life's mini-adventures

Sunset in the Himalayan foothills of Nepal
Copyright (c) 2007 Wendee Holtcamp

Worry often gives a small thing a big shadow.
- Swedish proverb

It's Sunday afternoon and this morning I said my goodbyes to my boyfriend Doug who works offshore as a commercial diver working on offshore oil platforms... He'll be gone either 2 or 3 months, so it will be a while before there are more silly pics of us (I'm sure you won't have to wait long for silly pics of me and my girlfriends!). The diving stuff is pretty interesting. Instead of diving with tanks, they have a tube of oxygen feeding directly to the surface (that is, to the tanks of oxygen on the boat on the surface)! They have hot water running through their wetsuits, so it's like "diving in a hot tub" as he put it, and one more thing I didn't know: they can stay under for up to 8 hours. Yes, you read that right. Holy cow! Crazy isn't it?! It can be dangerous work, so prayers for his safety are always appreciated.

We spent a great low-key weekend hanging out together. Life's a series of little mini-adventures isn't it? My heart feels so full of love and joy, and I feel very blessed. Not every day is easy or perfect, because in close relationships we start to see our own flaws more clearly as we learn to relate and communicate about deep and sensitive issues. On that note, one thing that I did this weekend was a New Year's resolution of sorts. The Christian radio station I listen to, KSBJ, is asking listeners to pick out one thing to focus on. I hadn't planned on doing that, but yesterday, when one of the DJs said that it just came to me that I wanted to be more positive. And that is my one thing.

It's funny because I used to be (and still am, I believe, to my students, and in leadership positions, and to friends) very enthusiastic, positive, encouraging. But I can be very hard on myself, and sometimes on those I love most. I had been talking to my friend Trish about some of these things and she mentioned a saying of Thich Nhat Hanh that was about watering the things you want to grow. This also reminded me of something I'd heard Stedman Graham - Oprah's long-term partner/boyfriend say - "Those things you focus on expand." And it's really similar to the Bible verse I have taped to my bathroom door:

Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things. Philippians 4:8

The kids are I are going to go see a movie today, but I'm not sure which one yet. They're off school tomorrow, and then I have to head to Austin Tuesday since I have to testify before the Texas State Board of Education on Wednesday morning regarding the science standards. I have to write my testimony! So I'll leave you with a few pics.

I got this in email and thought it was funny:

Have you ever wondered how a woman's brain works?
Well....it's finally explained here in one, easy-to-understand illustration:

I found a sparrow that had been hit by a car, but was not dead, in the middle of the road in my subdivision. I saw it, and stopped the car and went back and saw it was alive so of course I had to rescue it, in case he would survive. We got a little box, and put him in a towel in the box. I then made the possibly fatal mistake of getting him some water in a dish. The poor thing couldn't even walk or fly, though he'd sort of seem to come to attention now and then. We left him in the box while we went to the grocery store, but when we came back, the poor birdie was face down... in the water. :( I am really hoping that it did not drown when it went to get a drink of water because then I feel really really awful!! But I tried... We said a prayer over the bird before we left, so hopefully it is in birdie heaven. Doug also loves animals very much!
Doug loves to play his Myspace apps... and World of Warcraft. Funny thing, we made this hilarious video on my webcam, where I was him (wearing his hat) and we was me, and we were making fun of each other. I go, "Dude I want to play WOW!" and he goes "I want to talk about emotions!" and then pretends to cry... ha ha! It's pretty freaking hilarious!!! At least we can laugh at each other :)
This is what Doug calls my "eeek!" face. :)
I made this awesome pasta dish I made up from scratch that pairs rigatoni with artichoke hearts, sun-dried tomatoes, and chicken pieces, with a sauce made of butter, parmesan, salt & pepper. This is the 2nd time I've made it and I bought this totally cool new product where the Parmesan cheese has its own built-in grater! I love this because when you buy the whole chunks (as opposed to pre-grated) not only is it fresher, it also does not have all the preservatives needed for pre-grated cheese. But we had so much fun grating the cheese - lol - we were cracking up! And it was yummy! Run out and buy one of these next time you need Parmesan!!
This photo absolutely cracks me up. I was feeding Doug the long strings of cheese that come out of the grater and notice how I opened my mouth when I was feeding HIM?! Ha ha! I don't know why I did that but I think I was acting like I was showing a baby how to eat! :) Here, open your mouth like thiiiissss...
A cute pic of Doug with his Colorado hat on. :)
I made some pumpkin pie this weekend, using the pumpkin puree I made from the pumpkins Sam used for the smashing pumpkins contest at his birthday party back in Oct last year! And there's still more pumpkin! It's good. :) Pie rocks!
Doug is so sweet - he got me a Valentine's gift and card since he'll be offshore then! This picture didn't turn out but here's me in the dress he got me. :)
This is the back of my head with the little alien antennae things that say "cutie." I'll have to get some pics from the front with it on, but this will do for now! We got it at HEB. :)

slam dunk

A man of sincerity is less interested in defending the truth than in stating it clearly, for he thinks that if the truth can be clearly seen it can very well take care of itself.

