Tabatha’s Personal Inquiry Blog

Theories Taught in Tandem with Evolution

Wishing

thUTCp31UTC10bUTCSun, 08 Oct 2006 14:38:11 +0000 6, 2006 by · 3 Comments · Wishing

I cannot believe I am coming to the end of my CourseQuest1 project.  To be honest, I have put so much of myself and time into this project that I am nervous about the fact that there are three more projects to go!  I think my project went well.  Of course there were ups and downs but for the most part I am proud of what I have accomplished and I learned a great deal about my topic, information inquiry and how to make a blog. 

 

Some of the strengths of my project (in my opinion) include the detail and organization.  Not only did I try and follow the evaluation criteria provided by our professor, Annette Lamb, but I tried to go further by using more examples, sharing more feelings, and really try and post as if I was bringing any reader along with me on my journey.   What I view as the biggest strength of the project was that it wasn’t an easy topic to inquire about and I didn’t let that scare me away. 

 

Boy did I ever have weaknesses and challenges in this project.  There were many times, I thought to myself “Tabatha, Why did you pick such a deep topic?”  I felt overwhelmed at times with all the questions I kept coming up with.  A big challenge I encountered was trying to find non-biased sources.  I’m not even sure it is possible with such a controversial topic.  I take that back, I think it is possible, but rare.  The challenge of using edublogs was huge for me.  There were so many times that the online tool would not be working properly and I would get so flustered.  It was also sometimes difficult to weed through the evidence against evolution.  There is so much, but I only wanted to concentrate on the scientific discrepancies and that made my inquiry a little more difficult.  I suppose one thing that could be done differently with a similar investigation would be to allow students to find their own way of documenting their inquiry search.  If I had a choice again, I don’t know as if I would use a blog (I just had so much trouble with the technical aspects of it…even thought I think the end product turned out just fine). 

I think my personal inquiry experiences (more specifically this personal inquiry experience) are similar to the young adults who enter my classroom.  Throughout this inquiry journey, I had some prior knowledge to activate, I did lots of research, I had questions and needed help at times, I had struggles and feelings of success throughout.  I do feel like sometimes my students take the “easy road” by choosing “easier” topics such as butterflies instead of going on a personal journey to learn about something really important to them.  I think in this way, I am unlike some (not all) of the young adults that enter my classroom.

The curriculum connection component of this project was a tough one for me.  Obviously the Indiana Science Standards require teachers to teach evolution.  The standards even go as far as saying “Describe how life on Earth is thought to have begun as simple, one-celled organisms about 4 billion years ago” ( Standard 1 Indicator B.1.33) The Indiana Standards also state “Explain how natural selection leads to organisms that are well suited for survival in particular environments, and discuss how natural selection provides scientific explanation for the history of life on Earth as depicted in the fossil record and in the similarities evident within the diversity of existing organisms” (Standard 1 Indicator B.1.32).  The problem with these indicators is that there is a great deal of scientific evidence that doesn’t agree with these statements.  Therefore, in the past when I teach evolution I stress the word theory and use statements such as “this is what some scientist think.”  Even the indicator B.1.33 says, “Describe how life on Earth is thought…..”  See the word thought means scientists are not for sure. 

The only way I can think that this project could be translated into a curricular experience for my students would be if one of my students chose to do an inquiry search on the topic of discrepancies in evolution.  I think if I collaborated with the media specialist on an activity such as allowing the students to do a personal inquiry search and we used Standard 4 of the Information Literacy Standards, the students could pursue information related to their personal interest.  Then, the student could present their product and the topic could be discussed.  However, even if the student accessed information effectively, evaluate information critically, and used he information accurately and creatively (all the criteria found in the first 3 standards on information literacy) I think the media specialist and myself would still be in a boat load of trouble for allowing our student to perform any personal inquiry on such a topic.

(The Information Literacy Standards were taken from Information Power, 1998, p.8)

(The Indiana Science Standards were taken from http://ideanet.doe.state.in.us/standards/docs-Science/2006-Science-BiologyI.doc)

My personal approach to inquiry has changed some during the scope of this project.  I evaluated my sources a lot more with this project and I think that is a positive thing.  I will do this more in future inquiries.  At the beginning I mentioned that my personal approach to inquiry was to choose a topic that I will enjoy learning along the way.  I wanted to take a meaningful journey and after completing this project, I still wouldn’t have it any other way. 

Waving

thUTCp31UTC10bUTCSun, 08 Oct 2006 13:39:50 +0000 6, 2006 by · No Comments · Waving

I am unsure exactly how I will communicate the ideas mentioned in my blog and more specifically the ideas mentioned in my posting titled “Wrapping”.  I know for sure my ideas will be communicated via word of mouth to both friends & family.  Maybe my blog has some potential in making a good article on the web?  If I did, I would really zero in on the scientific discrepancies in evolution and remove all inferences about “religion”.  I would want both those who see themselves for and against evolution to learn something from my article.  I want it to be unbiased.  I want it to just talk about the science.  I would also make sure that my website had contact information, a privacy policy and was updated often (with current scientific evidence).  That way the website could be used by students if it received a good credibility rating.  If I stick with the scientific evidence, I think others would be interested in reading about my inquiry….well that sounds biased doesn’t it! 

