Today I am going to add an additional activity to what we did last year. I’m still working it out in my brain but I think I am going to explore color with the kids as a metaphor for how all of life is made up of just a handful of basic particles. Just as all color and all its variety come from three primary colors and black and white, everything we see in the world with all its variety comes from a limited number of elements (I’m still not sure what I should break it all down to. Any suggestions?)

We’ll play with paint, beginning with red, yellow, and blue, expanding to the secondary colors, then the tertiary. We’ll add black and white for varying tone. I may use that to explain mutations and how some mutations help a creature to survive environmental pressures, allowing it to reproduce more, and some mutations make it harder to survive, preventing it from reproducing as much.

And of course, we’ll also be doing the traditional AgnosticMom stuff that I outlined in my HNN article:

Feb. 12: Introduction of Evolution through Family Book Reading
Dinner focus: The first phase of evolutionary life: shellfish, jellyfish, worms
A. Read The Tree Of Life: The Wonders Of Evolution by Ellen Jackson.
B. Dinner:
1. Very involved version: A smorgasboard of shellfish: shrimp, lobster, oysters
2. Simpler version: Shrimp dinner
3. After dinner treat: Gummi-worms (put them in cute gift bags or boxes on their
plates. The kids love that!).
C. Table decor theme: Under the sea

What are you doing today? Whether you have ever commented before or not, please leave a comment if you are celebrating Darwin Day and tell us what you are doing today! If you have a blog and have written about it there, leave us a link.

If you’re not already a subscriber and haven’t yet read my article in the Humanist Network News, make sure you head over and take a look. Read the other articles while you’re at it and feel free to write HNN a letter with your feedback or leave your comments here on my blog.

Rejoice!

This gives me just under three hours, three days a week, to start making those medical checkups I’ve been putting off, finally make some real improvement on the house, volunteer in the kids classrooms, and even blog or scrapbook sometimes. I almost welled up with tears after I dropped Aiden off. Not because he’s my big boy growing up. But because I was driving alone to go enjoy some solitude in my house!

It was a very exciting morning for all of us. First I took Blake and Trinity to their incredible school, which, to our surprise, had colorful helium balloons all over the entrance, including a rainbow of them which we had to pass under to get into the school. The Star Wars theme music blasted through a sound system outside and I imagined (or observed?) that my kids were feeling quite awesome and powerful as they entered their school with such a welcome.

Trinity is now in first grade, which means she has graduated to a full-day of school (more good news for me)! She is so excited to eat in the cafeteria.

By the time we waved the kids off as they herded into the building, there were 40 minutes left until Aiden’s school would start so he and I hopped over to the vast desert trails below the mountains just minutes from the school and took a walk. We started doing this regularly last year when my reader, Ron, commented about a woman who takes her kids out into the wilderness for three hours a day. Three hours daily won’t do for me, but once a week for an hour would. I still have stories to tell about that first adventure we took, and maybe now that I have a little peace and quiet I’ll get around to it (as well as a bunch of other topics many of you requested I blog about) over the next few weeks.

So, for thirty minutes we observed butterflies, dragonflies, lizards, and other moving creatures. Aiden always likes me to hold him not long into our trek, so I get to add thirty pounds to my weight with him on my back, I can hike at a faster pace, and I get some exercise while my boy and I bond and observe nature.

At the right time we headed off to Aiden’s preschool (”for the development of the whole child”) where he sang to his teacher right away. We realized during his newborn days, and again when he was two and started singing to us, that he is musically inclined. Other people notice it all the time, too. He loves to sing. And he loves to hear music.

But back to me. I am on my Ikea chair, the dog is sleeping on my footstool (thus, my feet are not inclined), I have my laptop where it should be and a cup of Chai Tea next to me that I just finished.

Should I make a third cup, just to celebrate?

I mostly ate fruits and vegetables while there. I love the tropics because of the wide availability of fruits, the mango being my very favorite. But since we drank a bit more than usual (just a bit; I’m not a big drinker) I was concerned about all those extra calories.

Not to worry. There was plenty to do at the resort to keep us active. Besides the fact that we walked everywhere and never once took the elevator to our third floor room, we rode bikes and played tennis, rode kayaks, went snorkeling, and danced in the evenings. We also played pool and table tennis. I doubt those two activities burned very many calories but I know they burn more than lying on a lounge chair at the pool consuming chips and pico de gallo.

We also spent a lot of time with our camera. My husband taught me some of the technical details of photography: setting the shutter speed, the F-stop, and light sensitivity. We went around the resort taking lots of cool photos. Maybe some day I’ll take the time to learn the simple art of putting those photos on my blog. Or into my empty flickr account. Yes, I realize I am probably the only blogger who hasn’t taken the five minutes to learn how to do that. I just have too many interests.

Our last evening in Cancun led me to an unexpected conversation. After three days of small talk with people from the company that I see once a year, I found out that one of the wives is a professor of Archaeology. Well, of course, that perked my ears. Not long ago on this blog there was a weeks-long debate that spanned at least four or five blog-entries in the comments. The debate was a bit confusing as it covered a few different topics at once, but one of those topics was Evolutionary Psychology, a subject that will probably appear in my next blog entry. One reader, whose degree was in Archaeology, could not stomach the field of Evolutionary Psychology and seemed to think it conflicts with all things archaeological.

So, not wanting to start a debate with this new friend on our vacation, but curious to see her reaction, I asked her, “Do you know about, and if so do you despise, the field of Evolutionary Psychology?”

And her answer was, “Yes! I despise it! All these years we have been moving successfully away from racism, and Evolutionary Psychology comes right back to racist beliefs.”

When she said she despised E.P, I hoped she’d have a more compelling disagreement than the racist card. I already know about claims of racism. I have studied enough of E.P. to know that that point is not valid. It is untrue. In fact, there are many reasons why the claims of E.P. should lead us to more compassion and understanding toward our fellow human beings.

She also made the common argument that it is deterministic. This is also not necessarily the case. In my readings, I have only come across one proponent of the field who is a determinist and he admitted that when his peers reviewed his book, they all disagreed with him on that point. When I hear claims of racism and determinism with regard to E.P, it usually means the person has read about the field from its opponents, but have not read the research itself.

I wanted to hear valid arguments against this field. I told the professor that I was trying to determine the various weaknesses and strengths of Evolutionary Psychology and that, while I have heard the claims that the field leads to racial and deterministic beliefs, my readings show otherwise.

I asked her if archaeologists unanimously disagree with Evolutionary Psychology, as one of my readers implied. She said it is split, practically down the middle. And then a funny thing happened. She admitted that as she has just begun reading on the subject recently, she is warming up to it. She read the work of one scientist about the differences in male and female sexuality and she said she could not deny it sounded accurate. And there are a few other things she has been learning from the field that also sound right to her.

We both agreed that some scientists, in an effort to get their name on a new theory, propose theories within the field that do not have strong evidence or support. Of course, these theories don’t go far. They also do not invalidate the rest of the entire field of research.

So in the end, the discussion evolved from her “despising” Evolutionary Psychology, to the fact that she is just beginning to learn about it and, in the process, is warming up to it.

In addition to the topic of E.P, she also told me that she teaches Evolution and that every semester she has a student(s) who make a point to challenge her on its validity.

I told her about my blog. She asked me if I know of Michael Shermer and the Skeptic Society. We played the “Do you know so-and-so?” game of scientists we read, as well as the “Have you read such-and-such?” game regarding books.

It was a nice detail to add to my trip of tropical fun and relaxation.

Richard Dawkins had an interesting idea for combatting this. In a lecture called, Science, Delusion And The Appetite For Wonder, he cited a clarinet teacher who told Dawkins that his only memory of science in school was “a long period of studying the Bunsen burner.” This rings true in my case, too. With the exception of a few occasional moments in biology classes, I found science to be completely intolerable to my artistic-leaning mind.

My newer adult fascination and interest in science convinces me that my science education backfired. The potential to grab my interest was there. The educators failed to take advantage of it.

And this was Dawkins’ point when he mentioned the clarinet teacher.

Now, you can enjoy the Mozart concerto without being able to play the clarinet. You can be a discerning and informed concert critic without being able to play a note. . . Couldn’t we treat science in the same way? Yes, we must have Bunsen burners and dissecting needles for those drawn to advanced scientific practice. But perhaps the rest if us could have separate classes in science appreciation, the wonder of science, scientific ways of thinking, and the history of scientific ideas, rather than laboratory experience.

Who do we approach to advance Dawkins’ idea of Science Appreciation classes? I think this might have done it for me!

Here is another analogy. My son, Aiden, has a fear of water. A life-long fear. Two different swim teachers who dunked him against his will, along with a near-drowning experience last October, exacerbated the fear. Now that summer time is here he is in swimming lessons again. While most of his class spends half the time learning swimming skills, Aiden and a few other water-shy students stay in the baby pool playing fun games with the purpose of getting them comfortable with the water. They are learning to associate it with fun.

There is no purpose in teaching Aiden the technicality of swimming if all he can think about is his fear that the water will approach his upper body.

But this is exactly the ineffective approach many of the schools take. They teach all kinds of technical lessons before students have learned to associate any meaning to it. Even if the student is able to memorize the lessons well enough to get good grades in the class, the student must have a real interest and understand the significance for it to last in the long-term memory.

In fact, I have a confession to make. When I took the ACT (the university I sought after, and went to, did not use the SAT), I did not recognize a single question in the science section. The only science class I took in all of high school was the required sophomore biology class. If there were any biology questions on the ACT, I did not recognize them.

I shut the book and colored in random circles.

Thankfully I did well on the other sections and my average score was high.

But now here I am, 15 years later, and one of my favorite subjects to read and blog about is science. All I needed was a reason to make it meaningful to me.

