Bring your own devices in my classroom

This is my response to the article in the recent TCF news asking about BYO device. I know that my situation is unique, but just to share what I do about BYO device.
When I am collecting my students to enter the classroom (lab - I am a science teacher), my instructions are "Make sure you bring your phone and your laptop."

The idea, being a Science lesson, is for the students to make observations, record those observations, share those observations and make inferences based on those observations. This process is lots easier with a device which has a camera and access to the Internet.
The lesson will involve some practical work (e.g. an experiment), and they will be asked to share the results on an internet forum, so that other students can also see their results and comment on them. Similarly, they are asked to write about the investigation into the forum to analyse the investigation in terms of purpose, analysis of the scientific process involved and what the results may mean. They are also asked to comment on what others have written.
The process I have just described is quite difficult without such devices - a camera is lots quicker than drawing a sketch. The collaboration reaches outside the classroom to other students.

However, the questions were:
Principal support: Whenever devices in the classroom are discussed at a policy level, myself and others using devices in a similar way state the how the devices are used, and the educational benefit of such practices. So far the school policy stands as being able to be called for or banned by each classroom teacher. Use of devices is carefully monitored in the classroom, but I try to set the bar high in terms of students completing the tasks set using their devices, limiting inappropriate activities.
Parent support: This has been difficult as it really has meant showing many students the work students produce and then describe how this is completing what would otherwise be far too difficult and time-consuming without using the devices. Most parents seem to see the benefit and are supportive.
I make no requirements about preferred platform, operating system or browser, however some rules exist in the Department's code of conduct about "appropriate use". The intention is to make whatever I am asking students to use accessible by whatever the students are using. So the majority of what I ask my students to use is accessible by any web-browser which is available on any device. The limitations are with those students using iOS (e.g. iPhones and iPads) when I have content that uses flash, or a movie format that does not work. I then need to re-write such older lessons/instructions to suit these, while still being available to others. This is usually a matter of changing it to an ordinary (html5) web-site, or using something different.
The easy way to do this is to use an appropriate system for the lesson material. My school has a Moodle server (though it is getting quite old now). Some find that Edmodo is a good platform to allow the collaboration I am describing. Google plus would be another excellent system, but it is blocked by the Department's firewall.Each of these systems have an emphasis on collaboration.
One beneficial aspect of using a forum for class discussions is that students who would normally say nothing, instead become active participants. I think they feel protected and empowered by the on-line nature of the discussion. On the other hand, loud and dominating students often feel frustrated as instead of mouthing off, they need to think about what they are writing.
Anyway, I hope these thoughts are helpful for prompting discussion. I acknowledge that this may not work in all situations.

On-line learning science

Recently I read an article on Edutopia about the balance of screen-time.

It was encouraging to read this, compared to a common line I hear; "Students can't spend all their day looking at a computer". However the same people making the comment may very well expect students to spend all their day looking at pieces of paper. Clearly the enriched environment of the computer screen has a lot more going for it educationally than a static piece of paper that does not allow for any interactivity, any animation, little experimentation and no collaboration. That is, in itself the paper as a medium for education is a dead loss. However accusing paper of its inadequacies as a medium for communicating with students avoids the real questions - that of pedagogy.

The Pedagogy of Screen time

So what about the comments that "students can't spend all their day looking at a computer". In effect I would agree, so long as the alternative is not spending all day looking at pieces of paper. Instead as the article points out:
The 3 key questions are:

1. Is it appropriate?
2. Is it meaningful?
3. Is it empowering?

These 3 questions sound very similar to the dimensions in the Quality Teaching Framework.

• Intellectual quality (i.e. appropriate and empowering)
• Quality learning environment (i.e. appropriate, empowering and meaningful)
• Significance (i.e. meaningful)

Intellectual Quality

A paper-based means of communicating with students will suffer problems with intellectual quality compared with an Internet-based medium. This is because the computer and the Internet in particular allows for more enriched and interactive experiences which will inevitably challenge the student much more than the limit of paper (without giving the students the equivalent of an encyclopaedia). More significantly is that the interactive world of the computer (and the Internet) allows for experiences where the students are engaged in higher order thinking and to communicate substantively with the rest of the world. So an on-line learning environment is more likely to be appropriate and empowering.

Quality learning environment

Closely linked with my point about intellectual quality is the fact that the environment created by communicating using on-line learning allows for the development of more substantive relationships between students and teachers, and among students. Whereas paper-based material will lend itself to a 'feeding knowledge to the student' approach to education. So, an on-line learning environment is more likely to be appropriate, meaningful and empowering.

