tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-57384759113765758582021-09-22T19:21:03.355-07:00reasonable answersUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger40125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5738475911376575858.post-27034263433895905022011-05-18T10:46:00.000-07:002011-05-18T10:51:07.373-07:00Common Ground on Stem Cell ResearchThe following is a position statement that summarizes some of the recent breakthroughs involving stem cell research and offers a "common ground" position that may provide a viable solution to the moral and ethical morass surrounding stem cell research, regardless of one's individual view of the moral worth of embryos. The case being made is that recent breakthroughs involving induced pluripotent stem cells and the extraction of viable stem cells from arrested development embryos make it possible to achieve the incredible potential of stem cells for treatments and knowledge while at the same time preserving the value and dignity of human life, even in its earliest stage of development.<br /><br />Click on the Full Screen button if the embedded text is too small to read easily.<br /><a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/55740991/Common-Ground-on-Stem-Cell-Research" style="-x-system-font: none; display: block; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 14px Helvetica, Arial, Sans-serif; margin: 12px auto 6px; text-decoration: underline;" title="View Common Ground on Stem Cell Research on Scribd">Common Ground on Stem Cell Research</a><iframe class="scribd_iframe_embed" data-aspect-ratio="0.772727272727273" data-auto-height="true" frameborder="0" height="600" id="doc_1269" scrolling="no" src="http://www.scribd.com/embeds/55740991/content?start_page=1&view_mode=slideshow&access_key=key-5z5cx6oy5ctp51jqxwk" width="100%"></iframe><script type="text/javascript">(function() { var scribd = document.createElement("script"); scribd.type = "text/javascript"; scribd.async = true; scribd.src = "http://www.scribd.com/javascripts/embed_code/inject.js"; var s = document.getElementsByTagName("script")[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(scribd, s); })(); </script>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5738475911376575858.post-60562691655520117242010-05-25T21:27:00.001-07:002011-10-25T11:03:33.829-07:00Introducing MereCreation.net (now MereCreation.org)!<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: #3d85c6;">Update: I have switched to a new host and a new domain for Mere Creation. The website is also undergoing a complete makeover and redesign. However, the </span><a href="http://discuss.merecreation.org/"><span style="color: #3d85c6;">discussion forum</span></a><span style="color: #3d85c6;"> is very much alive and well, and some excellent and insightful discussion is taking place there on issues at the intersection of science and theology. The new domain for Mere Creation is </span><a href="http://merecreation.org/"><span style="color: #3d85c6;">http://MereCreation.</span><span style="color: #660000;">org</span></a><span style="color: #3d85c6;">.</span></span><br /><br /><a href="http://merecreation.net/" target="_blank"><img align="right" alt="MereCreation.net Homepage" border="0" height="300" src="http://lh3.ggpht.com/_gizIEue5rKU/S_yjJMAOvkI/AAAAAAAAB1Q/y58dKq9ELkU/MereCreation.net%20Homepage%5B5%5D.jpg?imgmax=800" style="border-bottom: 0px; border-left: 0px; border-right: 0px; border-top: 0px; display: inline; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px;" title="MereCreation.net Homepage" width="404" /></a> It’s been a long time in the oven, but I am pleased to announce that MereCreation.net is now live and online! It’s certainly not easy putting together a project like this with two young ‘uns at home, being able to work only in little chunks of time, and having to learn how to use a CMS and forum software as I go, but I have to say that I’ve enjoyed the process.<br />The web address is <a href="http://merecreation.net/"><strike>http://merecreation.net</strike></a> <a href="http://merecreation.org/">http://MereCreation.<span style="color: #990000;">org</span></a>, and my hope is that the site can serve three primary purposes: <br /><blockquote>1. To provide fair, informative, and honest descriptions of the primary Christian perspectives on Creation that are not polarizing or preferential. The strengths and weaknesses of each position will be critically analyzed, and responses to common core issues by proponents of differing positions will be compared and contrasted. It is not the intent of this site to convince people of any one ‘perspective’ of Creation over another. Our goal is to inform in as fair and impartial a manner as possible of the rich range of Christian thought on Creation. By thus being made aware of the diversity of viewpoints, it is our hope that you will be able to come to a more informed conclusion for yourself.<br />2. To build up a community of like-minded people who share, not the same perspective on Creation, but a central purpose to bring glory to the Creator and convey the wonder of Creation. Our goal is to find common ground that can be mutually affirmed and celebrated by those who may personally hold to a diversity of Creation views, taking inspiration from the task that C.S. Lewis undertook in his presentation of ‘mere’ Christianity.<br />3. To present a cogent, compelling, and convincing apologetic case for the Creator and Creation.</blockquote>The inspiration for Mere Creation is of course C.S. Lewis' <em>Mere Christianity</em>, particularly this section from his preface:<br /><blockquote><em>“It is at her centre, where her truest children dwell, that each communion is really closest to every other in spirit, if not in doctrine. And this suggests that at the centre of each there is something, or a Someone, who against all divergences of belief, all differences of temperament, all memories of mutual persecution, speaks with the same voice.”</em></blockquote>The starting basis for Mere Creation is our shared belief in the Creator. It is that central Someone that we seek to magnify, regardless of our preferred personal perspective on Creation.<br />The question of origins is a primary issue at the heart of the intersection of science and theology. For many who are asking the deep questions about the meaning to life, the issue of creation can be the first step forward in their consideration of God, or it can be the greatest stumbling block, depending on how it is presented. What we seek to offer at MereCreation.net is a place where all the divergent views on this key doctrine can be given a fair and honest hearing, so that those who visit may gain a better understanding and appreciation of the contending views and be able to make a more informed decision for themselves. We believe that debate and discussion on our differences can be beneficial, but not at the expense of our witness as one Body in Christ, because we understand that that which we hold in common is far greater than our differences.<br /><a href="http://discuss.merecreation.net/" target="_blank"><img align="left" alt="MereCreation Forum" border="0" height="294" src="http://lh4.ggpht.com/_gizIEue5rKU/S_yjJ1a4ebI/AAAAAAAAB1U/S4KizQYcUYE/MereCreation%20Forum%5B5%5D.jpg?imgmax=800" style="border-bottom: 0px; border-left: 0px; border-right: 0px; border-top: 0px; display: inline; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px;" title="MereCreation Forum" width="404" /></a> Many of the pages are currently incomplete, purposefully incomplete you can say, because the hope is that this site will not be the voice and view of just one person, but a reflection of the community as a whole. If you are interested in being part of building this community, I hope you will check out <strike>MereCreation.net </strike><a href="http://merecreation.org/">MereCreation.<span style="color: #990000;">org</span></a> and in addition <a href="http://discuss.merecreation.org/ucp.php?mode=register" target="_blank">register</a> to participate in the online <a href="http://discuss.merecreation.org/" target="_blank">discussion forums</a> where much of the work of achieving this purpose will occur.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5738475911376575858.post-54779856845621425762010-01-17T00:11:00.001-08:002010-02-06T13:10:50.769-08:00Addressing “A Grievous Intellectual Sin”<p>Again I have run into the character limit that Blogger has in place for comments while responding to someone’s comments. Here is an exchange that I have been having with someone who commented on the <a href="http://reasonableanswers.blogspot.com/2009/12/intelligent-dishonesty-by-design-by.html" target="_blank">excerpts</a> I posted from Mike Murray’s essay, “<a href="http://emmeffemm.com/id30.html" target="_blank">Intelligent Dishonesty (by design)</a>.” This exchange may provide you with a deeper insight into what Murray was saying in his essay. Some of the earlier comments may also be from the same person, but since he or she has chosen to remain anonymous I cannot tell, so I have only included the last two comments which hold a common thread.</p> <a name='more'></a> <h4><a href="http://reasonableanswers.blogspot.com/2009/12/intelligent-dishonesty-by-design-by.html#comment-4683277757319483856" target="_blank">Anonymous said…</a></h4> <blockquote>The author seems very confused about how science works. It is not like theological scholarship. No scientist (not even the "Greats") is treated like some infallible prophet whose every view is correct purely by virtue of their authority. Their writings are not treated as scripture, to be believed in toto. Each idea is accepted or rejected individually, on the basis of its utility in providing a coherent framework for the interpretation of observations and its success in prediction. For example, science rejects alchemical theory, even though Newton was a great believer of it who wrote extensively on the topic (and many other rather kooky things, for that matter). Also, Einstein's attempted refutation of nonlocal interpretations of quantum mechanics (the EPR "paradox") has itself been refuted by the theoretical work of Bell and experimental results of Aspect. The views of the "Greats" on creator-spirits will similarly be accepted or rejected as part of science on the basis of their concordance with observation, not on the authority of their advocates. </blockquote> <h4>My response:</h4> <p>You seem to be implying by your contrast that theological scholarship entails theologians being treated like infallible prophets or their writings being treated as scripture. Could you explain why you think that is the case? Or perhaps I have misunderstood your comparison. </p> <p>I'm also not sure why you think the author is confused about how science works. He never says that science <i>is</i> like theological scholarship. Rather, he is asking the reader to imagine what it would be like <i>if</i> scientists were required to uphold the same standard that some seem to expect that theologians must adhere to, the point being that if it is absurd to expect scientists to be infallible, it is equally wrong for people to expect the same of theologians. </p> <p><a href="http://reasonableanswers.blogspot.com/2009/12/intelligent-dishonesty-by-design-by.html#comment-2582524094161053226" target="_blank">Anonymous said…</a></p> <blockquote> <p>You misunderstood. I did not mean to liken theologians to prophets. I took issue with the "sins of omission" part of the article and meant to point out that you can't apply the practices of theological scholarship to scientific questions. </p> <p>The scriptures - Biblical writings of / about prophets, apostles, etc - are treated by theologians as divinely inspired, i.e. as having an enormous level of authority, in some cases as the literal word of God. So the message is treated as important in large part because of the esteem in which the messenger is held, e.g. anything that Jesus is recorded as having said or done is regarded as significant purely because it was Jesus doing/saying it. Therefore in theological scholarship it is indeed a "grievous intellectual sin" to selectively quote from such sources. This is because theology recognizes no independent criterion for judging truth - for example it is not possible to say "Jesus was right about this, but wrong about that". One must take an approach akin to historical biography in which the whole person must be represented in a balanced way. </p> <p>The author seems to have a misguided belief that the same approach should be applied to science. But this theological approach to scholarship is not relevant to science, because science is not a personality cult. (Relative) "truth" is judged not on the authority of the messenger but on the usefulness of the message. It doesn't matter who said it, but whether it makes sense. It is not a "sin of omission" to ignore the parts of a scientist's world view which do not stand up to scientific scrutiny or for which there is no evidence (e.g. the examples in my last post). In particular, the author is simply wrong to suggest that belief in a creator was somehow a part of the "evolution of physics theory". It may have been part of the belief system of some of the key players, but does not appear in any way as part of the theory that was developed - for example, Einstein's comments on religion are not part of his scientific writing, and none of his scientific work depends on this belief or involves it in any way. The theories of physics are logically independent of the existence or otherwise of a creator. I challenge you to find one university-level physics textbook that invokes a creator as part of the logical structure of physics. </p> </blockquote> <h4>My response:</h4> It seems that you may be conflating two separate points that the author is making. This is the section from Murray's essay that you are taking issue with: <br /> <blockquote><b>But those making the argument for "matter evolving to consciousness" -- without any help at all from any kind of Creator -- commit a grievous intellectual sin: the sin of omission. For, while they faithfully report some facts relating to the evolution of physics theory, they studiously edit out that which fails to serve their postulates (or, worse, that has the potential of undermining them altogether).</b></blockquote> But in calling out this "grievous intellectual sin," the author is not applying some standard specific to theological scholarship. Rather, he is pointing out a general fallacy that applies in all areas of scholarship: the fallacy of using someone's statements to support a position contrary to that which they actually hold. The point the author is making is that it is fallacious to cite Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, and Newton as part of the argument "against a Supreme Being's hand in the creation of the universe" while omitting the fact that, in Murray's words, <b>"they were all seeking to reveal the hand of God, not to disprove it. They were all believers in a Supreme Being, one who they (devoutly) reckoned created the universe."</b> This is the "intellectual dishonesty" that Murray describes in his concluding paragraph. <br /> <blockquote><i>The author seems to have a misguided belief that the same approach should be applied to science.</i> </blockquote> I believe you are misreading Murray here. Nowhere does he imply that the standards used in theological scholarship should be applied to science. What he actually says is, <b>"Too many scientists hold theologians to standards to which they, themselves, do not adhere."</b> His point is that many scientists seem to have a double standard: theological claims must be proven wholly correct in every regard, else they can be dismissed entirely, whereas scientific claims can be subject to correction and revision without prejudice. Murray asks what I consider to be a very valid question to make this point: <br /> <blockquote><b>"If members of society now said to scientists (as many of them are saying to theologians): "Sorry, if you're wrong even a little, you're wrong completely ...and you have nothing to say to us," would they deem it reasonable?"</b></blockquote> Of course this would be unreasonable, and Murray's point is that it is therefore invalid for these scientists to hold theologians to this absurd standard. So Murray is not applying the standards of theological scholarship to science; if anything he is saying that the standards for scientific scholarship should be extended to theology. <br /> <blockquote><i>In particular, the author is simply wrong to suggest that belief in a creator was somehow a part of the "evolution of physics theory". It may have been part of the belief system of some of the key players, but does not appear in any way as part of the theory that was developed - for example, Einstein's comments on religion are not part of his scientific writing, and none of his scientific work depends on this belief or involves it in any way.</i></blockquote> While I would agree with you that Einstein was not an appropriate example for the author to use, I believe that you are mistaken in claiming that the scientific work of Kepler, Newton, Galileo, Bacon, and many of the other "fathers" of the scientific revolution did not involve their theological beliefs. This <a href="http://reasonableanswers.blogspot.com/2008/12/reclaiming-christian-roots-of-modern_21.html">post</a> addresses in a simplified manner how the faith of these scientists was integrally tied with the theories and physical laws that they discovered. There are links at the bottom to references that provide more information. <br /> <blockquote><i>The theories of physics are logically independent of the existence or otherwise of a creator. I challenge you to find one university-level physics textbook that invokes a creator as part of the logical structure of physics.