We are wasting time and driving away interest by having the schools teach technical science without first instilling an appreciation for, and a positive association to, science.

At least, as parents, we can work on doing this ourselves. Dawkins gave an example of a fun science-fascination activity to do with the kids.

To show how real astronomical wonder can be presented to children, I’ll borrow from a book called “Earthsearch” by John Cassidy, which I brought back from America to show my daughter Juliet. Find a large open space and take a soccer ball to represent the sun. Put the ball down and walk ten paces in a straight line. Stick a pin in the ground. The head of the pin stands for the planet Mercury. Take another 9 paces beyond Mercury and put down a peppercorn to represent Venus. Seven paces on, drop another peppercorn for Earth. One inch away from earth, another pinhead represents the Moon, the furthest place, remember, that we’ve so far reached. 14 more paces to little Mars, then 95 paces to giant Jupiter, a ping-pong ball. 112 paces further, Saturn is a marble. No time to deal with the outer planets except to say that the distances are much larger. But, how far would you have to walk to reach the nearest star, Proxima Centauri? Pick up another soccer ball to represent it, and set off for a walk of 4200 miles. As for the nearest other galaxy, Andromeda, don’t even think about it!

Don’t your kids love these types of activities? Just the attention from the parents and a family outing experience is positive enough for children. Combine that with a sense of wonder about the mysteries of the universe and you have an experience that may spark a reason for the child to learn the science behind it.

To go along with Dawkins’ activity, I found this page on a website, (thanks to a flippant, funny, and irreverent atheist blog called The WorldWide Rant) that demonstrates a comparison of sizes between the planets and suns. Blake thought it was pretty cool.

Show the web page to your kids, do Dawkins’ activity over the weekend, and come back here to tell me about it.

This first one is regarding the encroachment of religion into science education in the name of Intelligent Design. Remember the book, Intelligent Thought: Science versus the Intelligent Design Movement? It is compilation of articles from 16 leading scientists regarding the fallacy of Intelligent Design. Those same scientists wrote and signed a letter, which they sent along with a copy of the book, to each and every member of Congress.

Here is the letter:

June 16, 2006

To Members of Congress:

We, the authors and editor of Intelligent Thought, are sending you a copy of the book in hopes that you will consider its message. The book is largely about Intelligent Design (ID), the latest incarnation of creationism. ID is a movement that threatens American science education and with it American economic predominance and credibility.

The recent federal court decision in Dover, Pennsylvania found that ID was not a scientific theory, but a form of religion in disguise. Judge John Jones III, a churchgoing Republican appointed by President Bush, concluded that teaching this doctrine in the public schools represents both bad education and an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment. President Bush’s science advisor, John H. Marburger, has affirmed that ‘evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology’ and ‘intelligent design is not a scientific concept.’ And Newt Gingrich has stated that ID has nothing to do with science and shouldn’t be taught in science courses.’

Reason and law triumphed in Dover. But ID and its spinoffs continue to threaten American education by ignoring the massive evidence for evolution-the central principle that unites all the biological sciences- and by substituting adherence to religious dogma for the scientific method.

Our country cannot afford substandard science teaching. Indeed, a national science test just administered by the Department of Education showed a decade-long erosion of scientific proficiency among American high school seniors. We won’t cure this problem by questioning scientifically established facts (evolution) and theories (natural selection) and replacing them with unsupported conjectures based on faith.

The controversy over ID vs. evolution is not a scientific controversy. Every scientific body in the US has opposed ID and affirmed the reality of evolution. The “controversy” is about whether sectarian religious views should be taught in the science classroom. Most theologians readily accept evolution, finding it compatible with their faith. In 1996, Pope John Paul II officially endorsed evolution, and even with a recent change in Vatican leadership, the Catholic Church’s position has remained unchanged.

As the world grows more complex, and we face scientific challenges such as addressing global warming, developing sustainable energy sources, and preventing the spread of pandemics, it is critical that America remain in the forefront of science. And the key to our preeminence is education. The study of evolution has practical benefits: it is the basis for breeding food crops, choosing animal models that can be used to treat human disorders, conserving species and their habitats, predicting which vaccines should be made to prepare for epidemics like avian flu, and manufacturing those vaccines. Science education that incorporates unscientific issues like ID is a sure path to America’s failure against competing countries. Conversely, given its importance for biology and for science in general, evolution deserves to be properly taught in American classrooms.

I love this letter! I thought they did a phenomenal job with it. One thing that stood out to me, and surprised me, was the statement that Evolution is a fact and that Natural Selection is the theory. I don’t recall seeing scientists state it that way. I know they regard it as fact, as it is the basis of so much of our medical success. But it is quite different to make it a public statement.

Has anyone ordered and received their book yet? I admit, I keep forgetting to get online and order it. It’s on my list of things to do this weekend.

If you ask my son what his favorite holiday is, he’ll tell you it’s Christmas. Then he’ll tell you that his second favorite is Darwin Day.

What is Darwin Day? It is a “global celebration of Science and Humanity.” Charles Darwin’s birthday is on February twelfth. There is a giant movement to make this day an “International Celebration to show our appreciation for the enormous benefits that scientific knowledge, acquired through human curiosity and ingenuity, has contributed to the advancement of humanity” (this reference is from www.darwinday.org, the official site for the international recognition of Darwin Day).

Why single out Charles Darwin for the celebration of what science has offered us? An article on the website of Rutgers University had an articulate answer to this question. The article is called, Why is Evolution Important in Teaching, Science, and Society? (Dobzhansky, T. 1973) and contains the subtitle, “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution.”

Here is a summation of why:

“Evolution is the central theory of life. An understanding of evolutionary process and evidence is necessary for considering, not only the history of living things, but also many modern questions. For example; Why should we be concerned with a bird-flu epidemic? Why is HIV so difficult to treat? How does research on lab rats apply to humans? How did humans evolve from apelike ancestors? What is the best strategy for delaying the onset of pesticide resistance? Increasingly evolutionary understanding is required for appreciating basic questions in fields traditionally apart from basic biology and anthropology. Major areas of psychology, philosophy, computer sciences, and other fields now require a solid grounding in evolutionary thinking.”

What better cause have we to celebrate? I hope that the religious and non-religious alike will recognize the benefits that Darwin’s work has given us and join us in the celebration.

A goal of the Darwin Day movement is to build momentum and increase the number of celebrants and celebrations until the year 2009, when it will be Darwin’s 200th birthday, and the 150th anniversary of his book, On the Origins of Species.

How do we celebrate Darwin’s Day? If you go onto the website, www.darwinday.org, you can click on the events page which contains a world-wide list with links, ranked by country alphabetically (U.S. celebrations are toward the bottom under “U”).

Most events have speakers. A humanist organization in my hometown has had fish at a seafood restaurant (as in the Darwin fish). The organization pushing the Darwin Day movement describes having a “Phylum Feast”, a feast with an enormous variety of meats from various phylum.

Some groups celebrate for one day, on the actual birthday. Others extend the celebration out for the entire week.

As a mom who wants her kids to grow up with an appreciation for science and an understanding of evolution and our origins, I have created our own tradition of celebrating that is both fun and educational.

We have a five to six night celebration over the dinner hour. Our celebration centers on the book, The Tree Of Life: The Wonders Of Evolution by Ellen Jackson. Our meals over the evenings represent the various stages of life forms as Jackson outlines them in her books. I decorate the table according the the life form we are focusing on (two evenings take place under the sea, one has to do with dinosaurs, etc) and we quiz the kids with questions and evolution trivia throughout the meal. Each meal ends with a surprise treat that has to do with the life forms for that evening.

Mark your calendar for February twelfth and join us as we celebrate the advancement of humanity through scientific discovery!

Happy upcoming Darwin Day!

INTELLIGENT THOUGHT: SCIENCE VERSUS THE INTELLIGENT DESIGN MOVEMENT is a compilation of articles by some of our favorite scientists.

In the Editor’s Note is a copy of an email he received which should be “a stark reminder of why this book is necessary, why it belongs on your bookshelf, and why sixteen of the world’s leading scientists (and Edge contributors) dropped everything to write essays on a crash schedule so the book would be published before the end of the school year.”

The email:

Date: Mon, 8 May 2006
From: Maulik Parikh
To: John Brockman
Subject: Intelligent Design

John,

I have been teaching a new course on the frontiers of science, required for all freshmen at Columbia. These students are mostly sharp, capable, and open-minded. Still, many of them think that intelligent design should be studied in the interest of being fair and balanced. What’s troubling is that even those who accept evolution often treat it as a matter of belief, of political persuasion, as if it were akin to being for or against free trade. And if they reject intelligence design it’s often not because they can see its vacuousness as a scientific theory, but merely because the religious and conservative stripes of ID can sometimes look a little uncool. As for science, reason, evidence — what’s that?

—Maulik

These articles are sure to be worthy of your ownership when you consider the list of contributors:

Steven Pinker, the scientist with which I am most enamored (and not because of his curly hair, but because he strikes me as being one of the most intelligent and knowledgeable men on the earth today), contributed an article with the title, “Evolution and Ethics.” The summary: An evolutionary understanding of the human condition, far from being incompatible with a moral sense, can explain why we have one.

(Hmmm, that reminds me of my on-going discussion with Ron and Hifi on Morality. Looks like I’m not the only one who talks of that subject. In fact, I can think of some other scientists who do too. I still need to get back to them on that. But now that I think of it, Pinker is a proponent of Evolutionary Psychology, along with his allies Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett. That’s some serious intelligence backing up that Evolutionary Psychology, isn’t it? But that’s another topic, heehee).

Speaking of Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins, they are also contributors to this book on why Intelligent Design has no part on the scientific debate.

