From our mailbox:

Does your “science” curriculum include equal time for Flying Spaghetti Monster theory? No? Why? Too dogmatic? Intelligent design is not science and has no place in any science curriculum. Evolutionary biology is not dogma, it is theory supported by overwhelming scientific evidence from many fields, including physics, geology, microbiology, biochemistry, paleontology, genetics and others, unlike intelligent design which is simply creationism shrouded in pseudo-scientific technobabble. Be honest!

My immediate response is that my science curriculum could include equal time for the Flying Spaghetti Monster theory. I’ll consider it for Biology Level 2. I don’t have a problem with it. Why? Because what I am trying to do with Real Science-4-Kids is teach kids how to think, not what to think.

I understand that this can be a difficult concept for some people to embrace when they feel it doesn’t support their current worldview. However, in my opinion anytime we present information as “undisputed fact,” we have crossed over into “dogma.” This includes both scientific “facts” and religious “facts.”

What does teaching kids how to think actually look like? In my opinion, it is presenting them with the scientific basics — atoms, molecules, energy, force, DNA, genetic machinery, etc. — and then allowing them to challenge all of it. How do we know atoms exist? Who discovered them? How can we prove there is energy? When was DNA discovered? How do we know what force is? and so on.

If we teach kids how to critically evaluate everything and ask good questions, then it doesn’t matter what theory we throw at them. They aren’t likely to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, not because some teacher told them it was “false,” but because they can evaluate the data (or lack thereof) and see that there is no evidence to support its existence.

And the same criteria are applied to all theories — creationist theories, evolutionary theories, intelligent design theories and so on.

• Did eukaryotic cells evolve from prokaryotic cells? Who discovered it? When was it discovered? What is the evidence?
• Did God create humans? Who discovered it? When was it discovered? What is the evidence?
• Is an eye irreducibly complex? Who discovered it? When was it discovered? What is the evidence?

Can you imagine a classroom where there is no fear? The kids aren’t afraid to ask the questions and the teacher’s aren’t afraid to answer them. What a wonderful way to learn science!

Yes! Let’s all be honest and encourage curiosity, questioning, open inquiry. Let’s teach our kids how to evaluate scientific data — all of it! Let’s teach them the value of examining opposing models because not only is it loads of fun, it’s where our next great discoveries will be found.

Real Science-4-Kids is the only worldview neutral science curriculum on the market that encourage kids to evaluate all theories. Real Science-4-Kids introduces kids to the core disciplines of chemistry, biology, physics, astronomy, and geology. If you would like to find out more, please visit our website.

use of the iconic image of the Flying Spaghetti Monster qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law

I remember being entertained with the music box for about two minutes. I could play the music quickly, or I could play the music slowly, and that was all I could do. So I thanked the relative, tucked the music box in my pocket, and opened my other Christmas gifts.

Later that evening (in the privacy of my own room) I took the music box out of my pocket and disassembled it. Using a screwdriver I took off the plastic case and looked at all the little parts inside. After my initial inspection, I decided I wanted it to play a different tune. I removed the metal sheet and crank, pulled off the drum, and shaved off a few nubs. I reassembled the music box and turned the crank. It was close to the same song, with a few notes missing. So I took out the drum a second time, shaved off a few more nubs and reassembled it. I repeated this exercise until I had only a few nubs left.

I really wanted it to play a completely different tune and to do that I needed to rearrange the nubs. So I snuck into my father’s tool drawer and “borrowed” some adhesive glue. I had saved the nubs I shaved off, and I carefully glued them into different positions on the steel drum. Adhesive glue is tricky;  most of the steel nubs stuck to my fingers but I was able to get enough nubs to stick to the drum to create my new tune.

After reassembling the music box, I turned the crank and to my joy and delight I had created no tune at all! I had a random series of notes, without melody and without rhythm. I knew nothing about music, but this random series of notes was my own creation! I felt a sense of accomplishment at being able to change the music box to create my own “tune.”

I didn’t realize it at the time, but I was doing real science. The gravitas (or essence) of real science is trying to figure out how things work and using that knowledge to create new things; like curing illnesses, feeding the masses, traveling to Mars–even getting a music box to play a different tune! Capturing the gravitas of real science is the goal of Real Science-4-Kids.

Real Science-4-Kids is a series of easy-to-understand science books and workbooks that help kids learn the kind of science they can use to create new things. If you would like to find out more, please visit our website.