Wrapping

thUTCp31UTC10bUTCSun, 08 Oct 2006 13:05:50 +0000 6, 2006 by · 1 Comment · Wrapping

The information I have gathered, synthesized, and learned could be used in a number of ways. 

1.      I could use this information and share it with my friends and family.

2.      I could use this information and discuss it with my school administration with the intention of asking whether other theories could be taught in conjunction with evolution or if I could simply discuss criteria both for and against evolution. 

3.      I could use this information and try and write an article discussing a “middle ground”; an action that would not eliminate evolution from the science classroom nor would it allow alternate theories to be taught.  But rather allow teachers to discuss the criteria both for and against evolution.  I could try and get such an article published in a scientific journal.  I could try and get our governor to read such an article.  I could send the article to the NSTA. 

To package my findings I have created a poem for my final project.  Please click on the hyperlink to view my poem titled “May We Discuss The Cons?” 

The information in this poem and in the postings of my blog describe the exasperating feelings I have in regards to the theory of evolution.  It is obvious after reading my blog that I do not believe in the theory of evolution.  In addition I would love to see other theories be allowed in the public classroom and taught in tandem with evolution.  After much inquiry, I do believe it will be a long, long time before that is even remotely possible.  Even though there is scientific evidence against the theory of evolution, any other theory would just be called a religion and dismissed.  I can’t help but think about a possible “middle ground”.  This idea of a “middle ground” was the basis or central idea of my poem.  What if biology teachers were simply allowed to discuss the criteria both for and against the theory of evolution?  Although states such as Kansas and Ohio are starting to allow this, there are many (recall the article at http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0110news2.asp) where a teacher was removed from his biology classroom for simply discussing criteria against evolution.  If we (biology teachers) can talk about the pros and cons of cloning, stem-cell research, abortion, genetically engineering plants & animals without bringing “religion” into it, then why can’t we also talk about the cons of evolution as well without bringing “religion” into it? 

Presently the information in my blog is being used to strengthen my own knowledge and I have been discussing the information a great deal with friends and families.  In fact, just this past Friday I was talking with some friends about my information inquiry and my attempt to use only scientific explanations to explain the discrepancies in evolution.  Our friend, Michael, asked me if I have ever read Lee Stobel (unsure if that is the correct spelling).  Although I have not, I am anxious to.  Michael said, he writes on the scientific evidence against evolution. 

I do; however, believe this is a topic that entire world should know about.  There are many who believe only in evolution or creationism and will not even listen to what others believe.  I feel that you can’t have an intelligent conversation with someone or support your own belief if you don’t also know some information about what the other person believes.  I also think it is important to allow the scientific criteria against evolution to be heard.  That way each man and woman can be knowledgeable and draw their own conclusions.  The problem with this is that presently the criterion against evolution is forbidden information in many public schools and many authors writing about the criteria against evolution are being discriminated by “scholarly journals”.  For example, Scientific American has made it very clear that they will not publish any article discussing criteria against the theory of evolution….even if it only talks about the science evidence and has nothing to do with a Creator or supernatural power.  Their April 1st, 2005 article “Okay, We Give Up” article (as well as many others) made it very clear that they are bias towards the theory of evolution. 

Weaving

thUTCp31UTC10bUTCSun, 08 Oct 2006 12:01:02 +0000 6, 2006 by · No Comments · Weaving

Although I feel like I could keep “webbing and wiggling” for then next month or so, I think I need to move on to Annette Lamb’s Weaving step of her 8 Ws Information Inquiry Model.  According to Lamb, “This is the stage where we move from random pieces of data and information to ideas that become knowledge and maybe even wisdom”.  (From Annette’s email to me dated Fri. Sept 29, 2006 at 16:48:33)  I definitely feel as though I have lots of random pieces of data and information that I need to process and synthesize. 
According to Standard 3 of the Information Literacy Standards for Student Learning, an information literate person manages their information “skillfully and effectively”.  It goes on to state that one must “organize and integrate information from a range of sources and formats in order to apply it to decision making, problem solving, critical thinking, and creative expression”  (Information Power, 1998, p. 18).  I would like to do this.  If I can’t, then how can I expect my students to or how can I expect to convince a classroom teacher to collaborate with me using Standard 3? 
One way I am going to try and organize my information is to use a KWL chart I found after doing a google search using “graphic organizers” as my keywords.  I decided to use a chart I found at (http://www.teach-nology.com/cgi-bin/kwl.cgi) because it was Free and easy to download and edit. 

I actually have 2 different KWL charts.  One (KWL Chart #1) in which I created to organize the information I have already gathered.  This chart was partially filled out before entering the Weaving stage.  The first column was completed using prior knowledge I had about the topic.  The other two columns were completed as I progressed in my research.  The second KWL chart (KWL Chart #2) was created because as I was going through my notes and earlier postings, I started to think of new questions that I hadn’t asked before or answered along the way.  So, the column of “What I know” didn’t come from my prior knowledge at this point, instead it came from what I had learned a little later. I agree with Violet H. Harada and Joan M. Yoshina in their book Inquiry Learning through Librarian-Teacher Partnerships that the use of a KWL chart “provide[s] a ‘before’ and ‘after’ snapshot to the student’s knowledge” (2004, p. 58).  Looking over my KWL chart shows a nice summary and a wonderful expression of progression along my inquiry journey.