Dawkins’ article is called, “Intelligent Aliens.” Here’s the summary: Natural selection is not some desperate last resort of a theory. It is an idea whose plausibility and power hits you between the eyes with a stunning force, once you understand it in all its elegant simplicity.

I love a scientist who is also a powerful writer. Did you notice that language?

Dennett’s contribution is called, “The Hoax of Intelligent Design and How It Was Perpetrated.” And again, the summary: Evolutionary biology certainly hasn’t explained everything that perplexes biologists, but intelligent design hasn’t yet tried to explain anything at all.

The article that Quantum Mechanical Engineer, Seth Lloyd, wrote interests me. It is called, “How Smart Is The Universe?’ and the summary is: Scientific knowledge is by definition resilient. In societies where government or religion has tried to replace it with ideologically inspired fictions, scientists and nonscientists alike have resisted. Scientific lies can fool some of the people some of the time (even to the extent of being published in reputable journals), but exactly because scientific ideas are designed to be tested, in the end scientific lies fool no one. The universe is scientific.

To see the list of the remaining contributors, along with their photos and a summary of their articles, go here and scroll down.

I’m ordering this book! Anyone else? Maybe we can discuss some of these articles once UPS pays us a visit!

Aiden has added two undesirable words to his vocabulary. So far I have tried giving him explanations about the inappropriateness of the words, I have separated him from the rest of the family when he insists on using them, and I have tried ignoring it. Nothing has worked. In fact, he thought it was really funny to use his new vocabulary with his teacher. He told her, “You’re Poo-poo!”

Nice.

On the other hand, he tells me at random times throughout the day, “I love you, Mama.” When we drop the kids off at school he says, “I miss Blake and Trin.” Mostly good words come from that sweet boy’s mouth. Is he any different than any other three-year-old? Well, yes. He’s cuter.

I admit that with our crazy schedule, I have neglected to introduce the alphabet (except the song) to Aiden. He just turned three and it suddenly occurred to me that I should get him an ABC book when my sister told me her toddler, not yet two, can identify most of the letters. Coincidentally, my mom brought him one when she came into town Friday. To my delight, he opened the book and asked first about the Letter A, rather than the accompanying pictures. He’s ready to learn.

Trinity, six years old, sucks her thumb, despite the dentist’s and my own admonitions. She tells me all the time that she didn’t suck all night. But I still catch her.

She loves pretty things and pretty people. She has only just recently taken to heart the idea that some pretty people can also be mean. And some not-so pretty people can be very good, fun, and smart.

Trinity loves to take care of other people and animals. She’s one of those extraordinary people who LOVES to share. She enjoys the feeling of sharing something with others more than she enjoys the actual thing she could have kept to herself.

Trinity is an artist and she expresses it with her creative clothing designs, her visual artwork, her singing and dancing.

Two days ago she asked about a book she found in the garage. Blake told her it was a Bible. “What’s a Bible?” she asked.

Blake is more complicated. I realized he could understand deep and abstract concepts at only two years old. He is a thinker. In fact, when I had my third child, I noticed the world could fall apart all around Blake, and he wouldn’t notice. He was in his own world. Our toddling baby could have been screaming with something fallen on top of him, and Blake would be right there unaware of it all. What has surprised me most is that in this past year, Blake has somehow learned to be more aware of others around him. He no longer sits oblivious to siblings in need, but has become very helpful and compassionate.

I love that Blake takes responsibility for his choices. He acknowledges them, tries to figure out why he made them, and apologizes right away. He is so mature.

Two days ago the school sent a letter home stating that Blake’s teacher recommended him for the gifted program and they would like to begin testing him next week. Blake excels in every subject. Each week his teacher gives him five of his own spelling words to match his learning level. As opposed to words like, “we’ll” and “they’ll”, Blake gets words like “collaboration” “chronological” and “Afghanistan.” A few weeks ago Blake begged the teacher to give him the longest word he’d ever heard: “antidisestablishmentarianism.” She refused the first week, but when he kept on her the next week, she relented. Of course, he got it right on the test. And he taught the word to his babysitter.

Okay, so I am bragging a bit. All three of my kids are awesome. They don’t have religion, but they do have goodness. They don’t have doctrine, but they have ideas. They’re pretty great kids.

Gregg100 sent a link to this excellent article. It is fascinating and worth reading from beginning to end. The article describes the difficulties of high school Biology teachers when it comes time to introduce evolution to their class.

Teachers feel nervous and hesitant. Many of them avoid using the word, “evolution,” altogether. Most of the teachers have a very low-level knowledge of evolution, as it is only a small part of all they teach. Some don’t know how to answer the questions of the more savvy Christian students who have prepared to disarm the teacher with all kinds of talking points and questions they know the teacher doesn’t have the answer to.

In the article, one Christian student describes his battle plan, which is to “say as much about God as I can in school, even if the teachers can’t.” You can imagine how disruptive a determined student can be and how difficult one could make it to get the course material across to students. In fact, some teachers skip the evolution section altogether.

I think you’ll enjoy the article, so click on the link above, get a good read, and then come back here to share your thoughts.

1. Is a theory a fact or a belief?

2. Where did the gases (big bang theory) come from?

3. After the water was formed, what was the first creature to come out of it?

4. Was it amphibious? Or did it run in and out of the water until it developed lungs?

5. If, yes why would it develop lungs under water?

6. What are the true mathematical odds (ask someone in your physics department) of something evolving? Of course you won’t because you don’t like the physics department, because they always prove biologist wrong.

7. If any of these questions are answered with a no, then using science they can not be facts at all!

This would make the cartoon completely hypocritical. You see if you just simply BELIEVE in evolution, then you have a religion! The religion maybe Darwinism, but if you answer I don’t know to any of the questions above then you have a faith based concept of how we as a planet came about. Not a fact based!

I would challenge you to answer these questions, and give me a reply! I doubt you will, because most of you people are only interested in your truth and not actual truth. Try reading LEE STROBEL, “A Case for Christ.”

I see you won’t answer my questions, but I figured you wouldn’t because most liberals can’t handle the truth.

Meyers of Pharyngula did answer the questions (even the barely coherent comments) here. I learned some new things and had a good review of a couple of others. Go check it out.

I am going to quote one of the answers and one of the comments because they demonstrate the open-mindedness and honesty that science demands. I am doing this in response to Ben’s assertions in a previous comment that:

1. Scientists and science educators should be realistic about the reach of their field.
2. The answer to a given question should be pursued in the manner best suited to the intellectual discipline that is investigating it, with clear disclaimers as to the sense in which that discipline understands the question.

Given the context of the comment, Ben seemed to me to imply that scientists and educators make claims that are outside the bounds of their field and are not honest with their limitations. My response to him was that they already do exactly as he wishes. The problem is that the average non-scientist just doesn’t recognize it.

The post on Phyrangula has examples of two different scientists staying within Ben’s prescribed bounds. And I assert to Ben that, in my experience, this is standard among the scientific community. It is natural to how that culture thinks. Scientists also require it of one another. They’re picky that way.

In answer to the creationist’s question about whether a theory is a fact or a belief, PZ Meyers answers:

1. A theory is neither a fact nor a belief. A theory is a logical construct that explains a class of phenomena and has predictive power. We don’t hold a theory because we believe in it, but because it works—and if a better theory comes along, we abandon the old version.

The creationist’s second question was about the Big Bang. Meyers explained that he was unqualified to answer a questions regarding physics, as it is not his field. One of his readers, who seems to have a knowledge of physics, or at least of astronomy (I am not sure of his qualifications) gave an answer and used the same language of openness. After explaining how protons, neutrons and electrons interact and react with each other in a way that produces certain gases, Rob Knop explains how the observations “match very well with the predictions of the Big Bang! This is one of the three pillars on which the Big Bang theory rests, and is one of the reasons we believe that theory to be a good one.”

He did not say, “this proves the Big Bang Theory to be fact.” He did not say “this is why we believe in The Big Bang.” He said it is why scientists believe the theory is good. As long as the theories of Evolution and the Big Bang continue to make accurate predictions and get good results, scientists will continue to use them and build on them.

Knop made another comment relevant to Ben’s assertions regarding the Big Bang:

One of the interesting things about the Big Bang theory is that the theory as it exists today doesn’t really address the actual moment of creation. The Big Bang theory only really starts some 10^-40 or so seconds after the moment of the “classical Big Bang” — we can’t really predict what’s before that until we figure out quantum gravity. The earliest moment we can really say anything about right now is the “end of Inflation”– and Inflation is more of a paradigm than a theory. Yeah, the latest WMAP results help support it, but we’re shakier on that than we are on the rock-solid stuff that comes later (nucleosynthesis, cosmic microwave background, etc).

Once again we have an example of someone outlining the limitations of what science understands. This is not unusual for scientists. It is just very different from how the non-scientists, especially religious people, think.

While these examples of scientists’ objectivity is interesting and important, PZ Meyer’s answers to the rest of the questions are also very interesting. Don’t forget to take a look and improve your knowledge on evolution.

What more do you expect from an administration where the chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works committee (James Inhofe) is encouraging the public to read Michael Crighton’s novel “State of Fear” if they are interested in learning about climate science…rather than, of course, any of the many documents that are extensively peer reviewed and written for the general public for this very reason by the Internation Panel on Climate Change.

Jenn’s comment had me laughing and reminded me of a great post I read on a blog called, “Northstate Science.” Christopher O’Brien discusses how Christians complain about The Da Vinci Code “because it creates a cultural phenomenon out of inaccurate historical information.” He compares it with their own creation of a “cultural phenomenon out of inaccurate biological information,” specifically, Intelligent Design.