Yet I find something deeply disturbing about taking kids out of the hands-on laboratory. I have been mulling over the nature of my disturbance, and recently it occurred to me that the digital age threatens to take the “art” out of science. What I mean by “art” is more accurately called the poietic. Poiesis is the root word for poetry and it simply means “bringing-forth” or “to make.” Science and poetry are not often linked. In fact science is considered almost entirely a left-brain activity that is analytical, logical, and objective, whereas poetry is considered a right-brain activity that is subjective, often irrational, and illogical. Scientists and poets see the world differently, and often the two don’t mix.

But the poietic is as important in science as it is in art. A talented scientist is as much a craftsman and artist as a cabinet maker or sculptor. The only way for a young scientist to develop the poietic is to physically turn the knobs on an instrument or pour the wrong amount of chemical A into chemical B and watch what happens. In other words, in science, the poietic is developed by observing the raw materials of nature and by exploring the unexpected; tasks a computer program can never hope to capture. “Playing” with real science is the only way to develop the skills required to make something new or bring forth a new discovery.

The good news is kids already know how to develop the poietic; all they need are a few real hands-on experiments and the freedom to explore. One of my favorite stories of a young scientist developing the poietic comes from my ex-graduate advisor. When he was a young boy, he and his friends set up a little laboratory with a cheap microscope and some glass slides. They decided to look at protozoa, which are microscopic single-celled organisms. However, forgetting to wash the soap off their slides, they watched in horror as their protozoa exploded. They did not know that cellular membranes are lipid bilayers, but they “discovered” this fact when the soap destroyed their sample. Because my ex-graduate advisor was encouraged to develop the “art of science” as a young child, he has since “brought forth” many more “discoveries” and is now a professor at a top university and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. Exploding protozoa and exploring the unexpected are things that can only be experienced by doing real experiments, making real mistakes, and finding out what happens. The digital age has its value for science and science education, but we need to be careful to preserve the art of science as we teach the next generation of young scientists.

Real Science-4-Kids laboratory workbooks help students explore real hands-on experiments using everyday materials and encourage kids to “play” with science. To find out more, please visit our website.

Yesterday the world was supposed to end. It was, according to Harold Camping and his followers, “Judgement Day.” However, no massive earthquakes rocked the world and as far as I can tell no faithful Christians have been raptured.

I feel deeply sad for the people who spent their life savings or skipped going to medical school or sold their homes to advertise this non-event. Today they wake up and face a real Amegeddon. They’ll have to pick up the pieces and live the rest of their lives taking full responsibility for the choices they’ve made. Unfortunately Harold Camping won’t be issuing any refund checks.

It’s easy to laugh at the absurdity of such doomsday predictions and mock the people who fall for them but the sad reality is that all of us can get caught up in our own twisted realities and make decisions or take actions based on our own distorted perceptions. I’ve never fallen for doomsday predictions nor did I stock any cans of beans for Y2K, yet I have found myself caught up in my own fanatical beliefs and distorted reality. I have also come toe-to-toe with other’s distorted reality and I’ve witnessed the pain, destruction, and devastation their slice of insanity created. Like Campings doomsdayers I’ve known people who’ve wrecked their lives and the lives of those around them by rigidly following a perceived “truth” and “doing the right thing.”

Coming out of these fanatical states and reassessing the beliefs and realities that created them is always difficult. Yet, without such reassessment life turns into a series of bigger and bigger catastrophes. In my opinion, it is actually not the belief itself that causes the damage, but the rigid adherence to the belief that creates problems. If I can look at religion, or politics, or family, or even science through only one lens I am going to miss important information that may change how I respond to any given situation. Harold Camping had a Biblical calculation he believed, but if he had been able to examine the scientific evidence for a global earthquake (or lack thereof) or if he had been open to discussing other theologian’s views about Judgement Day, or honestly, if he’d even been able to integrate the verse in Mark 13:32 that says “no one knows the day or hour,” then he might have chosen to do things differently. The same is true of his followers. All of his flock needed a basic geology course and some much needed critical thinking tools at their disposal before spending their retirement funds.

The ability to evaluate opposing viewpoints and consider information we might otherwise dismiss helps bring a balanced perspective to science, religion, politics, philosophy, psychology and even complicated family dynamics. Without a balanced perspective that moves us towards a more grounded reality we can wreck our lives and the lives of those around us by blinding following our own distorted perceptions.

Being able to evaluate our beliefs before we decide they are “true” is the best way to protect ourselves from ever being caught up in our own distorted realities or the distorted reality of others. Being open to the possibility that what we believe might be distorted and being willing to consider an opposing viewpoint is, in my opinion, where we begin to find “truth.”