</i></blockquote> <p>This depends on what you mean by "logically independent" and "part of the logical structure of physics." If you are only saying that a person does not need to acknowledge the existence of God to apply Newton's law of universal gravitation or Kepler's laws of orbital mechanics, then I acknowledge your point. But if you are claiming that on a deeper level the theories of physics themselves can exist apart from a creator, then I would strongly disagree. For the theories of physics do not explain their own existence. Newton's law of gravitation does not provide an explanation for <i>why</i> masses behave in this manner. Science can observe and define mechanisms, but it cannot provide ultimate causation. These founding fathers of science openly acknowledged God's essential role in the foundational workings of the universe. </p> <p>Some statements to that effect: </p> <p>“The chief aim of all investigations of the external world should be to discover the rational order and harmony which has been imposed on it by God and which He revealed to us in the language of mathematics.” (Johannes Kepler, <i>Defundamentis Astrologiae Certioribus, Thesis XX</i>, 1601) </p> <p>“This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.... This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God…. In him are all things contained and moved.” Isaac Newton, <i>Principia</i> </p> <p>C.S. Lewis commented in his book, <i>Miracles</i>: “Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator.” </p> <p>Writes Morris Kline in <i>Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty</i>: “The search for the mathematical laws of nature was an act of devotion which would reveal the glory and grandeur of His handiwork.... Each discovery of a law of nature was hailed as evidence of God's brilliance rather than the investigator's.” </p> <p>To these scientists of the Revolution, these laws would not exist nor would they be ascertainable were it not for God having created the universe to be this way. </p> <p>Since physics textbooks are concerned about the mechanics and applications of these laws rather than the fundamental cause for their existence, this is why you will not find a creator being invoked in these textbooks. But that does not mean that God's handiwork is not entwined within the fabric of physics itself.</p> Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5738475911376575858.post-41069332265465516192010-01-14T15:40:00.000-08:002010-01-23T15:12:34.505-08:00Francisco Ayala's Problem with Evil and Design<a href="http://draft.blogger.com/"></a><span id="goog_1263581955928"></span><span id="goog_1263581955929"></span>Francisco Ayala, who recently <a href="http://www.indiana.edu/%7Eiuccc/debate_video.html" target="_blank">debated</a> William Lane Craig on the viability of ID, has written a <a href="http://www.biologos.org/blog/on-reading-the-cells-signature" target="_blank">review</a> of Stephen Meyer’s prominent book, <a href="http://www.signatureinthecell.com/" target="_blank"><i>Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design</i></a>. The publication of this book has led to a flurry of exchanges among proponents of evolution and ID, but that will have to be the topic for some other time. In this post I mainly want to focus on two key points that Ayala makes in his review, which he also used in his debate with Craig. An earlier post offers some of the <a href="http://reasonableanswers.blogspot.com/2009/11/is-id-viable-illuminating-debate.html" target="_blank">responses</a> from Craig, Bradley Monton (the moderator), and others following the debate, which may provide some background and context for my following comments.<br /><a name='more'></a><br />In both the debate and his review, Ayala brings up the argument of flawed design. From his review:<br /><blockquote>But humans are chock-full of design defects. We have a jaw that is not sufficiently large to accommodate all of our teeth, so that wisdom teeth have to be removed and other teeth straightened by an orthodontist. Our backbone is less than well designed for our bipedal gait, resulting in back pain and other problems in late life. The birth canal is too narrow for the head of the newborn to pass easily through it, so that millions of innocent babies—and their mothers—have died in childbirth throughout human history.<br /><br />I could go on about human features that betray a design that certainly is not intelligent….<br /></blockquote>Ayala cites these examples to argue that God could not have had a hand in designing these features. Though I haven’t looked into the particular examples that Ayala raises here, I wouldn’t be surprised if they can be addressed in a manner similar to how I examined the more common examples of the “flawed” <a href="http://reasonableanswers.blogspot.com/2009/02/eye-for-design.html" target="_blank">vertebrate eye</a> and the <a href="http://reasonableanswers.blogspot.com/2009/09/design-flaws-in-human-breathing-system.html" target="_blank">human breathing system</a> (and the <a href="http://reasonableanswers.blogspot.com/2010/01/revisiting-design-flaws-in-human.html" target="_blank">follow-up</a>).<br /><br />What’s interesting to me is that, whereas atheists cite “design flaws” to argue that a Creator God does not exist (or is not very intelligent), Ayala argues that attributing biological design to God actually goes against the Christian belief in an omnipotent and benevolent God. He concludes his review with the following:<br /><blockquote>More that [sic] twenty percent of all human pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion during the first two months of pregnancy. That is because the human genome, the human reproductive system, is so poorly designed. Do I want to attribute this egregiously defective design to God, to the omnipotent and benevolent God of the Christian faith? No, I don’t. It would not do to say that God designed intelligently the human genome and that it then decayed owing to natural processes. If God would have designed the human genome, surely He would have done it so that this enormous misfortune would not happen. Think of it: twenty percent of all human pregnancies amount to twenty million abortions every year. I shudder at the thought of this calamity being attributed to God’s specific design of the human genome. To me, this attribution would amount to blasphemy.<br /><br />Before the scientific revolution of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and the like were attributed to direct action by God, so that the tsunami that five years ago killed two hundred fifty thousand Sumatrans might have been interpreted as God’s punishment. Now we know that these catastrophes are the result of natural processes. Similarly, people of faith would do better to attribute the mishaps caused by defective genomes to the vagaries of natural selection and other processes of biological evolution, rather than to God’s design.<br /></blockquote>This is similar to the theological problem of evil argument that Ayala spent much of his time elaborating on in the debate with Craig. In the debate, Ayala also made a big deal of his claim that if God designed the "flawed" human reproductive system, then God would be responsible for over 20 million spontaneous abortions a year.<br /><br />First, I consider it highly specious for Ayala to consider these spontaneous abortions as an egregious wrong when he himself <a href="http://www.ctns.org/news_092308.html">seems in favor</a> of embryonic stem cell research that could potentially involve the <i>deliberate </i>destruction of hundreds of thousands of living human embryos.<br /><br />Second, I am not convinced that Ayala's theistic evolution position fares any better in resolving the theological problem of evil. It is helpful here to understand how Ayala views God's role in creation.<br /><br />During the Q&A session of the debate with Craig, Ayala was asked a very interesting question: "How can you say that God is not the designer of organisms, while still saying that you believe in God? What is God's role?"<br /><br />In his response Ayala used the analogy of genetic programs and drew a distinction between being the designer of the digital organisms versus being the designer of the program. He claimed that God can be the designer of the universe <i>without</i> being the designer of each individual organism. From this Ayala argued since God did not actually create the organism, this freed God from being responsible for the flaws in the resulting organism.<br /><br />But as Craig pointed out in his rebuttal, this does <i>not </i>avoid the problem of evil, because even if God only designed the "program" (ie the rules governing evolution by natural selection), God would still be complicit in the results of said program. So God could still be found responsible for the examples of suffering that Ayala believed were problematic for ID. Simply ascribing these "mishaps" to the "vagaries of natural selection and other processes of biological evolution" does not absolve God if He caused these processes of biological evolution. Who do we blame when Windows crashes? We don't blame the software, we blame the Microsoft programmers who designed the software. <br /><br />In addition, the "flawed design" argument could just as easily be applied to Ayala's position, for if the examples of design flaws that Ayala described were truly flaws, then they came about as the result of the "program" that God wrote, which would mean that God wrote a flawed program. Ayala's claim that, "If God would have designed the human genome, surely He would have done it so that this enormous misfortune would not happen" could be validly rephrased as: "If God designed the mechanism for evolution, surely He would have done it so that this enormous misfortune would not happen." So if Ayala believes that God had any hand in the creation of the universe, then the theological problem of evil applies just as forcefully to his position.<br /><br /><br />Time and space do not permit even the beginnings of a positive response to the theological problem of evil. The purpose of this post is simply to show that Ayala's position does not avoid the same theological issues he raises against ID, and I remain unconvinced by his argument that theistic evolution is a more theologically sound alternative.<br /><br /><b>For further reading:</b><br />Tom Gilson also addresses Ayala's problem of evil argument in his <a href="http://www.thinkingchristian.net/2008/05/darwins-gift-to-science-and-religion-part-2/" target="_blank">review</a> at Thinking Christian of Ayala’s book, <i>Darwin's Gift to Science and Religion</i>.<br /><br />Another <a href="http://thedesignspectrum.wordpress.com/2010/01/11/my-comments-on-francisco-ayalas-review-of-signature-in-the-cell/">commentary</a> on Ayala's review which also questions whether theistic evolution answers the problem of evil can be found at <a href="http://thedesignspectrum.wordpress.com/">The Design Spectrum</a>.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5738475911376575858.post-84991641934824230972010-01-10T19:19:00.000-08:002021-09-22T19:21:03.293-07:00Design Flaws Versus Intelligent Design<h5>Essay by Jeff Lindsay, Design Flaws versus Intelligent Design: The Perspective of an Engineer and Inventor</h5> <p><a title="http://www.jefflindsay.com/DesignFlaws.shtml" href="http://www.jefflindsay.com/DesignFlaws.shtml">http://www.jefflindsay.com/DesignFlaws.shtml</a></p> <blockquote> <p>In my current work, I often work on inventions that become patents. Those who invent know that many of the most clever inventions are non-intuitive. Inventions often come when the inventor encounters a problem with the "obvious" way of doing things, and then finds an alternative that violates old assumptions. Those who are ignorant may look at the invention and dismiss it as fundamentally flawed for its failure to conform to simple paradigms of the past - but what at first looks like a design flaw may hold a brilliant breakthrough.</p> </blockquote> <blockquote> <p>This argument is based on the assumption that the human eye does not see well compared to an octopus. Is there any evidence that our sight is suboptimal relative to the octopus? The argument is based on a simple-minded assumption and ignorance of what the retina actually does. Do we really understand the complexities of the retina enough to address this issue?</p> </blockquote> <p> </p> <p>Lindsay cites research on the retina by Helga Kolb, “How the Retina Works”</p> <p><a title="http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/num2/2003/1/how-the-retina-works/1" href="http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/num2/2003/1/how-the-retina-works/1">http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/num2/2003/1/how-the-retina-works/1</a></p> <blockquote> <p>The above broad sketch of retinal circuitry suggests that the retina is remarkably complex. As vision research advances, the retina seems to take on an increasingly active role in perception. Although we do not fully understand the neural code that the ganglion-cell axons send as trains of spikes into the brain, we are coming close to understanding how ensembles of ganglion cells respond differently to aspects of the visual scene and how fields of influence on particular ganglion cells are constructed. Much of the construction of the visual images does seem to take place in the retina itself, although the final perception of sight is indisputably done in the brain….</p> <p>The most recent surprise has been that a previously unknown ganglion cell type appears to function as a giant photoreceptor itself, without needing input from rods or cones. This ganglion's cell membrane contains light-reactive molecules known as melanopsins. Given such unexpected findings, it appears that there may still be much more to learn about how the retina works.</p> </blockquote> <p>Lindsay writes that this discovery “points to at least one obvious function that could not be achieved with nerves behind the photoreceptors.”</p> <p>He then lays down this challenge to those who think the vertebrate eye is flawed in design:</p> <ul> <li>How do you know that you would see better if your eye was rewired according to the design you think is more logical? </li> <li>Can you provide the image processing functions of the neural circuitry in front of the photoreceptors by moving the nerves to some other place? </li> <li>Can you provide the benefits of photoreceptive ganglion cells by moving them elsewhere? </li> <li>What problems are associated with rerouting the nerves? </li> </ul> <p> </p> <p>Lindsay also cites a discussion by Arthur Chadwick comparing the design benefits of the human eye versus the cephalopod (eg. squid and octopus) eye:</p> <p><a title="http://origins.swau.edu/q_and_a/evol/questions/q6.html" href="http://origins.swau.edu/q_and_a/evol/questions/q6.html">http://origins.swau.edu/q_and_a/evol/questions/q6.html</a></p> <blockquote> <p>Which design is best? This is not an easy question to answer. In the vertebrate eye, the photoreceptor cells lie in contact with the opaque pigment epithelium. This tissue prevents the transmission of light past the eye, and also is involved in the critical process of recycling exposed photopigments, a critical process for eyes of animals that are very active, since it allows for tight packing of photoreceptor cells and rapid recycling of used photopigments. The invertebrate eye, that lacks this feature, may have to sacrifice the ability to keep up a sustained high level of visual acuity for the possible gain in visual acuity, but this is only speculation. In any case it is far premature to conclude that one design or the other is inferior without having physiological bases for such statements.</p> <p>As research on the functionality of the eye continues, we learn more of its fantastic ability to receive and process signals. The more we learn, the more we are convinced that no plausible mechanism in evolution can produce such a structure with the properties it possesses. This trend, and past experience assure us that when we have a fuller knowledge of the functional properties of the vertebrate eye, we will understand why the retina is designed the way it is. Recent developments along this line include an article in Nature by M.J. Berry II, I.H.Brivanlou , T.A. Jordan and M. Meister, entitled "Anticipation of moving stimuli by the retina," (398:334-338). In this article the authors explore one of the most phenomenal feats of optical response ever discovered: the ability to precisely anticipate the position of a moving object at the level of the retina. Gegenfurtner, in an article in the same issue ("Neurobiology: The eyes have it!" 398), summarizing the paper by Berry, et.al, states: </p> <dir>"But the visual system can circumvent such delays [between detection and response to a moving object] by anticipating the path of moving stimuli. Such motion anticipation was assumed to be controlled by high-level motion areas of the visual cortex. Now, very much to our surprise, Berry et al. (page 334 of this issue) report that motion anticipation is already accomplished to a large extent in the retina, by neural circuits that were discovered long ago." <p>"In a stunning surprise, Berry et al. now show that motion anticipation not only starts at the retina, the first stage of processing in the visual system, but that it also follows from current models of retinal processing. The basic ingredients are all well studied and common to many stages of processing in the visual system. So how do these ingredients work to produce motion anticipation? The most important part of the process is actually the simplest -namely that retinal ganglion cells pool their inputs over large regions of the visual scene (their receptive fields)." (p291).</p> </dir>Barry, et.al. in the article demonstrate how the eye performs calculus in order to solve the problems of the future location of a moving object, for example, a baseball batter responding to a fastball: <dir>"In this scenario, the retina integrates the light stimulus over space and time, with a weighting function k(x,t) given by the ganglion cell's receptive field, and the resulting signal determines the neuron's firing rate."</dir> <p>This amazing new understanding of how the "backward" retina can perform calculations of a very high order is no deterrent to evolutionists, who quickly integrate evolution into our understanding of the process. To explain the existence of this phenomenal ability in the retina, Gegenfurtner suggests:</p> <dir>"If, for example, we assume a processing delay of about 100 ms [the time necessary for processing an impulse in the visual cortex of the brain], an animal (or a car nowadays) moving at a speed of 40 km per hour would be seen more than one metre behind its actual position. To overcome this potentially lethal problem, <b>evolution has selected</b>(emphasis added) mechanisms that anticipate the path of motion." (Gegenfurtner, p291). </dir> <p>That statement illustrates the expectations of evolution and flies in the face of the assertions of Gould and Dawkins that evolution is a science of mistakes and wrong pathways. In fact, evolution appears to be defined in a circular manner, as the science of what is. When a marvelous organ such as the eye that is infathomably complex is encountered, evolutionists apparently feel the need to find some flaw in it that can be used to distract attention from the problem the existence of such complexity presents for evolution.