O”Brien’s post is a comment on an interview with Christian apologist, Mark Shea, who complains that The Da Vinci Code is a source of “pseudo-knowledge.” Hmmm. It sparked the following comment from O’Brien:

Just out of curiosity, how many millions have read Philip Johnson’s books such as Darwin on Trial, or William Dembski’s No Free Lunch? How many millions cite Jonathan Wells’ Icons of Evolution as containing factual information about evolution? Shea is concerned that millions of Christians have read The Da Vinci Code without critically thinking about it – but would he stop to consider how many Christians bother to critically think about Icons of Evolution?

Get your Climate Science from Michael Crighton. Get your Biology from Phillip Johnson. But don’t you dare get your History from Dan Brown.

On his own blog, Open Campus, Gregg100 presented a possible story for children with discussion questions to help a young child become aware of the concept of “existence.”

I decided to try it on my two children, Trinity, age 6, and Blake, age 8. I knew Trinity would love the story, but I wasn’t sure if she’d grasp the concept. I figured Blake would grasp the concept, but I didn’t know if he’d like the story. Despite the appearance of a frog, it mostly revolves around a girl and a flower.

Before I give you my results, I wanted to invite all you readers with young children or grandchildren at least four years old to join the focus group. You can head over to Gregg’s post, read the explanation of the purpose of the story, then read the story to a child and ask the questions. You can either come back to AgnosticMom to share your results, or you can leave them right on Gregg100’s blog.

Here is the story. You’ll have to go to Gregg’s blog to see the follow-up questions.

Once upon a time there was a little girl that lived in a far off land called Metanoia. Metanoia was a very beautiful land with pretty houses and forests and lakes and flowers everywhere. Everyone that lived there was very happy because they lived in such a beautiful place. But Metanoia was a strange land because nobody had ever seen it except the people that live there. Other people looked and looked and finally said, “It must be a magical land because we never can find it.”

One day the little girl was walking along on the sidewalk by her house in Metanoia and saw a very beautiful red flower and stopped to look at it. As she bent over to see it better, it suddenly disappeared. When she stood back up, the flower had moved and it was just out of her reach. The girl walked over by the flower and bent over to look at it again and it disappeared again. This time she looked to see if the flower had moved to another place but it was nowhere to be seen. Instead, she saw a green frog just out of her reach. The girls stood up and she said to herself, “I know I just saw a red flower but now I only see a green frog! Goodness, what is happening?”

The little girl decided to walk back to her house and tell her mom all about the red flower and the green frog. After she told her mom what had happened, her mom said, “Isn’t that wonderful that we live in Metanoia where we get to see so many things. Just think, you saw a red flower and a green frog and if you had bent over to look at the green frog he might have changed into a, a, well who knows what, maybe a bowl of cereal or a kitten and you could have seen them all.” “Isn’t that wonderful?”

The little girl thought about that and finally said, “But mom, I wanted to look at that red flower and now it’s gone!” “Are you sure you saw a red flower?” her mother asked “or did you just imagine it?” “I saw it! I saw it!” said the little girl, “and I want to look at it again.”

That night the mother told the little girl’s father what had happened and said, “I don’t think our little girl likes living in Metanoia where everything changes all the time. Maybe we should consider moving back to (Mesa, Arizona?) where everything just stays the same when we look at it. And that is what they did. Now when the little girl looks at a flower or a pencil or a tree, she look as close as she wants and it just stays the same and she can look at it as many times as she likes and she is very happy again.

Let me share with you my results. I started with Trinity. She was so enamored with the story of Metanoia that I wondered if she would like the ending. Surprise surprise, as soon as the girl expressed frustration at not getting to look at the red flower, Trinity decided on her own how awful it would be to live in the magical Metanoia because, “What if you came home one day and your house was not there?”

As I asked her the follow-up questions I realized our discussion was revolving around the idea of the need for fixed rules/laws. The conclusion was that a magical place, while fun to dream about, would actually be very scary because of an inability to predict things.

Trinity answered all the questions “correctly.”

Blake surprised me. He liked the story, regardless of the female protagonist with a penchant for flowers. He loves fantasy. Perhaps this is why it took him longer than Trinity to see the potential difficulty of actually living in a world so unpredictable.

Still, he went along with the little girl’s desire to live in the world of reality and fixed existence, but it was the mention of Trinity’s “disappearing house” that truly converted him to the dangers of disappearing objects. He was pretty excited about the idea of it, and also staunch in his decision that the fun fantasy land should remain in the realm of imagination.

So, in addition to introducing the concept of existence, the children came to their own conclusion that magic and fantasy has its rightful place, which thankfully, is not a part of the real world. Thankfully we live in a world with fixed rules and principles that are unchanging. Although I didn’t say it, it made me think how unstable a world of miracles could actually be. Considering the far reaches of Cause and Affect, who knows what the consequences would be of an almighty hand who could change things around at will?

I am not aware of too many AgnosticMom readers with children in the target age group. If you do, please come back with a report of your own experience, whether the results are good or not. We would love feedback.

Among numerous areas, I am mostly concerned about a (1) watering-down of science in lower level education (the infiltration of Intelligent Design being a symptom), (2) drops in the number of students in higher education science majors, (3) the current political climate which is stifling scientific input, and (4) increased competition from Asian countries who are advancing at a time when we are declining.

There are numerous reasons for our downward trend. Some of it has to do with political priorities run amok. Some of it is a disdain for science and the Religious Right’s new influential voice in the United States. Much of it has to do with the media’s tendency to create enormous hype based on one study. Their headlines announce definitive results when the data is actually preliminary.

To exacerbate the problems, Americans who don’t know the Scientific Method fall for the misleading news headlines. Later on, conflicting results from another study discourages them. They come to the conclusion that scientific results are inconsistent and untrustworthy. This has all contributed to an overall disinterest in the field that is necessary for our continued existence.

Let me start with a most scandalous scenario that highlights political corruption of science.

Last month, NASA public affairs officer, George Deutsch, resigned because of accusations that he was filtering information from NASA. He blocked reporters’ efforts to interview NASA’s top climate scientist whose findings contradict the policies of the Bush Administration. If you are wondering if Deutsch is a presidential appointee, you are correct. He is an appointee confirmed to have lied on his resume about graduating from Texas A&M.

We’ve heard numerous stories of this religious administration ignoring scientists whose findings don’t support conservative policy. This shouldn’t be a complete surprise.

In another effort to influence science, Deutsch was filtering scientific information by requiring NASA’s Web Designer to add the word, “theory,” to all mentions of the Big Bang. While it is, indeed, a theory, it is so in the sense that scientists use the word, not in the sense that non-scientists use it. Deutsch’s insistence on adding this word to the work of scientist is only an effort to cast doubt on scientific findings.

Here is an interesting excerpt from an article in the Florida Sun Sentinel regarding a hearing before Congress. I am sorry it is no longer available on the website:

The debate began three weeks ago after NASA climatologist James Hansen accused a political appointee in the office of public affairs of muzzling his views on global warming because they conflicted with those of the Bush administration.

Career public-affairs officers in the agency have since stated that interviews were denied to news organizations deemed too “liberal” and pressure was applied to hold down the number of news releases on earth science.

“It is entirely appropriate for the administration to announce or espouse whatever political views they have,” Griffin said. “It is not appropriate for scientists at an executing federal executive agency to be required to adjust, skew, alter or frame the tone of their scientific work to fit any particular political agenda.”

U.S. Rep. Bart Gordon, D-Tenn., expressed concern about the issue during his opening remarks Thursday.

“It [the Hansen situation] has become apparent that it isn’t isolated,” Gordon said. “I’m afraid this censorship permeates this entire administration, NASA being no exception.”

He is correct. The disgraces reaches past NASA according the the censured Hansen:

Hansen did however sympathize with the plight of scientists working at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

“My colleagues at NOAA have told me their problems are worse,” he said. “They have to have a listener on the phone every time they talk to the press to examine what they are saying. This seems more like something Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia would do.”

The question is, is it a crisis when the ruling political party of non-scientists censure the work of real scientists because it may sway the public opinion of their policy? Absolutely.

Let’s move on to Education. Here are some statistics and a summary from an article in Reader’s Digest called Losing the Global Edge:

* Several of our key agencies for scientific research and development will face a retirement crisis within the next ten years.

* Less than 6% of our high school seniors plan to pursue engineering degrees, down 36% from a decade ago.

* In 2000, 56% of China’s undergraduate degrees were in the hard sciences; in the United States, the figure was 17%.

* China will likely produce six times the number of engineers next year than we will graduate, according to Mike Gibbons of the American Society for Engineering Education. Japan, with half our population, has minted twice as many in recent years.

There are many more unnerving developments, and they add up to this: As other countries create the learning centers and jobs to hang on to their best and brightest, the United States is losing a dependable pipeline of talent. Moreover, we are doing remarkably little to educate and train a next generation of scientists and engineers.

An article called Our Looming Science Crisis, from The American Enterprise Online, explains the crisis from a business standpoint:

As Craig Barrett, Intel’s CEO, put it, “We still do a very, very poor job of educating our kids” in science and math. In a comparison of high school graduates in the world’s top 25 countries, “an American kid is, on average, near the bottom 10 percent.”

The trouble begins in high school, or earlier, but it is showing up dramatically now in America’s high-tech universities and businesses. According to a 2004 National Science Foundation study, fewer U.S. undergraduates were enrolled in math and engineering courses in 2000-02 than in the mid 1980s. In 1975, South Korea and Taiwan had just two science and engineering degree earners per 100 college-age citizens; in 2000, that number was 11. In the U.S., the ratio has languished–just 6 percent in 2000.

Without foreign enrollment, the U.S. figures would be far worse. The majority of recipients of doctoral degrees in mathematics, computer science, and engineering at American universities today are not U.S. citizens.