One thing I have tried to do throughout my blogging process, was to continually read over prior posts and see what needed updated or revised, or analyze what questions have been “raked over the coals”.  The information I have synthesized and documented in my KWL charts are findings of merit in my opinion.  The information has been evaluated; however, not all has received stellar ratings.  Because of the topic I have chosen (a topic filled with biasness) I had to look at more than just the credibility rating.  For example, a website may not have had an address posted, but if their citations checked out and there was some form of communication tool (phone number or email for example) then I still found that information to contain merit. 

Even More Webbing & Wiggling

thUTCp31UTC10bUTCFri, 06 Oct 2006 14:26:37 +0000 6, 2006 by · 1 Comment · Webbing, Wiggling

Back in September (10th and 11th) I went to a conference led by speaker Ken Ham who is founder of Answers In Genesis.  This is a ministry dedicated to teaching the importance of creationism.  Throughout the conference, Ken Ham gave numerous discrepancies in evolution and shared the importance of teachers being able to talk about such discrepancies.  Ham mostly used the Bible to describe such discrepancies. 

Although I personally agree with Mr. Ham regarding the Bible giving evidence as to why evolution cannot explain the origin of life, I also realize that not everyone believes in the Bible or what it says.  So, throughout the conference I was looking for scientific explanations for illuminating the discrepancies in evolution.  I felt as though I did receive some.  Ken Ham talked a lot about the dating process of fossils and the rocks surrounding the fossils. 

He even mentioned a book “The Lost Squadron” (which I have not read) that talks about some military planes (3 I think) that ran out of gas and landed in Greenland.  Evidently, the military wasn’t in any rush to get the planes back and they left the planes there for 46 years.  According to Ham, many scientists believed the planes should be easily spotted since it takes millions of years to form such large amounts of ice.  Instead, in 1988 (46 years later) they found one of the planes buried beneath 250 feet of ice.  I believe Ken Ham’s point was that ice can form very quickly.  He stressed that catastrophic events can make changes very quickly.  He mentioned that a 30 foot section of rock was laid down in about 3 hours after the 1980 eruption of Mt. St. Helens. 

One particular part that caught my interest at Ken Ham’s conference was that Carbon-14 dating is based on assumptions.  Ham mentioned that evolutionists are assuming that decay rates are constant.  Ham asks, “what if they’re not?”  For example, what if the uranium found in zircon crystals doesn’t always change to lead at the same rate.  What if the amount of helium that is given off (during the change from uranium to lead) causes the decay rate to speed up or slow down?  While very accurate methods are available for determining the present ratios of uranium-lead, thorium-lead, potassium-argon, and other isotope ratios in mineral-bearing rocks, there is no direct method for estimating the initial ratios of these isotopes in the rocks when the rocks were first formed. Radiochronologists must resort to indirect methods which involve certain basic assumptions. Not only is there no way to verify the validity of these assumptions, but inherent in these assumptions are factors that assure that the ages so derived, whether accurate or not, will always range in the millions to billions of years

I wanted to insert a quote here from Walt Brown who wrote a book called In The Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood.  However, the website in which I read the quote http://www.duncanproductions.com/SBCOC/faq/  only received a rating of 2 from the online website evaluator (ACE) I have used.  In addition even using my own online website evaluator that I created (and used in an earlier posting) did not rate this website very high.  The problem is that there isn’t any contact information which doesn’t make it appear very credible.  However, it references its content very well.  (I am starting to think evaluating Online Website Evaluation Guides may be a useful and interesting inquiry search some day!)

More Webbing & Wiggling

thUTCp31UTC10bUTCWed, 04 Oct 2006 21:18:24 +0000 6, 2006 by · No Comments · Webbing, Wiggling

Well, I received a response from the other expert I asked (M. Collins).  Remember, from a previous posting that I used the search engine (http://www.google.com) to locate an ask-an-expert website.  I chose http://www.alexperts.com because the information under the hyperlink said that it was the largest and it was free.  Anyway, M. Collins emailed me on Oct. 2, 2006 and directed me to the following website (http://www.allexperts.com/user.cgi?m=6&catID=664&qID=4579692) to find my answer.  His response:

Answered Question

Subject:  Evolution

Question:  I am doing some research on the discrepancies in Evolution.  It is obvious that there are numerous discrepancies.  Besides, the lack of transitional forms being found, the fact that mutations  generally lead to disaterous or sometimes neutral outcomes, and the fact that there are limitations on breeding (meaning we have yet to see a new species develop from the breeding of 2 other species), are there other discrepancies in Evolution?  Is so, what are they?