Significance

Paper-based communication can suffer from the same problem as a screen - it can lack relevance to the real world, and lack real world experiences. The interactive nature of a computer-based communication strategy allows for immediate adaptation to students prior knowledge and identities. Similarly, the student can easily be linked to relevant real-world experiences. On the other hand, students can easily get the impression that what is written on the paper does not have significance to the real world and their life. So, the on-line learning environment is more likely to be meaningful.

Interacting with God's world using the screen

To me, it is obvious that communicating with students using pieces of paper lacks many opportunities for interactivity. However, if the students explore the real world, as demonstrated on a screen, then they will more readily interact with the real world in meaningful and empowering ways.
I liked the quote in Beth Holland's edutopia article:

"Instead, the tablets were intended to be used as video cameras, audio recorders, and multimedia notebooks of individual students' creations."

Students need to get used to the idea of creating using the technology rather than passively watching it, just like last century when they needed to use what they found from the paper, to interact with the world. This is the fundamental issue of education that is missed by those who want us to go back to the paper-based pedagogies. As Ken Holt has said:

"Learning is not the product of teaching. Learning is the product of the activity of learners."

Teaching Science - using screens

For science based subjects, as I am involved in, this means I will try to include student activities like:

• Creating a record of investigations on their screens. For example write a report of their investigation, or present a PowerPoint of their investigation, or a movie of their investigation. This also lends itself to Project Based learning models where the student may be asked to present a solution to the real-world problem.
• Performing investigations using cameras, microphones or whatever connected to their device. Most of the devices we are talking about have cameras attached. Surely this is a much quicker way to communicate the results of an experiment - take a photo and include it in your report. This is also much closer to what is expected in solving problems in the real world. A picture is worth a thousand words; a movie even more. Similarly, I have asked students to perform sound wave experiments using their microphone (e.g. measuring the speed of sound, and use the computer or mobile device as a CRO to analyse a sound wave). These days, mobile devices also come with an accelerometer (though I have not yet been successful with using these in an investigation). 
• Using the power of analysis tools on their devices to interpret and analyse their results. 
  
  The syllabus asks student to draw graphs in stages 2 and 3. By the time they get to Stages 4, 5 and 6, they should be analysing those graphs. So why waste time getting them to draw a graph on graph paper. Students should be using a spreadsheet to present their graphs, and use the spreadsheet tools to analyse their graphs.
• Using the power of their device to present clear and convincing arguments of what they have investigated. A screen based presentation allows much more scope for students to creatively present their arguments than a paper-based presentation.
• Using the screen to share their presentation or findings with other students. In distance education, if a student presents their work, the teacher is the only person who sees it outside the student's home. I am not sure why this does not discourage the students more than is reported. However a web-based means of sharing what they investigated allows their peers to see what they find. Hopefully to also give the student appropriate positive feedback.
• Using their screens to collaborate with other students who are at a distance from them. This is particularly relevant when considering distance education. It is a lot harder to discuss and collaborate over large distances when learning from a piece of paper. I have seen in real life what Beth Holland's article refers to of students who will not share in class, but they share quite freely on-line - in fact is it possible to stop them? I have had reasonable success with getting a classroom of students (i.e. face-to-face) to collaborate with those completing work on-line. Such is very difficult when using paper-based approaches.

I also use simulations (or games) for the purpose of creating a controlled investigation so the student knows how to investigate the real world.

Conclusion

OK. So I have raved on too much. Hopefully you get the idea. I feel it is therefore naive to be asking how much students should be doing on-line compared to pieces of paper. The real question for science education is how much are the students interacting with God's world in a scientific way. Using a computer lends itself to richer answers to such a question, as the student observes, analyses and interacts in much more relevant ways using an on-line learning environment than by using paper-based means of communication.
(Next I hope to relate this model of on-line Science Education to the 5 E s of Science education in the new National Curriculum).

Thoughts on Genesis 1

I stumbled across this interview with John Walton.

The Lost World of Genesis - Part 1 from CPX on Vimeo.
These are my notes from the interview.
Genesis 1 needs to be taken seriously, but it needs to be treated as an ancient text rather than a science book.
It was not written to us.
It is in an ancient language to an ancient culture.
To read it as a science text book is not doing justice for what it is, and so not doing justice to the text (to me this means it is taking it out of its historical context and out of its cultural context).
If we make it say what it was not intended to say then we are imposing our own agenda onto the Bible, and that is not a good thing (how many examples are there in history of people doing this to the Bible !!!!)