In the past, the U.S. has benefited from these foreign graduates, since many have chosen to stay here, joining American companies or starting their own. But now, as prosperity increases back home, many are returning. It’s hardly surprising that American high-tech firms are looking abroad for research and development.

If a lack of interest in the vital field of science weren’t enough, educator and scientist, Lynn Margulis, describes a serious problem with the actual textbooks available to schools. In American Scientist Online, Lynn describes how the profit-based business of creating textbooks hijacks the books’ actual educational value:

Science for schools is written, controlled and produced by publishers whose goal is to sell materials in huge quantities to avoid sales taxes. Qualified scientists and teachers are not paid for comprehensibility, accuracy or logic, but rather bribed to rapidly approve “content” that no one understands. Such beleaguered experts rush to meet publishers’ deadlines for “up-to-date” consumer products that quickly earn money. To maximize profit, books, digital media, supplies, even equipment are planned to be obsolete within the academic year.

Ron sent me a link to a fabulous article on Panda’s Thumb. Professor Herbert Kroemer, who won the 2000 Nobel Prize for Physics, has activated himself in what I call the War On Science. He warns that Intelligent Design’s attacks on Evolution are actually “attacks on science itself — all of science.”

Biological evolution is not the only concept in conflict with such a literal interpretation of the bible; other areas of science, like geophysics and astrophysics, come right behind. Indeed, many of the attackers of biological evolution attack those scientific disciplines as well. But these disciplines do not exist in isolation; they are areas where the recognized laws of physics are rigorously applied to the specific problems of the field. To attack them is an attack on physics itself, and with it an attack on the Galilean idea that the laws of science must be based on actual observation of the facts rather than on scriptural traditions: We are literally back to the spirit of the early-17th century attacks on Galileo.

Professor Kroemer got his inspiration from physicist Marshall Berman who had an essay published by the American Physical Society:

Our nation is paying a heavy price for having failed to teach students critical thinking skills, reasoning, and good science for several generations. The consequences are an appalling science illiteracy among most Americans. In a recent survey (NSF, 2000), about half the respondents did not know:

* The earliest humans did not live at the same time as dinosaurs.
* It takes Earth one year to go around the Sun.
* Electrons are smaller than atoms.
* Antibiotics do not kill viruses.

Dr. Jon Miller, Northwestern University Medical School in Chicago, studies American views on and knowledge of science. His data reveal some major gaps in basic knowledge. American adults in general do not understand what molecules are. Fewer than a third can identify DNA as a key to heredity. Only about 10 percent know what radiation is. One adult American in five thinks the Sun revolves around the Earth (Dean, C., 2005).

Going back to the words of warning from Kroemer, I’d like to end my post with his admonition, and my own plea with AgnosticMom readers to get engaged:

Attacks on science are of concern not just to scientists; they threaten the continued prosperity and security of our entire nation in a world where we increasingly have to compete with other nations that have developed strong science-based technologies in areas that were once unchallenged domains of the United States. If we wish to continue to prosper in this environment we need, first and foremost, a work force that is highly educated in science, and capable of mastering advancing technologies based on continuing advances in science. The United States public education system below the university level has never put a sufficiently high value on science to permit filling this need with US-born individuals alone, but we were always able to fill the shortfall with immigrants. Attacks on science, if not rejected by the American public, will further reduce the already-too-low percentage of US citizens who opt for a science-oriented education, and at the same time they will reduce the attractiveness to foreign citizens of coming to the United States for an education or a career in science and in technologies based on continuing advances in science.

So, what role will you play in the War On Science? What will you do to fight it?

This time an appearance from Strawberry Shortcake called us to a locally owned bookstore we’d never frequented. A good 30 minutes from home, Changing Hands Bookstore turned out to be the place of my dreams. With more of an eclectic style than the pristine Barnes & Noble, yet comparable in size, there was much to entertain my curious eye.

We moved to the back in search of “Strawberry Short,” as Aiden insists on calling her. We sat the kids down with the other children, then backed away to get behind the young audience.

I scanned the nearby shelves for a book to peruse while the kids listened to magical tales of fruit-filled characters. Staying in view of my children, I passed only a couple shelves and found myself facing an entire row of books by the great Joseph Campbell! I once tried unsuccessfully to find books by him at a library. And now here I was, at the Changing Hands bookstore, staring at an entire row of stumbled-upon Joseph Campbell books.

During a brief break in which “Strawberry Short” needed a sip of strawberry juice, I took my kids over to the amazing children’s section. At Barnes & Noble, I have to sift through a lot of books; books with the purpose of introducing commercial toys to children, rather than actually produce an engaging tale or impart knowledge in an attractive way (although we did find that amazing pop-up dinosaur book called Encyclopedia Prehistorica Dinosaurs at Barnes & Noble).

At this particular store, my walk toward the children’s area revealed a plethora of desirable books. The one that really got me excited, though, was another educational, beautifully illustrated pop-up book. Galileo’s Universe, by J. Patrick Lewis and Tom Curry, begins with an introduction of how the world had embraced Aristotle and Ptolemy’s geocentric (earth-centered) cosmos for centuries.

Aristotle and Galileo shared a common wonder with everyday observations, but differed, both in their responses to their curiosities, as well as in their results.

Falling grapes. Floating Leaves. Flying Cannonballs. Swinging lamps. Aristotle had seen these things, too, but his explanation of their “essence,” or nature, did not satisfy Galileo.

And so the man of Pisa probed, measured, and tested . . . . Where Aristotle had asked why things moved, Galileo asked how.

Galileo’s Universe will reach a wide-range of ages. All children love pop-up books. Aiden, who is two, loves the book only for the experience of observation as he swings the pendulum back and forth or opens various windows.

Five-year-old Trinity loves the book for the same reason, but with her I am able to introduce the man, Galileo, with a brief explanation of the mathematical or scientific discovery of the particular pop-up she is manipulating. When she turns the dial to see various heavenly bodies on Galileo’s makeshift telescope, or opens up the fold-out comparison between Aristotle and Galileo’s model of the universe, I can explain how science altered what we know about our place in it.

Blake, who is eight-years-old, can actually read and understand the book himself. Besides the beautiful art, which I always look for in children’s books, the author used two different writing techniques to convey the information about Galileo and his life.

The body of text is in poetic form. It first illuminates the fascinations that preoccupied the mind of Galileo, the child:

The movement of a boat or toy,
The angle of a shaft of light
Provided endless hours of joy
And kept him dreaming half the night.

If everything preoccupied
His mind, then what would he become-
A child captivated by
The swinging of a pendulum?

Next we learn how Galileo chose his field of study, invented the hydrostatic scale for measuring weights and metals, and then stood upon the Leaning Tower of Pisa to test the common, ancient assumption that balls of different weight would fall at different rates of speed. There is a great pop-up to illustrate the simultaneous landings of a ball of wood and a ball of lead.

Blake couldn’t believe the actual results explained in the book. He tested it with a number of objects and laughed in amazement to see it in person.

At the end of the book, we observe The Church’s reaction to Galileo’s heliocentric universe and how they banned him to house arrest for the remainder of his life:

When Galileo’s sixty-nine years
Were folded in his chair,
He faced the angry Holy Men,
Who thundered on, “Beware!
The Earth is fixed, it does not move-
So you must testify!”
They sentenced him to silence
And they took away his sky.

There is a second mode of story-telling, which further adds to the book’s versatility. Many of the pages have a pull out insert which give, in prose form, more details to Galileo’s life, studies, and inventions. At the end of the book is a time line for his life.

Am I happy with my purchase of Galileo’s Universe?

You know you got a good book when the kids spend the entire ride home fighting over who gets to hold it. You know it’s good when your son wants to conduct his own experiment based on the story. It’s definitely a prized possession, as I can barely keep my hands around it long enough to write up its review. Yes, I am thrilled with my purchase.

Two days ago Aiden informed me that he was ready to “get bigger” and “pee in the toilet” so he can “go to school.”

In my almost-but-not-quite-infinite mommy-wisdom, I had already perceived the time was coming. Could his approaching third birthday have been my clue? I looked forward to our upcoming Spring Break as the perfect time when I wouldn’t be schlepping kids to and from school all day. We could devote three days at home and avoid frightening public toilets and accidents in the car seat.

Of course, Aiden’s timing takes precedent over my own, and we are now in the throes of cheerio-targets in the toilet, M&M rewards, and instructions such as, “Shoot it like a gun!”

It was during this busy time of thirty-minute bathroom intervals yesterday morning that my very supportive reader, Ron, emailed me a “congratulations” for recent AgnosticMom readership growth. He also expressed hope in my ability to juggle both family and blog. In a healthy way, that is. Healthy for the kids, I mean.

Yes, it has been a struggle. Last fall I let go of some positions I was volunteering for so that I could devote more attention to my three children and at the same time explore writing through this blog. I had no idea the writing would become so demanding and addictive. Yes, I do struggle with the balance of satisfying my readers, and also being the mom I really want to be for my children. Ron’s words gave me that little push to try harder.

The result was interesting. Normally I squeeze every drop of time from every minute to get as much done as I can. If it takes me ten minutes to get to my next appointment, I work on the current project right up until the moment I HAVE to get out that door, and then I grab Aiden and rush to my appointment. I often have to drag Aiden away from his distractions as we hurry in and out of various places. I remember that “Stop and Smell the Roses” phrase, but ‘I will just have to get to that another time when I’m not in such a hurry,’ is the lie I tell myself.

Those of you with only one or two children may be shaking your heads at me right now. Hey, I remember my slower, easy days of long ago. You all just wait until you add a third child, along with school and extra-curriculum activities. You’ll be empathizing with me then!