-Thomas Merton, No Man is an Island.

I just got home from Austin after a very long day at the State Board of Education hearing. Testimony on science TEKS didn't even start until about 3:45pm, and I spoke about 6pm, about halfway through the speakers. Something like 92 people signed up to testify - overwhelmingly scientists and science advocates. I think in the first 4 hours only 3 creationists spoke. This was a very different situation from in 2003 when I think it was about 60-40 (60% science advocates, 40% creationists). However that hearing was about textbooks, was more widely publicized, and intelligent design proponents flew in from Seattle, and evolution advocates from California. It was a bit more of a media circus.

This year, they are revising the TEKS, which occurs every 10 years. They had a panel of scientists and science teachers who came up with a new version of the TEKS, and it was posted online Sept 15 here. These were pretty good. Then Monday, 2 days before the hearing, they posted a "new" version which had stealthily snuck back in the "strengths and limitations" (formerly "strengths and weaknesses") language which has been in the TEKS for 20 years but it has increasingly been seen and used as a possible place for those opposed to evolution to insert a wedge to criticize the theory - so was removed by the panel in the first (Sep 15) version.

This is the problem with that language. Despite hysterical claims that science advocates and "evolutionists" are trying to prevent academic freedom, the reality is that analysis and criticism of scientific theories belongs in the halls of academia, in the laboratory, and among those scientists with enough know-how and expertise to know what they're critiquing and analyzing. It is not something that middle or high school students are educated enough or equipped to be able to adequately discuss the merits of a theory. I think it would be useful for students to debate or discuss the evolution-creation controversy but NOT in the science classroom, but in a cultural studies, religion, or social studies course, and because of the controversy this would need to be developed in a textbook or textbooks that could present the information in a non-biased manner.

I wrote my testimony a couple days ago. However, during the hearing I got so absolutely disgusted at the behavior of the creationist board members that I added a paragraph to my testimony and called them out on their lies. In a repeat of the antics in 2003, which will be covered in my book, these Board members questioned people just for the sake of making their own points, putting people on the spot to answer questions outside of the testimony-givers realms of expertise and then fail to ask questions of actual scientific experts. They often asked questions of the young people, and those few creationists who agreed with them. Also, three creationist board members in particular, Terri Leo, Gail Lowe, Ken Mercer, and Barbara Cargill - repeatedly denied that the strengths and limitations language and their various changes on the November TEKS update had anything to do with religion. Sure. Whatever.

This is how it went when I gave my testimony.

I open with the same paragraph I wrote and posted previously, giving my background as a Christian and evolutionary biologist, mom, and former college biology instructor. Then I added something like this (it was written down but I spoke extemporaneously so it may have veered a bit):

Despite what the creationist members of the Board say - Ms Lowe, Ms Leo, Ms Cargill, Ms Dunbar, Mr Mercer, Dr McLeroy and others - everybody in the nation knows that this is absolutely a religious battle, that your dislike of evolution and naturalism and any changes to the TEKs that are supported by the Discovery Institute are religiously motivated. Kitzmiller vs Dover clearly showed that ID and these issues are religious in nature. For you to sit there and tell everyone it is not smacks of arrogance and deliberate willful deception. In other words, lying.

At which point Chairman McLeroy interrupts me to say, flustered, "We don't say that word here. You can't say that word."

I look at him, confused.

"Lying. You can't say that. You can say you disagree with something but you can't say lying."

"I can't say the words lies?" I ask, incredulous.

So I continue, not finishing the sentence that I was going to say, which was "I know who the Father of Lies is, and it's not Jesus and it's not God." I then continue on with my asking them why they are willing to play dice with our taxpayer money to risk a lawsuit, and why they're willing to play dice with our children's future, and kept to the rest of the testimony I'd written - but because of the time McLeroy took away from me by interrupting me I was not able to read my closing few sentences.