Answer: I feel the greatest discrepancy of all in their  theories is that most evolutionists have tried to push under the rug the fact that statistically and logically there is absolutely NO proof that life came into being by the chance movements of chemicals in a warm pool eons ago. The straw that should be obviously breaking the Camel’s back is that even in today’s advanced world, with our knowledge of DNA and proteins and etc. and the super microscopes that are now able to see almost to the very basic level of cellular function. and yet NO scientists has been able to create a cell. The truth is, that they will NEVER be able,  no matter how long they study and dissect cells in their labs, and here’s why. They must make a cell wall and place all the components and chemicals necessary for life INSTANTANEOUSLY into that ‘CONTAINER’, else the cell will not ‘come to life’. Even if perhaps they were to somehow be able accomplish the making of a cell, it would surely teach the unbiased ones among them that God made living cells FIRST.

The complexity of even the so-called simple cell is beyond imagination. There are motors, and conveyors, detectors, actuators, a repair crew, a code, a system to break the code to create instructions, there are chemical accelerators, etc., etc. 

I must admit that I was pleasantly surprised by his response.  I was starting to think that any “expert” in science (and more specifically biology) would be too “nervous” to say anything against evolution.  Although, I like the response from this “expert” better than the response I received from D. Haas, I do have to keep in mind that both of these are self-proclaimed experts and that even the website http://www.allexperts.com states in their disclaimer “You also acknowledge by using this service that you understand that our volunteers have varying levels of expertise and haven’t been certified as “experts” (or anything else) by us in any professional way. Many of them are professionals in their own right, but Allexperts has not undertaken to verify the credentials or abilities of any of our volunteers.”  Just like David Haas, M. Collins showed some biasness in his answer; however, what I like about his and what I respected about his response was that M. Collins didn’t provide a religious answer to my question; he provided a scientific response regarding the discrepancies in evolution.  He gave exactly what I asked for (but I don’t usually get).

More Webbing & Wiggling

rdUTCp31UTC10bUTCTue, 03 Oct 2006 02:15:41 +0000 6, 2006 by · No Comments · Webbing, Wiggling

I have been reading a lot about Paleontology and what the fossil records shows us about evolution.  There is so much information out there!  While working on my Skyhopper 4, I remember researching tools to help students and teachers evaluate websites.  I went back and looked at the citations for my Skyhopper 4, and I decided to use the website called the Credibility Commons which provides an online tool in which you can type in your URL and ACE:  The Automated Credibility Evaluator (located at http://ace.credibilitycommons.org) will return a credibility rating of 0-10 for the webpage.  It even provides an explanation for the rating given.  It ranks a website based on information such as: could it find a telephone number, email and address on the site, was there a date modification stated, were all the links active, is there a privacy policy on the website.  I used ACE to evaluate a number of websites I was looking at. 

For example, I looked at a website (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0926selam.asp) which contained an article about Lucy.  “The first specimen of australopithecine was found in 1974 by Donald Johanson and given the name “Lucy” (after the Beatles song “Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds”). For many years, Lucy held the distinction of being “our oldest ancestor” as many scientists believed Lucy to be a transitional intermediate ancestor between humans and chimpanzees.”  (DeWitt, 2006)  This article gives examples as to why “Lucy” looks more like extinct apes after all (citing information about bone structures and more).  The author goes on to say that even if “Lucy” was able to walk upright (which remains a very controversial point), it doesn’t prove that man evolved from apes because there could have been a primitive species that could walk upright.  The ACE Evaluator gave this website a credibility rating of 4 (missing 30 of the 100 pts. Due to no email address, telephone number or physical address being cited).                    

(Photo of “Lucy” bones Courtesy of http://park.org/Canada/Museum/man/afarensis.html )
The problem I have with some of these rating tools is that if a website doesn’t have a phone number listed then they get a lower rating than another website that does.  So, if I created a website where everything was the same, but I added the sentence pigs can fly and put my phone number on it, then my website would appear to be more credible than the same website, minus the phone number and my added sentence.  There seems to be no way to evaluate the actual information on the page.  And, even if this ACE tool could, I don’t think it would be able to with my inquiry topic due to the untestable and controversial nature of it.  I also noticed that two different websites can both get 30 out of 100 points but one website will get a lower rating than the other.  Therefore, I am assuming that each category must be weighed differently.  For example, not having a privacy policy is worse than not having a phone number listed (even though they are both only worth 10 points). 
While looking up some of the websites my “expert” mentioned in his response to my question, I noticed that the Wilkipedia.org website received a rating of 6.  What I realized; however, is that the information on that page is no more fact than the information on the website (http://www.youngearth.org/evowontfly.htm) which received a rating of 2.  The website recommended by my “expert” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx ) claims that Archaeopteryx is proof of a transitional species whereas the http://www.youngearth.org website claims that Archaeopteryx “is now considered by most evolutionists to be a true bird.  Also true birds have been found lower in the fossil record, making them older than Archaeopteryx”.  My “expert” even stated in his response to my answer that “As it is there are a number of finds that could be considered transitional” (bold is my added emphasis).   It is true that one website may have been designed better, but does that make it more useful or more credible for information inquiry?  It is my assumption that many professionals would say yes, but I am not so sure that I agree.  I am really struggling with finding factual information on my topic.  I wonder if I really can with such a controversial one.
Before I leave my blog tonight, I wanted to post a quote I found to be interesting.  It comes from a book called In the Age of Mankind by Roger Lewin.  Lewin states “The problem is that because we know the `end of the story’ (that evolution is true), we tend to interpret earlier events as if their sole purpose was to reach that end.” (Lewin, 1988, p. 22)