Real Science-4-Kids helps kids learn the foundations for science and encourages them to evaluate science from multiple viewpoints so that they can make informed decisions about what they believe. To find out more about Real Science-4-Kids, visit our website.

There was a connection, in my mind, between teaching my kids science and reading O’Donnell’s papers. I wanted to capture the excitement I felt watching a new area of science unfold, and I wanted to tell this story to my kids. However, I couldn’t just start with transcription machinery.  In order for my kids to get excited about molecular machines, they first needed to understand chemistry and physics. Then they needed to learn about how large macromolecules worked inside a cell. They would need to know some biology, but not your typical middle-school biology. They needed real biology–the kind of real biology you don’t see until graduate school. Then, once they had enough chemistry and physics and real biology, they could be as excited as I was about DNA replication machinery and stalled replication forks.

Watch a movie of T7 DNA Polymerase (a molecular machine) adding nucleotides to a single strand of DNA.

(created by David Keller)

So I set out to write a science curriculum, a real science curriculum that would teach my kids the facts and wouldn’t waste their time. Almost immediately I ran into a couple of “worldview” snags. In graduate school and as a post-doc I was oblivious to the worldview wars in science. Did a molecular machine evolve or was it created? Was it designed or did it form through a series of random mutations by natural selection? I didn’t know, and in my day-to-day work as a bench scientist it didn’t matter.

Although I was raised an atheist and “believed” in evolution, I had, in my twenties, joined a church and got “converted” to Christianity. At the time, I called myself “born-again,” but I remained a believer in evolution; that is, until I started reading all those molecular machine papers. I didn’t realize it, but advanced science was eroding my foundation of philosophical naturalism (the core philosophical framework for evolution), and the more I read, the more I couldn’t make matter and energy add up to a molecular machine no matter how hard I tried.

With this in mind and with my new found “faith,” I started taking Creationism seriously. I went to several talks on both young earth and old earth theories and thoughtfully examined all that was presented. Disappointingly, I found the data weak, and I simply couldn’t agree with forcing science into a Biblical back calculation that said the Earth was 6,000 years old. It’s not that I was rejecting it out of “rebellion,” I just didn’t find the data convincing. As I continued to struggle with Creationism and what Creationists call “Darwinism,” I stumbled onto Intelligent Design. I was doing a post-doc in Berkeley, and I was intrigued by the idea of “irreducible complexity.” It seemed a plausible way to explore the molecular machines I started studying as a post-doc. Ironically, I ended up leaving the church for theological reasons, but could not go back to philosophical naturalism for scientific reasons. Creationism had its problems, but then so did evolution.

Today I find myself betwixt and between, to the right and to the left, in the middle and yet with a panoramic view of all three viewpoints. By many, it can be seen as the nether world of scientific thought–standing for everything and therefore standing for nothing. But a panoramic view may be the best solution for the worldview wars over science education, and it may ultimately be the most useful and productive approach for science.

I’m still writing science books and this year I am finally starting my Level II high school biology text. There are plenty of Creationist biology books on the market that insist kids see science through a Creationist lens. There are plenty of secular high school biology books that say “evolution is the fundamental organizing principle of biology”  and insist that kids see science through the lens of philosophical naturalism.

But I’m not interested in fitting science into any one worldview or philosophical “theme.” I want to capture the excitement I felt reading the O’Donnell papers as a young post-doctoral student. I want to pass that excitement on to the next generation of scientists. The cell and the molecular machines that run it are an amazing feat of engineering. These engineered machines may have evolved or may have been created or may have been intelligently designed, and the only way we can find out is to remain open to all possibilities. What matters is that molecular machines are here, and we can study them. We can figure out how they work and why they work, and we might even be able to figure out how they came to be, but only if we stick to the “facts,” allow the “facts” to change, and not force the “facts” into any particular worldview or philosophical box.

¹ J Biol Chem. 1987 Dec 5;262(34):16558-65.

Real Science-4-Kids presents real science to students starting in first grade. If you would like more information about the Level II Biology book for high school please visit our website (password RS4HSBIO4892).

To simplify, I’ve boiled the process down to four basic steps:

1. Gather your facts while paying attention to whether or not your facts come from primary, secondary, or tertiary sources.
2. Evaluate your facts: are they reasonable, accurate, significant?
3. Draw your conclusion paying attention to rules of logic and logical fallacies.
4. Evaluate your conclusion and note any biases and presuppositions and whether or not your facts actually fit your conclusion.

This is a relatively simple process, and I encourage parents, kids, teachers, scientists, and particularly politicians to use this process liberally.