</p> <p>The eye remains one of the most intractible arguments for a Designer in nature, and suggestions to the contrary are without scientific merit. Those who protest thst the eye is poorly designed are being challenged to design a better one, or to show how it might be improved. Until they convincingly do so, this argument cannot be taken seriously.</p></blockquote> Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5738475911376575858.post-72575207903284567802010-01-07T22:11:00.001-08:002010-01-23T21:12:00.894-08:00Revisiting “Design Flaws” in the Human Breathing System<p>A reader named Andrew has offered a couple of interesting comments on the post <a href="http://reasonableanswers.blogspot.com/2009/09/design-flaws-in-human-breathing-system.html">“Design Flaws” in the Human Breathing System</a>. I think some worthwhile points have been made in our exchange, so I am copying his comments and my responses to this new entry. This will also allow me to include some of the images and animations cited; plus my second response hit the 4096 character limit for Blogger comments, so it wouldn’t fit in the comment box. </p> <a name='more'></a> <h4>His initial comment:</h4> <blockquote> <p>This article completely misses the point. The problem is not that both tubes have two openings (mouth and nose), but that the esophagus lies above the trachea in the throat, allowing food & liquid to fall into the trachea where they cross. An intelligent design would have the esophagus below the trachea (i.e. at the front of the neck) so gravity would help keep us from choking. You can trace our "wrong" arrangement all the way back to the amphibians and fish from which we evolved. Evolution cannot fix this as it is topologically constrained. But a putative intelligent designer could.</p> </blockquote> <h4>My response:</h4> <p>Thank you for your comment.</p> <p>Since this article is a response to the claim that the shared opening to the esophagus and trachea is a flawed design and that a "better" design would have independent tubes for breathing and eating, it seems that if anyone has missed the point it is Professor Burdo and the authors of the "If Humans were Built to Last" article.</p> <p>Second, it is very easy to say that putting the esophagus below the trachea would solve the choking problem, but can you actually demonstrate that this is more than just fanciful speculation? It seems that many of these "design flaw" arguments depend on such hand-waving and speculation as "proof" that a particular design is flawed and that a real intelligent designer would do it <i>this</i> way. See <a href="http://reasonableanswers.blogspot.com/2009/02/eye-for-design.html">this post</a> on the design of the eye for another common example of this flawed argument.</p> <p>Third, if you look at diagrams (see below) of the trachea and esophagus, one is not really "above" or "below" the other. When a person is vertical, both tubes are pretty much parallel, and when a person swallows, the more direct route is down the esophagus, while the trachea is the more diverted passageway. It certainly does not seem obvious that gravity would be any help if the two tubes were switched, as you suggested.</p> <p><a href="http://pennstatehershey.org/healthinfo/graphics/images/en/1118.jpg" target="_blank"><img title="image" style="border-top-width: 0px; display: inline; border-left-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; border-right-width: 0px" height="244" alt="image" src="http://lh3.ggpht.com/_gizIEue5rKU/S0bMf9G5nVI/AAAAAAAABfk/2ELGuNyup9o/image%5B3%5D.png?imgmax=800" width="304" border="0" /></a><a href="http://www.tracheostomy.com/resources/surgery/yoursurgery/trachanat2.jpg"><img title="image" style="border-top-width: 0px; display: inline; border-left-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; border-right-width: 0px" height="244" alt="image" src="http://lh3.ggpht.com/_gizIEue5rKU/S0bMg1AFxxI/AAAAAAAABfs/5ToPr4dy_-s/image%5B4%5D.png?imgmax=800" width="200" border="0" /></a></p> <p>Also, there are some good reasons why the esophagus is deeper inside the throat than the trachea. For one, the act of swallowing requires the coordinated workings of a number of muscles; thus switching the location of the esophagus would require a significant reworking of the musculature of our necks, with unpredictable consequences. The point being that again, what seems like such a simple "fix" can have drastic and undesirable consequences, which was the whole point of this article.</p> <p> </p> <h4>Andrew’s 2nd comment:</h4> <blockquote> <p>Hi Ken, thanks for your quick reply.</p> <p>OK, I admit I didn't read the article you critique, which seems a little silly if it proposes completely separate breathing & eating tubes. As you point out, there are advantages to having multiple openings and also the ability to widen the intake as needed but keep it small most of the time.</p> <p>Thanks for the diagrams. In both diagrams it seems quite obvious to me that it is risky to have the trachea wide open at the back of the mouth almost all the time. The only thing stopping us from choking to death (or at least coughing like crazy) every time we swallow is the epiglottis flipping down to cover the tracheal opening. That's a neat mechanism, but it has to be extremely reliable. I estimate that we swallow several million times in a lifetime (mostly saliva every minute or so), so a failure rate of just one in a million could lead to premature death by choking. It is an active safety system which needs to work very well because there is no plan B. It would be far more fail-safe to have passive safety designed in, perhaps with an active system on top for extra safety (so that a failure of the active system would not be life-threatening). The only time we are not at risk of something falling down our trachea is when it is covered, but this also stops us from breathing so it must be left open, and at risk, most of the time. It would be much safer to have no connection between the mouth and trachea most of the time, and only connect them on the rare occasions it is needed.</p> <p>Now, I'm not omniscient so perhaps I'm missing something here, but if I were given this design brief:</p> <p>1. Get food and liquid into the stomach <br />2. Get air into the lungs through small openings which can be enlarged if needed on relatively rare occasions <br />3. Do not under any circumstances let solids or liquids into the lungs</p> <p>I would:</p> <p>a. have the esophagus at the front of the neck, directly connected to the back of the mouth without having to leap over the trachea <br />b. have the trachea behind the esophagus and connected to the back of the sinuses <br />c. for safety, have no connection between the trachea and mouth under normal circumstances, but have a flap (perhaps like the soft palate) which could open to connect the two as needed for occasional heavy breathing, vocalisation, clearing mucus from the sinuses, etc. - and obviously not when eating or drinking. And have this connection high up at the back of the mouth so that gravity would assist in preventing choking.</p> <p>True, there may be unforseen problems with this related to musculature etc, but I don't think these would be beyond the problem-solving capacity of a God claimed to be powerful & intelligent enough to create the entire universe from nothing.</p> <p>-Andrew</p> </blockquote> <h4>My response:</h4> <p>Hi Andrew,</p> <p>Thank you for your additional commentary on this article. Sorry to keep you waiting. Let me see if I can address some of the things you said:</p> <blockquote> <p><em>"The only thing stopping us from choking to death (or at least coughing like crazy) every time we swallow is the epiglottis flipping down to cover the tracheal opening. That's a neat mechanism, but it has to be extremely reliable."</em></p> </blockquote> <embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://5189499745239004877-a-1802744773732722657-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/kendalf/swf/Swallow.swf?attachauth=ANoY7cpXDqrR74_1skaMrR6OE-4Ba2VXEb7IVXTMyaUB4xTZ_u3SqebFW24qLp9vVm865h5jhGfWhdljoVdT3x6olVhosed_2Jb_pm-TSzAP3MSMeUE5OGYfOi7nD4wHAz9U9xk3BY-EK0bkWzc43lwaVCwDPZquq9sEij1s48BVsQ5sq6Eidco1x9acjbBDP-9djfD2veyg&attredirects=0" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" height="600" width="349" align="middle"></embed> <p>I completely agree with you that the epiglottis is a neat mechanism. I found this wonderful <a href="http://www.linkstudio.info/images/portfolio/medani/Swallow.swf" target="_blank">animation</a> (above) showing the process of swallowing. Observe how many steps and parts work together to get food down to the stomach and to protect the respiratory system.  I also agree that the epiglottis must be—and I would add that it indeed <em>is—</em>extremely reliable. Considering how many billions of people are talking and eating at the same time and how there are only a few hundred deaths from choking every year, I would say that the mechanism for protecting people from choking is very reliable from a statistical standpoint.</p> <blockquote> <p><em>"It is an active safety system which needs to work very well because there is no plan B. It would be far more fail-safe to have passive safety designed in, perhaps with an active system on top for extra safety (so that a failure of the active system would not be life-threatening)."</em></p> </blockquote> <p>Here I would offer some points of disagreement. First, the epiglottis does indeed have passive safety designed in. Note in the animation how in the process of swallowing the epiglottis is levered close by the food being swallowed, such that even if something was preventing the epiglottis from automatically covering the trachea, the epiglottis would still be pushed into position.</p> <p>Second, there is indeed a "plan B" for the rare instances when the epiglottis does not do its job perfectly. You even mentioned it yourself in your comment. The instant that something other than air begins to pass into the trachea, sensitive nerves trigger the cough reflex to expel the foreign object. This is exactly the kind of redundant active safety system that you seemed to find wanting in the actual design.</p> <blockquote> <p><em>"It would be much safer to have no connection between the mouth and trachea most of the time, and only connect them on the rare occasions it is needed."</em></p> </blockquote> <p>Safer perhaps in reducing the risk of choking to death (which I must reiterate is already an extremely rare occurrence), but would it necessarily be better? The issue that I have with those who raise the "flawed design" argument is that they tend to focus on just one narrow aspect of the function of a system, and their proposals for "better" designs often ignore many of the other features and functions of the existent design. This is addressed in another <a href="http://reasonableanswers.blogspot.com/2009/02/eye-for-design.html" target="_blank">article</a> on the supposed design flaws of the vertebrate eye (another common target of the "flawed design" argument). I hope that you can read it and offer your thoughts on it.</p> <blockquote> <p><em>"c. for safety, have no connection between the trachea and mouth under normal circumstances, but have a flap (perhaps like the soft palate) which could open to connect the two as needed for occasional heavy breathing, vocalisation, clearing mucus from the sinuses, etc. - and obviously not when eating or drinking. And have this connection high up at the back of the mouth so that gravity would assist in preventing choking."</em></p> </blockquote> <p>In this case, I think you greatly underestimate the frequency in which having a connection between the mouth and the trachea is important. As quoted in the article, Richard Deem describes how the mouth and tongue are essential for speech, something that you acknowledge as one of your "as needed" circumstances. But in general humans spend much more time talking and communicating than they do eating and drinking. Thus, under "normal circumstances" it seems logical that the system should be geared for vocalization—with an open connection between mouth and trachea—with a flap (namely, the epiglottis) that is able to close off the connection as needed for eating and drinking.</p> <blockquote> <p><em>"True, there may be unforseen problems with this related to musculature etc, but I don't think these would be beyond the problem-solving capacity of a God claimed to be powerful & intelligent enough to create the entire universe from nothing."</em></p> </blockquote> <p>This assumes that it is obvious that the current system is not already the most economical and functional design for its purposes, and that your proposed system would indeed be better, but I have to say that you have not convinced me that this is the case.</p> <p> </p> <p><em>Diagrams obtained from </em><a title="http://pennstatehershey.org/healthinfo/graphics/images/en/1118.jpg" href="http://pennstatehershey.org/healthinfo/graphics/images/en/1118.jpg"><em>http://pennstatehershey.org/healthinfo/graphics/images/en/1118.jpg</em></a><em> and </em><a title="http://www.tracheostomy.com/resources/surgery/yoursurgery/trachanat2.jpg" href="http://www.tracheostomy.com/resources/surgery/yoursurgery/trachanat2.jpg"><em>http://www.tracheostomy.com/resources/surgery/yoursurgery/trachanat2.jpg</em></a></p> <p><em>“Swallowing” animation from: </em><a href="http://www.linkstudio.info/images/portfolio/medani/Swallow.swf"><em>http://www.linkstudio.info/images/portfolio/medani/Swallow.swf</em></a></p> Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5738475911376575858.post-74209643788477153752009-12-05T14:37:00.001-08:002010-01-23T21:13:33.242-08:00“Intelligent Dishonesty (by design)” by Mike Murray – Essay Excerpts<p>The following are some excerpts from an insightful and fair-minded essay I read recently by Mike Murray that addresses the “theology bashing” being condoned by various scientists today. He makes one explicit statement that I do not entirely agree with, that “religion is subjective (faith-based),” but I heartily applaud everything else he writes.</p> <h2 align="center">“<a href="http://emmeffemm.com/id30.html">Intelligent Dishonesty (by design)</a>”</h2> <h5 align="center">by Mike Murray</h5> <p>I have a vague, conceptual belief in some kind of "supreme being." I see that conviction as being not at all at odds with science. I have stated it before and I will repeat it here: There is no belief system -- scientific, religious, or any combination thereof -- that escapes the requirement of faith.</p> <p>For, to those scientists who say that a god cannot exist since one cannot be proved (and because no one can say from where such a god would have come), the retort is obvious. If the physical matter that presumably exploded in a "Big Bang" wasn't created by a god, from where did <i>that</i> come? If a god did not create the stuff from which the universe supposedly evolved, who -- or what -- did? </p> <p>If it cannot be proved that "God always was," neither can it be proved that "matter always existed." A degree of faith (or of sticking one's head in the sand) is involved, whichever way you slice it…</p> <a name='more'></a> <p align="center">-  -  -  -  -  -  - </p> <p>The presumption of too many people working in scientific positions is thus: science is objective (legitimate), religion is subjective (faith-based). In the matter of the latter, there is no argument; in the case of the former, I disagree.</p> <p>Scientific methodology calls for observation, experimentation, or contemplation (or some combination of the three) to move a hypothesis to a theory. If other scientists independently replicate a presenter's results -- and if no one succeeds at attempts to <i>dis</i>prove the core contention(s) within some period of time -- the proposed theory becomes "accepted" theory. It often remains unproven. Many times, a new theory eventually supplants it.</p> <p>Hence, even when scientists <i>do </i>make honest efforts at objectivity, actual proof (the hurdle they demand that theologians clear in order to establish legitimacy) is routinely absent in their own work.</p> <p>The scientists who argue against a Supreme Being's hand in the creation of the universe cite the giants of physics past. They speak of Nicholas Copernicus, who (like Aristarchus in ancient times before him) departed from Ptolemy (Claudius Ptolemaeus), arguing for a solar system in which the Earth circles the Sun -- instead of the other way around. They breathe the name of Galileo Galilei, who suffered house arrest at the hands of the Catholic Church in his later years for defending that very notion.</p> <p>Those same scientists invoke the memory of Johannes Kepler, who worked out the ellipses that the planets scribe in their journeys around Old Sol. And they recall Isaac Newton's theory of gravity, and then Albert Einstein's revision -- through his work on general relativity -- to bolster their views. </p> <p>Pretty heady stuff, that. And a most impressive list of experts. </p> <p>But those making the argument for "matter evolving to consciousness" -- without any help at all from any kind of Creator -- commit a grievous intellectual sin: the sin of omission. For, while they faithfully report <i>some</i> facts relating to the evolution of physics theory, they studiously edit out that which fails to serve their postulates (or, worse, that has the potential of undermining them altogether). </p> <p>Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Einstein -- they were all seeking to reveal the hand of God, not to disprove it. They were all believers in a Supreme Being, one who they (devoutly) reckoned created the universe. They were all attempting to "read the mind of God," as Einstein (and perhaps Kepler before him) put it. (Stephen Hawking often repeats that phrase -- usually without attribution -- in discussing the Holy Grail of present-day physics: the so-called Unified Theory, the "theory of everything.")…</p> <p align="center">-  -  -  -  -  -  - </p> <p>… But I do know one thing. Too many scientists hold theologians to standards to which they, themselves, do not adhere.</p> <p>For far too many physicists, astronomers, and biologists it's presently a case of "wrong in part, wrong in toto" when it comes to theology. According to them, if there was no actual Garden of Eden (and if there is any chance at all that life exists elsewhere in the universe), then the religious types are all wet.