Webbing & Wiggling

ndUTCp31UTC10bUTCMon, 02 Oct 2006 00:58:48 +0000 6, 2006 by · 1 Comment · Webbing, Wiggling

In a previous posting I had mentioned that I had used an online website to ask an “expert” a question on discrepancies in evolution.  The first website I used (URL = http://www.expertcentral.com ) wasn’t working properly at that time.  I kept clicking the Science option, but every time I did, the website would just prompt me to “Pick a category and click on a volunteer’s name to ask a question”.  Well, after trying that a few times (without success), I decided to change my search engine (I was using Yahoo.com) to Google.com and typed in the exact phrase “ask an expert”.  Of course Google gave me numerous website options, but I chose http://www.allexperts.com because it said it was the largest and it was Free!  I then selected the Science option and finally clicked on the Life Science option which provided me with the profiles of 4 different “experts” I could choose from.  I decided to send my question to two “experts”.  I thought my chance of getting a response would be better if I sent my question to two of them.  After reading their profiles, I decided to send my question to M. Collins because his profile said he could “answer any question about the origin and development of single celled life forms”.   I also sent my question to David Haas because his profile said he could “answer anything biology related”.    Although I didn’t evaluate the allexperts website before asking my question, I did evaluate the website later using a website evalutation guide that I developed in a previous graduate class of mine.  Reflecting back, I wish I had evaluated this website before sending my question (due to the not so good rating it received).  Nonetheless, here is a cut and paste copy of my question and the response I received from “expert” David Haas (I still have not received a response from M. Collins).  I am not sure for how long my question and answer will be available, but for right now it can also be viewed at http://www.allexperts.com/user.cgi?m=6&catID=664&qID=4579689

Hello! An answer to your question:

I am doing some research on the discrepancies in Evolution.  It is obvious that there are numerous discrepancies.  Besides, the lack of transitional forms being found, the fact that mutations  generally lead to disaterous or sometimes neutral outcomes, and the fact that there are limitations on breeding (meaning we have yet to see a new species develop from the breeding of 2 other species), are there other discrepancies in Evolution?  Is so, what are they?

is now available.  Click on or go to http://www.allexperts.com/user.cgi?m=6&catID=664&qID=4579689 This answer will be avaialble for three days after you receive this message. Thanks for using our service!  

 Answered Question

Subject:  Evolution

Question: (See above question)

Answer:  The lack of transitional forms is not a discrepancy. Fossilization is a rare event and requires specific conditions which do not occur very often or in all places.  It is actually surprising that we find as many as we do. As it is there are a number of finds that could be considered transitional.  Here are three.        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambulocetus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik

The fact that mutations can lead to a bad outcome is also no problem since in a population or species we are dealing with a gene pool not individuals the fact that some individuals do not survive to reproduce because of a bad mutation simply takes that gene out of the population.  The remainder of the population does fine. Some mutations lead to an advantage in reproduction and these are the ones that are usually passed on to the next generation. When two species produce offspring this is a hybrid and may or may not be sterile.  In some cases it could even be called a new species depending on your definition. Since all organisms are related when you get two closely related ones the concept of species blurs.  Species is actually an abstract term that does not mean the same thing to different biologists.  New species are formed when a population becomes isolated from its parent species and may take millions of years.  Here is a site that you might find interesting.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&hs=zOx&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&defl=en&q=define:species&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

I know of no discrepancies.  This is why any theory in science becomes a theory.  It has never been falsified.  If we were to find mammal fossils in rocks that should only contain reptile fossils then we would have to look at this very closely because it is a discrepancy. If we were to find that a plant used a completely different biochemical mechanism for photosynthesis this too would be a discrepancy.  We do not see this, however.  All areas of evidence are consistent with the theory.  In fact scientists have been attempting to find discrepancies for over 150 years and no one has come up with anything that cannot be easily explained.   This is why evolution is a theory and not a hypothesis. D. Haas http://dandbhaas.com/

Of course, I did look into the websites my “expert” suggested but afterward, I started to realize that my “expert” was just as biased towards the theory of evolution as are the “religious” websites bias towards creationism.   On page 22 of Curriculum Connections Through the Library written by Barbara Stripling and Sandra Hughes-Hassell, the authors explain that sources for scientific inquiry should be evaluated based on certain criteria.  Although many criteria are mentioned, the authors state “the author and publisher should be authoritative, with a reputation for publishing sound scientific reasoning.  ….[researchers should] evaluate the extent of bias, recognizing that a scientific source should be unbiased so that  a complete picture of the data is made available.”  However, I am starting to wonder if the topic I chose could be free of biasness anywhere.  So, far it seems like the sources I have researched are either written by anti-creationists who support evolution and therefore say there are NO discrepancies in the theory of evolution, or anti-evolutionists who support creationism (or something else like Intelligent Design) and say there are NUMEROUS discrepancies.    What I think I am going to do is try and start organizing some of the information I am gathering.  I might use something like a sq3r chart (like the one found at http://www.teach-nology.com/web_tools/graphic_org/sq3r/ ).  This organizing chart may help me organize my information after reading long passages of text.  I would like to separate the information I have gathered that provides scientific evidence against the theory of evolution.  I can find lots of “religious” evidence.  But I would like the scientific evidence against the theory of evolution to really stand out. 