Yesterday, instead of disappearing into our usual rush, I slowed it down. Aiden and I left ten minutes early for my weekly allergy shot. As we walked, no sauntered, down the sidewalk from the car to the doctor’s office, Aiden wanted to examine the flowers. Perhaps it was his first time not seeing them in a blur as I hurried him along. He identified which plants were “pokey” (we’re in Arizona, so we have a lot of cactus-type flowering succulents) and which weren’t. He examined each plant and flower as we walked past them, sharing his observations with me.

Like I said, I have thought of the admonition to “Stop and Smell the Roses” before. Almost everyday, actually. But this time it had a new purpose. I’ve been stewing over what little time I have to research books that teach children how to reason, how to ask questions, how to observe, measure evidence, and feel the confidence to question traditional beliefs.

It occurred to me that if I always leave just five or ten minutes before my rounds of appointments and errands I would buy us enough time to encourage the inquisitive nature already existent in the maturing minds of my children. My racing around has been stifling that nature. I have sometimes been sending the message that observation and questioning are unimportant and a waste of time.

Meanwhile, I have been wanting to find books and activities to teach children how to reason, adopt a healthy amount of wonder and skepticism, and ask questions before accepting answers. Is it, perhaps, to re-teach what our rushed lives may currently be undoing?. Not very smart. Or efficient, for that matter.

Does it seem like human progress, which has brought us to this manic American culture of rush-rush-rush, achieve-achieve-achieve, is at times self-defeating? From now on, I am making it a part of my daily contribution to the inquisitive nature of my children to leave five or ten minutes early.

A note to anyone reading this at least a week after I posted it: Ask me how I’m doing.

My husband, Israel, found this post on a blog called, “Panopticist: Cultural Surveillance,” that announces an amazing documentary recently aired in Britain. Richard Dawkins narrates the documentary titled, “The Root of All Evil?”

You have to go check it out. If you click on the picture of Richard Dawkins, you can see a short segment of the two part film. There are also links on the post for you to click on to go download the entire documentary. Israel and I are going to watch it tonight on his laptop after the kids are down for bed. I guess it’ll be our educational at-home date-night.

Come back here to AgnosticMom once you’ve watched it and share your thoughts! We could have some lively discussion over the next couple of days.

What do you think is the proper relationship of philosophy to science? If you could also throw in a working definition of each (philosophy and science), I think that would really clarify things for me. In what sense do you think that this country is falling behind in the science arena?

I am happy to discuss any topics of interest to AgnosticMom readers. In this case, I am going to address the questions in two different posts, beginning with the relationship of Science and Philosophy and how modern science developed.

The word “Science” actually has very broad implications, but for our purposes, we are discussing it in terms of Biology, Physics and similar fields. A very simple definition, which I found on a children’s educational site is:

A branch of knowledge based on objectivity and involving observation and experimentation.

I found a more academic explanation in a copyrighted paper. Ethically, I cannot quote it in part so the reference citation is:

Malhotra, Yogesh. (1994). Role Of Science In Knowledge Creation: A Philosophy Of Science Perspective [WWW document]. URL http://www.kmbook.com/science.htm

To paraphrase a paragraph under the subtitle, “The Scientific Method,” there are multiple ways to know something. What sets science apart from other ways is its use of empirical testing. According to Dictionary.com, “empirical” means “proven by observation and experiment.” And “Guided by practical experience, not theory.”

While philosophy may be a means to understanding a particular subject, and while philosophical tools, such as deductive reasoning, may be used to form a scientific hypothesis, or maybe even to aid in the understanding of the results of an experiment, it lacks the actual material observation to classify it as science, or in particular, Biology or Physics.

This is why Intelligent Design is, at best, philosophy (at worst and more accurately, it is religion in disguise). ID comes to its conclusion of a Designer through reasoning only. It stops short of the definition of science because we cannot test its hypothesis. We cannot observe it. We cannot make predictions based on its claim.

Because of this, ID proponents want to change the definition of science and revert to Medieval Scholasticism, in other words, the pre-Galileo days of the a priori method, as opposed to the inductive method which Francis Bacon applied to philosophy, and which constitutes modern science.

From Bluepete.com:

Inductive Thinking:
§ I have always thought of it (inductive thinking) as thinking from the bottom up; as opposed to thinking from the top down (deductive). One who uses a deductive approach accepts notions (often having no basis in reality) and then proceeds to build on such notions; it is, more often than not, a fruitless (sometimes harmful) process; one ends up “building castles in the air.”

The inductive approach always builds up from a solid base. A theory, based on real experiences, is struck; it is then tested rigorously and continuously; all experiences must support the theory. Some theories have been so thoroughly tested over years that they have become accepted facts of nature. However, even though they may be well tested and put to considerable use, theories always remain theories.
It has been through the inductive method of thinking that men like Copernicus (1473-1543), Galileo (1564-1642) and Newton (1642-1727) laid down the bricks and cemented into place the foundation of our modern age.

Intelligent Design is deductive reasoning, taking a top-down approach. If you read the interview of Philip Johnson I gave a link to, you will see that he wants to base all scientific knowledge on the presumption that there is a god, even Jesus Christ.

Is it not obvious that without the availability of material observation of a Creator, Intelligent Design has nothing to do with science? It does not necessarily mean that no Designer exists. It just means we should not base our scienitific work, nor our criticism of it (evolution) on the assumption that there is one.

I will continue this topic in an upcoming post where I will focus more specifically on the implications of a religous and political movement aimed to destroy science. We will discuss Ben’s other question about why the state of science in the U.S. is in crisis. There are so many areas of crisis to cover, and I don’t have time to get to them all, so if any of you have articles or other evidence to share, hold onto them for the next post and you can contribute to the comments area.

As I am not an expert in science, and some of you readers are, I invite you to add to this current post by leaving a comment.

Sunday
Elementary age: Read Tree Of Life
Junior High and High School Age: Read parts of Evolution: Eye Witness
(AgnosticMom reader, Ed Darrell, suggested this book and it looks great!).

First Phase of evolutionary life: shellfish, jellyfish, worms

Dinner:
Very Involved Version: A smorgasboard of shellfish: shrimp, lobster, oysters
Simpler Version: Shrimp Dinner

After Dinner Treat: Gummi-worms (I will be putting them in cute bags on their plates).

Monday-Second Phase of evolutionary life: fish
Dinner: Fish! Use a recipe that keeps the fish whole.

After Dinner Treat: Swedish Fish or Gummi-whales

Tuesday-Third Phase of evolutionary life: the new existence of plant life on the ground makes it possible for some sea life to grow legs and crawl out of the water. Enter reptiles, and then dinosaurs.

Dinner:
For Daring Eaters: Frog Legs
For the Rest of Us: Vegetarian Night! Edamame and a recipe with leaves and lentils.

After Dinner Treat: Gummi-Dinosaurs

Wednesday-Birds evolved from some dinosaurs, many of which had feathers and claws like a chicken.
Dinner: A whole Roasted Chicken

After Dinner Treat: jelly eggs or jelly beans

Thursday-The mammals evolved next
Dinner: Pork or Beef
After Dinner Treat: Gummi-Bears

Friday-Going Bananas! Celebrate our closest ancestors, the monkeys!
Dinner: How many banana recipes can you come up with? I haven’t gotten that far in my research yet. But in this monkey phase, it’ll be all bananas. And no eating at the table. It’s on the floor for this meal. No utensils, either!

Desert: Banana Cream Pie, of course

Saturday-Moral and Rational Humanity
Formal Breakfast-whatever you like. Decorate the table. Play your favorite classical music (ours is Mozart). Celebrate capabilities of the human brain. Focus on the positive aspects of human nature.

Use these meals to help your children learn how life evolved. If your kids are toddler and preschool age, all of these details and books are unnecessary. I recommend activities that focus on observing the diversity of species, rather than origins. And I DO recommend playing up the Darwin Day celebration with the little ones, so they grow up with it as a regular tradition, like Christmas.

AgnosticMom reader, Ron, shared an idea for parents of babies. Click here to read his comment. If you scroll further down to Lynn’s comment, she provided a link to a great site highlighting children’s books about nature.

I had hoped to give some additional activity ideas, but I have run out of time. I will be away in Phoenix all day tomorrow, so I am not sure whether I will be able to post again by Sunday or not. All of you who celebrate the day in some way, whether it’s a party with friends, a visit to your local humanist group, or a holiday with your kids, please give us a report.

And if you do nothing else, light a candle Sunday night for Charles Darwin, who brought us out of the darkness of ignorance.

How do we celebrate Darwin’s Day? AgnosticMom is creating some family-oriented traditions for our families to adopt, because from all I have seen, the current celebrations are adult in nature. If you don’t have kids, look at this page of events. It is a world-wide list with links, ranked by country alphabetically (U.S. celebrations are down toward the bottom). The lists give a description of the event, and all the information. Most events have speakers. A humanist organization in my hometown, is having FISH at a restaraunt (as in the Darwin fish). The organization pushing the Darwin Day movement describes having a “Phylum Feast”, a feast with an enormous variety of meats from various phylum.

Some groups celebrate for one day, on the actual birthday. Some groups extend the celebration out for the entire week.

As I mentioned before, I have been formulating ideas for a family holiday, celebrated in the home, as a yearly tradition. My kids are on pins and needles. It should be a fun, highly anticipated, but also educational holiday for the kids, a cornerstone holiday for secular families.

Over the next few days, I will give you some ideas so you can decide how you want to celebrate it. These ideas will range for toddlers, to elementary ages, to young teens, whether you want a one-day celebration, or a week-long one. I will give food and actvity ideas. It’s going to be FUN! I can’t wait.