The talk was well received, yet the first question from the audience was:

“OK, all this critical thinking is all fine and good for science, but how do I teach my child critical thinking and at the same time teach him to respect the absolute truth of the Bible.”

“Ah…” I thought, “Here we go.”

What this gentleman wants to know is how to “protect” the Bible from any criticism.

Although he feels certain that the Bible is “absolute truth,” his question reveals that he is, in essence, defending his own subconscious uncertainty about whether or not the Bible can pass the four simple steps of the critical thinking process.  There is a large and terrifying subconscious fear about examining the Bible through a critical thinking lens.

This is a big concern and common fear for many conservative Christian families. For these folks, if they allows their children to learn the critical thinking process, and if they teach them how to apply this process to the Bible, they  run the risk of having their kids find the Bible lacking and ultimately leaving the belief system of their family.

In my opinion, it is a risk worth taking. The alternative is to instill an “ignorant faith” in their children by telling them they must never challenge the truth of the Bible, and this is no faith at all.

I answered him by saying that he must allow his children to challenge the absolute truth of the Bible.  I told him that if the Bible is “absolute truth,” then “absolute truth” will stand on its own. In other words, truth has nothing to fear from critical thinking. Critical thinking is absolutely necessary and in fact the only way to get to the “absolute truth.”

I encourage Christians to dig deep. Look at the Bible and study it using all possible translations. Read Biblical commentaries, history texts, and literature. Study philosophy and logic and to examine the Bible from every angle. Even learn Greek and Hebrew and read the Bible in its original language.

In the end, some of what you believe may change. However, what you really risk by going through this process is to walk away with a faith that has been truly earned and will be deeply confident.

Real Science-4-Kids helps kids learn the steps for critical thinking as it teaches them how to evaluate science from the different disciplines of chemistry, biology, physics, geology and astronomy. Please visit our website to learn more at www.gravitaspublications.com.

I miss the “playing” with science that I did when I was involved in scientific research. Often science is viewed as a boring, stiff, and not very creative discipline. I have heard more than once that science is for the “left-brained” and art for the “right-brained,” and to some extent this may be true. Scientists can be very analytical, logical, detail oriented, and boring at dinner parties. And science demands quantifiable and verifiable results. Yet creativity and “play” are integral parts of scientific discovery. All of my best advisors had something of the inner child in them. They would light up with delight while “playing” with their ideas, instrumentation, or experimental results.

One of the lessons I give my online students is a lesson in “play.” Although they are still children, I do have to remind them to “play” with science. We have somehow educated the “play” right out of kids, so I tell my students to test the paper, test the liquid, see what happens if you add this, see what happens if you add that. I tell them that the step just before any formal experiment is “play.” If they play first, the experiment they do will be much more informative, interesting, and yes, even fun.

Real Science-4-Kids introduces kids to the scientific disciplines of chemistry, biology, physics, geology and astronomy. If you would like to find out more about Real Science-4-Kids, please visit our website at www.gravitaspublications.com.

Clearly there’s a problem. On the one hand, the current view held by most scientists is that living things came into being and adapted to their environments through the processes of unguided evolution. On the other hand, modern science has uncovered features about living things that don’t neatly fit into the evolution narrative. The cell, for example, is not a bag full of molecules bumping into each other in a random fashion, but a highly synchronized array of chemical reactions with a schematic more complicated than that of an integrated circuit. The cell appears to have been “engineered.” I know many a committed evolutionist will protest, but the fact remains that even the basic machinery inside cells is difficult to explain by random chance and mutation alone. So what are biology teachers to do?

I think it’s time for the perspective to change. The issue is not whether we should teach evolution, creation, both, or neither. But rather how we should teach students to evaluate scientific data, to examine philosophical foundations that frame scientific thought, and to sift through and sort the enormous amount of scientific information so that they are not just learning factoids but are learning how to utilize scientific information for tomorrow’s discoveries.

I think the “cautious 60%” are actually giving our kids the best science education possible, and they should be celebrated, not vilified. I applaud the teacher from Pennsylvania the article quotes as saying:

“Students should make up their own minds…based on their own beliefs and research. Not on what a textbook or on what a teacher says.”

Yes! Students need to be taught how to think, not what to think, and students should never be forced to “believe” a scientific theory. Science should never become a “belief system.” Rather, students should be taught how to evaluate scientific data and given the freedom to decide whether or not they find the data convincing. If evolutionary theory has the data to support the conclusions, then the scientific community has nothing to fear.  The scientific community needs to stop the hyperbole and get biology teachers out of the hot seat so teachers can focus on giving our students the tools they need to solve tomorrow’s problems.