Webbing

stUTCp31UTC10bUTCSun, 01 Oct 2006 13:42:41 +0000 6, 2006 by · No Comments · Webbing

I have spent the last few days really engaged in the Webbing phase of Annette Lamb’s 8 Ws Model of information inquiry.  I have been creating my “Search Strategy”.  At first my search strategy just consisted of finding anything I could about the discrepancies in evolution.  Then, I realized that the information I was finding was all over the place.  There wasn’t any structure.  I didn’t have a strategy for finding useful information.  For my search strategy, I decided to use and write down some of the questions from Eisenberg and Berkowitz’s ‘The Big6 Model’.  They listed specific questions under their ‘Information Seeking Strategies’ step that I found helpful.   I made a list of their questions and followed up with some responses. 
 What are all possible sources?  Search engines (such as google), Indiana’s Virtual Library (Inspire), Public Library, Online Interviews using ask an expert, personal interviews, credible websites, Respected Magazines/Journals (such as Nature), zoos, museums, videotapes, media, and more.
What are the best of all the possibilities?  In regards to the topic I am exploring, I would prioritize the sources such as credible websites, respected journals, books, expert interviews, and Inspire to be some of the top sources.
Where are these Sources?  This is a very time consuming step AND an ongoing step.  I feel as though I have spent so much time thinking and looking of new places to find sources.  In addition, I keep finding them which tells me there are lots of sources out there which is good!  Just today, I found 2 books at my local library which I hope they prove to be very helpful sources of information!  I have also used an ask-an-expert online site found at http://www.expertcentral.com in which I have asked questions to 2 experts.  I also have a personal interview lined up with a woman named Laura Netlesheim who conducts a summer camp each year which encompasses the theory of evolution and discrepancies within it.  Needless to say, I am really looking forward to this interview and journaling what I have learned! (Update:  As of October 8th, I still have not been able to have this interview, but it is something I will try and make happen even after CourseQuest1)
As I navigate my way through my inquiry process locating new information, I will be documenting criteria such as how I located such information, what search tools did I use, and if I thought my search strategy was useful or if it needs to be adjusted.  Therefore, my search strategy will evolve throughout my inquiry journey. 
Feelings:  Professor Annette Lamb has stressed the importance of knowing how we are feeling throughout our inquiry process.  Truth be told, I am so frustrated right now, that it is taking a great deal of strength just to write in my blog tonight.  It is not the inquiry process that I am frustrated with.  In fact, whenever I am thick in the middle of a great and useful website I am as engaged as ever.  When I am in the middle of a conference learning about discrepancies in evolution I am glued to every word of the speaker.  However, dealing with the process of having to document our journey has been VERY discouraging and troublesome for me.  I have had nothing but trouble using the edublogs website.  There are numerous times when I try to login that the website is down…this has happened more times than I can count.  Tonight has been the worst.  Every time I typed a paragraph I would hit the “save and continue editing” button.  I was trying to be smart because I know how computers can be.  Anyway, after typing for about an hour (and saving numerous times), I pushed the “save and continue editing” button (just like I had been all along) and it took me into a new page; one in which was blank.  So, of course I go back to my “saved” draft and it isn’t all there…only about 1 or 2 paragraphs.  I am a little embarrassed to admit, but I actually started to cry.  I had just spent so much time thinking, journaling, documenting, and even saving and then poof its all gone.  I love learning and inquiring, but using edublogs has not been a fun process for me. 
Needless to say, I have learned to type all my future posts in Word first and then I will cut and paste them into my blog.  Hard lesson to learn.  I hoped to get more written tonight, but I am going to start fresh tomorrow.  I know there are more important things to worry about!

Updates

thUTCp30UTC09bUTCWed, 27 Sep 2006 19:52:02 +0000 6, 2006 by · 1 Comment · Updates

I am sort of feeling as though I have a lot of loose ends within my inquiry, so I would like to take some time and go over some of my previous blogs and give some updates. 

        I did get a response back from the Editor of the Sturgis Chronicle; however, she said they do not have electronic copies going back further than a few months. I will cut and paste our correspondance.

Dear Candice Phelps,
 
I am looking for an article that would have been published in the Sturgis Journal in either late 2000 or early 2001.  I was teaching at Centreville High School during that school year and there was an article written by Rosalie Currier titled “The origin of Life”.  I was wondering if you could locate that article for me and send me a copy via email?  I have a paper copy of it, but I am taking a graduate class and could use the article to attach to a paper I am writing.  Thanks for your help.
 
Sincerely,
 
Tabatha Jones
 

Sorry, we don’t have electronic files back that far – the only thing would be a photocopy from the Sturgis Public Library’s microfilm reader
–
Candice Phelps
Managing Editor
Sturgis Journal
(269) 651-5407

     So, instead I have scanned the article I kept for my education portfolio.  You can view the article Sturgis Article if you have Adobe Software on your computer.    I wanted to include this article to show that there is at least one public school that does allow other theories to be taught in conjunction with evolution.  The reason that Centreville allowed multiple theories to be taught was because the community supported the idea of having intelligent conversations about many different theories that would in turn allow each student to have the information they need to either search further or embrace the theory they believed in with gusto.  The idea that there are discrepancies in the theory of evolution were very strong in Centreville, and the community supported the willingness of any teacher to discuss more than one theory. 