A reporter from the Fort Worth Star Telegram came over to get my testimony and hey, look at this, he quoted me in the article, Evolution proponents descend on State Board of Education.

Last I will say that McLeroy made a demand that nobody clap, hoot, holler, or talk during people's testimony because he and the Board members wanted to be able to listen to those who spoke and it was a show of respect for those who took the time to come and testify. And for the most part this was respected by the audience. However I was not shown the same courtesy by the Board! During my testimony, Terri Leo repeatedly laughed and talked over her shoulder to someone (I think he was a creationist/ID person giving her questions and comments about the testimonies). The laughter and talking by the Board was loud enough to be picked up on the live feed that was streamed from the TEA website because someone emailed me commenting on it.

I felt very good about my testimony afterwards! Got a lot of positive comments and nods from the audience as I finished. I had prayed right before I got up to speak, and had been a bit nervous but I found a calm before going up there and I spoke my truth firmly and clearly. I think it is simply essential to truth to call a spade a spade. These people have their right to their opinions, for sure, but lying to the public about the religious nature of their opposition to evolution is simply ridiculous! EVERYONE knows that the battle against evolution is all about religion! ID proponents may do their best to disguise that and lie about it, but anybody who does even a minute bit of research knows the truth. It's really not that hard to figure out. There was some fantastic testimony given and I was super gratified to hear at least 3 or 4 pastors get up and speak in favor of evolution and the science-advocate position that supports the Sep 15 version, and says get rid of the "strengths and limitations" language. Hallelujah!

I even got my photo on the Houston Chronicle Evosphere live blog from the event (the one I have above). Check it out. And check out this great quiz in the Texas Monthly, "How Well Do You Know Your State Board of Education" - truly frightening.

The Texas Freedom Network blogged live from the event also.

Here's an MP3 of my testimony, where you can hear them laughing when I say their names, and McLeroy interrupting me.

media bias, science & critical thinking

This is just sad, but this is the best grizzly picture I could find! This was a grizzly eating vegetation in Yosemite National Park. Everywhere I go, I see bears. I think they're my totem animal! I have seen them in Alaska, at Glacier NP, at Yosemite, at Yellowstone, oh and the black bears I saw when writing an article on them in Louisiana...and then I studied grizzlies when I was at A&M grad school (see below)!
Copyright (c) 2007 Wendee Holtcamp

Since someone commented on bias in the media on my last post, I want to start talking about this issue a bit more because it's near and dear to my heart. When I spent 2 years earning a Information Technology in Science - ITS - Certificate from Texas A&M (a collaboration of the Departments of Education and Department of Science), critical thinking was my main interest. (I worked in Larry Griffing's lab studying the behavior of grizzly bears at McNeil River, Alaska via remote camera, before transferring to Rice).

While working on the ITS Certificate, which was part of my doctoral studies, I developed an "Evolution in Action" Excel workbook. I then used this tool to teach my Biology students at Kingwood College (now Lonestar College) scientific/critical thinking skills and also to introduce students to evolution. Students would watch video of grizzly bears engaged in various behaviors, including fishing for salmon, fighting with one another, and infanticide (in this case, a male bear killed a female bear's cub), while thinking about the questions, "Why might aggressive behavior have evolved in grizzlies? Is the reason different for female versus male bears?"
(I just uploaded it here - Evolution in Action. It's an Excel file and the link will open a window asking you to open in the browser or to save it to your computer where you can view it). After developing the workbook and using it in class, I did a study analyzing whether the workbook helped enhance student critical thinking (see my publication, "Grizzly Bears, Evolution, and Critical Thinking: Analyzing a Scaffolding IT for Teaching").

The workbook involves several different exercises but the last one was to analyze various print sources of information on grizzly bears - book chapters from various authors, a website, a scientific publication. There's a lot of controversy and misinformation surrounding grizzlies! After reading each source, they would then answer the following questions (below), and fill out a worksheet that assigned numerical values to their answers. This enabled them to rank the reliability of that source of information.

These are the questions:

• Are the authors' names and credentials listed on the publication?
  
  
• Does the info source provide more than one viewpoint or hypothesis?
  
  
• Are specific studies mentioned or cited in the text? (Do not give a YES answer if the article contains general phrases like "studies indicate" or "research shows" unless the article/source explicitly mentions a specific study and researcher mentioned).
  
  
• Does the paper test a prediction?
  
  
• Are the authors trying persuade you to accept a particular viewpoint?
  