Why do I think Darwin’s accomplishment is important enough to warrant a holiday? What basis would there be in testing animals for disease research if we are not related, according to the theory of evoution? We have Darwin to thank for so many of our life-saving and life-extending accomplishments. One of AgnosticMom’s readers, Ed Darrell pointed me to an anti-evolutionist’s blog where Ed commented with a list of the many ways Darwin’s discovery of evolution has blessed our lives. I copied it for your reading pleasure.

“It’s the theory behind infectious disease control, crop development, animal husbandry, cancer treatments and cures, diabetes diagnoses, treatment and hope for cure, treatments for cystic fibrosis, the fight against crop pests (notably cotton boll weevils, wheat smut and wheat aphids, and imported Argentine fire ants), wildlife management, and flower development”.

Here is what you can expect at AgnosticMom over the next few days:

#1 A review of a children’s book which explains the evolution of life from the beginning lifeless days of the world, to the world in which men and women walk. I will be using this book as the guide to our weeklong celebration.

#2 A map of my weeklong celebration, with meal and treat ideas.

#3 Game and activity ideas for toddlers, elementary-age children, and teens.

If you have children’s books about Darwin, or activities to recommend, post your comments please!

One last thing. You can help move this cause forward by writing letters to your news editor to announce the upcoming holiday. AgnosticMom readers span the country, from Pennsylvania to Washington to California. Let’s get the word out.

Happy upcoming Darwin Day!

I received my first correction! After reading, America In Decline, Skysinger clarified for me that we do not have a cure for polio, just a vaccination. Well, that makes sense, doesn’t it? I’m sure I’ve got many more corrections coming in my blogging future, so I am glad the first one came in such a nice manner; a warm-up. Thanks for your input, Skysinger!

Mary said:

I enjoy reading your blog because, regardless of my religious leanings (I’m still trying to figure that out), I most definitely believe in science as the basis of humanity.

Because my children are not yet in school, I understand that I am now free to remain “blissfully ignorant” of the extent to which religion is impeding true learning in our public schools. But at least I know where in the world (here! and your new column!) to go for an opinion I can respect.

Mary, I’ve wondered if you were even agnostic and what motivates you continue to read my blog! Now I know. I am glad that I don’t offend (at least too much?) my thoughtful and reasonable religious readers. I harp on religion, mainly when it infringes on my life as a secularist. And sometimes I tease and make playful jabs, but I am not trying to convince anyone to leave their religion. I just hope they will understand the plight of the secularists.

As for religion impeding learning in public schools: maybe I’m wrong, but I doubt you will find your California schools as affected as in places like Kansas and Dover. Regardless, the lack of a basic understanding of science is a national dilemna with national consequences to come if we don’t turn it around. I’m glad you and I have a common respect for science.

Speaking of science and American culture, Ron made an interesting observation at his local Barnes&Noble:

I was at Barnes and Noble today – and they moved the Science section, they also reduced it in size. They moved it over near blank journals – where no other literature exists – somewhere west of the bargain books!
There is ONE shelving unit of science books (not including the specific section on physics)! That is 33% the amount of space they give to ‘religious fiction’ (possible oxymoron) – and roughly 20% of the space ‘devoted’ (literally?) to religious books. At Barnes and Noble! The religion shelves are all centrally located in the store, as well – with a good 6 or so signs leading you to them.

It’s unnerving to enter a huge ’secular’ bookstore and see that the history, and science sections barely add up to the amount of space allotted for religious books.

I am so glad you brought this to our attention. Tami and I were there last night, and realized that ours has an extremely small science section as well. I doubt it reflects Barnes&Noble’s values, rather the demands of the customers. Nobody’s buying science-related books! We have a long way to go. Do you all feel our country is taking giant leaps backwards? (Oooh, wait until you see what I have to blog about next! Look for a future post regarding women. We’re going backwards, people).

Well, I have a few more comments to respond to tomorrow. Thanks for being patient with this unusual weekend format. We’ll be back on track next week lots of hot topics.

Silence filled the space that my loss for words left. I stared at Blake for a minute. What other heroes have I introduced to him? Rosa Parks died not long ago, and we discussed her. Black again. I searched my brain files for any other heroes I must have introduced to him.

A-ha! Benjamin Franklin! We have a video about Benjamin Franklin learning how to harness electricity. In the movie, Franklin had to battle a religious fundamentalist who was trying to impede his research. It took much perseverance and faith in himself to finally prevail. Blake loved that video.

“Well, they’re not all black, honey. Benjamin Franklin was a hero, and he wasn’t black.” It was a step in the right direction, but clearly I had failed to provide my son with more than three or four examples of excellent human beings.

Growing up, the hero of my childhood was Nephi from the Book of Mormon. Nephi was a perfect person, with the exception of one tiny flaw. Nephi’s one sin was that he sometimes felt anger toward his wicked brothers who were trying to kill him. No wonder I have overwhelming and unrealistic expectations for myself: the biggest childhood hero of my life was AT LEAST as perfect as Jesus.

When I had kids, and especially when I left my church and all of its out-of-this-world heroes, I vowed I would expose my children to the world’s many great real heroes. I am now facing the reality that I haven’t done so well.

Yesterday, as I analyzed, and over-analyzed, the situation, I realized what is missing. I realized one of the reasons we, as agnostic parents, are feeling such a great need for a guiding source. We are missing a system for imparting our values to our children, that religious families normally get from their church.

The Mormon Church is the master of systems for teaching children. This is why the community is so tight, their familes are so strong, and such a large percentage of them actually make it to marriage in pure and complete innocence!

Let me show you how structured the Mormon community is in regard to teaching their young:

• Weekly church and Sunday School lessons
• Weekly Monday night Family Home Evenings (lessons)
• Daily family prayer and scripture reading
• Monthly visits from Home Teachers (each family is assigned two men who come to the home to give a lesson.)
• Weekly activities for teens, monthly activities for the children
• Monthly children’s magazine with lessons, stories, and learning activities
• Multiple free handbooks for family lesson plans on various moral and doctrinal topics

It was SO EASY to be a Mormon parent. The church put material directly into our hands. Agnostic and athiest parents have to conceive our own system for providing “lessons” to our children. Even more difficult, we have to do our own research to find the material. No one is giving us free handbooks with activities to demonstrate our values, arranged in formats that appeal to children of all ages.

I actually have been developing a system of timing. I’ve been using holidays as a sort of schedule to trigger ideas.

Some examples of holiday-triggered values:

• New Year- goals, ambition, ability to change and improve
• Civil Rights Day- courage, accepting others, forgiveness
• Easter- nature, spiritual rebirth
• Independence Day- patriotism, democracy, liberty and freedom
• 9/11- awareness and gratitude of our local firefighters and police officers and their families, community

I think the holidays, regular reading time, play groups, and other day-to-day experiences provide an adequate scheduling system to cover all the important things we want to share with our children. The difficulty is coming up with the tools for sharing the ideas, such as activities and books. That is the part that requires so much research when you don’t have a handbook given to you from church.

Civil Rights Day was so easy, because the school recommended books. The other holidays will require much more research. And since many of those other holidays also demand planning for giant feasts, extra shopping, and other activities, that just doesn’t leave as much time for educational research, does it?

I am going to continue what I started this month, which is to share my ideas and resources for educational and values-sharing activities and books for our children. They will mostly happen around the holidays, but I will add some other topics in here and there. I hope some of you will share your ideas as well.

My Brother Martin: A Sister Remembers Growing Up With the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
I chose this book because Blake’s teacher read it to his class, and Blake really enjoyed it. He liked it enough to tell me all about it after school. The author is King’s sister, and she shares stories of family life, childhood pranks, friends, being ostracized, and eventually the inspiration that led to King’s leadership in the Civil Rights Movement.

This book is written for Grades 2-4. I plan to use it with my kindergartner also, by focusing on the pictures, and telling her some of the stories in my own words.

The Story of Ruby Bridges
This is a story about a six-year-old black girl who was was allowed, by way of a court decision, to go to a white school. The local community rebelled, pulled their kids out of school (all of them), and harassed Ruby to the point that federal marshals escorted her everyday to protect her safety, because the local police would not.

Everyday Ruby walked past the angry, screaming parents of Frantz Elementary School, attended alone with no friends to play with, and prayed, before and after passing the mobs, that God would forgive them.

I read this to my kids last year, when Trinity was still in Pre-K, and Blake was in first grade. Because the idea of mobs, prejudice, and segregation are foreign to them, it required and inspired a lot of good discussion and explanation.

My children loved the story about Ruby. It appealed to them because her heroic act occured around their same age. They relate to her. We have, at times, referred back to Ruby, throughout the year when topics of courage, teasing, or prejudice came up.

Trinity liked it so much, she said she wanted to be like Ruby, and she asked if she could keep the book in her own room because it is “so special.”

I recommend reading Ruby’s story, along with Martin Luther King, Jr.’s because, in addition to Ruby being a child-hero, she is, more specifically, a heroine. I think it is important that both boys and girls be exposed to female heroes, in addition to the many typical male ones.

As an additional act of respect, we will also be lighting a candle at dinner in honor and recognition of Martin Luther King, Jr.

If you have other ideas or books to recommend, please post a comment.

We began with dinner at Jack in the Box. I know, that’s nothing special. I considered a nicer restaurant, but the numerous possibilities of chaos and havoc that three kids bring to my imagination, prompted me toward the fast food arena. I’ll save sit-down restaurant outings for when Israel is with us.

Somehow I convinced my children to forego the Kids Meals with accompanying toy, and share a salad with me. Don’t let me fool you. They usually want a Kids Meal. But thankfully they have figured out that the foods Mom and Dad get are much more interesting than the plain kids’ foods. Trinity, especially, will often leave her boring meal to share mine. So once in a while, the enticement of flavor-variety overcomes their desire for a cheap toy.