When the ancient context is taken seriously...

Considering the ancient context adds a complexity to the text that is missed with a superficial reading.
Then people believed in a flat earth and a solid dome for the sky. The sun, moon, stars and birds are all in that same sphere of operation to them. So when communication is done, it needs to be done to what is familiar to those it is intended to reach. So it was not trying to tell them about those details.
According to John Walton, the ancient world, they were not interested so much in the material world ("stuff") like we are. Instead, they were interested in functions, order, organisation, who is in charge, authority, who makes this thing work. This is compared to going to work in a new organisation, your first interest is not who made the building, but where do you fit into the corporate plan.
So, Genesis 1 is an account of those functional origins. "God setting it to work under His rule".
If it is not a material account, then the 7 days are not talking about the time when material came into place. Instead consider that when it tells us that on the 7th day God rested, we would wonder why God needed to rest. But to ancients, God resting means there is a temple involved, and a deity rests when everything is as it should be, and now I can take charge. So, the rest of the 7th day is ruling, not relaxing. The universe is God's temple, and he is ruling in that temple.

Example of light

So why does light come in day 1, and sun moon and stars in day 4? On Day 1 he created time, on Day 2 he created weather, on Day 3 he created the way we grow food. The following days are functionaries in those contexts. Sun moon and stars are functions in those contexts. People with jobs to do are functions in those contexts.

What does Genesis 1 say to the modern reader?

God is the one in charge. But unlike the other deities, this account says that God did not make it for himself, but he made it for us, and that we have responsibilities in His world.

Teachings of the nature of humanity

Ancients had the idea of deities creating people to meet the deities needs. The Bible instead has people as vice-regents, and people do not meet their needs but God meets their needs.
Ancients had the King as the image of god, but the Bible has all people as the image of God.
Humanity is not a genetic accident, but we have a purpose for which he designed us. We should see the universe as His temple.

Science and the Bible?

We should not consider science to be opposed to the Biblical account. In the Biblical account just because we can explain something (in naturalistic ways), does not mean that God had not done it. Instead the Biblical account just says that now we know more of the way God acts and the way God works.
An example is Psalm 139:12, 13 says "You knit me together in my mothers womb". That does not cancel out all of embryology. Instead we say that as much as we know about embryology, and how it works and can benefit from that knowledge, it does not cancel out the fact that is how God is knitting us together in our mother's womb.
So we should not try to work out on every point whether it is something God is doing or whether it is something Science is doing. God is working through (and in?) those processes.

So for evolution?

Whatever is true of evolution, will tell us a little of the mechanism God is using to go on creating, and how he is doing it.

Age of the earth?

Most people who think that the earth is very young, get that from the 7 days in Genesis 1. If Genesis 1 is not about material origins, then the 7 days is not about the 7 days in which material came into being, and then Genesis 1 does not tell you the age of the earth. (Which is not surprising, as that is not why it was written). If Genesis 1 does not tell us the age of the earth, then we do not have a biblical view for the age of the earth. We are also then free to explore whatever science may offer to see if it has legitimacy or not.

Male and female roles?

Just as Genesis 1 is about the functions and order of the universe, so Genesis 2 is about the functions and order of society. People who find contradictions between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are trying to put material origins in Chronological order. There is no reason to do that.
It may have been revolutionary to consider that both males and females were made as the image of God.
Eve being a help-mate for Adam is not indicating that she is inferior. Instead they are partners in the task they have been given.

Conclusion

If we can be more careful readers of Genesis 1, and closer students of what the text is saying in its context, we will discover that there is not nearly as much conflict as we otherwise would have thought.

Answers and questions from the whirlwind (Job 38)

As I read Romans 1 in the Bible, I find encouragement to investigate God's creation.

because that which is known of God is revealed in them, for God revealed it to them. For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse.
Romans 1:19, 20 WEB

Another encouragement to investigate God's creation is found in Psalm 19.