  
• When was it published? (decreasing points for older pubs)
  
  
• Is the article or website sponsored by a company or by advertising?
  
  
• Do the authors blatantly or implicitly insult other perspectives?
  
  
• Does the perspective presented seem exaggerated or extreme?
  
  
• What is the purpose of the publication? (inform/share data; Disclose information; persuade; sell or entice)

By answering those questions and entering a numerical value (explained in the workbook) to each answer, they would come up with a numerical way to judge and analyze the reliability of a particular news source. I'd love to develop this tool more and make it available to the public. It's far from complete or fully comprehensive, but it's a start. (The video links won't work in the online version, unfortunately, and you have to click on the tabs at the bottom to get to the different "Exercises.")

I also have some views on objectivity in journalism that may differ from the typical J-school trained journalist because, well, I'm not one. I'm a science-educated writer who covers wildlife, the environment, conservation, and outdoor travel. I outlined some of my thoughts on Objectivity in Journalism when I gave an invited lecture at the University of North Texas' 2007 Nature Writing Symposium.

Magazine writing, especially for magazines mostly published by nonprofit organizations, don't necessarily hold to the same standards as, say, the strict guidelines of the New York Times. There is a difference between being fair and truthful, and doing the whole "present both sides" thing which in many ways can be a sham, particularly when journalists present two or more sides on an issue when there are NOT two sides! Do we give equal time to lunatics or fringe ideas? Doing so only makes their ideas seem more accepted unless they're clearly labeled as such.

But worse, in my opinion, is when a news source gives the illusion of being unbiased, but clearly is! I believe that sources providing information should put their biases out there on the table. Most know Fox News has a conservative bent -but they don't tell this clearly to their listeners. Some people believe the media has a liberal bias but present information as if they don't. It is a problem when news sources act "as if" they are not biased but bias creeps in.

We should know that a magazine published by a wildlife nonprofit is going to not run certain stories, but that does not mean the stories they run are not accurate, fact-checked, and presented with attention to both sides of an argument. However they may come out a bit more persuasively argued toward one side of the argument than another. But when the same information is presented in say a conservation magazine, the New York Times, and various other sources of news and information but not in a right-leaning news source, that is when you should be concerned that maybe the story has merit. There's no doubt that while the internet has revolutionized the world into an information age, one of the downfalls is that so much information can be overwhelming and it becomes difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Another thing is that there are a lot of "thinktanks" and organizations with great-sounding names ("Center for Truth" - I made that up - but that kind of thing) - but in reality they are funded by particular groups with very specific agendas. When they're quoted in newspaper articles without that article clearly addressing this issue, it passes along "expert" quotes when that expert may just be paid to spout off a certain perspective (and most likely they believe it too, or they probably would not work for that organization). But sometimes, it takes digging to find these things out, and most people don't take time to dig. Who has time? But with the internet it's often not that difficult. Sometimes journalists must do FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) requests - demanding governments release information that should be public but that they don't want to release - and then writing expose's to expose some of the more "hidden agendas." FOIA requests are not a tool your average citizen typically uses, but why you should indeed pay attention to the more prestigious newspapers and news sources. They do their homework and have high standards. They're not perfect, but in my experience, journalists take great pride in their work and being the "4th branch" of a healthy democracy.

I think that bias still does creep into supposed bastions of objectivity like the NY Times, but that does not mean that one should not still read it and pay attention. Just have a critically thinking mind when doing so. Those who pretend to not have bias may just be fooling themselves. We all have biases. The trick is to do our best to understand and make clear our biases, even while still doing our best to write truthfully and accurately. I believe it's better to be clear about biases than to pretend one does not have them.

However when it comes to science - and this is one of the most misunderstood things in society I believe - the whole field of science, the scientific method and the whole process of science (developed during the Scientific Revolution) was designed specifically to REMOVE bias from the the practioner's research so that scientists could reveal facts and ultimately truth. In science, this is done through the various things, including the scientific method, double-blind experiments, the use of statistics to analyze data (rather than merely philosophical reasoning and logic), and the peer-review system of scientific publication.

Descartes rocks

I'm feeling a bit better (my cold), thank God. Spent the morning sleeping in, then the day outside in the sunshine reading René Descartes' Discourse on the Method aka "Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting the Reason, and Seeking the Truth in the Sciences".

