Question about Apologia and their view of evolution..

[Heather in VA]

I should state upfront that I'm a Christian and a creationist. But I'm not a stand on the street corner and scream about the evils of anything but a young earth view type. I know that Apologia is strongly young-earth and all the samples I've read of their texts indicate that it's a major topic in their books. What I'm wondering is if they have any discussions about evolution, other creationist views, etc such that the student can discuss these views in a non-antagonistic manner. The samples have a very 'these ideas are so dumb we can't imagine paying attention' vibe to them and often when you see that, the critical thinking and reasonable arguments get lost in the rhetoric.

 

I hope I'm making sense here. I have no problem using a young earth curriculum but I want to make sure its a scientific approach rather than a rally cry.

 

Heather

[FloridaLisa]

IThe samples have a very 'these ideas are so dumb we can't imagine paying attention' vibe to them and often when you see that, the critical thinking and reasonable arguments get lost in the rhetoric.

 

The Apologia texts are not going to provide the same depth of information that you'd find in a book by Behe or Kenyon or others researching ID. Apologia's approach doesn't bother me, but that's because we have lots of other science resources that we look to for the creation/evolution debate. Also, it depends on which Apologia book you are using. If I recall, the biology book addresses evolution/creation more than the Physical Science or Chemistry books.

Edited June 25, 2009 by FloridaLisa

[Susan C.]

I have used many of the Apologia texts. He does present both views with evidence for both, and admits that evidence is missing for both views and encourages students to look at the evidence and make their own decisions. You can see that he believes in creation and a young earth. It doesn't bother me because we agree and I appreciate him presenting the other view for exposure.

[Peek a Boo]

I have used many of the Apologia texts. He does present both views with evidence for both, and admits that evidence is missing for both views and encourages students to look at the evidence and make their own decisions. You can see that he believes in creation and a young earth. It doesn't bother me because we agree and I appreciate him presenting the other view for exposure.

 

yeah.

I don't think he really delves too deeply into the ToE tho. We'll be supplementing pretty heavily like FloridaLisa.

[creekland]

I'm with the others. We use Apologia and like them, but we also supplement evolution (easy to do with as much as there is out there). I want my kids to know both sides and how each interprets the evidence. To have them go to college and NOT know evolution would be a disservice.

[Christine]

Okay, not 100% sure of the question, but I'll give it a shot.

 

The elementary series is unabashadly young earth. . .and she does have a (nasty, IMO) tendency to imply you're stupid to believe otherwise. (She never comes out and directly says that. And I may be "sensitive" for while I believe in creation, I don't believe in 24 hour day type creation, nor do I believe that creation itself negates the possibility of evolution - on some scale.) I skip those parts. ;)

 

The 1st edition Gen. Sci. book by Wile has two chapters devoted almost entirely to different beliefs re: creation / evolution and he goes into the pros and cons of each. (I've not seen the 2nd edition, so I do not know if these chapters are in there, or how they may be discussed.) He also makes the statement that he's young earth and thus, his reasoning will slant that way. I've done these chapters now with my two oldest boys and I really appreciate them. They are great for discussions (especially as we aren't in "line" with his beliefs) and it is terribly interesting to watch my children work this through for themselves.

 

The rest of the older books, don't delve nearly as deeply into it (that I recall). (Biology may be the exception to that, but I can't really remember that book.) That said, everytime it's come up I think Dr. Wile has been somewhat "fair" about laying out "sides" to see.

 

HTH.

[Heather in VA]

Okay, not 100% sure of the question, but I'll give it a shot.