Real Science-4-Kids is a worldview neutral curriculum that gives kids a solid foundation of chemistry and physics together with the critical thinking skills they need to evaluate scientific data. If you would like more information about Real Science-4-Kids, please visit our website at www.gravitaspublications.com.

The question I’m often asked is how the age of the Earth will be addressed in this book. What people are really asking is whether the new Level I Astronomy Textbook takes an old Earth or a young Earth point of view–an important question I’d like to take the time to answer.

This is a hot-button issue for many parents on both sides of the debate. Old Earth creationists and secular parents understandably do not want young Earth theories presented in their kids’ textbooks. Young Earth creationists understandably do not want old Earth theories presented in their kids’ textbooks. Two different types of astronomy books are available, those that present old Earth theories and those that present young Earth theories. Parents and educators simply pick the books that present the theory they want their kids to know.

So the question becomes whether my new Level I Astronomy book is written for old Earth non-creationists, old Earth creationists, or young Earth creationists. The answer is “yes.” This book is for anyone who finds the data for an old Earth convincing, whether they are a creationist or not, and it is for anyone who finds the data for a young Earth convincing. To the best of my ability, I present what we currently know about stars, planets, galaxies, and the universe, and where possible, I leave the interpretation of that information up to the reader.

The age of the Earth and the universe is part of a historical narrative that, in my opinion, is enriched by allowing multiple perspectives. My goal is to help kids understand that the greatest source of insight they can ever develop comes from the awareness that there is always more than one way to frame information. Multiple perspectives, multiple viewpoints, multiple lenses through which we evaluate data allow us greater access to creative solutions for tomorrow’s problems. Personally, I find the data for an old Earth more convincing, but my understanding of even my own perspective has been enriched by all the young Earth advocates who have taken the time to show me the lens through which they see the world. I wrote the Level I Astronomy Textbook with this in mind.

If you like this approach, you’ll love my next book — Biology Level 2! If you would like to find out more about Real Science-4-Kids and how your kids can learn to access science through multiple perspectives, please visit my website at www.gravitaspublications.com.

It seems that everywhere I look someone else is being blamed for how we feel, what we think, or what we do. On the flip side, we seem to take extreme measures to “protect” people from  something someone finds “offensive.”

This morning I read (and/or watched) three news stories. The first was about a teen who was told to sing the National Anthem in a more “appropriate” manner because some found her version “offensive.” The second was a story about another teen fined $637 for saying the s*** word to a classmate. She had already been sent to the principal’s office, but the teacher was “offended” by her language and brought in the police to impose a stiffer punishment. And the third story was about a little boy who had been pressured by his teacher to use only “eco-friendly” products. He cried when his mother tried to use an “environmentally-unfriendly” Ziploc bag for his school lunch. At this point, I had to stop reading the news and ask myself “What’s going on here?” Am I in some weird corner of the internet where all news gets filtered through the Onion? Are these stories for real? Have we completely lost our sense of personal responsibility? I mean real personal responsibility – the kind where I examine my own thoughts, beliefs, actions, behaviors, and perspectives before I try to blame or shame others for how I feel or see the world.

The first two stories are disturbing not only because someone found minor issues “offensive,” but because the “authorities” (the school/police department) actually tried to appease the discomfort of the offended by punishing and/or controlling the behavior of the offender. The singer didn’t do anything wrong, and the school had no business trying to make a few grumpy adults feel better by telling the teen to be more “appropriate.” In the second case, I agree that profanity is not the best choice in a school classroom,  but seriously? A $637 fine?  By the time I read the third story I was fully prepared to learn that the little boy had been expelled from school for his Ziploc bag. I was relieved to see that the Canadians are a very reasonable bunch and think punishing kids for plastic sandwich bags teaches kids nothing but to fear plastic.

Absurd as these stories are, they crop up in every corner of education, politics, and popular culture. We are a nation that either walks on eggshells trying not to offend the easily offended, or we’re handing out near Draconian punishments for perceived wrongdoings. Unfortunately, this behavior is also prevalent in the polished halls of academic science. If someone dares to interpret scientific data through a different lens, they can face harassment, lose funding, or their job.

It’s time to reclaim our personal responsibility and give others the freedom to think, perceive, feel, speak, and act according to theirs.

Real Science-4-Kids helps kids learn the foundations for real science, shows kids how to weigh all sides of an academic debate, and gives kids the freedom to decide on their own what they think. Please check out my books at my website www.gravitaspublications.com