The heavens declare the glory of God
The expanse shows his handiwork.
Day after day they pour out speech,
and night after night they display knowledge.
There is no speech nor language,
where their voice is not heard.
Psalm 19:1-3 WEB

So I set out to investigate what God has revealed through the things that are made. May I challenge you that these verses would encourage anyone to do scientific investigations of God's world. Clearly the tools referred to in these verse are the 5 senses.
Yes I do know that we can find out far more about God by investigating the Bible. Psalm 19 particularly goes on to encourage us to look at the Bible.
Indeed the Bible would occupy my main quest for relating to God. However God has given us all a curiosity and these 5 senses so that we can perceive His creation and stand in awe of Him. The Bible also deals with such vital practical issues of how I should live in view of what I learn about God in the Bible and from creation. So the amazing observations of creation will need to be put aside to grow in understanding and trust of the almighty.
However, here I want to use the observations I make, with a little help from the technology God has allowed us to use to follow on from these parts of the Bible that do encourage us to perceive what he has declared in creation.
The fact that I am using second-hand data does not reduce the impact of my observations, as I am convinced that I could make these same observations first-hand (in many cases I have made such observations first-hand, but being a poor scientist I did not record the observations).

An observation with the eyes God gave me

Stellar parallax is a relatively simply procedure where observations are made of a nearby star over a 6 month period of time. As the earth orbits the sun, the position of the star is seen to change relative to the position of the other more distant stars. This change in position can be used, with a little geometry, to calculate the distance to that nearby star.

Image from NASA

I emphasise that I recognise that this is only valid for nearby stars, as the distances quickly become far greater than can be measured using this method of stellar parallax. However I start with the simple observations using the eyes God gave us. Why not try this for yourself, and discover the vast distances involved in our little corner of our galaxy.

Image from NASA

You should easily be able to confirm the distances found in such catalogues of nearby stars as the hipparcos catalogue. A few hints here is that the units for distance here is in parsecs. 1 parsec is 3.26 light years, that is 1 parsec = 3.084 × 10¹³ km. In case you are unfamiliar with scientific notation, that is 30 840 000 000 000km. Try to put that into a few calculations to start to appreciate the distances involved. Also hopefully you also noted that the error margin for these is only about 10 to 20%)
So, if a star in the table is 15 parsecs away, then that is 4.6 x 10¹⁴km away. (Again that is 460 000 000 000 000 km).
In line with Romans 1:19, 20, what do I learn about God from these observations? I start to get a tiny bit of a feel for the vastness of the universe he has made, as these entries are just the closest 118,000 or so stars (though future advances in telescopes may increase these to more stars), it will still be a tiny amount compared to the vastness of space. Clearly God is much bigger and more powerful than anything we start to imagine.

Image from NASA

At this point, even if we go no further we can start to see that as this is only a tiny corner of our galaxy, so our galaxy must be lots bigger than 10,000 light years across. In fact the figure quoted of 100,000 light years starts to seem quite reasonable.
Now also consider that ours is only one of a enormous array of galaxies, each of them flung out into the vastness of the universe at enormous multiples of distances further away than the size of our mediocre galaxy.
I would encourage any readers to view any of the powers of 10 movies or learning objects on the Internet to further appreciate the distance we are talking about.
However, these distances are not just speculation on parallax distances. Variable stars within these parallax data gives us plenty to observe a pattern of brightness with variability. This God-given pattern has been examined by people and found to follow a mathematical pattern, which further helps us determine the distances to other stars. This again confirms the kind of distances I mentioned before – about 100,000 light years across our galaxy.

Image from NASA

 For completion I also want to note that red-shift can be used to similarly find that the galaxies and stars are generally moving away from us. Hubble found a pattern with distances, that the further away the galaxy was, the faster it was travelling. This has come under extensive study and not only confirmed but also remarkable patterns of acceleration is being noticed in the universe. All of this confirming the size of the universe to be something like 12 billion light years in terms of what we can see.
Simple understanding of how fast light travels, tells us that the light we are observing from these distant galaxies has been travelling for 12 billion years. So I am looking at events that occurred 12 billion years ago.
I want to pause here and remind anyone becoming sceptical at this point that you too can make these same observations and come to the same conclusions. This is the nature of the ability of science to be verifiable by someone else repeating the same investigation, as many are indeed doing every day and getting the same results. So do not try to trivialise what is observed or to try to pretend we are making a mistake. If we include the errors at an extreme to make the universe smaller we really only come out to be about 10 billion years ago that these events occurred that we are looking at.