About a year ago, I bought this whole series "Harvard Classics" for like $0.50/volume from a local library book sale, and there are so many of them that I've been wanting to read - and that I want my kids to read. So I started reading this one, partly as research for the book I'm writing, and I'm blown away. I was thinking that all kids in our nation's public education system should be required to read this. And the rest of the material too! In just this one volume it also includes Voltaire, Rousseau and Hobbes.

Descartes is the guy who famously said, "I think, therefore I am." The previous link goes to the full text. The Wikipedia entry is interesting; it says that it's "is one of the most influential works in the history of modern science" and "gives a solid platform from which all modern natural sciences could evolve."


My favorite quotes, so far:

"I had always a most earnest desire to know how to distinguish the true from the false, in order that I might be able clearly to discriminate the right path in life, and proceed in it with confidence."

----

"My second maxim was to be as constant and as resolute in my actions as I could, and to follow the most doubtful opinions, once I had settled on them for myself, with no less constancy than if they had been very sure, imitating in this matter travelers who, finding themselves lost in some forest, should not wander around, shifting direction this way and that; even less should they stop in one place; they should move on always as straight as they can in the same direction and not change it for inadequate reasons, even though at the beginning it was perhaps only chance which led to their choice of direction. For in this way, if they do not come out exactly where they want to, they will at least end up arriving somewhere where they will probably be better off than in the middle of a forest."

I like this because I can be SO indecisive sometimes, and often second-guess the decisions I do make! It was really good to read. So it's good advice I'll try to follow.


So then he of course goes on in Part IV to prove the existence of God through Reason and not only that to prove that we/he exists. :) He thinks, therefore he is. I just love it. Honestly I want to read this to my kids. This is something we all should have had, or kids now need in school. Understanding the history of modern thought is so important, and just the brilliance of these philosophers blows me away. I love that most of them are Christians, and they are absolutely convinced and resolute on the importance of Reason and Logic and Science. It just makes me depressed to think about how sad our state of science education and general knowledge about science is that people actually believe that Intelligent Design is anything but the religion-masquerading-as-science that it is. And BAD religion, not good religion (and yes I do believe there is a difference). And not only that, fake science. Not just bad science, not even "science" - which if people understood the history and nature of science, they would understand! It's very, very frustrating, since just a little bit of research into the Truth - the history of science, the nature of science, the millions of studies that have been conducted on evolution and evolutionary biology will reveal such clear Truths about the nature of science and whether Evolution has evidence (duh! yes!)... yet all these things are simply discarded nonchalantly by those who are told that they are not "true" or are somehow antithetical to Christianity. Such garbage!

I also had to laugh at how looooong some of Descartes' sentences are. I mean, check this out:

My third maxim was to endeavour always to conquer myself rather than fortune, and change my desires rather than the order of the world, and in general, accustom myself to the persuasion that, except our own thoughts, there is nothing absolutely in our power; so that when we have done our best in respect of things external to us, all wherein we fail of success is to be held, as regards us, absolutely impossible: and this single principle seemed to me sufficient to prevent me from desiring for the future anything which I could not obtain, and thus render me contented; for since our will naturally seeks those objects alone which the understanding represents as in some way possible of attainment, it is plain, that if we consider all external goods as equally beyond our power, we shall no more regret the absence of such goods as seem due to our birth, when deprived of them without any fault of ours, than our not possessing the kingdoms of China or Mexico; and thus making, so to speak, a virtue of necessity, we shall no more desire health in disease, or freedom in imprisonment, than we now do bodies incorruptible as diamonds, or the wings of birds to fly with.

Despite lots of semi-colons and colons that is ONE LONG SENTENCE!! I ought to post the rest as it also is a brilliant passage, but I'll let you go read on your own...

As a writer we are told to keep sentences short. Who made this rule? I'm also reading Tale of Two Cities to Sam at night and Dickens also has some insanely long sentences! Why do we think we need to shorten? Are we dumbing down society by requiring everything now be written in super short easy to grasp sentences, and so when it comes to long sentences our feeble brains can't wrap their neurons around the meaning anymore? Sam's teacher said Dickens' was too complex for him (even though Sam has skipped a grade and is still at the top of his class...) Sam himself will SAY he doesn't get it, but he gets a lot more than he thinks, and as I read, I go through it and talk to him about what the passage means if it's something complex. And how the heck do we expect kids to learn better reading comprehension skills if we don't give them stuff that is slightly above their current level?! Back in the day, they all read this stuff. They learned to WRITE by writing out by hand these books that were far beyond their comprehension initially. All for now. More to come, but for now, good night!