"What is the capital of Assyria?"

Sir Robin pauses. He can't remember. And, in this instance, how he responds is a matter of life and death.

Not so for the majority of children in school today. Such a question matters little.

I felt the same way as I read through student's answers to other questions. I couldn't shake the nagging thought, 'Why are these questions even on a test?'

Put another way: When was the last time you needed to recall an answer from something on a high school test? When has that information applied to your daily life?

These questions all have answers. These answers are all on the internet (or have been spelled out by your teacher). There is no reason, therefore, to keep this information in your head. If you need it, you will pick it up through the osmosis of daily usage. In other words: Questions with answers are easy.

I'm far more interested in questions without an answer. "What started the War of Independence?" is a question without an answer. Not that we don't know many of the significant catalysts for rebellion against the crown. But simplifying the motivation to "taxation without representation" isn't the full story. And it's certainly not enough to die for in battle.

I test well, so I understand the importance of regurgitating memorized responses onto paper. But right now, thinking back to the questions I was asked on tests, I realize I don't recall most of that content. Because, like the capital of Assyria, it doesn't impact my life. What does impact my life is how political undertones can incite rebellion.

I loved my Sonlight education because I talked about the difficult questions with my parents. I didn't realize until high school that regurgitation was the norm of modern education.

To laugh at students who have failed to properly swallow their lessons so as to vomit them up again at a later date feels lame to me.

Looking at test questions today, what do you recall of their answers?

 ~Luke Holzmann
Filmmaker, Writer, Empty Nester

"If something is philosophically false, it is just as discredited as if it had been disproved in a lab. We often forget this."

My professor, a long-haired hippie type, paused. As usual, he had managed to cover himself in chalk. He had a habit of losing his balance if he held still too long. He let the statement float a moment more before moving on.

It makes sense why we forget fundamental truths about how the world works. We get focused in one area and begin to forget that there's other stuff out there. This fragmentation is the problem of specialization. We no longer see how things are connected.

But they are connected.

Connected Ideas

Let's take Science as an example. Science is not a single field of study, wholly disconnected from everything else. Consider just one obvious force influencing science today... Economics.

You can get money to further your study if you decide to study the "right things." These powerful financial incentives direct science down a particular path, thus muddying the pure waters of research.

I am unaware of the use of the scientific process in food production [GMOs, baby formula, FDA restricted items] or technology development [computers, cellphones, cars]. Far as I know--please, correct me if I'm wrong--these entity-driven advancements are influenced by businesses, not scientific review. Science is used as a tool to drive profits ...not find the truth of how these things can and do affect us, for both good and ill.

The birth industry's "best practices" has a long history of getting stuff wrong in favor of philosophical and economic influences.

In the interest of better science, we must look at our study of the natural world beyond the confines of a specialized field. We must consider our ideas in the broader context of knowledge, understanding and wisdom. At minimum, we must be willing to acknowledge the other factors influencing our views.

I think Mandy's quote from Dr. Ruth Beechick is an excellent reminder. We should strive to learn in a unified way. As we learn the many facets to something, we can being to think about applying that knowledge in a specialized situation.

What do you think of specialized knowledge and study?

 ~Luke Holzmann
Filmmaker, Writer, Empty Nester

If you haven't read the background to this series please do so now.

Two posts got me thinking about this subject:

1. Creation vs. Chance
2. American's knowledge about creationism and evolution

Looking at these two posts--coming from opposite sides of the ring--it became clear to me that "Evolution" is rather unclear. Sadly, my own ignorance is all too evident the more I learn. But, I'd like to share what little I think I currently understand in the interest of better science...

I soaked up the rebuttals to evolution early in life. I really enjoyed the "Frog in a Blender" and "toss parts of an airplane into the air" thought experiments. Sadly, it wasn't until last year that I even heard that these two staples of my grasp of evolutionary theory are wrong.

Part of my ignorance is understandable. "Evolution" is a vague term that is rarely defined consistently enough to talk about it. Here are a few areas of "evolution":

• Descent with modification. Mix this with genetic mutation and heredity, and we've got something everyone can agree on. ...mostly. The fact is: Living organisms change with reproduction. One main protested sticking point is...
• Common descent. Can all living things trace back to some original source via speciation? And, if so, where did that life come from? That is the question considered from a naturalistic perspective in the study of...
• Abiogenesis. An element connected with abiogenesis is the Big Bang, or the potential starting point that flung everything in the universe out there.
• Notice, however, that none of these areas of study even begin to touch the question of "how did it all get here in the first place?"

If we are to get anywhere in a discussion about evolution, we must be aware of which aspect of evolution we are talking about. Modification is a fact. Common descent is a theory. Abiogenesis is a naturalistic necessity. And the origin of matter is an ignored reality. ...all for very good reasons.

Or so I'm told.

I have yet to learn what most those reasons are. They weren't covered in my Honors Biology class in high school. They aren't covered in any of the Usborne books Sonlight carries in our homeschool Science programs. In fact, much of what I know about evidence for evolution comes from Young Earth Creationists' materials. Which is problematic because those are the same resources which contain the frog-blender/airplane-toss examples...

Why is it wrong to compare evolution to a blended frog zapped with electricity?

Because the "random chance" of evolution is not nearly that random or chance-ish. Here's the best analogy I've come up with thus far:

Evolutionary speciation is not like tossing pieces in the air an expecting a plane. It's more like replacing a piece of your Lego set with another piece--grabbed without looking from your bucket--each time you build a plane. If you like the new look, you keep that design for next time.

This aspect of evolution requires life to already exist. In fact...

Something I've only just started to glance at is the idea of engineered evolution. Basically, if common descent is a part of how we all got here, life was designed to evolve us forward. That is a fascinating twist!

I've still got a lot to learn about this subject. But that's the joy (and frustration) of life-long learning <smile>.

Have you heard any evidence for evolution that didn't come from someone who opposes it? And if so, what?

What do you think of the random mutation generator? Pretty fun, eh?

 ~Luke Holzmann
Filmmaker, Writer, Empty Nester

P.S. If I've misrepresented something here, please leave a comment so we can learn together!

The first My Passport to India video is up. Check it out! But first, a word from me...

Video Sizes and More!

Haven't signed up to get your Welcome Kit? Sign up here.

 ~Luke Holzmann
Filmmaker, Writer, Empty Nester