Image from NASA

After doing what the Bible encourages me to do, I will be standing in awe of God who has made such an amazing universe, and then someone will try to tell me that the universe is only 10,000 years old. What? On what basis? I check my observations as do many any I do not find errors of that magnitude. That is equivalent to telling me that a sporting field is 100m long, I look at it and then someone tells me, no it is really only 1mm long. You can imagine that I look at the football field and wonder whether the person has eyes, who is telling me that it is only 1mm long.

Image Open Clip Art

I am aware of explanations people have put forward to explain this apparent contradiction, but none come anywhere near what is needed, especially considering as I described before, simply considering the density of the galaxy.
So I ask again, on what basis are you telling me that the universe is only 10,000 years old? There are two types of answers. 1. That the Bible tells us it is 10,000 years old. 2. Evidence (observations) for a young earth.

The Bible tells me

I read in 2 Timothy 3:16, what the Bible is good for:

Every Scripture is God-breathed and is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. 2 Timothy 3:16, 17

So the purpose of the Bible is to correct me in terms of righteousness and good work. I am yet to find where my observations of the universe have lead me away from righteousness and good work. I am open to correction, but I am yet to find it. I still believe God made it. The universe is therefore His, and He can and will do whatever He wants to do with it. So what can I do with people telling me the Bible says the universe is only 10,000 years old when I am observing things more than 10 billion years old?
Each of the Books of the Bible have their own purpose for being written. This is a key hermeneutical principle. Interpret the Bible in the light of why it was written.
This is what I believe is the key for a significant amount of noise on this issue. How people read the Bible is important.
As John Stott wrote in “Understanding the Bible” (ANZEA 1973 page 14),

What I am rather asserting is that, though the Bible may contain some science, the purpose of the Bible is not scientific.

Stott later (page 29) says

"John sees the ultimate purpose of Scripture just as Paul sees it. John calls it 'life', Paul 'salvation', but the words are synonymous. Both apostles further agreed that this life or salvation is in Christ, and that to receive it we must believe in Him.
The conclusion is simple. Whenever we read the Bible we must look for Christ."

So, I ask how am I encouraged to look for Christ when I am trying to calculate dates and ages in the Bible? Instead I would suggest those who are encouraging me to look at the Bible in a way it was not intended, by encouraging me to try to look for dates and time scales are wasting my time and diverting my attention away from these key issues of Jesus, righteousness and life. I have yet to find a single encouragement towards, righteousness, Jesus, life or salvation by focusing on dates and time-lines.
Furthermore, I consistently find that those who are loudest about such issues seem to be the least effective in bringing people to life in Jesus, and often also in terms of righteousness. So, I will concentrate on those things that do lead to life and righteousness in Jesus.
On the other hand I am encouraged in 1 Timothy 1:4 and Titus 3:9, to shun discussions of genealogies and such which is what such a discussion is inevitably based on. (I have probably gone against these verses writing as much as I have written).
Genesis becomes a key book of the Bible in this discussion. So I would pose a few questions for those who do want to focus on such endless, and as I have just indicated, fruitless discussions.