          Dover High School in Pennsylvania which was the first public school to mandate the teaching of another theory (specifically ‘Intelligent Design’) did so to reflect their community as well.  According to an article in the Associated Press (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6470259/) one parent believes,

“You can’t be hypocritical with these kids, teaching them one thing but not another,” said Jonathan Tome, 43. According to the article, “Statewide science-curriculum standards approved by Pennsylvania’s state Education Board merely ask students to ‘analyze data … that are relevant to the theory of evolution.’” Therefore, the school board approved the teaching of other theories by a 6-3 vote. However, I later found an article at(http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover_decision.html#p13) which posted the decision of a court case against Dover Public Schools.  District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that Dover H.S cannot mandate the teaching of ‘Intelligent Design’.  From what I gather, mandating and allowing are two very big & important differences.  Centreville allowed me to teach other theories whereas Dover mandated their biology teachers. 

         I learned about a number of discrepancies from the overcomeproblems website I described in an earlier posting.  I have also made separate pages that describe the discrepacies further (please check them out to the right).  I plan on doing further research to locate other sources that talk about the discrepancies in evolution.  I have also decided that I need to start organizing the information I am finding.  I learned from Marcy Driscoll in her book Psychology of Learning For Instruction that “graphic representations have been particularly effective in facilitating encoding and memory storage of information” (2005, p. 105).  I need all the help I can get with encoding and memory storage of all the information I am gathering; therefore, I am on a search (or maybe I should make one of my own) for an organizer of some sort.   

 Until tomorrow…..

Gathering my thoughts & information:

stUTCp30UTC09bUTCThu, 21 Sep 2006 03:00:46 +0000 6, 2006 by · 1 Comment · Gathering Information

I am starting to feel a little overwhelmed with the topic I have chosen.  I feel as though it is such a huge topic (well maybe not huge, but deep).  Even with narrowing it down to finding discrepancies in the Theory of Evolution, it seems like all of my questions have 20 subquestions under each of them!  Does anyone else ever feel like that? Sometimes I feel like I should have picked something easier or not so “deep” like say…..rainbows!  HA!  I know, I know….I wouldn’t enjoy my journey as much! :)

Well, I know it probably seems like I haven’t been doing much with my blog lately, but I have been doing lots of research and attending a conference on Creation vs. Evolution.  Last time I posted on my blog, I came up with a new question I was wondering about.  Are there any schools currently teaching other theories in conjunction with the Theory of Evolution?  I ask that because I used to teach at a public school (Centreville High School) and was allowed to teach ANY theory of the Origin of Life that I wanted to.  It was so awesome!!  I didn’t force any one theory on anyone, I simply taught different theories, we had wonderful classroom discussions/debates, and the test was an all essay where each student explained their position and provided support for what they believed.  There was an article written about it in the Sturgis Journal.  I have emailed the newspaper to see if they could send me a copy via email so that I can attach it on my blog.  I’ll let you know if I get a response.  

Anyway, since Centreville allowed me to teach other theories, I was curious if other public schools did as well.  I couldn’t find much online, but I did find one website http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/11/30/MNGVNA3PE11.DTL from the San Francisco Chronicle written on Nov. 30, 2004 by Anna Budkhen which stated that the school board has ordered biology teachers at Dover Area High School in PA to make students “aware of gaps/problems” in the theory of evolution.  The school board has said that all 9th grade curriculum must now include the theory of Intelligent Design.  I am going to try and find further information on this school and see if this is still in effect and for what reasons was other theories allowed to be taught?  For example, did enough people in Dover, PA believe that there were too many discrepancies in the theory of evolution or was it something else.  I also wonder if some schools are allowing other theories to be taught, but they don’t want any media attention, so they keep it “on the low”?  See how my mind just keeps wondering and coming up with more and more questions! :)   This is okay though I am still in the “Webbing” stage of Annette Lamb’s model of information inquiry.  I am still analyzing my questions and identifying types of information that will be useful. :)   (Baker, Katherine. (2005) Comparison of Information Inquiry Models located at  http://eduscapes.com/info/bakermodel.pdf).

 

Searching For Information

thUTCp30UTC09bUTCTue, 12 Sep 2006 22:17:31 +0000 6, 2006 by · No Comments · Searching

Today I decided to do an online Google search to get started on my inquiry journey and to basically see what kind of information is out there.  I did an exact word search using “Discrepancies + Evolution” as my key words.  Although I received 2,780,000 websites to choose from, I decided to check one website out that caught my eye before trying to narrow my search down.  The website that caught my eye simply stated in the URl do you believe in evolution?  The website was http://www.overcomeproblems.com/believe_in_evolution.htm 

     I found this website very useful.  I used an evaluation guideline form I had made in a previous graduate class to evaluate this website.  (http://jonestm.edublogs.org/files/2006/09/Evaluating%20A%20Website-Guideline%20Form1.doc)  Although this website did not show any signs of being updated more recently than Jan. 2004 and the authors are not clearly identified, the rest of the website scored very well on my evaluation guideline.  There is an address and email address located on the website to allow questions, suggestions and comments to be asked. The best thing about the website are the well-documented sources.  The direct quotes found on the website provide detailed citations adding to its credibility.   