</p> <p>What if scientists were held to that same standard? They've been wrong many, many times over the centuries. Copernicus (and Aristarchus) proved Ptolemy wrong about his earth-centric system. Kepler corrected the errant notion of circular orbits for planets. Newton likewise altered some earlier-held beliefs while refining his theories about gravitation. Einstein revised Newton and Maxwell. Today, many physicists are hard at work in their efforts to go beyond Einstein, to add to or modify the ideas of Field, Relativity, and Quanta.</p> <p>In the past, scientists often thought they "knew" things, only to be proved -- at least partially -- wrong by those who followed in their footsteps. If members of society now said to scientists (as many of them are saying to theologians): "Sorry, if you're wrong even a little, you're wrong completely ...and you have <i>nothing</i> to say to us," would they deem it reasonable?</p> <p>It would be wrong to attack scientists' laudable efforts at observation, experimentation, and contemplation in formulating hypotheses and theories that seek to move our understanding of the physical world forward. It is just as wrong, in my judgment, for scientists to engage in religion-bashing. Regardless of one's personal beliefs on the subject of theology, such activity is uncalled for. Counterproductive, even. </p> <p>Moreover, a great many of history's giants, working in a variety of scientific fields, have sought to prove God's handiwork -- not to dispel it. To use them today, deceptively (directly or indirectly), in the service of religious detraction is more than heresy. It is intellectual dishonesty.</p> <p><em>Copyright ©2006 Michael F. Murray</em></p> Unknownnoreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5738475911376575858.post-30262918532545772942009-11-29T15:47:00.000-08:002010-01-23T21:16:07.632-08:00An Eye for Design<p><a href="http://www.optos.com/en/Patients/" target="_blank"><img title="sample_thumb_optomaps" style="border-top-width: 0px; display: inline; border-left-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 5px; border-right-width: 0px" height="192" alt="sample_thumb_optomaps" src="http://lh5.ggpht.com/_gizIEue5rKU/SxMHMb6cyCI/AAAAAAAABcs/wavCvOSjeRQ/sample_thumb_optomaps8.jpg?imgmax=800" width="244" align="right" border="0" /></a> Earlier this week I visited an opthalmologist for a long overdue eye exam. Among other things, the doctor took an Optomap of my eye—basically a laser image of my retina—to see if there was anything to watch out for back there. She matter-of-factly gave me a 50/50 chance of suffering a retinal detachment in the future… something for me to look forward to.</p> <p>But this visit, together with some questions on optics and vision asked by my AP Physics students last week, reminded me of just how incredibly intricate our vision is, from the way the placement of our eyeballs gives us stereoscopic vision, to the manner in which our brain interprets and reverses the images so that we see right side up. </p> <h4>An “Inverted” Retina</h4> <p>But in contrast to our intuitive recognition of its wonders, the human eye is often cited as an example of something that is <em>sub</em>-optimally designed, or so flawed that it could not have possibly been designed by an intelligent designer. Now, I know that my own eyes are certainly not optimal—just take a look at how thick my glasses are—but the argument is that even the most perfectly seeing eye is flawed, due to a critical “mistake” in the design of the human eye that can only be explained by an unintelligent evolutionary process rather than an intelligent designer.</p> <a name='more'></a> <p>A sampling of this argument:</p> <blockquote> <p>But the eye betrays its evolutionary origin with a tell-tale flaw: The retina is inside out. The nerve fibers that carry signals from the retina’s light-sensing cells lie on top of those cells and have to plunge through a large hole in the retina to get to the brain, creating the eye’s blind spot. Any intelligent designer would be offended by such a clumsy arrangement. The human eye was not designed; it was inherited as the result of long-term evolutionary development. (Art Hobson, “<a href="http://physics.uark.edu/hobson/pubs/07.03.IA.pdf">Unintelligent Design</a>”)</p> <p>But only an <em>idiot</em> designer would have the wiring from the image-capture system (i.e. screen sensitive to light) intrude into the darkened cavity through which the light has to pass from lens to image-capture screen. The most blindingly obvious solution, which even a quite severely dumb designer can reasonably be expected to come up with, is to have the image capture aparatus [<em>sic</em>] receive light from one side (the cavity) and have its wiring go out to the image-processing system from <em>its other side</em>. (“<a href="http://www.chaos.org.uk/~eddy/when/2005/ID10T.html">Intelligent Design is not a Theory</a>”)</p> <p><a href="http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/lgd/index.html"><img title="Schematic of Retina" style="border-top-width: 0px; display: inline; border-left-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; border-right-width: 0px" height="265" alt="Schematic of Retina" src="http://lh5.ggpht.com/_gizIEue5rKU/SxMHM32yeiI/AAAAAAAABcw/McK2s4pvY8k/Schematic%20of%20Retina%5B2%5D.jpg?imgmax=800" width="204" align="right" border="0" /></a> An intelligent designer, working with the components of this wiring, would choose the orientation that produces the highest degree of visual quality. No one, for example, would suggest that the neural connections should be placed in front of the photoreceptor cells -- thus blocking the light from reaching them -- rather than behind the retina. <b>Incredibly, this is exactly how the human retina is constructed.</b> Visual quality is degraded because light scatters as it passes through several layers of cellular wiring before reaching the retina. Granted, this scattering has been minimized because the nerve cells are nearly transparent, but it cannot be eliminated because of the basic design flaw. Moreover, the effects are compounded because a network of vessels, which is needed to supply the nerve cells with a rich supply of blood, also sits directly in front of the light-sensitive layer, another feature that no engineer would propose. (Kenneth Miller, “<a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/change/grand/index.html" target="_blank">Life’s Grand Design</a>”)</p> </blockquote> <p><a href="http://www.dericbownds.net/bom99/Ch08/Ch08-3.gif"><img title="Photoreceptors" style="border-top-width: 0px; display: block; border-left-width: 0px; float: none; border-bottom-width: 0px; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; border-right-width: 0px" height="515" alt="Photoreceptors" src="http://lh5.ggpht.com/_gizIEue5rKU/SxMHNccEj4I/AAAAAAAABc0/P92sQjXiImo/Photoreceptors%5B1%5D.gif?imgmax=800" width="416" border="0" /></a></p> <p align="center"><em>The above illustration shows the forest of tissues and cells <br />that light has to travel through to reach the photoreceptor cells. <br />From <a title="http://www.dericbownds.net/bom99/Ch08/Ch08.html" href="http://www.dericbownds.net/bom99/Ch08/Ch08.html">http://www.dericbownds.net/bom99/Ch08/Ch08.html</a></em></p> <p>Here is Richard Dawkin’s take:</p> <blockquote> <p>Any engineer would naturally assume that the photocells would point towards the light, with their wires leading backwards towards the brain. He would laugh at any suggestion that the photocells might point away from the light, with their wires departing on the side <i>nearest</i> the light. Yet this is exactly what happens in all vertebrate retinas. Each photocell is, in effect, wired in backwards, with its wire sticking out on the side nearest the light. The wire has to travel over the surface of the retina, to a point where it dives through a hole in the retina (the so-called ‘blind spot’) to join the optic nerve. This means that the light, instead of being granted an unrestricted passage to the photocells, has to pass through a forest of connecting wires, presumably suffering at least some attenuation and distortion (actually probably not much but, still, it is the <em>principle </em>of the thing that would offend any tidy-minded engineer!). (<em>The Blind Watchmaker</em>, pg. 93)</p> </blockquote> <p><a href="http://lh5.ggpht.com/_gizIEue5rKU/SxMHOIlhf6I/AAAAAAAABc4/EQChXe8yW5Q/s1600-h/image8.png"><img title="image" style="border-top-width: 0px; display: inline; border-left-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; border-right-width: 0px" height="146" alt="image" src="http://lh3.ggpht.com/_gizIEue5rKU/SxMHOgjpHZI/AAAAAAAABc8/6hdVngmoJ9M/image_thumb4.png?imgmax=800" width="244" align="right" border="0" /></a> The squid and the octopus are seen as examples of the way that an eye <em>should</em> be designed, or the “Obviously Correct Solution” as the writer of one of the above quotes put it. The image at the right compares the cephalopods verted retina with the <em>inverted</em> human retina (from “<a href="http://www.detectingdesign.com/humaneye.html">The Evolution of the Human Eye</a>” by Sean D. Pitman).</p> <h4>A Designer Faux Pas?</h4> <p>So what’s up with this? Did Someone make a mistake in the design of the human eye? Or is this really an example of a perfectly natural evolutionary error? The answer is: Neither! To call the inverted retina a “design flaw” or an “error” is to turn a <em>blind eye </em>to the intricately coordinated series of systems and structures designed to bring clarity of vision to humans.</p> <p>When an example of “sub-optimal” design is singled out, critics often focus narrowly on one apparently compromised aspect of a system, and miss seeing the big picture of how the entire system works as a cohesive and finely tuned whole. See my previous post on “<a href="http://reasonableanswers.blogspot.com/2009/09/design-flaws-in-human-breathing-system.html">Design Flaws” in the Human Breathing System</a>” for another example. Though at first the inverted retina appears to be a backward design, a deeper understanding of the eye reveals just how purposefully the parts were arranged, such that optical engineers today are gaining new ideas on how to dramatically improve sensing equipment by applying the techniques used in the eye. </p> <h4>The Greedy Photoreceptors</h4> <p>Those who have studied the vertebrate eye in depth have concluded that, rather than being a “flawed design,” the inverted retina appears to be an ideal and necessary solution to the specific demands of the eye’s photoreceptors. </p> <p><a href="http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/designgonebad.html" target="_blank"><img title="Animation of the Retina of the Eye" style="border-top-width: 0px; display: inline; border-left-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; margin: 0px 5px 0px 0px; border-right-width: 0px" height="385" alt="Animation of the Retina of the Eye" src="http://lh5.ggpht.com/_gizIEue5rKU/SaiU4elLbkI/AAAAAAAABBQ/3KzRVGicAsA/AnimationoftheRetinaoftheEye6.gif?imgmax=800" width="186" align="left" border="0" /></a></p> <p>Biochemist Michael Denton writes, “[C]onsideration of the very high energy demands of the photoreceptor cells in the vertebrate retina suggests that rather than being a challenge to teleology the curious inverted design of the vertebrate retina may in fact represent a unique solution to the problem of providing the highly active photoreceptor cells of higher vertebrates with copious quantities of oxygen and nutrients” (“<a href="http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od192/invertedretina192.htm" target="_blank">The Inverted Retina: Maladaptation or Pre-adaptation?</a>” <em>Origins and Design</em> 19:2). He describes the incredible capability of the mammalian photoreceptor to detect even a single photon of light. This extreme sensitivity comes at a price, a “greedy” need for both nutrients and oxygen. These are provided for by a layer of capillaries (seen at the bottom of the illustration at left) connected to the photoreceptors by the retinal pigment epithelium (RPE). Without this continuous maintenance, our photoreceptor cells would quickly overload and stop functioning. This layer of capillaries and the RPE would completely block light from the photoreceptors if they were facing the inner surface of the retina, hence the need for the “inverted” retina.</p> <p>Westmont College biology professor George Ayoub, goes in-depth on the importance of the RPE in his article, “<a href="http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od171/retina171.htm" target="_blank">On the Design of the Vertebrate Retina</a>,” <em>Origins and Design</em> 17:1. From the abstract:</p> <p><em>It has been commonly claimed that the vertebrate eye is functionally suboptimal, because photoreceptors in the retina are oriented away from incoming light. However, there are excellent functional reasons for vertebrate photoreceptors to be oriented as they are. Photoreceptor structure and function is maintained by a critical tissue, the retinal pigment epithelium (RPE), which recycles photopigments, removes spent outer segments of the photoreceptors, provides an opaque layer to absorb excess light, and performs additional functions. These aspects of the structure and function of the vertebrate eye have been ignored in evolutionary arguments about suboptimality, yet they are essential for understanding how the eye works.</em></p> <p>He also addresses the issue of the “blind spot” and engages in a thought experiment that shows that visual acuity would actually degrade significantly if the human eye was wired any other way. So rather than being “wired wrong,” it seems that this is exactly the most optimal solution for our vision. </p> <h4>Living Optical Fibers</h4> <p>So is the degradation in image quality as light passes through these nerves and blood vessels an adverse but necessary compromise for our eyes? I would suggest that the more appropriate question here is, “Who says that image quality in our eye is compromised?” The statements given by evolutionists like Dawkins, Miller, and others<em> </em>imply that the inverted retina is <em>obviously </em>sub-optimal, and that visual quality is <em>of course</em> degraded by the fact that light has to travel through all those layers of cells and tissue. But is any <em>evidence </em>provided that image quality is actually compromised? The truth is that vertebrates generally have the <em>sharpest</em> visual acuity of all animal species, but how is this possible given such a backwards arrangement of the vertebrate retina?</p> <p>A fantastic study conducted in 2007 explored this very question, and what they discovered was a new function of a certain type of cell in the vertebrate eye that in essence serves as biological “fiber optics” to channel light through the retinal layers to the photoreceptors. The study was titled “<a href="http://stke.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/pnas;104/20/8287">Müller cells are living optical fibers in the vertebrate retina</a>” (2007) and was published in the <em>Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences </em>(PNAS)104 (20): 8287-8292. The below graphic from the study illustrates how these Müller glial cells collect light from the inner surface of the retina and transmit it virtually intact through the layers of nerves and tissue to the photoreceptors.</p> <p><a href="http://www.detectingdesign.com/humaneye.html#Design"><img title="Muller Glial Cells" style="border-top-width: 0px; display: block; border-left-width: 0px; float: none; border-bottom-width: 0px; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; border-right-width: 0px" height="714" alt="Muller Glial Cells" src="http://lh5.ggpht.com/_gizIEue5rKU/SxMHPtOfm0I/AAAAAAAABdA/f1o9t6HvhZ8/Muller%20Glial%20Cells.jpg?imgmax=800" width="452" border="0" /></a></p> <p>From the abstract:</p> <p>“…these cells provide a low-scattering passage for light<sup> </sup>from the retinal surface to the photoreceptor cells. Using a modified dual-beam laser trap we could also demonstrate that individual Müller cells act as optical fibers. Furthermore, their parallel array in the retina is reminiscent of fiberoptic plates used for low-distortion image transfer. Thus, Müller cells seem to mediate the image transfer through the vertebrate retina with <strong>minimal distortion and low loss</strong>.”</p> <p>An interesting summary of the study and their technique can be found <a href="http://www.vision-research.eu/index.php?id=160">here</a>, and includes the below graphic comparing an artificial fiber optic panel with Müller cells, the “living optical fibers.”</p> <p align="center"><a href="http://www.vision-research.eu/index.php?id=160" target="_blank"><img title="Comparison of Retina with Fiber-optic Plate" style="border-top-width: 0px; display: block; border-left-width: 0px; float: none; border-bottom-width: 0px; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; border-right-width: 0px" height="447" alt="Comparison of Retina with Fiber-optic Plate" src="http://lh4.ggpht.com/_gizIEue5rKU/SxMHQdwr46I/AAAAAAAABdE/ihwtOvzmBY4/ComparisonofRetinawithFiberopticPlat%5B1%5D.jpg?imgmax=800" width="417" border="0" /></a>Comparison of Müller<sup> </sup>cells with a fiber-optic plate (FOP). Bottom row shows an image (left) transmitted through a FOP (center) and through a retina (right). <br />From <a title="http://www.vision-research.eu/index.php?id=160" href="http://www.vision-research.eu/index.php?id=160">http://www.vision-research.eu/index.php?id=160</a></p> <p>Some additional fascinating details emerge from this article. Müller cells span the entire thickness of the retina, and widen at the inner surface into funnels that cover the entire retinal surface, thus making it possible, according to the researchers, to capture every photon that enters the eye. As the researchers described, “[T]he funnel-shape of Müller cells and their refractive index gradient provide an <strong>optimal </strong>optical coupling of the retina to the vitreous. Thus, Müller cells not only allow low-loss light transfer through the scattering inner retinal layers to the photoreceptor cells but also optimize the coupling of the retina to the transparent media of the eye.” No talk of sub-optimality here—quite the reverse, in fact.</p> <p>Lead researcher Andreas Reichenbach commented, “Nature is so clever. This means there is enough room in the eye for all the neurons and synapses and so on, but still the Müller cells can capture and transmit as much light as possible” (quoted in “<a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/05/01/eye_eye/">Living optical fibres found in the eye</a>” by Lucy Sherriff). The design of these cells is so efficient that it could very well provide the innovation for the next generation of fiber optic technology. The ability of these Müller cells to transmit light from a wide surface area through such a small tube can lead to new “intelligent” sensors that incorporate computer circuitry attached to more compact fiber optic bundles.