1. How certain are you of the dates of Abraham's life. This is a good starting point, as it is recorded by Moses, when some would even suggest that we are not that certain of the dates of Moses life!
2. Many refer to the flood, but I would have to question the dates of the flood, as I would ask how well the genealogies of different books of the Bible match? As we shall see...
3. What are the purpose of each genealogy? For example Luke 3:23-38 is in the original, merely a list of names, prefaced by "the son of" – once. It seems to me that it is not intended to be a genealogy, but an indication of heritage. To what extent is this also true of other genealogies? The genealogies in Genesis are recorded by Moses for a purpose – I do not believe they were there to tell us when these events occurred, but instead to see how God was calling a people to himself, and how He was working to rescue his people in Jesus. Notice that this understanding immediately brings us back to Jesus and how we can have life and righteousness in Jesus. This is my measure of the validity of an interpretation of scripture, as I have previously indicated (Matching with what is stated in 2 Timothy 3:16, 17).
4. How certain are you of the times and years mentioned in the Bible and particularly in Genesis, and even more so in the first 11 chapters of Genesis? Remember that many of the names that appear to be the same are not referring to the same person. Also, as with Luke 3, many are intended to fit the purpose of proclaiming how God is working out His plan to rescue a people for Himself, not to tell us when these events occurred. Are we missing the point God has for us?
5. Do each of the sections of Genesis have a common purpose? Remember that Genesis is written by Moses long after the Genesis events. A simple reading of Genesis reveals that it is written in sections. Each section separated by “this is the history of the generations of...”. It would appear that each section is a separate oral history. So, how does the purpose of each section match the overall purpose Moses had as he was putting it together? To what extent did Moses edit each section for the overall purpose Moses had in mind under the leading of the Holy Spirit? Moses was writing for the people who had come out of Egypt and had experienced God's act of redemption. They had been saved and needed to trust the God who saved them rather than reverting back to the idolatry of Egypt. How does each section of Genesis fit that overall purpose?
   Again, it is fundamental to a good interpretation of scripture to know the purpose – why it was written. If this is not addressed, then I would have to question your interpretation until it is addressed.
6. In interpreting the first 11 chapters of Genesis, I would have to ask what language was it written in? Clearly the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, but were the original oral traditions of Genesis 1-11 also originally in Hebrew? Before you jump in and say of course, remember the events of Genesis chapter 11. To me it seems to be saying that they were not in Hebrew, but in another unknown ancient language. If we cannot determine the original language, then we cannot determine the original purpose of those original traditions, and are left with the purpose Moses had in recording those traditions for use. Once again, the purpose scripture was recorded should be a prime issue in determining how it is interpreted.
7. Related to the last point is particularly relevant to what I observed earlier, is "What is the literary style of Genesis 1?" It is clearly a completely different style to chapter 2. Without knowing what the language was, how can we determine what its literary style? Some have denied that it is poetry, but we are only reading an English version translated form Hebrew, translated and edited from its original language where we do not know even the type of language we are considering. So how do we know whether it is poetical or not? Even with those, the emphasis of chapter 1 does not appear to be with dates, but with the power of God's word (which incidentally matches the equivalent New Testament expression in John 1:1-5. We cannot even fully determine who the original author was, considering the section break in Genesis 2:4. Was it God himself telling Adam, Seth, or someone else, or was it Adam or Seth or someone else? (I have now also written about how the context of who it is written to also becomes highly significant, as John Walton points out - see my blog on Genesis 1). The context of the society Genesis 1 was written in is very different to our own, and needs to be treated as such Poetry and music are clearly there in Genesis 4, with Lamech's godless and rebellious boast (Genesis 4:22-24). This to me means that any suggestion of the literary style (or genre) of Genesis chapter 1 to be quite speculative. Therefore I would not want to divert attention in this section away to Moses' spirit-lead intention in including it. Moses was writing to remind people of the redemptive purposes of God. God made the universe by the power of His word, the same way he worked through Jesus, and the same way he is working today.
8. I ask also how to interpret Genesis 2:4 in light of whatever interpretation you have of Genesis 1:1-2:3. The word for day in Genesis 1 is the same word in Genesis 2:4, yet in Genesis 2:4 it is a single day. If Moses did intend Genesis 1 to be interpreted as a literal indication of the times God took to make the universe, then why did Moses allow, in the very next verse (Genesis 2:4) a statement which contradicted it, saying that it was done in one day? We are all aware that the word “day” can have a much wider meaning. Referring to later references to 7 days does not help, as each is still within the context of quoting the same literary style. (I have now written about how John Walton has a much richer understanding of Genesis 1 - see my blog post on Genesis 1).

So, considering all these questions, if someone comes claiming they have an interpretation of Genesis 1-11 which is contradicting what I can clearly observe, then you would have to understand when I ignore such speculation. God's word is not intended to look like it contradicts what is plainly observed. The key issues of redemption through the work of Jesus is still clear, without insisting on a narrow interpretation of these chapters.
I still believe that the Bible is God's word, and is without errors. I believe I am interpreting scripture literally. Though this is understood by not ignoring important principle of hermeneutics – the science of interpretation of scripture. As Sproul explains in “Knowing God's word” (Ark publishing 1977), the principles are:

1. The analogy of Faith. That is that Scripture is its own interpreter. The purpose of the bible confirms that the intention of scripture is to lead us to God through the redemptive work of Jesus. I find little to suggest that the Bible has some scientific agenda, so interpreting outside of the redemptive work of Jesus is contrary to the purposes of the Bible itself.
2. Interpret the Bible literally. As Martin Luther advised to interpret scripture according to its literal sense, meaning to interpret scripture as literature. As Sproul says “
   

   "We need to examine the historical situation in which it arose and the meaning of the words themselves". (page 48).