 

The elementary series is unabashadly young earth. . .and she does have a (nasty, IMO) tendency to imply you're stupid to believe otherwise. (She never comes out and directly says that. And I may be "sensitive" for while I believe in creation, I don't believe in 24 hour day type creation, nor do I believe that creation itself negates the possibility of evolution - on some scale.) I skip those parts. ;)

 

The 1st edition Gen. Sci. book by Wile has two chapters devoted almost entirely to different beliefs re: creation / evolution and he goes into the pros and cons of each. (I've not seen the 2nd edition, so I do not know if these chapters are in there, or how they may be discussed.) He also makes the statement that he's young earth and thus, his reasoning will slant that way. I've done these chapters now with my two oldest boys and I really appreciate them. They are great for discussions (especially as we aren't in "line" with his beliefs) and it is terribly interesting to watch my children work this through for themselves.

 

The rest of the older books, don't delve nearly as deeply into it (that I recall). (Biology may be the exception to that, but I can't really remember that book.) That said, everytime it's come up I think Dr. Wile has been somewhat "fair" about laying out "sides" to see.

 

HTH.

 

Thanks - this is exactly what I needed to know. It's the nasty implications that you are stupid if you don't agree is what I don't like. That kind of attitude doesn't do anyone any good and certainly doesn't help educate.

 

Heather

[Heather in VA]

Thanks everyone!! This was all very good information. For those who added creation/evolution materials - did you have any favorites that you'd recommend?

 

Heather

[amtmcm]

Ben Stein's movie - "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed"

 

It Couldn't Just Happen by Lawrence Richards

 

We did a week of creationism/evolution in English, History & Science with great success. We watched Expelled, read Adam & His Kin for LLATL Green, read A Beka Science 7 chapter on Creation, read a World History Encyclopedia on Pre-History (evolution) and researched Darwin.

[mcconnellboys]

What you've described is my major problem with Apologia. Like Dawkins, Dr. Wile seems to take a completely extremist view on this subject. I don't like a view of "if you don't believe precisely what I believe than you're just too stupid to breath" point of view from either side, I'm afraid....

[creekland]

What you've described is my major problem with Apologia. Like Dawkins, Dr. Wile seems to take a completely extremist view on this subject. I don't like a view of "if you don't believe precisely what I believe than you're just too stupid to breath" point of view from either side, I'm afraid....

 

I actually never got this impression from Dr. Wile. I see it far more as Christine wrote:

 

The 1st edition Gen. Sci. book by Wile has two chapters devoted almost entirely to different beliefs re: creation / evolution and he goes into the pros and cons of each. (I've not seen the 2nd edition, so I do not know if these chapters are in there, or how they may be discussed.) He also makes the statement that he's young earth and thus, his reasoning will slant that way. I've done these chapters now with my two oldest boys and I really appreciate them. They are great for discussions (especially as we aren't in "line" with his beliefs) and it is terribly interesting to watch my children work this through for themselves.

 

The rest of the older books, don't delve nearly as deeply into it (that I recall). (Biology may be the exception to that, but I can't really remember that book.) That said, everytime it's come up I think Dr. Wile has been somewhat "fair" about laying out "sides" to see.

[swimmermom3]

What you've described is my major problem with Apologia. Like Dawkins, Dr. Wile seems to take a completely extremist view on this subject. I don't like a view of "if you don't believe precisely what I believe than you're just too stupid to breath" point of view from either side, I'm afraid....

 

:iagree: In Dr. Wile's Physical Science Book in Module 6, he talks about two theories regarding the earth's magnetic field. He first states, "There is no such thing as an unbiased scientist." We know that, as we are starting our third Apologia science course.:D However, he goes on to say,

 

"Scientists whose preconceived notions rule out Noah's Flood and a young earth refuse to believe the most scientifically valid theory for the earth's magnetic field. Instead, they rely on a theory that is contrary to the data. They go against the dictates of science solely because of bias caused by preconceptions."

 

Prior to this, he talked about how most scientists reject rapid-decay theory and adds, "They reject it despite the fact that it is the only theory consistent with all of the data collected!"

 

Sounds to me like most scientists are just to stupid to breathe, according to Dr. Wile. Don't get me wrong. We like Dr. Wile here. He challenges us to look at science from another direction. My ds has learned discernment in his science studies the past two years. Now he is much more likely to research areas that he has questions about. When we want to get really wild, we talk with two of our swim team dads; one is biology professor at the local university and the other is a Catholic, high school physics teacher.