</p> <p>To say that a design is “sub-optimal” is to imply that there is a better way to do something. So the next time you hear someone comment about the “flawed design” of the human eye, ask them to elaborate on what aspect of the eye they consider to be flawed. Is there any better way to wire the photoreceptor cells that would still connect them with the replenishing blood flow necessary to maintain sustained vision? And what reason is there to talk of “degraded visual quality” when the eye features living optical fibers that transmit images with greater efficiency than the best optical plate that engineers have devised?</p> <p>The “flaw,” it seems, is not in the actual design of the eye itself, but rather in that person’s understanding of the degree of integration and coordination exhibited by all the parts making up the purposeful and optimal design of the eye.</p> <p> </p> <h3></h3> <h3>Additional Resources and References</h3> <p>“<a href="http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/antenna/opticfibreeyes/" target="_blank">Living Fibre Optics Light Up Our Eyes</a>” – An excellent illustrated description of the 2007 study on Müller cells, with great pictures! Also describes how engineers hope to adapt the design of these cells into fiber optic technology. </p> <p>Andreas Reichenbach, <em>et al., </em>“<a href="http://www.vision-research.eu/index.php?id=160" target="_blank">Müller cells are living optical fibers in the vertebrate retina</a>” </p> <p>George Ayoub, “<a href="http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od171/retina171.htm" target="_blank">On the Design of the Vertebrate Retina</a>,” <em>Origins and Design</em> 17:1</p> <p>Jerry Bergman, “<a href="http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2000/PSCF3-00Bergman.html">Inverted Human Eye a Poor Design?</a>,” <em>Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith</em> <strong>52</strong> (March 2000): 18-30</p> <p>Michael Denton, “<a href="http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od192/invertedretina192.htm" target="_blank">The Inverted Retina: Maladaptation or Pre-adaptation?</a>” <em>Origins and Design</em> 19:2</p> <p>Rich Deem, “<a href="http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/designgonebad.html">Bad Designs in Biology? Why the "Best" Examples Are Bad</a>” – A discussion of the common examples of “bad design” in biology are not so bad after all.</p> <p>Sean D. Pitman, “<a href="http://www.detectingdesign.com/humaneye.html">The Evolution of the Human Eye</a>”</p> <p> </p> <h5>Image Credits </h5> <p><em>Optomap retina image courtesy of Optos.com</em></p> <p><em>All other images linked to their original sources.</em></p> Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5738475911376575858.post-51206900669992608792009-11-24T17:15:00.001-08:002010-01-29T22:18:36.570-08:00Physics Humor – A Forceful Response<p>One of my wittier students put this as her answer (in lieu of an actual solution) to a problem on a recent Physics test on Newton’s Laws:</p> <blockquote> <p>"Help me, Mr. Yeh-Kenobi! You are my only hope!”</p> </blockquote> <p>My immediate response,</p> <blockquote> <p>“Use the Force (=mass times acceleration), Beth!”</p> </blockquote> <p>Her table got a kick out of that when I handed back the test.</p> Unknownnoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5738475911376575858.post-71438727075772700602009-11-15T07:59:00.001-08:002010-01-29T23:07:03.520-08:00Is ID Viable? An Illuminating Debate between Francisco Ayala and William Lane Craig<p>Two weeks ago, Campus Crusade for Christ at Indiana University sponsored a debate on the question, “Is Intelligent Design Viable?” The audio for the debate is available for download from the <a href="http://apologetics315.blogspot.com/2009/11/william-lane-craig-vs-francisco-j-ayala.html" target="_blank">Apologetics 315 blog</a>. </p> <p>The two participants were Francisco J. Ayala and William Lane Craig, and the debate was moderated by <a href="http://bradleymonton.wordpress.com/" target="_blank">Bradley Monton</a>, an atheist philosopher of science who argues that ID is deserving of serious consideration as a scientific theory (even though he personally believes that it is false). Monton recently published a book called <em><a href="https://www.broadviewpress.com/product.php?productid=952&cat=0&page=1" target="_blank">Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design</a></em>.</p> <p>Francisco Ayala is Donald Bren Professor of Biological Sciences, Ecology & Evolutionary Biology as well as Professor of Logic and Philosophy of Science at UCI, and author of a number of books such as <em>Darwin and Intelligent Design</em>, <em>Darwin’s Gift to Science and Religion</em>, and the <em>Handbook of Evolution: The Evolution of Living Systems</em>, in addition to nearly a thousand publications on evolutionary biology.</p> <p>William Lane Craig is Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology, and a noted philosopher, theologian, and Christian apologist. He is respected among theists and atheists alike as one of the strongest defenders of the Christian faith, and he has debated a number of people in defense of the existence of God and the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Some of his exceptional debate opponents include Anthony Flew, Peter Atkins, and recently a very prominent debate with Christopher Hitchens at Biola University on the existence of God. His website, <em><a href="http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServer" target="_blank">Reasonable Faith</a></em>, is a great resource for Christian apologetics and it is also a recommended visit for those who have serious questions or doubts about Christianity. See the debate’s <a href="http://isintelligentdesignviable.com/about/" target="_blank">Participant Information</a> page for more on the accomplishments of both Ayala and Craig.</p> <p>What was very interesting to me was that this is the first time that Craig is debating specifically on the topic of intelligent design in biology, and I was curious to hear how he would fare against Ayala, who has written numerous books and articles on biological evolution and and one specifically against intelligent design.</p> <a name='more'></a> <p>As he does in all of his debates, Craig clearly laid out the framework for the topic being discussed in his opening statement. As Craig made clear, both Ayala and Craig are Christians, so the debate was not about theism versus atheism. Also, the debate was not about the <em>truth</em> of intelligent design, but only the question of whether ID was <em>viable</em>, that is, feasible or capable of becoming actual, workable or useful. In Craig’s words, “It was up to Ayala to disqualify ID as a live option,” or as being unfit to “sit at the table.”</p> <p>For Craig’s summary of some of the key points he made in the debate, see his <a href="http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7659&autologin=true" target="_blank">letter</a> from the Reasonable Faith website. You will need to register for Reasonable Faith to read the letter (highly recommended), but if you’d rather not the blogger Wintery Knight has posted <a href="http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2009/11/12/william-lane-craigs-after-action-report-on-the-debate-with-francisco-ayala/" target="_blank">excerpts</a>.</p> <p>The general consensus (from both ID proponents and opponents) was that Ayala was quite underwhelming. He almost entirely ignored all of Craig's points and rather than debating seemed rather to be giving a lecture on evolutionary theory. Here is a sharp <a href="http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=4417" target="_blank">review</a> from the "Common Sense Atheism" blog, no friend to ID. Luke observed, “In his opening speech, during which he was supposed to present the case against intelligent design, Ayala did not even <em>mention</em> intelligent design.” Ironically, since Ayala didn’t present any arguments against ID for Craig to refute, Craig had to resort to making Ayala’s case against ID for him by quoting excerpts from Ayala’s books and articles, and then responding to those excerpts.</p> <p>Here is Bradley Monton's own <a href="http://bradleymonton.wordpress.com/2009/11/06/report-on-the-craigayala-debate-at-indiana-university/" target="_blank">report</a> of the debate. He quotes a <a href="http://apologetics315.blogspot.com/2009/11/william-lane-craig-vs-francisco-j-ayala.html?showComment=1257497289137#c4907070930813234942" target="_blank">review</a> of the debate by a blogger named Ranger who is generally favorable to theistic evolutionists but was severely disappointed with Ayala's performance. I thought Ranger’s last line said a lot:</p> <blockquote> <p>“Let me be very honest and say that I’m actually coming around to a position of thinking ID might be viable (in a Christian universe, which I believe to be our universe) partially because I’m sick and tired of the hand-waving and lack of good response from scientists who claim to be experts.”</p> </blockquote> <p>Read the rest of Ranger’s comment to understand the source of his frustration. Remember that Ayala is supposed to be the certified expert with a published book on the actual topic of debate and a lifetime of research on the theory of evolution, while Craig is just an excellent debater and philosopher who simply spent several months doing what he could to prepare for this debate.</p> <p>I think Craig gave a plum line describing the general tenor of the debate in his closing statements (beginning at the 1:26:00 mark): "I find it very ironic that in tonight's debate between a biologist and a theologian, the theologian wants to talk biology and the biologist wants to talk theology."</p> <p>In a later post I may try to look more in-depth at some of the key points from the debate, but I encourage you to listen to the debate yourself first, especially if you are unfamiliar with intelligent design.</p> Unknownnoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5738475911376575858.post-46517138699874361222009-11-05T18:30:00.001-08:002009-11-09T06:44:55.105-08:00Can Natural Selection Do This?<p>An update to the previous <a href="http://reasonableanswers.blogspot.com/2009/10/just-for-fun-intelligently-designed.html">post</a> on the intelligent prank Harvey Mudd students pulled on the Victoria’s Secret Pink Collegiate Collection competition. Here are the current standings (click on the image to view the full size screen cap):</p> <p><a href="http://lh6.ggpht.com/_gizIEue5rKU/SvOKRUehIPI/AAAAAAAABbU/ArfkCkMhId8/s1600-h/HMC%20-%20Victorias%20Secret%20Pink%20Competition%5B5%5D.jpg" target="_blank"><img title="HMC - Victorias Secret Pink Competition" style="border-right: 0px; border-top: 0px; display: inline; border-left: 0px; border-bottom: 0px" height="389" alt="HMC - Victorias Secret Pink Competition" src="http://lh5.ggpht.com/_gizIEue5rKU/SvOKSVTMOvI/AAAAAAAABbc/udvFOsXojeI/HMC%20-%20Victorias%20Secret%20Pink%20Competition_thumb%5B3%5D.jpg?imgmax=800" width="484" border="0" /></a> </p> <p>HMC is still in the lead, of course, though now with over 2 <em>million</em> votes. But now the first letter of the top 23 schools spells out something that has even broader appeal to all Mudders (I was a Southie myself for part of my time at Mudd, and remember being blasted awake more than once by West Dorm antics). They also included a friendly shout-out to their little rival in Pasadena.</p> <p>So can natural selection do this? But of course! Since intelligence carries significant fitness value, survival of the fittest dictates that it is only natural that the most intelligent will rise to the top.</p> <p><em>Thanks to JF (who I’m going to assume is a fellow Mudder) for bringing this to my attention and for providing the up to date </em><a href="http://twitpic.com/odjai"><em>screencap</em></a><em>.</em></p> Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5738475911376575858.post-83770435887498568252009-10-17T09:02:00.001-07:002009-10-22T08:06:43.664-07:00An Intelligently Designed Prank<p><a href="http://www.vspink.com/nominate_your_school.jsp" target="_blank"><img title="VSPink HMC Prank" style="border-top-width: 0px; display: block; border-left-width: 0px; float: none; border-bottom-width: 0px; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; border-right-width: 0px" height="532" alt="VSPink HMC Prank" src="http://lh5.ggpht.com/_gizIEue5rKU/Stnqpwk0ElI/AAAAAAAABao/ueUBa6L4_yE/VSPinkHMCPrank6.jpg?imgmax=800" width="322" border="0" /></a> </p><p>The above image shows the recent standings of a contest promoting the Victoria’s Secret “Pink Collegiate Collection”. The idea is that VS will create “products” featuring the mascots of the top schools from this competition. You are only allowed to vote once a day for a particular school, and there are protections in place to prevent automated voting bots. In essence, this is a popularity contest, and natural selection dictates that schools that have the greatest number of students, alumni, and fans who care will <em>naturally </em>rise to the top of the standings.</p><p>But if you take a closer look at the standings, you may soon realize that something exceeding the natural course of things may be occurring. The most immediate discrepancy is the fact that Harvey Mudd College is not only at the top of the list, but it has over 500,000 votes more than the next school on the list. Now, HMC has a current student population of less than 700, and even if you add all the alumni, faculty and everyone in existence who has even <em>heard</em> of the school, you would still have a number far less than the current student population of some of the other schools on the list. Just this might be enough to clue you in that something <em>unnatural </em>is going on.</p><p>But there’s more. #4 on the list is Bob Jones University, and if you know anything about Bob Jones University, you know that it has no reason being voted near the top of any list associated with Victoria’s Secret. #5 on the list is Scripps College, which is a woman’s college neighboring HMC with a student population even smaller than Mudd. Now, Scripps students are certainly more likely to purchase Victoria's Secret merchandise than the majority of Mudd students, but it defies the imagination that they can rally together over half a million votes.</p><p>In addition, if you are more familiar with Harvey Mudd College, you may also recognize that the first letter of the names of schools #2-7 form the acronym WIBSTR, which carries special meaning to any Mudd student. See this <a href="http://bruteforcex.blogspot.com/2008/05/west-is-best-screw-rest-aka-wibstr.html" target="_blank">link</a> for an explanation of WIBSTR (I’m trying to keep this a ‘G’ rated blog).</p><p><a href="http://lh5.ggpht.com/_gizIEue5rKU/StnqqJs3-FI/AAAAAAAABas/2J18YUnRH0w/s1600-h/HMC%20Wally%5B3%5D.gif"><img title="HMC Wally" style="border-top-width: 0px; display: inline; border-left-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; border-right-width: 0px" height="150" alt="HMC Wally" src="http://lh3.ggpht.com/_gizIEue5rKU/Stnqqrrv3_I/AAAAAAAABaw/t9I9ukIbTIY/HMC%20Wally_thumb%5B1%5D.gif?imgmax=800" width="133" align="right" border="0" /></a> Finally, if you’ve ever seen Wally Mudd (aka the Mudd Wart), the HMC mascot, you’ll understand why it’s not likely to be a popular choice to be emblazoned on a new line of Victoria’s Secret intimates.</p><p>Because we can see that the results of the competition cannot be accounted for within the limitations of the natural voting process, together with the significance of the complex and specified “WIBSTR” sequence, it would be very reasonable for a person to infer that this was an intelligently designed prank. With some additional <a href="http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3192214&userid=47303#post366878880" target="_blank">revelation</a> we can perhaps know <em>who </em>actually pulled this prank, but that is not needed to know that a prank has indeed been pulled.</p><p>But perhaps there will still be those who insist that the specific sequence of “WIBSTR” is just a happy coincidence, and no matter how improbable the standings, these results <em>must </em>be due solely to the natural selection process, because the CAPTCHA program used by VS in the voting process absolutely restricts voting to once per person per day, and nothing can go beyond these boundaries as defined by the VS programmers.</p><p>That being said, I for one wouldn’t mind buying something from Victoria’s Secret with a Mudd Wart on it.</p><p>For more information, read this article from the CMC Forum: “<a href="http://cmcforum.com/life/10152009-harvey-mudd-1-victorias-secret-0" target="_blank">Harvey Mudd 1, Victoria’s Secret 0</a>”</p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5738475911376575858.post-51155257642847204122009-09-26T18:00:00.001-07:002009-10-22T07:59:54.751-07:00A look back at Web 2.0 tools for education<p>The online course on Web 2.0 technology for education that I have been working through the past several months has opened my eyes to how much more is available online for educators and students. With the school year started I certainly do not have all the time that I would like exploring all of these additional tools. But there are two tools in particular that have stood out and that I have already incorporated into my teaching this year.</p> <p><a href="http://lh3.ggpht.com/_gizIEue5rKU/Sr7LMEjYmtI/AAAAAAAABag/kL7jjxlsbBk/s1600-h/BRSR.Blog%5B6%5D.png"><img title="BRSR.Blog" style="border-right: 0px; border-top: 0px; display: block; float: none; margin-left: auto; border-left: 0px; margin-right: auto; border-bottom: 0px" height="407" alt="BRSR.Blog" src="http://lh6.ggpht.com/_gizIEue5rKU/Sr7LNXRCN9I/AAAAAAAABak/JRIDZnvlf8M/BRSR.Blog_thumb%5B4%5D.png?imgmax=800" width="524" border="0" /></a> The first of these is blogging. In my BRSR class, each student has created and is posting to their own blog on a weekly basis. My students use their blogs to write their thoughts and responses to topics that we have been discussing in class. I maintain a class blog where I post questions and links to relevant information. Though it took some time and effort to get all my students set up (don’t assume that all students are comfortable with computers and online apps!), things are really starting to roll, and I have been pleased with the kinds of responses that many of my students are posting.