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.

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

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)?

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?

 Let me get this straight?  Secular scientists are picking a fight with the Catholic Church?  Since when? The Catholic Church has been pretty consistently pro-science over the past 30-40 years.  Now, if we are talking about Biblical Literalists, that is a different story.  Even then, I would say that it isn’t the scientists trying to pick the fight, it is the literalists.  Anyway, now I was REALLY curious to see where he was going with this.  Here are a few of the points that he made -

1. The Catholic Church did not persecute Galileo for his scientific beliefs. According to the Rev., Galileo wasnt’ the first to propose a Copernican model for the Solar System. Galileo was persecuted because he promoted the Copernican model as the truth instead of a theory…even when there was no evidence. 

He’s right there…that is why it is named after Copernicus, not Galileo! Galileo was persecuted because he referred to the Copernican model as the truth…instead of just a theory.  He was persecuted because he didn’t have enough evidence to support his claim.  I beg to differ on this point.  Galileo DID have evidence, just not the piece that the Church wanted.  They wanted proof of parallax, but technology wasn’t good enough.  However, Galileo did have proof in the form of phases of Venus.

2. If the Church was anti-science, give one other case besides Galileo.  ”You Can’t!” he challenged the congregation. 

I almost shouted back, ”Giordano Bruno.” Since Homilies are generally not participatory events, I just leaned over and whispered it to my wife…loud enough for all of our neighbors to hear.  Bruno, while obviously not right about everything, was executed in a rather gruesome way in part because of his claim that life on Earth was not unique.  We still don’t have evidence of life beyond Earth today, but to many contemporary scientistis, it wouldn’t come as a surprise.

3. Science has its roots in Christianity.  

I have not gotten my hands around this one.  Science and Christianity did both evolve out of Western civilizations, but is it fair to say that science wouldn’t have happened without Christianity?  Also, the beginnings of scientific thought did arise out of pre-Christian Greek thinking.  Eratosthenes of Cyrene designed and confirmed aa way to calculate the circumference of the Earth about 200 BC. It is quite possible that he also determined the distance between the Earth and Sun within 1%.

4.  This claim drove me crazy.  “Scientists have never created anything, they just discover the order that God put in place.” 

Let’s get this straight, scientists “discovered” the integrated circuit? On the 8th day did God create television?  Scientists apply underlying principles to create new things.

5. He concluded by saying that science without Christian belief lacks wisdom. 

 I’m sure there are scientists in many other places in the world that would disagree with this.  What is true is that society (secular, Christian, or other) determines if science is used ethically or unethically.

 I can’t figure out why he went with this Homily on the Sunday before Ash Wednesday. Any ideas?   

 As an educated public servant, did he acknowledge the science and explain that policy needs to be a balance between the science, economic issues, and personal liberties?  Nope, he said this-

“…that’s hogwash. I was born and raised in a bar since I was that high, and I was tending bar since I was that high (holding hand four feet above the ground.) And there was only one light bulb in the bar. There was no fans, and everyone smoked. It was blue in there. Come on, I’m still alive, and I’m 69 years old. It’s sickening.”

So, because his single data point is still alive, the science is wrong? My hope for 2008 is that we can get some politicians that understand and respect science.

video – comments start around the 19 minute mark.

PLN’s are a fantastic example of social constructivism in action.  These loose networks of individuals create new knowledge socially, but each individual interprets and uses it differently. Anecdotes are thrown around throughout the network about new things that were learned, reflections on applications of new ideas, and collaborations opening new paths of thinking.  It is obvious to those “inside” a network that learning is occurring and new knowledge is being created.  If you are inside a network, you understand the power that they have for professional growth.

Theory and practical experience both show that PLN’s are valid. What will it take for them to go mainstream?  We can turn again to theory here by looking at Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD).  Each individual has a body of “knowledge” that they can master without help.  They also have a body of knowledge that is impossible for them to master (at least at this stage of their learning).  The zone in between those two bodies is where proximal development occurs.  It is the body of knowledge that can be learned with assistance from experts (either directly through mentoring or indirectly through well crafted text, videos, etc.)  — ie, scaffolding.  It is unlikely that many educators will jump straight from a simplistic use of e-mail and web browsing to an effective learning network without this scaffolding.

Many of these scaffolds already exist. The difficulty is that they are often scattered across multiple sites. I would suggest that we create a central (more likely, multiple centers) “hub” that can be used in traditional professional development to help introduce educators to the ideas of PLNs.  The hub would provide common tools and resources for each of three developmental stages  of creating a PLN.  It would include things like video introductions to Google Reader (or similar), del.icio.us, and other ‘must have’ personal tools, a “sandbox” blog with multiple authors that could showcase easy to use web2.0 tools (ie: flickr) with comments on application examples, a list of twitterers with “model” networks, etc.  We could also modify a good idea  and create “60 days to a PLN.” I do have an empty wiki @ http://plnmentor.wikispaces.com/  if anyone wants to collaborate!  The wiki is empty now, so please let me know if you want to help build it.

In 2001, Garret and his colleagues identified multiple components of effective professional development.  The two most important components are duration (60-80 hours) and collaboration.  Additionally, it was vitally important that the experience aligned with participants’ goals.  The Science and Engineering Indicators 2008 provide evidence that, in practice, professional development seldom matches these components. Rarely, is it a dynamic, collaborative experience conducted over an extended period of time.

Not too long ago I was introduced to the concept of personal learning networks.  It didn’t take me more than a day or two to realize the power of PLNs as a way for educators to take control over their own professional development.  Learning from (or more appropriately, with) my PLN is dynamic, collaborative, focused on my goals, and sustained.  Of course, if you are reading this, you get it.  I’m relatively tech savvy (aren’t we all).  Compared to you I’m probably a novice, but compared to most of my colleagues, I am an “expert.” So, what can we do to bring PLN to the masses?

(NOTE: I’m not writing this in a vacuum. This post  and those it references address this question and many others….a MUST READ!)

I think we need to take a developmental approach to PLNs. At its core, constructivist learning can be broken into three phases – engagement, building knowledge, and applying knowledge.  In the engagement phase, educators need to become comfortable with the landscape. They need to learn how to ‘organize’ the web. They should learn how to use an aggregator and social bookmarking. They need to identify a few blogs and begin reading and commenting. As they gain comfort, they should join a community (ie: classroom2.0) and eventually start following people on Twitter. 

In the building knowledge phase, educators are ready to start ‘messing about’ and contributing.  They should define a purpose for their participation in their PLN and set some goals. A manageable goal may be to try one “new” thing each month. As they mess about with new ideas, they should start a blog to make their experiences public.  Periodically, they should assess their PLN and add (and remove) new resources.

 The applying knowledge phase needs to take Scott Schwister’s  question head on. “How do we show the learning that happens through personal learning networks?” Educators need to become active inquirers as they try out new ideas.  In the building knowledge phase, educators were ‘messing about’ and making decision on reflection and gut instinct.  They were playing with new ideas.  This is a great way to explore, but it doesn’t necessarily provide evidence that the new ideas are improving teaching and learning.  In the applying knowledge phase, I would suggest that become more rigorous in how they try new things.  Ted McCain’s 4D problem solving model can provide a structure here (Define, Design, Do, Debrief). Define questions that you want to answer, design a way to collect data, do it!, and then debrief…did it work.  

Wow…this post got really long.  I would really appreciate feedback. Will you give me the nickname ‘Captain Obvious’ or is this the beginning of a solid framework?  I’ll post soon on this topic with some ideas for an infrastructure needed to help navigate this developmental approach.