   “To be accurate interpreters of the Bible we need to know the rules of grammar; and above all we must be carefully involved in what is called genre analysis.” (page 49). “

   "The term genre means simply “kind”, “sort” or “species”. Genre analysis involves the study of such things as literary forms, figures of speech and style” (page 49).

   As I have indicated already, this is sadly lacking in what some people say about the first chapters of Genesis. Sproul goes on to say,
   

   “The opening chapters of Genesis provide a real difficulty to the person who wants to pinpoint the precise literary genre used. Part of the text has the earmarks of historical literature, yet parts of it exhibits the kind of imagery found in symbolic literature.”

   Add this to the points I made earlier and it is not clear what a literal interpretation of these early chapters really does say, apart from using point 1 – the analogy of faith. Redemption is again what we should be focusing on rather than speculation of time that contradicts what is plainly observed. Indeed Sproul then contrasts the medieval quadriga interpretation methods which gave 4 meaning of scripture. The meaning of scripture instead needs to be to point to the redemptive purposes achieved in Jesus death on the cross.
3. Gramatico-historical method. Here the gramatical constructions and historical contexts of the original texts are considered. Again, as I have already indicated, the early chapters of Genesis seem to require an understanding of the times of Moses and his spirit-lead editing work, than of the times of creation. (Again, I now have a blog post that point to what John Walton has said about this - see my post about Genesis 1).

So, I consider that those who insist that my observations of the universe to be wrong based on what the Bible says have a very poor understanding of how to interpret scripture. As Galileo said, the intention of the Bible

“is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heavens go."

To insist on such an interpretation of scripture has problems with simple observations of the universe. Again, as Galileo said,

“I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.”
― Galileo Galilei, Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina

Scientific evidence

The previous point about the mis-use of scripture to make a supposed scientific point is my main concern. If we gain scientific evidence to support a young earth, then I congratulate those who bring its attention to the scientific community. I will look at it, and suggest others look at such scientific evidence. This is one positive role of the Creation Science cult. Science flourishes by having people produce evidence to challenge otherwise long held beliefs. The scientific credibility of such evidence can only extend however so far as the extent to which they allow such evidence to be critically analysed - validly, by a peer review system. Similarly I challenge the scientific community not to write off anything that is proposed by such a cult as garbage before it has been analysed.
I suspect that apart from the poor interpretation of scripture used by such a cult, there are 2 main problem they face.

1. Many of their Observations are often followed by limited inferences. We need to allow alternative inferences to any observation. Otherwise we ignore good scientific method. (Remember we are merely making observations in line with Psalm 19 and Romans 1:19, 20)
2. The other problem with this cult is that many well meaning but ignorant Christians think that this is the mark of a Christian. They think that one narrow and misguided interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis is the only one to have for salvation. Hopefully I have already indicated that this is not the case. This is then followed by Christians taking what has been put forward as valid evidence and claiming that this is now proof for God. Scientifically, proof is a very strong word. Just as a Scientist is way out of line to try to claim that science has proven God does not exist, so a Christian is way out of line trying to say that some observation proves that God exists, or that God created the universe following some particular schedule that fits a narrow interpretation of scripture. We are way out of line to put God in such a narrow box. As God quizzed Job it in Job 38:
   

   “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth
   Declare, if you have understanding.
   Who determined its measures, if you know?
   Or who stretched the line on it?
   Whereupon were its foundations fastened?
   Or who laid its cornerstone,
   when the morning stars sang together,
   and all the sons of God shouted for joy?”
   Job 38: 4-7 (WEB)

In fact all of Job 38 is instructive in this debate. Who are we to be dogmatic about how God made the earth? Let God be God and let people observe what God has done.
This is particularly true with the example I started with. Plain observation seems to be contradicting the ideas which are being put into the mouth of God. Of course the same is true for scientists, so that as Galileo put it:

“It is surely harmful to souls to make it a heresy to believe what is proved.”
― Galileo Galilei

Again the word proved is probably used too quickly, even though we now know what Galileo observed to be true.
Another example I recently came across of poor use of what the Creation Science Cult put forward, was that some were claiming the earth is young citing some evidence, and were as a consequence denying that continental drift occurs. Yet continental drift is observed with the simple use of a GPS.