</p> <p>There are at least two key advantages in having students write their responses in a blog rather than on paper. The first advantage is that students can easily incorporate multimedia and links in their blogs, something that they could not do on paper. Students have the ability to post images and embed video and audio into their blogs, as well as upload other kinds of files. Being able to incorporate these dynamic elements adds interest for both students and teacher.</p> <p>The second key advantage is that, whereas most students will throw away or recycle all their paper assignments at the end of the year, a blog will remain accessible even after they graduate. My hope is that my students will refer back to their blog when they go off to college as a reference for when they encounter the kinds of questions and topics that we have covered in my class.</p> <p><a href="http://sciencetutorials.yolasite.com/physics-tutorials.php"><img title="PhysicsTutorials" style="border-top-width: 0px; display: block; border-left-width: 0px; float: none; border-bottom-width: 0px; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; border-right-width: 0px" height="284" alt="PhysicsTutorials" src="http://lh5.ggpht.com/_gizIEue5rKU/Sr65G-QTj2I/AAAAAAAABaY/BETKJ8_bHQA/PhysicsTutorials%5B9%5D.png?imgmax=800" width="434" border="0" /></a>The other web tool that has been very effective for me has been screencasting, which I wrote about in a <a href="http://reasonableanswers.blogspot.com/2009/09/screencasting-like-podcasting-for.html" target="_blank">prior post</a>. I have been referring my physics students who need extra review to the <a href="http://sciencetutorials.yolasite.com/physics-tutorials.php" target="_blank">Physics Tutorials</a> website I created using the free <a href="http://www.yola.com" target="_blank">Yola</a> website creation and hosting tool. I’ve already had students remark that these screencasts have been helpful when it came time for them to try to do their homework; it was as if they could see me re-teach the lesson at home, and they could replay certain sections as many times as they needed until they got it. Now it certainly has been time-consuming to create each of these screencasts, but that’s partially because I keep recording a new take whenever I mess up (which happens constantly).</p> <p><a href="http://sciencetutorials.yolasite.com/vectors-2.php" target="_blank"><img title="Vectors2" style="border-top-width: 0px; display: block; border-left-width: 0px; float: none; border-bottom-width: 0px; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; border-right-width: 0px" height="368" alt="Vectors2" src="http://lh4.ggpht.com/_gizIEue5rKU/Sr65HhYLVpI/AAAAAAAABac/MhFKdBdr51c/Vectors2%5B7%5D.png?imgmax=800" width="434" border="0" /></a>I am currently using the Pro version of <a href="http://www.bbsoftware.co.uk/bbflashback.aspx" target="_blank">Blueberry Flashback</a> which allows frame by frame editing of a recording—very helpful for cleaning up mistakes and “umms…” and such. Screencasting will also be extremely helpful when we teach our students how to incorporate multimedia and videos into Powerpoint slideshows for their final presentations, or for explaining how to do virtually anything on the computer.</p> <p>So these are the two tools that I will be using most often this year, but I am sure that I will continue to learn new and incorporate new things into my teaching with each new year!</p> Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5738475911376575858.post-42028140244952891322009-09-21T21:08:00.001-07:002009-11-29T15:48:38.173-08:00“Design Flaws” in the Human Breathing System<p>Something I read today that reminded me of the importance of seeing the big picture, and how seeming “improvements” in one area can have drastic implications in the overall picture.</p> <p>Joseph Burdo, Assistant Professor of Biology at Boston College, wrote a comment entitled “<a href="http://www.wired.com/culture/culturereviews/magazine/17-10/rants" target="_blank">Design Flaws</a>” in response to a <em>Wired</em> magazine article on “<a href="http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/magazine/17-08/st_best" target="_blank">10 Worst Evolutionary Designs</a>.” Professor Burdo wrote:<em><em><em><a href="http://lh6.ggpht.com/_gizIEue5rKU/SrhNw2KyuVI/AAAAAAAABaI/GKTVww8SSDI/s1600-h/r7_croup%5B6%5D.jpg"><img title="r7_croup" style="border-right: 0px; border-top: 0px; display: inline; margin-left: 0px; border-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; border-bottom: 0px" height="261" alt="r7_croup" src="http://lh6.ggpht.com/_gizIEue5rKU/SrhNxowvWeI/AAAAAAAABaM/RKBqczjIVIk/r7_croup_thumb%5B4%5D.jpg?imgmax=800" width="360" align="right" border="0" /></a></em></em></em></p> <blockquote> <p><em> “[Y]ou forgot about one of the best arguments against the "theory" of intelligent design: the shared opening to the esophagus and trachea in humans (and many other mammals). Hundreds of choking deaths occur in the US every year due to food obstructions in the trachea. Doesn't seem too intelligent to purposefully design such a hazard.”</em></p> </blockquote> <p>If you’ve ever had food or water go down the wrong way then you’ve experienced this “bad design” first hand. This argument was also listed in a 2001 <em>Scientific American</em> article called “If Humans were Built to Last” by S. Jay Olshansky, Bruce Carnes, and Robert Butler. The authors suggested that a better design would feature independent tubes for breathing and eating.</p> <p>But though it seems so obvious that a dual tube system would eliminate the possibility of choking, and seems like a much better design, consider some of the implications of this change. Have you ever had a bad cold, so bad that your nose became completely plugged up and the only way you could breathe was through your mouth? With our current shared opening between mouth, nose, and trachea, nasal congestion is an uncomfortable but minor nuisance. But if the nose was the only means of getting air to the lungs, then nasal congestion would potentially be a <em>fatal </em>condition! Instead of a few hundred people dying of choking each year, you would be looking at possibly <em>millions </em>of people dying from asphyxiation due to the common cold or allergy symptoms.</p> <p>Richard Deem from the <a href="http://www.godandscience.org/" target="_blank">Evidence for God from Science</a> website offers some more <a href="http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/designgonebad.html#n01" target="_blank">implications</a> of the alternative design for the human trachea and esophagus system:</p> <blockquote> <p><em>There would also be the problem of getting rid of liquid that accidentally enters the lungs. It would have to be pushed all the way up to the nose and expelled there (make sure you carry lots of tissue with you!). Under the current system, it need only go to the top of the trachea and the down the esophagus to the stomach. The two tube design would also restrict the amount of physical activity that humans could do. When we run, we take in air through our mouths, since the larger opening allows for a more rapid respiration rate. The only way to allow for a large respiration rate with one tube to the nose would be to greatly increase the size and openings in our nose. Not only would this look ugly, but the larger openings would present problems. Things could enter into such large openings and have direct access to your lungs (How would you like to inhale a fly into your lungs?). Larger nasal passages would also reduce the temperature of the air, since it could not be heated as effectively (important for cold climates). Another major problem would be speech and language. We need to use our mouths and tongue in order to produce speech. Air running over vocal cords, in the absence of a tongue, lips and teeth, would only be able to produce a very limited number of sounds (it might not affect Rambo, but the rest of us would have a difficult time communicating). Try it some time (hold your mouth open and don't move your tongue as you attempt to communicate). Of course the evolutionist might propose additional structures in the nose (like a tongue, lips and teeth-like structures).</em></p> <p><em>So, here is what the evolutionists are proposing for a superior breathing apparatus. Our trachea would continue up to our nose, requiring our necks to be at least 1 inch wider. We would have huge noses with nose lips and a tongue protruding out. Of course, our faces would have to be much longer to accommodate the additional structures. Now, we would really be ugly! On second thought, it might be interesting trying to kiss with two sets of lips - nah, constantly expelling liquid out our nose would make it kind of gross. Aren't you glad you weren't designed by an evolutionist!</em></p> </blockquote> <p>Even in a well designed and engineered system, it may seem as if you can improve one specific aspect of the system by changing a certain part, but what you quickly discover is that even minor changes lead to consequences that actually degrade the functioning of the system as a whole. In considering “bad designs” in nature, it’s critical to remember that living organisms do not function as a set of independent parts, but as cohesive and finely tuned wholes. Most arguments of “bad design” in nature fail to appreciate this intertwining cohesiveness.</p> <p></p> <p></p> <p></p> <p><em>Human throat image obtained from the Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research (</em><a title="https://www.bcbsri.com/BCBSRIWeb/images/mayo_popup/Yourthroat.jsp" href="https://www.bcbsri.com/BCBSRIWeb/images/mayo_popup/Yourthroat.jsp"><em>https://www.bcbsri.com/BCBSRIWeb/images/mayo_popup/Yourthroat.jsp</em></a><em>)</em></p> Unknownnoreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5738475911376575858.post-84087562774439270332009-09-20T15:33:00.001-07:002009-09-26T15:56:51.297-07:00New Literacies for Students and Teachers in the Web 2.0 World<p>The Internet has exponentially expanded what it means to be literate at the start of the 21st century. Just two decades ago, to be literate—that is, able to fluently read and write—meant knowing the letters and a certain amount of vocabulary and the basic rules of grammar. Anyone could communicate fairly effectively if they knew these basic things. There was only so much that you could <em>do </em>using, say, the ink and paper medium of the past.</p> <p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Web_2.0_Map.svg" target="_blank"><img title="Web 2.0 Cloud" style="border-right: 0px; border-top: 0px; display: inline; margin-left: 0px; border-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; border-bottom: 0px" height="274" alt="Web 2.0 Cloud" src="http://lh3.ggpht.com/_gizIEue5rKU/Srax-2-NjKI/AAAAAAAABVE/g-4iTUjX1JI/Web%202.0%20Cloud%5B7%5D.png?imgmax=800" width="364" align="right" border="0" /></a>In contrast, the interactive capabilities of Web 2.0 technologies and applications has multiplied the possibilities for communication. It’s like jumping from a one-dimensional straight line existence to a fully immersive 3-D world. </p> <p>It doesn’t take long for someone to learn how to turn a page in a book to continue reading, but a person needs to learn a much broader set of skills in order to be able to comfortably navigate the Web. Books and papers are linear—you finish a page and then you turn the page to read the next one. A Web 2.0 website is often not linear, and the ability to follow multiple levels of links and branches and know where you’ve been is important for anyone hoping to gain what they need from a website. Does anyone else remember those “Choose Your Own Adventure” books that were popular in the 1980’s? I used to keep a finger at each page where the story branched, so that when the branch that I followed ended I could quickly return and take the other path. </p> <p>But with these challenges comes a radical increase in the potentials for communication. In the pre-Web 2.0 world, relatively few people outside of authors, journalists, and others working in the media business could communicate to a larger audience. But those who are fluent in Web 2.0 technologies can much more readily expand their communication reach, as the Read/Write Web can make a media producer out of anyone. Blogs, wikis, podcasts, and simple to use web page creation tools can give everyone the means to get their message out.</p> <p>The one constant on the Web is that it will continue to change, and this is what gives educators the greatest challenge. It is not enough just to teach students how to be good at one particular app or how to use one specific technology. In just a short amount of time that technology may be obsolete. I like the word “malleable” that Will Richardson highlights in his blog entry on “<a href="http://weblogg-ed.com/2008/21st-century-literacies-from-the-ncte/" target="_blank">21st Century Literacies.</a>” He writes that “these literacies must now be adaptable and bendable to meet whatever comes down the pike.” The critical thing is the ability to change and adapt to the changing environment. A malleable metal can be shaped into different forms, but perhaps an even more suitable analogy is that we need to teach students to be like viscous fluids, able to fill and take the shape of and embrace whatever new tools and technologies might come along.</p> <p>We can’t teach students how to do something that is yet to come. But what we can do is teach them how to learn things for themselves, so that when the next big thing comes they will quickly be able to master it, and whatever may come next. </p> <p></p> <p></p> <p><em>Web 2.0 Cloud image sourced from <a title="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Web_2.0_Map.svg" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Web_2.0_Map.svg">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Web_2.0_Map.svg</a></em></p> Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5738475911376575858.post-38601438028639155872009-09-01T19:14:00.001-07:002010-01-29T22:18:36.571-08:00Screencasting: Like podcasting for visual learners<p>As a teacher, have you ever been frustrated by having to re-teach the same concept to different students again and again? Have you wished there was some way for students to see again what you did in class?</p> <p>As a physics teacher, there are certain processes (mainly some of the math stuff) that I find myself having to repeat over and over again, such as some of the trig stuff, vector addition, and projectile motion. The frustrating thing is that when we go over the concept in class, students seem to get it. They can follow along with what I am doing and my step by step explanation, and they can even do it themselves (with occasional prompting) in class. But when they get home and try to do the homework by themselves… from lecture to notes things get lost in translation. This is where screencasting can prove useful.</p> <p>Screencasting is the combining of the visuals from a computer screen with audio dialog into a video that can be viewed and reviewed online. A screencast app allows you to record what appears on your computer screen (or a select portion) together with live audio recorded through a computer microphone. Some screencasting apps also enable text boxes, arrows, pausing of the video at key points, and other annotations that can enhance the usefulness of the video.</p> <p>Here is an excerpt from a lesson on Trigonometry that I recorded for my physics classes: </p> <p></p> <center><object classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=9,0,0,28;" height="443" width="519"><param NAME="movie" VALUE="http://sites.google.com/site/kendalf/swf/Trig_20Lesson_202_20%28excerpt%29_toolbar.swf"> <param NAME="quality" VALUE="high"> <param NAME="bgcolor" VALUE="#FFFFFF"> <param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"> <param name="flashVars" value="scaleMode=showAll&showToolbar=true&topToolbar=false&showFullScreen=true&notScaleInFullScreen=false&autoHide=false&showAutoHide=true&showTimer=true&showTimeline=true&showNextButton=true&showPrevButton=true&showVolumeBar=true&fps=12&fileName=http://sites.google.com/site/kendalf/swf/TrigLesson2%28excerpt%29.swf&previewMode=1&previewFilename=&psx=50&psy=50&showPausedOverlay=false&pauseByClickingOnMovie=true&startingPlaybackMode=0&preloadPercent=0"> <embed src="http://sites.google.com/site/kendalf/swf/Trig_20Lesson_202_20%28excerpt%29_toolbar.swf" allowfullscreen="true" flashVars="scaleMode=showAll&showToolbar=true&topToolbar=false&showFullScreen=true¬ScaleInFullScreen=false&autoHide=false&showAutoHide=true&showTimer=true&showTimeline=true&showNextButton=true&showPrevButton=true&showVolumeBar=true&fps=12&fileName=http://sites.google.com/site/kendalf/swf/TrigLesson2%28excerpt%29.swf&previewMode=1&previewFilename=&psx=50&psy=50&showPausedOverlay=false&pauseByClickingOnMovie=true&startingPlaybackMode=0&preloadPercent=0" quality="high" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" WIDTH="519" HEIGHT="443" TYPE="application/x-shockwave-flash" PLUGINSPAGE="http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/index.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></EMBED></object></center> <p></p> <p>The full screencast can be found at this website that I created over the weekend to host the videos: <a href="http://sciencetutorials.yolasite.com/physics-tutorials.php" target="_blank">Science Tutorials</a></p> <p>Screencasting is also very effective for demonstrating how to use something on the computer. This is an excerpt from a screencast I created to show students how to set up their blog for my class:</p> <p></p> <center> <object classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=9,0,0,28;" height="407" width="513"><param NAME="movie" VALUE="http://sites.google.com/site/kendalf/swf/BRSR_20Blog_20-_20Preparation_20%28excerpt%29_toolbar.swf"> <param NAME="quality" VALUE="high"> <param NAME="bgcolor" VALUE="#FFFFFF"> <param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"> <param name="flashVars" value="scaleMode=showAll&showToolbar=true&topToolbar=false&showFullScreen=true&notScaleInFullScreen=false&autoHide=false&showAutoHide=true&showTimer=true&showTimeline=true&showNextButton=true&showPrevButton=true&showVolumeBar=true&fps=12&fileName=http://sites.google.com/site/kendalf/swf/BRSRBlog-Preparation%28excerpt%29.swf&previewMode=1&previewFilename=&psx=50&psy=50&showPausedOverlay=true&pauseByClickingOnMovie=true&startingPlaybackMode=0&preloadPercent=0"> <embed src="http://sites.google.com/site/kendalf/swf/BRSR_20Blog_20-_20Preparation_20%28excerpt%29_toolbar.swf" allowfullscreen="true" flashVars="scaleMode=showAll&showToolbar=true&topToolbar=false&showFullScreen=true¬ScaleInFullScreen=false&autoHide=false&showAutoHide=true&showTimer=true&showTimeline=true&showNextButton=true&showPrevButton=true&showVolumeBar=true&fps=12&fileName=http://sites.google.com/site/kendalf/swf/BRSRBlog-Preparation%28excerpt%29.swf&previewMode=1&previewFilename=&psx=50&psy=50&showPausedOverlay=true&pauseByClickingOnMovie=true&startingPlaybackMode=0&preloadPercent=0" quality="high" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" WIDTH="513" HEIGHT="407" TYPE="application/x-shockwave-flash" PLUGINSPAGE="http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/index.