 

We'll continue to use Apologia-love those science test scores. However, I appreciate all the suggestions for supplementation and am going to add a few of those to our library.

Edited June 26, 2009 by swimmermom3
Typo

[mcconnellboys]

Yes, I was basing my comments on such things as Lisa mentions that he says in his books, as well as things I've heard him say during speaking engagements on several occasions. I'm not attacking Apologia. I was simply agreeing with the OP that there are things within the texts that some might have a problem with. Others may be perfectly fine with those things. But they are there. I prefer to find more middle of the road books than either those by Dawkins, or those that veer to the extreme opposite side of things. I will occasionally use extreme examples for discussion, but they are not standard fare as I feel they detract from the actual facts I want to study.

[Chris in VA]

Heather, I let my high schooler read It Couldn't Just Happen. I read Michael Behe's book, but found it hard to follow (I think it would be fine for high school if discussed in class).

[Peek a Boo]

Thanks everyone!! This was all very good information. For those who added creation/evolution materials - did you have any favorites that you'd recommend?

 

We're supplementing w/ non-religious evolution materials: a more in depth look at current work on the ToE [mostly websites -easier on the bank account ;) ] as well as darwin's original Origin book.

[Storm Bay]

We're just going to read some books on ID & evolution. Not sure about Darwin, since his theory is no longer used. There are some neo-Darwinists out there. We will probably read a couple of versions of evolution, but I'm not sure what yet. Same witih ID--we'll read at least one Christian version and at least parts of a non-Christian, non-God version.

 

We'll also look at the gap theology and it's various versions. Not all people read Genesis and believe that it all happened in 7 days, but they do believe that humans & the animals alive now are about 6,000 years. We'll examine why some people take the day & night literally and why some take it figuartively (in our house, we take it literally in Gen because it says day & night--every figurative use we know of with time says only day, but that's not to argue--we don't believe that the earth is 6000 years old, though, but I'm not so sure about when the dinosaurs lived--before or after Genesis 1:2 and don't need to rediscuss this now :).)

[Peek a Boo]

We're just going to read some books on ID & evolution. Not sure about Darwin, since his theory is no longer used. There are some neo-Darwinists out there.

 

there's a lot of people misquoting darwin. This will mostly be following the history of the theory. he's a fast reader, otherwise we'd just stick w/ selections ;)

[Storm Bay]

there's a lot of people misquoting darwin. This will mostly be following the history of the theory. he's a fast reader, otherwise we'd just stick w/ selections ;)

 

 

Yes, you're correct, they do misquote him and originally I wanted to read him for high school. I just don't foresee my eldest getting there at this point and since she's science bound (except at moments when she thinks mathematicians write less than scientists) I want her to have the current stuff down. Also, and I forgot to mention this, she has to read some if Karl Popper to see the origins of the "all science is falsifiable" philosophy and to read a book on the history of math. Plus some history of science. My middle dd may read Darwin since she's also a history buff.

[mcconnellboys]

His newer book, Edge of Evolution, is a much better read!

[Phyllis in Canada]

No matter what basic science program you use, I highly recommend reading Origins: A Reformed Look at Creation, Design, and Evolution by Deborah and Loren Haarsma. It's clearly written, addresses all the different variations of belief from a science perspective, biblical and theological perspectives. It's not hard to read and provides discussion questions as well as lots of resources for further study.

[C_l_e_0..Q_c]

:iagree: In Dr. Wile's Physical Science Book in Module 6, he talks about two theories regarding the earth's magnetic field.

 

Is that in the first edition, or in the second? Or in both?

 

I asked Dr. Wile what we would be dealing with in Physical Sciences that would not agree with "mainstream taught in PS" kind of science.