How to interpret the Bible and science

So what is the way forward when observation contradicts what we think the Bible is saying?
I would maintain the principles of hermeneutics mentioned earlier. The Bible is God's word. However we need to remind ourselves that the main point of the Bible is not to tell us about scientific theories, but about God working to redeem mankind through he work of Jesus. This is the foundation to hold on to, not specific time scales or ideas of how God created the universe.
From the lead of Psalm 19 and Romans 1:19, 20, I would suggest that what we observe should lead us to appreciate God, not to doubt Him.
Kirsten Birkett in her book “Unnatural Enemies”, has a marvellous discussion of the work of miracles, using the example of the Israelites crossing the Red Sea. From it I imagine one person standing on the shore of the Red Sea saying "God separated the waters of the Red Sea to allow the Israelites to cross". I also see another person on the shores of the Red Sea and in line with Exodus 14:21, that person would say “Wow such a strong east wind to separate the waters of the Red Sea”. Both observations are correct. One acknowledges God, and the other doesn't acknowledge God but sees what God has done. So, when talking with those who make observations of the universe which does not acknowledge God, I would suggest it does not help to say, “No your observation of the wind is wrong, God did it”. Instead we need to point to what God is doing. Say, “Look at God acting to rescue His people”. We can point to redemption, without insisting on a narrow understanding of how God works.

What about Evolution?

I have deliberately avoided the area of evolution, as I am not much of an expert on the evidence put forward for evolution. However I believe the principles I have described are relevant. The Bible is about redemption of mankind through Jesus. Observations of evidence are observations, and need to be treated as such.

Periscope

I have created a template for making a periscope out of cardboard as a craft activity in our Kids club. The mirrors were obtained from a Matra Glass & Plastics, in Forge St Blacktown (NSW Australia) and were 5.5cm x 8cm for about $1 each and came with a protective film. The template is mostly self-explanatory, and is designed to be printed onto A3 cardboard, making it easier to supply lots, one for each child. Of course the edges do not print.

Equipment:

• A3 cardboard
• Template (open document, pdf)Print the template onto A3 cardboard for each child.
• A3 printer
• 2 mirrors 5.5cm x 8cm each.
• Glue
• Sticky tape (optional)
• Double sided tape(One roll per group, or sick it on the mirrors ahead of time)

Procedure:

1. Print the template onto A3 cardboard.
2. Cut along the solid lines.
3. Fold along the long sides to make a rectangular tube shape and glue to hold the tube shape. Use tape if the glue is not holding.
4. Fold the 45 degree flaps for the mirror at 45 degrees and glue the outside flaps to hold this down.
5. Use double sided tape to hold the mirror onto these flaps.
6. Remove the protective film from the mirrors.
7. Fold the mirror support flaps in to add additional support to the mirror.

 References:

http://www.topspysecrets.com/how-to-build-a-periscope.html
Science club: http://www.webinnate.co.uk/science/week8.htm

The life of stars

I have created (from scratch), using a number of sources, a flow chart. The intention is for it to be used to help explain and summarize a little of what goes on during the life of stars (click on this link to see a larger version).

The life of stars continues to show what an amazing universe Jesus has created. The fact that it is so hard to understand shows how much higher His ways are than our ways. We have good reason to honour Him.
-->WEB: Psalms 104:2. He covers himself with light as with a garment.
He stretches out the heavens like a curtain.
Now if anyone with astronomical experience can tell me where the diagram is wrong, please let me know, as I am happy to fix it.

Sources for this have been:

• The Australian Telescope and Outreach Education (i.e. CSIRO) pages on the Life and Death of stars. 
• The High ZN search.
• Notes from the CLI on Astrophysics by Richard Morante, Published by Learning Material Production. OTEN. NSW Department of Education and Training 2001.

Looking for the words

So what's with the title?

"Looking for the words" is the title I have chosen for the blog.
What?
It has a number of dimensions to make me choose this:

1. One of the most amazing parts of the Bible is John 1, where we are told:
   WEB: John Chapter 1
   
   [1] In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. [2] The same was in the beginning with God. [3] All things were made through him. Without him was not anything made that has been made. [4] In him was life, and the life was the light of men. [5] The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness hasn’t overcome it.
   So, what has been translated as "Word" in our English Bibles clearly is a viable description of Jesus - the most important person in the universe, and the reason for our existence.
2.  So what is with the plural words in my title? Well I am certainly not suggesting there is more than one God. No there is only one God. Instead it is that it is also true that I am not great at expressing myself with words - a constant frustration, so I will be looking for words to clearly express what I want to say.
3. As a teacher, I want to look for words that will help students understand what a wonderful universe Jesus has created for us. This page will be a way to explore that.