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></EMBED></object></center> <p></p> <p>Now, screencasting certainly won’t take the place of good classroom instruction. For one, it can only capture what appears on a computer screen. But it can definitely provide an effective tool for students to review, at their own pace and as many times as they need, what was done in class.</p> <p>And since there are a number of free screencasting apps available online, students can easily be asked to create their own screencasts, thus addressing NET-S #2 and #6. </p> <p>A free, easy to use, and browser based (no installation of software) screencast app is <a href="http://www.ScreenToaster.com" target="_blank">ScreenToaster</a>. ScreenToaster will also host the screencasts you create for free. The <a href="http://www.freetech4teachers.com/2009/05/four-free-tools-for-creating.html" target="_blank">FreeTech4Teachers blog</a> lists several more free tools for creating screencasts, and it’s where I first found out about these tools.</p> <p>The software that I used for the above screencasts is <a href="http://www.bbsoftware.co.uk/bbflashback.aspx" target="_blank">BB Flashback</a>. The free “Express” version offers great options for recording and exporting screencasts. I used an evaluation copy of the “Pro” version to add the text boxes and pauses, and also to do frame by frame editing. BB Flashback does require installing software, and you will have to find your own means of hosting your screencasts, though there are plenty of free options available for that as well.</p> Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5738475911376575858.post-5590299495992727822009-08-09T15:33:00.001-07:002010-01-29T22:18:36.572-08:00Finding Physics in Unexpected Places: Photo-sharing in the Classroom<p>The next assignment for my Web 2.0 class was to explore the use of photo-sharing sites in our classrooms. To be honest, photo-sharing is probably the tool that I will use the least in my classes, mainly because the classes that I teach benefit from a more dynamic medium. Thus, I will be doing more <em>video</em>-sharing in both my science and theology classes.</p> <p>Of course, I do use photo-sharing sites like <a href="http://picasaweb.google.com/">Picasa Web Albums</a> (my site of choice), Facebook, and Flickr to share pictures with family and friends. I like Picasa because of the way it integrates with the free Picasa photo organization and editing software. It’s certainly no Photoshop, but for basic tweaking and distilling of snapshots it does everything that I need.</p> <p><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/94597307@N00/342782851/" target="_blank"><img title="342782851_9f442de76d" style="border-right: 0px; border-top: 0px; display: inline; margin-left: 0px; border-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; border-bottom: 0px" height="184" alt="342782851_9f442de76d" src="http://lh3.ggpht.com/_gizIEue5rKU/Sn9Ow1zE5-I/AAAAAAAABLI/f8eW6-Pjlgo/342782851_9f442de76d%5B1%5D.jpg?imgmax=800" width="244" align="right" border="0" /></a>I have to say, though, I was <em>very</em> impressed by Darren Kuropatwa’s <a href="http://adifference.blogspot.com/2006/12/flickr-assignment-rubric-v10-were-out.html" target="_blank">assignment</a> which asked students to use Flickr to identify mathematics in places that people usually wouldn’t expect it. I saw this posted on the <a href="http://coolcatteacher.blogspot.com/2006/12/fascinating-flickr-assignment-and.html" target="_blank">Cool Cat Teacher blog</a>. Follow this <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/pc40sf06/" target="_blank">link</a> for examples of his student’s work. I liked the picture on the right in particular. Click on the link the picture to see the original Flickr page with the student’s annotations, pointing out all the exponential functions in the picture.</p> <p>This is something that I may try adopting for my physics classes. Instead of identifying mathematics, I would ask my students to find physics in unexpected places. This would enable them to develop visual literacy and help accomplish one of the goals for my class, which is to be able to see physics at work in the world around them. This would also address NET-S #6, Technology Operations and Concepts. I like Darren’s requirement that students had to add a minimum number of “hot spots” to their photos. A hot spot is a clickable square that causes text to pop up, describing and highlighting how that particular area applies a certain concept. Students were also required to plan ahead to make sure all hot spots were accessible, and that a larger hot spot didn’t cover up a smaller one in the background.</p> <p>I might also consider applying aspects of this assignment to a video format, in which students have to use Youtube or <a href="http://www.vimeo.com" target="_blank">Vimeo</a> to share a video that demonstrates several physics concepts.</p> Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5738475911376575858.post-67937544112238240682009-07-26T17:17:00.001-07:002009-08-09T15:35:42.940-07:00I’m Syndicated!<p>Once I started following more than a couple blogs, I realized that I needed a more efficient system to read blog posts than just visiting each blog one at a time. An RSS feed reader acts as a repository for all your subscriptions to other blogs, or anything else that features an RSS feed, usually designated by this icon: <a href="http://lh3.ggpht.com/_gizIEue5rKU/SmzyHxf3nQI/AAAAAAAABHA/6mHUAn6HmOI/s1600-h/Feed-24x24%5B3%5D.png"><img title="Feed-24x24" style="border-right: 0px; border-top: 0px; display: inline; border-left: 0px; border-bottom: 0px" height="24" alt="Feed-24x24" src="http://lh4.ggpht.com/_gizIEue5rKU/SmzyIZSeAdI/AAAAAAAABHE/iSFPd0JGg10/Feed-24x24_thumb%5B1%5D.png?imgmax=800" width="24" border="0" /></a> . A blog or other syndicated medium will usually have this icon indicating that you can subscribe to it using a feed reader (sometimes called aggregator).</p> <p>There are numerous options for aggregators; here are two links describing several of the most popular choices: Lifehacker, “<a href="http://lifehacker.com/390619/best-rss-newsreaders" target="_blank">Best RSS Newsreaders</a>” and Gizmo’s Freeware, “<a href="http://www.techsupportalert.com/best-free-rss-reader-aggregator.htm" target="_blank">Best Free RSS Reader-Aggregator</a>”. I ended up going with <a href="www.google.com/reader" target="_blank">Google Reader</a>, mainly because I like Google’s apps and I appreciate the simplicity of the Gmail like interface that Google Reader uses. It has served me perfectly well so far. Here’s a good introduction from Lifehacker on “<a href="http://www.lifehack.org/articles/technology/how-to-get-started-with-google-reader.html">How to Get Started with Google Reader</a>”.</p> <p>The only feature that Google Reader is lacking for me is that it cannot subscribe to a feed that is password protected. I ran into this problem when trying to subscribe to the feed for the password protected PBworks page I set up for one of my classes. The PBWorks <a href="http://usermanual.pbworks.com/Notifications#PrivateworkspacesandRSS" target="_blank">user manual</a> describes the issue and recommends several alternative feed readers that do support password-protected feeds.</p> <p>After using a feed reader for several months I can say that it would be impossible for me to keep up with the various sites that I follow without it. The reader pulls together the titles of all the new entries that have been posted since the last time I checked, and I can quickly browse through and see which entries interest me and expand them to read within the reader itself. One thing I realized is that once you start following a few blogs, you really do have to add some regular reading time into your routine. I also realized that even with a reader, there really is a limit to how many blogs you can realistically follow. After going for several days without opening up Reader and finding about 100 unread entries, I realized that I needed to cut out some of my subscriptions and also read a bit more regularly. But again, a good reader allows you to quickly skim through the titles and chose to bring up only what you want to read. I can’t imagine manually loading up each of the different blogs and trying to determine which posts were new. In this regard, RSS is an essential technology for someone who’s trying to keep track of multiple sources of information.</p> <h2></h2> <h2></h2> <h3>Within the Classroom</h3> <p>In the classroom, a feed aggregator would be absolutely essential for a teacher who has students create and post to their own blogs. I am planning to incorporate student blogging into one of my classes this fall, and I cannot imagine having to routinely visit 50 different blogs to see what students have written. With a feed reader, I can see all the new student entries in one convenient place.</p> <p>I can also have students subscribe to the RSS feeds for certain blogs that address topics of interest to the class, and require them to write responses to entries of particular interest in their own blogs. These activities would address NET-S #2 (Communication and Collaboration) and #3 (Research and Information Fluency) respectively.</p> <p>Here is the <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/ReasonableAnswers" target="_blank">feed address</a> for my own Reasonable Answers blog. I kind of “upgraded” the feed for my blog by putting it through <a href="http://www.google.com/support/feedburner/bin/answer.py?answer=79408" target="_blank">Feedburner</a> (which was also recently acquired by Google). The primary reason I ran my feed through Feedburner was because it provided the option for people to easily subscribe to my blog through e-mail.  I felt that this would provide a simple and convenient option for those who did not desire to set up a feed reader. You can enter an e-mail addy in the box under “Feed Subscription” on the left side of the page (under the hand holding the Earth) and follow the instructions in the pop-up box that will appear, and then whenever a new entry is posted on Reasonable Answers you will receive an e-mail. Feedburner also provides some neat tools for “promoting” a blog, and it also provides tracking information so that you can see who is subscribed to your feed.</p> Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5738475911376575858.post-83541926450990842412009-07-22T21:29:00.001-07:002009-07-22T21:29:51.086-07:00The Social (Bookmarking) Life of a Teacher<p>“I need a better way to organize my bookmarks.” I’ve been saying that for several months now.  What with preparing topics for discussion in my classes, researching issues and points for debate, and general browsing on topics that interest me, I’ve come across numerous websites that provide a wealth of pertinent information, all of which are added to my Firefox bookmark list. However, as the list grew to hundreds and hundreds of links, the thought of ever being able to recall and find a particular link in the future became an impossible task. The problem was that I did not have a good system to label what sort of link I was bookmarking, compounded by the fact that I did my bookmarking across a number of computers, so I was having troubles syncing links between computers. This past year I’ve been using <a href="http://readitlaterlist.com/" target="_blank">Read It Later List</a> to try to solve the syncing issue.  This app allowed me to save a webpage to read later, the idea being that when I got home I would go through my list and label and sort them into a master bookmark list. But when my Read it later list grew to over 100 links that I planned to “read later” I realized that this was not going to work; kind of like when you put all your mail into one single box with the idea that you will go through it later.</p> <p>So when I learned more about social bookmarking through my online course on Web 2.0 technologies for education, I thought that this was exactly what I was looking for to organize all my links. My dream was to build up a library of resource and research links that I could refer to at any time and from any location when the need arose, easily searchable by keyword (aka tags). <a href="http://delicious.com" target="_blank">Delicious</a> seemed to fit the bill, and I’ve been playing around with it the last few weeks. </p> <p>The idea of social bookmarking is that many pairs of eyes can find more relevant resources than one. You can search the links that other people have saved using a particular tag and you will then be able to see the webpages that other people believe may be relevant to that keyword. This can lead to more relevant webpages than what you may find on your own simply by doing Google searches.</p> <p>The most tedious task in setting up my own <a href="http://delicious.com/kendalf" target="_blank">Delicious account</a> was going through and tagging the <em>hundreds </em>of bookmarks that I imported from my home computer. After a couple weeks I’m still not even close to finishing. I guess it’s kind of like organizing a file drawer that has had everything thrown in there. But once I finish tagging everything, the reward is that I will have easy organized access to all the useful links that I have saved over the years. The magic of an app like Delicious that can not be accomplished by a physical filing system is that links can be tagged with multiple keywords. A physical document can only go in one file folder. But a webpage addressing the historical account of the Galileo affair can be tagged with the terms <em>science</em>, <em>religion</em>, <em>history</em>, and <em>geocentrism</em>, so that it pops up when I search for any of those terms on its own. Or I can search more precisely only for links that address both <em>history</em> and <em>geocentrism</em>. This certainly trumps even the best physical filing system.</p> <p>These links and tags can also be displayed on a personal blog, for example, so that others can see what you are tagging. I tried adding a linkroll and a tagroll to this blog, but the default formatting provided by Delicious did not work well with the custom layout of my blog, so I ended up deleting them.</p> <p> </p> <h2></h2> <h2>Use in the Classroom</h2> <p>How might social bookmarking be utilized in the classroom?  I can certainly see the advantage of this for a research project, as multiple students look for and tag good sources of information from the Net, starting perhaps with the links that the teacher has already tagged.</p> <p>Another way social bookmarking can be utilized is to restrict the number of sites that students can refer to when researching about a topic to only those that the teacher has already tagged.  Though this may constrict the "social" aspect of Delicious, it does serve the purpose of ensuring that the sites that students refer to have already been deemed useful by the teacher.  I've had students who simply didn't have the discernment to tell what was a good site with valid content versus one that gave invalid or irrelevant information.  Rather than simply giving them a static list on a paper of sites that they can use, I can tell them to refer to the sites that I have specifically tagged in my social bookmarking account. This way I can continue adding relevant sites to the list even after the assignment has been given. I am already envisioning using this for my research assignments on the age of the Earth debate or the issue of Intelligent Design. A simple arbitrary search in Google using “Intelligent Design” may not necessarily turn up the most informative results, so this way I can enable my students to benefit from the inordinate amount of time I have spent searching and reading up on the issue. This would definitely address NET-S #3, Research and Information Fluency.</p> <p>Another way that social bookmarking can be a helpful tool for students is when I ask them to set up wiki pages detailing the major points regarding a specific issue. Students can use social bookmarking tools to tag relevant links that they have come across so that their teammates can see what they have found. This would address NET-S #2, Communication and Collaboration.</p> Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5738475911376575858.post-79614180767651964902009-07-20T19:27:00.001-07:002009-07-22T21:31:59.413-07:00Science: Theists Need Not Apply<p>Here is an excerpt from an insightful <a href="http://townhall.com/columnists/KenConnor/2009/07/19/science_theists_need_not_apply" target="_blank">commentary</a> by Ken Connor on the backlash among some parts of the scientific community to President Obama’s recent appointment of outspoken Christian biologist Dr. Francis Collins as head of the National Institutes of Health.  Collins was the head of the team that successfully mapped the human genome, and he has written a book called <em>The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief</em>.  He is also the founder of The <a href="http://biologos.org/" target="_blank">Biologos Foundation</a>, which presents a case for harmony between Christian faith and science by emphasizing the compatibility of Christian faith with scientific discoveries about the origins of the universe and life.  </p> <p>Connor I think makes an interesting reversal of the idea that some people have that Christians are less capable of being scientists than atheists and agnostics.  </p> <blockquote> <p>Regardless of the specifics of Dr. Collins's Christian identity, the idea that his faith impedes his fitness to serve as the head of the NIH operates on the absurd premise that only atheists and agnostics are capable of being good scientists.  One might argue the precise opposite of this.  If, as previously stated, the origin of scientific inquiry was based upon the belief that the physical world operates according to fixed and intelligible laws, one might ask what kind of foundation underlies a scientific worldview which denies an intelligent design or an ultimate purpose?  If there's no designer, no fixed laws, no first principles, then there is no real meaning—no context in which to evaluate the value and significance of newly acquired knowledge.  When there is no acknowledged moral source to draw a clear line between the permissible and the forbidden, then human curiosity and ambition are left as the only arbiters of science's use.  (Ken Connor, “<a href="http://townhall.com/columnists/KenConnor/2009/07/19/science_theists_need_not_apply" target="_blank">Science: Theists Need Not Apply</a>”)</p> </blockquote> <p>In other parts of his article, Connor garners my applause for accurately describing the role of faith in the lives of many “great heroes of science [who] pioneered their discoveries under the auspices of this inspiration.”</p> <p>I wish that more commentators would take the time to do their history homework and gain the correct perspective on the relationship between science and faith the way that Connor has.</p> Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5738475911376575858.post-32037309542935874842009-06-26T16:15:00.000-07:002009-06-27T14:48:44.017-07:00A Skeptical Approach to Wikipedia<p>A discussion of wikis would be missing something without at least some mention of the most widely accessed wiki in the world: Wikipedia. There is quite a bit of debate among educators about the use of Wikipedia for school assignments. Whatever policies may be implemented within the classroom, however, you can be sure that students will be looking at Wikipedia when they do online research, since it’s often one of the top few links to pop up with any web search on a particular topic. One of the other teachers in the Web 2.0 course I am taking described how a discussion of the positives and negatives of Wikipedia can be a “teachable moment” for students.</p><br /><br /><p>The majority of teachers at my school do not allow the citing of wikipedia as a source. I also caution my students against using wikipedia even as a starting point for their research on particular assignments. Though everyone who registers is free to contribute and correct mistakes, and most information on Wikipedia is generally accurate, the reality is that much misinformation exists on wikipedia, especially in more controversial issues in which the conventional wisdom is actually incorrect. Some examples:</p><br /><br /><p>My first foray in editing wikipedia was to correct a misrepresentation of an Augustine quote on the "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_religion#Conflict_thesis">Science and Religion</a>" entry. Augustine was previously quoted as saying that Christians must beware of mathematicians because they may have made a covenant with the devil, but what Augustine was actually referring to was astrologers rather than mathematicians. I was able to spot the misrepresentation because I had background knowledge about Augustine, but if my students had seen that quote and didn't investigate more deeply, they may have concluded that Augustine was an example of how Christians are opposed to science and mathematics.</p><br /><br /><p>I think that where I am most concerned about the reliability of wikipedia is in those articles that deal with controversial issues or topics in which the majority opinion is erroneous or biased. For example, the current wikipedia entry on "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design">Intelligent Design</a>" contains much that is factually incorrect and biased against ID. However, corrections of these errors are often quickly reverted by those who appear to have an agenda against Intelligent Design and its proponents. This entry certainly does not follow Wikipedia's "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view">Neutral Point of View</a>" and "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability">Verifiability</a>" policies, but it is difficult to present the balancing facts because the great majority of people who are editing this entry hold--either knowingly or unknowingly--a biased or at least incomplete view of the topic.</p><br /><br /><p>William Dembski, one of the key proponents of Intelligent Design, has tried many times to correct erroneous information presented on the wikipedia <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Dembski">page about him</a>, but his corrections are repeatedly deleted such that what someone reads about him on Wikipedia is an inaccurate and biased portrayal. These serve as examples of how at times conventional wisdom or the majority position can be unreliable, and that this can make it difficult for a minority position to accurately assert itself.</p><br /><br /><p>One of the top students at our school wanted to make a point about wikipedia. His history class had to write a research paper on a particular topic. This student created a new page on Wikipedia addressing this topic, and it was so convincing that the information made up by this student was cited by several other students in the class in their research papers! It was only after the student explained what he had done that people realized how deeply they had been taken.</p><br /><br /><p>I think that the most useful aspect of wikipedia is the links to the sources used for the content posted on the page. Many of those links are indeed good quality, and students can see from the context whether the content that is presented on wikipedia is accurate or not. But even then, the neutrality of the content is not guaranteed, since pertinent information that may contradict what is presented in the wikipedia entry may be ignored.</p><br /><br /><p>If students approach Wikipedia with a skeptical eye and the understanding that it is not necessarily unbiased, accurate, or complete, then Wikipedia can be a useful resource. But the problems come when students rely too much on what they obtain from Wikipedia.</p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5738475911376575858.post-70444705114024605962009-06-26T16:01:00.000-07:002009-06-27T14:48:18.737-07:00There's a Wiki in the classroom!<p>A wiki is a collaborative webpage (or website) in which members can each contribute and edit the pages. I’ve been exploring the use of wikis in the classroom through several free wiki hosting services. I’m very excited about the potentials of wikis, so much so that I hope to migrate much of the content currently on the Reasonable Answers blog onto a Wiki. I find that the wiki format is more accessible than a blog as an archive of resources, and it also paves the way for future collaboration with others who share a similar mission.</p><p>I created a class wiki for a summer school program that I am working with for gifted elementary school kids. My class of 5th graders is learning about Science and Engineering, and I am using a PBWorks wiki to enable the class to brainstorm on ideas and submit assignments online. The URL for the wiki is <a href="http://scen.pbworks.com/">http://scen.pbworks.com</a>. The wiki is password protected from the public for the safety of the students, but I have created a “Parent” account so that the parents could view the wiki and keep up with how it is developing. (Username: <strong>parent</strong> -- Password: <strong>ctyjhu</strong>)</p><p>One of the features that I like about PBWorks is that it allows for the speedy creation of multiple student accounts, even for students who do not have an e-mail address, which is important especially for some of the younger students. You can assign usernames and passwords (or have the students choose) and you will have a master list of all login information. </p><p>One problem that students quickly encountered on the first class wiki assignment was the “Edit Lock” function that PBWorks implements. Actually, the problem wasn’t the Edit Lock, it was the ability for other students to steal edit lock which caused the problems. We discussed the issue in class, and agreed on some strategies that would help keep students from stepping on each other’s toes in future assignments. The students decided that for future assignments, they would each type out what they wanted to include on a separate word processor program, and then copy and paste what they wrote into the wiki. This would minimize the amount of time each student would need the Edit Lock, and thus other students would not feel the desire to steal edit lock because they had been waiting for too long. The students also came up with the idea of having a unique text color for each student, so that they could clearly see who had contributed what to each page.</p><p>I also created free wiki accounts using <a href="http://www.wikidot.com/">Wikidot!</a> and <a href="http://www.wikispaces.com/">Wikispaces</a>. Wikispaces gave me a hard time when I tried to create two separate accounts, one for school and one for Reasonable Answers, plus I didn’t really like the generic look of the Wikispace workspace, so I’ve been focusing more on Wikidot! It seems that Wikidot! offers some more features and room for customization for free accounts (especially after the free upgrade to an educational account) than PBWorks, and I am working on transferring the posts from my blog to the wiki. I like that Wikidot! can create separate sections for Bibliography and Footnotes, instead of just footnotes like other wiki engines (see <a href="http://sandbox.wikidot.com/footnotes-and-bibliography">here</a> for an example of this that you can play with). Wikidot! does seem a bit more difficult to use in its syntax, and if you have the time to learn some of the commands it does seem more powerful and customizable.</p><p>I do wish that it had the classroom account feature of PBWorks, and I’m trying to figure out a way to convert files from other formats (eg. Word doc or HTML) into wikidot syntax, which would greatly speed up putting stuff on the wiki.</p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5738475911376575858.post-42905384585638067772009-06-15T14:19:00.001-07:002009-06-27T14:48:27.533-07:00Exploring Web 2.0 in Education<p>I am currently taking an online course called “Web 2.0 Tools for the Classroom.” The class is an exploration of the new tools offered by Web 2.0 (sometimes called the “Read/Write Web”) and how they can be implemented within[out] the classroom. Even though it’s only been a week I’ve already been greatly inspired by some of the ideas that I’ve read about, and I have some ideas for some things I would like to try to implement this Fall in my classes. So this next series of posts will be some of my thoughts on these new tools, which I hope will give some of you educators who read this a glimpse of the wide variety of things that are available for use to enhance our teaching and our students’ learning.</p> <p>The first tool that we are exploring is the blog. Luckily this is a tool that I have slight familiarity with. Since I started the <em><font color="#ff0000">reasonable answers</font></em> blog last December and started exploring what can be done with a blog by following the work of other blog writers, I’ve gained an appreciation for blogging as a medium for communication, as well as some of the constraints of blogs. I’ve greatly enjoyed writing in this blog, and I’ve greatly appreciated the comments that people have made about this blog, both written and verbal. I can’t overstate how important those words of encouragement are, especially for someone just starting out! It makes the time put into researching and writing and formatting each entry worthwhile!</p> <p>That being said, I’ve certainly not been utilizing this blog as much as I would want, mainly because of the reality of teaching full time <em>and</em> having a very active toddler at home. There is still much that I want to write for this blog that I haven’t gotten around to yet, and I’ve certainly been feeling that I’ve been neglecting you faithful few who have actually subscribed to updates! </p> <p>The nature of blogs is that content is presented in a chronological or sequential series of posts. As such, I really wanted to write something at least once a week to sustain interest in the blog. But the realities of life made it difficult to maintain that pace. Also, while the sequential format is conducive for a series of posts like the “ESCR Debate” series, I was hesitant about breaking a series to write about something else in between. I also think that a blog is great for up-to-date reflections and reactions on current events, but I think that what I write may be better suited to an archival type website, which is why I skipped ahead a bit and read the section on Wikis!</p> <p>But I do have some ideas to incorporate blogs into my BRSR class this Fall. I plan to set up student blogs connected to a primary BRSR blog using Edublogs (already signed up! <a title="http://brsr.edublogs.org/" href="http://brsr.edublogs.org/">http://brsr.edublogs.org/</a>) and require students to write weekly entries chronicling their thoughts on the content we discuss in class as well as share additional information that would be pertinent to class discussions. This would take the place of the weekly 1 page reflection essay that I had students do previous years. My hope is that this will give students who are less comfortable speaking up in class the opportunity to make their voice heard. Also, by having 50 sets of eyes prowling the web and posting up interesting and pertinent websites and information, this will broaden the scope of the class beyond what I can accomplish on my own. This would achieve at least two of the <a href="http://www.iste.org/Content/NavigationMenu/NETS/ForStudents/2007Standards/NETS_for_Students_2007.htm" target="_blank">National Education and Technology Standards</a> for students:</p> <ul> <li>2. Communication and Collaboration</li> <li>3. Research and Information Fluency</li> <li>and possibly touch on 5. Digital Citizenship.</li> </ul> <p>One of the greatest challenges for teachers incorporating blogs—or any other Web 2.0 tool—into a class is finding the time to translate their lessons and curriculum online.  Veteran teachers might be hesitant to change what has been working and try a new thing. New teachers who may be less set in their ways may be so overwhelmed with all the new teacher skills they are learning that they simply do not have time to try to learn new technologies, or they may be hesitant to try to introduce a new way of teaching a lesson if none of the other teachers has tried it before. I think that a way to conquer this challenge is if a few veteran teachers who are comfortable with new technology and are willing to try new things incorporate some of these tools into their classes, and then demonstrate to other teachers what they and their students can accomplish using these new tools. </p> Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5738475911376575858.post-36708071520882409412009-04-20T22:10:00.001-07:002009-11-27T15:58:13.233-08:00Why Debate?<p>I’ve been neglecting to post more entries to the blog lately, but it hasn’t been due to writer’s block. I’ve been writing a great deal lately, but the majority of my writing has been in online exchanges on stem cell research (from which came the <a href="http://reasonableanswers.blogspot.com/2009/03/real-debate-on-embryonic-stem-cell.html">ESCR debate series</a>) or on intelligent design and evolution. You can follow the two ongoing debates about ID <a href="http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=24093214725&topic=8534">here</a> and <a href="http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=2209122774&topic=8167">here</a> (my involvement in the 2nd thread begins with post #37). I’ve certainly been learning much from preparing responses for these debates, and they have enabled me to sharpen my understanding of the issues. I certainly hope to present some of the key points from these debates in this blog in the near future, but one of the consequences of engaging in these discussions is that once you start, it’s hard to stop without seeming like you are conceding the argument.</p> <p>One thing I’ve been seeing from the ID debates is that the vast majority of the arguments that people offer against the theory of Intelligent Design stem from a basic misunderstanding of what the theory is about. This has emphasized to me why as a teacher it is critical to fairly and accurately present both sides of a debatable issue, so that students can arrive at their own reasonable and informed conclusion as well as be knowledgeable enough to respond fairly to arguments from those who hold opposing viewpoints. And this is why I have been sharing direct excerpts from these debates in this blog, so that people can see the actual arguments that are raised against the positions that I take, rather than my (potential) misrepresentations of the opposing arguments.</p> <p><strong>I want my students to follow the evidence where it leads, not where I or anyone else says that it leads.</strong></p> <p>One other thing I’ve been learning through these debates is the importance of character, even in an online discussion with faceless opponents and nameless audience. In spite of the rather impersonal nature of these online debates, we must always remember that we speak as Christ’s ambassadors, as if He were making his appeal through us. How we say things can be just as significant as what we say.</p> <p>There can be some mean-spirited people in these online debates. Rather than relying on reason and rationality in their arguments , they resort to ridicule and insult to try to make their points. It can be tempting to descend to the same disparaging tone, especially when these defamatory remarks tend to draw popular support. But even if this kind of attitude can win the argument, it would not be a victory if we lose the real battle over the hearts and minds of those that we encounter. I draw encouragement from these words from 1 Peter 2:15-17, 21-25:</p> <blockquote> <p><em><strong>For it is God's will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men</strong>. Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God. <strong>Show proper respect to everyone</strong>: Love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honor the king.</em></p> <p><sup></sup><em>To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps. “He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth.” <strong>When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. </strong>Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly. He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed. For you were like sheep going astray, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.</em></p></blockquote> Unknownnoreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5738475911376575858.post-39874712564127808162009-04-12T13:21:00.001-07:002009-10-22T08:00:29.784-07:00Evolution or Design?<p>Just for fun…</p> <p>Evolution or Design? You decide!</p> <p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EYAUazLI9k">The Sound of Music in a Belgian train station</a></p> Unknownnoreply@blogger.com8