We left our pleasant dining experience and moved on to a family favorite: Barnes and Noble. After hunting down a Michael Shermer book for myself, we advanced to the children’s area. Aiden spent most of the time pushing every button on every book containing musical sound effects. Blake found a huge volume of The Chronicles of Narnia. It contained every book, unabridged for a total of 767 pages.

Trinity, who usually picks pretty girly books that have a piece of jewelry attached, broke out of her pattern last night. I am so proud. She found an amazing pop-up dinosaur book. The paper-art is incredible. The intricacy of the cut-outs are amazing. Each page has a huge dinosaur in the middle, plus smaller pop-ups in the four corners, which you open individually. They have little corner tabs that hold the smaller pop-ups shut so they don’t open until you are ready.

All children love pop-up books, but I think it was the art that interested Trinity. She said she wished they also had a butterfly or a flower book. Since she is an artist, herself, Trinity and I decided to see if we can make our own pop-up book. That will be our next project. We will try to make a flower or butterfly pop-up book using cardstock. I’ll let you know how it goes.

Blake and I also came up with a project idea. I am going to help him make a book called, “Blake’s Book of Book Reviews.” Blake loves reading. Maybe he’s too ambitious. He starts lots of books (the bigger the better), but only finishes a few of them. He moves back-and-forth between 4-7 books at a time. To motivate him to actually complete more books, his teacher told us that if Blake would write up a review of a completed book, she would laminate it for him. So Blake and I decided to make a book out of it. We are going to put his current school picture on the cover, and include all his book reviews. I want to make a special shelf showcasing all his completed books. If he likes this project, we will start a new cover with his most current school picture for every year. Imagine growing up with a book full of your own reviews! Can you see the pride and perception of self it would foster? Think of the writing skills he will develop!

But back to our date night. We ended our evening with dessert in the bookstore. You can’t pass up Starbucks when it’s right there in the building with you. Aiden calls our excursions to the coffee shop, “getting a coffee shot.” They always get non-coffee Creme Frappuccino’s. I got my Chai Tea. Even though I don’t actually get the kids coffee, I often wonder if I am raising them to be future coffee junkies. If the highlight of their life is getting a “coffee shot,” AKA, foo-foo drinks at the local expresso bar, I do wonder if they will be addicts by the time they are 16!

As it turns out, that is exactly the goal of the ID movement. They are trying to change the definition of science. Johnson wants to replace the standard methodology of discovering truth through tests and observations, with what he calls, Theistic Realism, where the seeking of knowledge is based first on the acknowledgement that God created the universe.

If you’re not convince that ID is religion in disguise, take a look at the strategies that Johnson laid out for the promotion of ID.

* “We are taking an intuition most people have (the belief in God) and making it a scientific and academic enterprise. We are removing the most important cultural roadblock to accepting the role of God as creator.” Johnson, Enlisting Science to Find the Fingerprints of a Creator. The Los Angeles Times. March, 2001.

* “Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools.”

* “This isn’t really, and never has been a debate about science. It’s about religion and philosophy.

* “The objective [of the Wedge Strategy] is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to ‘the truth’ of the Bible and then ‘the question of sin’ and finally ‘introduced to Jesus.’”

* “So the question is: “How to win?” That’s when I began to develop what you now see full-fledged in the “wedge” strategy: “Stick with the most important thing” —the mechanism and the building up of information. Get the Bible and the Book of Genesis out of the debate because you do not want to raise the so-called Bible-science dichotomy. Phrase the argument in such a way that you can get it heard in the secular academy and in a way that tends to unify the religious dissenters. That means concentrating on, “Do you need a Creator to do the creating, or can nature do it on its own?” and refusing to get sidetracked onto other issues, which people are always trying to do.”

For links to the actual sources of the quotes by Johnson, go to Wikipedia, where I copied them from. Their links will take you straight to the sources, where you will see firsthand on these Christian websites how these people really think. It’s scary!!!

There is a serious battle going on. I think they are already winning in terms of convincing people that it’s about “academic freedom” and that people need to see “both sides” so they can “decide for themselves.” They may not be winning in the courts to get their doctrine into the science books, but they’re convincing the minds of the majority that this is a logical debate in the first place.

They have a unified front. They have a clear mission. They have the passion, the drive, and apparently the money.

This is what we’re up against.

Pat Robertson is not representative of all Christians. I don’t want you to mistake me for lumping millions of good religous people into the same box as fanatics like Pat. But he does have a huge following who supports his judgemental rantings. If it weren’t for them, he wouldn’t be able to continue this nonsense.

Yesterday I heard one of these nuts call into a radio station, with this comment about Sharon’s stroke, “He’s killed a lot of people. It’s a long time coming.”

It seems Pat has become their modern prophet, speaking for their god, except that his prophecies often come after the fact. This group of fanatical religionists is growing larger and more powerful. They have become bold in their political interference, effectively changing the definition of science for some school boards, convincing pharmacists that they don’t have to fill doctors’ prescriptions if they are religiously opposed to them, and intruding on a married man’s right to make decisions concering his wife who, for years, has been in a vegetative state.

I really don’t care if people want to have outrageous beliefs. But when they are powerful enough to effect the social policy of our country in way that is damaging, we need to reverse the trend. I’m at a loss for how.

Since that initial writing, he has had a paradigm shift (thanks, I think, to the book, “End of Faith”) and absolved me of my responsibility to respond any further. I intend on writing about the morality issue, anyway. It is a legitimate fear that many people harbor, both religious and non-religious. I’ve also had a similar verbal debate with my dear, soon-to-be-lawyer brother-in-law. He doesn’t think it makes sense to be moral if there is no god. So I need to formulate these thoughts in writing!

Now, to the topic of tonight’s post. I’ve been wanting to start collecting the outrageous comments people make in letters and phone calls to my newspaper editors about evolution. DarkSyde from DailyKos beat me to it with a collection from chat rooms, IM’s, etc.

Go there to get a little entertainment, but also to remind yourself of the sad, sorry state of our country and its failed science education.

Didn’t I tell ya? By the comments he copied and pasted, it is clear that these people don’t understand science or the theory of evolution. One person thinks that what you eat changes your DNA (Oh my gosh!).

And I will have to eat my words, just a little. I have been blaming science for not educating in a way that will grasp the attention of us non-science-oriented types. I still blame them partially, but after reading those comments, I also realize there’s more to it. How can you educate someone on a subject to which they won’t listen?

One of my favorite holiday traditions is our Pre-Christmas evening with our best friends, Tami and Larry Keim. (Yes, you know Larry. And if you read my comments, you’ve heard from Tami, also). On this night, we get the kids down to bed right as Tami and Larry arrive at our home. We break open champaigne or Egg Nog, have some dessert, and exchange PRESENTS!

Tami is one of those more-thoughtful-than-average present-givers. I know this because, not only do I receive gifts from her, I have also gone gift-shopping with her. She will go from store to store to find just the right item, in just the right style. My awesome husband, Israel, is one of other best gift-givers I’ve known. He crawls to the end of the world for the most supreme presents for my birthdays, Christmas, and all those other days that bind us with the social requirement of gift-shopping.

But I digress . . . big-time. On this Christmas-For-The-Adults evening, we also exchange stories. We’re a story-sharing group, and are known for spending 5 hours at a restaurant (yes, we tip our servers well). Somehow, this evening, like most evenings, we got to the subject of evolution, and how it is so foreign to some people, that they can’t imagine any of their acquaintances actually accept it!

I told them of my dear sister-in-law, who says she has the WEIRDEST brother-in-law. When I asked her what made him so weird, she told me he actually believes in evolution! He read a book, and “automatically believes everything, just because it’s in a book.”

Then there is one of my husband’s aunts, who told me how she’s having to endure this awful geology class, wasting her time learning things that are just not true; for example, that some rocks are billions of years old. In her mind, if they say it is more than 6 or 7,ooo years old, they are wrong.

I love these two ladies. But I can’t believe people I am close with still think this way. Larry had his own contribution to the evolution-rejecting phenonemon. He told us about an article he read in a blog, where the writer describes a similar experience, and then shares a fascinating story of evolution and “Mother Acanthostega” (as opposed to Mother Eve). This is my first time hearing a description of the ancestor that links humans (and all mammals) to our ancestors of the sea.

Right after Christmas, Larry sent me a link to the blog with this article, so I got to read it for myself. What I love about the writer, darksyde, and his way of teaching, is his story-telling style. It’s almost like reading Dean Koontz, except that the names are harder to follow. So it takes a little more concentration. I have criticized science educators for failing to teach. They don’t know how to reach the masses: the majority of us who are not science-oriented. They need to learn from scientists like Carl Sagan, or like this blogger, darksyde.

So I encourage you to go check out this blog. It is my late holiday gift to you, which I am re-gifting from Larry.

He even said members of the school board lied to hide their religious motives.

This will hopefully set a precedent for others who are trying similar schemes of religious infiltration with anti-science agendas. Kansas is among those on the side of ineptitude. This doesn’t surprise me. I finished my last two and a half years of high school in a Kansas public school, and remember well my surprise, when a few different teachers proclaimed their belief in Jesus during class time.

The Discovery Institute, the monster driving the ID machinery, reacted with the expected spin. Their comments are entertaining, so check it out.

I have found that evolution doesn’t “make sense” to a high percentage of Americans. I will give two reasons for this: biblical beliefs of creationism have put blinders on many Americans, so that their minds are not open to understanding evolution; and our educators have failed. When people give reasons for evolution not making sense, it is often apparent, by what they say, that they don’t understand how it works.

When I was religious, I would not admit that much of creationism, and the Adam and Eve story, was confusing. Once I really learned about evolution, the puzzle pieces found their place.

If you don’t understand evolution, if it does not make sense to you, get educated! America cannot afford to continue falling behind on matters of science and education.