     This website provided many discrepancies in the theory of evolution.  But what was nice about it was not only the details about the discrepancies, but the direct quotes they gave from credible evolutionists, geologists, paleontologists, and from Charles Darwin himself.  This website discussed discrepancies such as a) Lack of Transitional Forms in Fossils, b) Breeding Limitations, c) Mutations, d) Punctuated Equilibrium, and e) Natural Selection, and many more.  I am looking forward to learning more about each one of these discrepancies.  I plan on making separate pages to discuss each of these discrepancies and possibly others as well.  I also intend to refer back to this website often. 

      This website also gave me additional search strategies/ideas.  I would like to search and learn more about U.S. District Judge John Jones who banned the teaching of ‘Intelligent Design’ in public schools.  Intelligent Design is a theory that a supernatural hand guided the development of life on Earth, but the thery does not name the supernatural hand.  I would also like to add a new question to my “Wondering”.  Are there any public schools in the U.S. currently offering other theories to be taught?

Wondering

thUTCp30UTC09bUTCThu, 07 Sep 2006 22:51:58 +0000 6, 2006 by · No Comments · Wondering

As I think about my personal inquiry, there are so many questions that spring to mind.  Why do legislators feel different theories are needed to be taught along side evolution?  Are there discrepancies with the theory of evolution?  If so, what are these discrepancies?  If discrepancies exist, why is the theory of evolution so widely used and taught in schools?  How would different theories be taught?  Does the word ‘theory’ suggest that evolution is not the definite answer to the origin of life?  What is Intelligent Design?  What are some other theories that could be taught in conjunction with the theory of evolution?  My questions do not appear to be in any particular order.  Most of my questions are derived from the thinking that maybe there is more too wanting additional theories being taught in tandem with evolution than just “non-supporters” wanting to supplement their Sunday school classes.  Maybe, there are serious flaws in the theory of evolution that should be addressed.  If there are, should educators and legislators seriously consider expanding the standards on evolution and making room for additional theories regarding the origin of life? 

Watching

thUTCp30UTC09bUTCThu, 07 Sep 2006 22:49:29 +0000 6, 2006 by · No Comments · Watching

I must admit, I am excited about this assignment.  Not only is it creative (not just a typical term paper), but I get to spend time learning about anything I want…ANYTHING!!  Right now my personal approach to inquiry is to “dive” into the topic as much as possible.  Not only learn all that I can about the topic, but reflect on it as I go, make adjustments, ask LOTS of questions.  My personal approach is to also inquire about something important to me, that way I can really get into the topic.  My personal approach is to try and use lots of different sources and seek out suggestions from others as well.  There are so many ideas running through my mind.  Steve Irwin (The Crocodile Hunter) just died while observing stingrays.  Although the media is calling this a “freak accident”, I am interested in finding out more about these beautiful, yet deadly animals. 

            This week also happens to be national piano week.  I only know this because it was a headline on my Yahoo homepage today J.  I do take piano lessons and I think it would be interesting to research the history of pianos.  Who made the first one?  What are the differences between piano models?  How are pianos tuned?  How do they get “un-tuned”? 

            An article in the Indianapolis Star also caught my eye not to long ago.  “GOP lawmakers want schools to teach ‘intelligent design’” (Schneider and King, November 3, 2005).  Being both a Christian and a biology teacher, I find this topic very interesting.  Although biology textbooks mention only the theory of evolution to describe the origin of life, there are legislators who are still trying to pass legislature to have different theories taught with evolution.  Why do legislators feel different theories are needed to be taught?  Are there discrepancies with the theory of evolution?  What are some different theories?

            For the topic of my Personal Inquiry Blog I choose “Theories taught in tandem with evolution”.  In addition, I would like to focus my project on researching discrepancies (if any) in the theory of evolution. 

Theories: To Believe or Not to Believe

thUTCp30UTC09bUTCMon, 04 Sep 2006 11:14:07 +0000 6, 2006 by · 1 Comment · Description

I am about to journal my experiences as I research the topic of Theories being taught in tandem with evolution at the high school level.  In recent years, their has been increased interest in having more than one theory (the theory of evolution) about the origin of life being taught in our public high schools.  Although my personal inquiry was jumpstarted by a class project in my Graduate Studies, this topic has interested me for a long time.  As a Christian and a public school Biology teacher, I would like to see more than one theory being taught in conjunction with evolution; however, for the right reason.  In my opinion, the “right reason” would be if there are discrepancies in the current theory being taught.  If discrepancies exist, then uncertainty is revealed.  I believe it is my job as an educator to teach the theory of evolution as a “phenomena that has been verified to some degree” (Webster’s Dictionary (1990); however, as a personal inquiry I would like to discover more about the conjecture of evolution.  Therefore, the focus of my journey will be to learn about the discrepancies (if any) in the Theory of Evolution.  I am looking forward to my blogmates from class coming along with me on my journey and offering any suggestions or comments to help me!