”

Chuck, you did it again.  Evolution doesn’t even pretend to explain how inorganic matter produced life.  Here is a primer on evolution for you too.

Exhibit E:

“ID deserves a seat in classrooms across America.

Again, dissenters of creationism answer this question by classifying ID as a religion and further say that religion belongs exclusively in homes and churches.”

No, the argument is that ID is not scientific and does not belong in a science classroom.  Perhaps you should check out the trial in Dover PA.  Evolution doesn’t say that God doesn’t exist.  It doesn’t say you can’t believe in God. Also, I think you should really take a look at your faith.  I wouldn’t connect Biblical creationism with Intelligent Design.  Intelligent Design specifically states that an intelligent designer (not God) created the Universe.  My guess is that God wouldn’t like you believing in ID.  You see, if it is God that designed the universe, then ID becomes a religion and can’t be taught in a science classroom.  ID is nothing more than a legal manipulation to get around the word “God.”

 Exhibit F:

“That is why my wife, Gena, and I are on the board of the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools, which has helped 443 public school districts in 37 states to implement a course on it.”

Here is the web address for that organization. http://www.bibleinschools.net/  “The curriculum for the program shows a concern to convey the content of the Bible as compared to literature and history.”  I would love to take this class.  Do you think they promote an honest critique of the Bible…like how you would critique any other piece of literature?”  It would be interesting to discuss this:

Genesis 1 gives the order of creation as plants, animals, man and woman. Genesis 2 gives it as man, plants, animals and woman. Genesis 1:3-5 says light was created on the first day, Genesis 1:14-19 says the sun was created on the fourth. Genesis 7:2 says Noah took seven pairs of each beast, Genesis 7:8-15 says one pair.

OR

The math behind this — How many sons do you count: “The sons of Shemaiah: Huttush, Igal, Bariah, Neriah, and Shaphat, six” (I Chronicles 3:22) 

(from here)

So Chuck, do you still want to be the voice of reason?  If so, you should start doing some better research.

P.S. I’m not anti-Bible or anti-Religion, just anti-Chuck.

I spent last week visiting the University of Aberdeen in Scotland.  It was a fantastic experience.  I’ll write a post soon on the professional aspects of this.  I’m still catching up from a week away, so I’ll start with a shorter post about two of my cultural experiences.

The Monkey House 

I fell in love with this pub soley based on the name, tagline and logo.  A colleague and I had a wee chat with the bartenders while we were looking for merchandise with their logo.  We were able to get a stack of children’s menus and a t-shirt.  Besides having a discussion about the U.S. controversy regarding intelligent design, we also had a surprisingly deep conversation about U.S. politics.  The bartenders, both college students, knew that Barack Obama and John McCain won the Wisconsin primary.  They were not the only ones.  Nearly everyone that we talked to mentioned something about the presidential campaign.  

 Ken from Answers in Genesis seemed to like The Monkey House too. 

The Tunnels

Occasionally I find myself in a situation where I need to pause and reflect on my life.  Usually, it is a bizarre situation where I wonder how I got to this particular point in my life.  Last Wednesday was one of these times.  A colleague and I were crammed into an old sewer tunnel with about 750 twenty-somethings.

It so happens that we were on a quest to find live music.  We followed vague directions that ended in a club in the underbelly of Aberdeen. To our surprise, we ended up getting into (for free) a sold out show featuring one of Scotland’s hottest indie bands, the Dykeenies (check out the video, New Ideas).  To put it mildly, it was grand!

Dykeenies Concert Pics

http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008802200326

So, the pro-evolution politicians are upset because they compromise and call evolution a scientific theory (which it is) and the anti-evolution politicians are upset because they want people to realize the evolution is only one theory of the origin of life (which it isn’t).  Aaargh!  They don’t even know what they are arguing about!

Evolution IS as scientific theory.  Evolution does NOT explain the origin of life, it explains the diversity of life.  Did they even bother to ask a biologist (or a science teacher)?

Last week in one of my classes, we were discussing the importance of being able to identify general relationships by looking at a graph. The example that we used was that of an inverse relationship.  We also discussed the importance of supporting claims with evidence.  In a completely unrelated setting, I re-discovered an important relationship.  In educational writing, the number of buzzwords is inversely related to the substance of the article.  The evidence, ASCD’s Education Update (February 2008).

I took interest in the President’s message, titled “Twenty-First Century Thinking,” a report from her (and the ASCD Board of Directors) attendance at the Australian Council of Education Leaders Conference (ACEL).  The theme of this year’s conference was “New Imagery for Schools and Schooling: Challenging, Creating and Connecting.”  According to the president, the speakers represented the theme through words like reinvent, reimagine, rethink and re-create. We must respect the past, assess the current, and look forward to the future. The keynote speaker made a convincing case for rethinking a new essential curriculum and challenged attendees to throw off the shackles of 19th century schooling and rethink how learning happens.  Throughout the conference speakers echoed this sentiment, saying that the world is smaller and more interconnected. Basically, this sums up the first 3/4 of the message.  So, how did this theme impact the ASCD Board?  Read on–

 In the Board Meeting, they discussed ways of reimagining, rethinking and re-creating ASCD.  The current strategic plan is 5 years old, and they are in the process of developing a new one. The ACEL conference sparked a rethinking of their planning process.  They articulated an understanding that an organization like ASCD needs to be flexible and forward thinking.  The moment a plan is written down, it can become an anchor to the past rather than a pathway to tomorrow. They realized that the format of the strategic plan constrains creative thinking.  The planning process continues, but in a different way than in the past.  They don’t know what it looks like, but it appears there may be a new path for envisioning the future.

 Yup, that’s it - re-imagine, re-think, re-invent, re-create, re-gurgitate.  Is this the best that our educational leaders can do? Or, is this just a fancy cover for them having too much fun in Australia and not enough work?

Here’s my challenge to anyone that made it through the buzzwords.  Stop re-thinking and start doing.  What are the “shackles of 19th century” curriculum and what should a 21st Century curriculum focus on?  Should the pedagogy be different, or should we start actually doing what research has told us is good teaching?

This isn’t good…two rants related to Catholicism in a row.  As the “science guy” in the department, I often get handed things from the news that are science related.  Yesterday was no different.  A colleague gave me an article, “A Designer Universe: Physics provides evidence that we are here for a purpose,” by Dinesh D’Souza. The article is in the February 2008 issue of Columbia, published by the Knights of Columbus.  I want to respond to the article first, but I will close with a note about the author. I was quite surprised (perhaps I shouldn’t have been) to see D’Souza in a Catholic magazine.The opening few paragraphs-