His answer was:

In answer to your question, there is not a lot of difference between what the student will learn in a "mainstream" physical science book and what one will learn in ours. The big thing is that since Apologia believes in academic freedom (something most secular organizations despise), we include alternate views that will not be found in most secular books. So students will learn the problems with radioactive dating, rather than being given the false impression that the process is flawless. In addition, students will be shown global temperatures that clearly show the earth is not warming. It is extra data that most secular books are afraid to discuss that you will find in our course.

 

No talk about the magnetic field. I didn't even know this was an area of contention!

[kpupg]

The elementary series is unabashadly young earth. . .and she does have a (nasty, IMO) tendency to imply you're stupid to believe otherwise.

 

<snip>

 

The 1st edition Gen. Sci. book by Wile has two chapters devoted almost entirely to different beliefs re: creation / evolution and he goes into the pros and cons of each . . . They are great for discussions (especially as we aren't in "line" with his beliefs) and it is terribly interesting to watch my children work this through for themselves.

 

We used the elementary series and this tone bothered me, too. I used it to teach my dd that many people disagree on these issues and she'll learn more about it at a later date.

 

That later date is coming up real soon LOL. I just finished reading those 2 chapters in Gen. Sci. and was surprised to find them so reasonable. Dr. Wile really lays out reasons for YE views, which I had not seen before. I anticipate good discussions with dd, and I think I'll draw ds into this topic also.

 

I am ever so grateful that our faith does not require us to believe one way or another on this issue. We believe that God created the heavens and the earth, but we don't try to tell him how he did it LOL. So I can encourage my kids to examine the evidence, draw their own conclusions, and always keep their minds open to the fact that nobody can know for sure in the classic scientific sense (replication), and to respect any new data that may come along.

 

Karen

[justamouse]

I love the http://www.biologos.org site because I believe that both evolution and creation have a place in science.

[HollyinNNV]

The samples have a very 'these ideas are so dumb we can't imagine paying attention' vibe to them and often when you see that, the critical thinking and reasonable arguments get lost in the rhetoric.

 

 

Yes-Exactly the problem.

[Coleroo]

:lurk5: I know this thread is a wee old, but I couldn't help but want to chime in.

 

I am 26 years old and a SAHM to an 18 mo old and one on the way - we plan to homeschool our kids, and I have been researching my little heart out for over 2 years now.

 

For my own education, I attended an extremely conservative Independent Fundamentalist Baptist Christian private school from kindergarten through 12th grade. They pretty much used Abeka in all the lower grades and BJU press in the higher grades and the attitudes of "you're stupid if you don't believe the way we do" were extremely prevalent in ALL of our science courses - even moreso in the upper grades. I was taught a strict YEC view from day one till I graduated and it wasn't until I was around 22 that it finally hit me that 95% of the world truly thought that view was bonkers. We were taught that those who DIDN'T believe in a young earth were deceived by Satan ("those poor souls"). The only time evolution was mentioned - EVER - was to make fun of it and "debunk" various things about it. Darwin was extremely vilified (I still work through emotional issues when I hear his name and have to sort through what's "truth" verses what I was simply "taught"). The biggest thing I remember learning in science courses was how stupid it was to believe evolution, how stupid & blind modern scientists were, and how stupid you would be if you fell for their traps. We were encouraged to never, ever read or study evolutionist materials because it was "Satan's tools to draw us away from God". I remember my science teacher in physical science (i think it was) laughing at scientists who "fell for carbon dating" and using a weird example of a volcanic rock that was misdated as "proof" that all carbon dating was wrong. There were even cartoons in science books of "dumb" looking evolutionistic scientiest puzzling over the "circular reasoning" of how they dated things - "fossils are dated based on what layer of earth they're in...yet the layer of earth is dated based on what fossils are in them" ("harrrdeee har har!").

 

Sincere, wonderful, kind adults I grew up admiring truly believed all of this.

 

I "believed" it all too until after I left high school, but the attitudes displayed never did set well with me. As more and more years passed I gradually realized the depth of these "you're stupid if you believe this" ideologies.

 

In my 13 years of schooling, we were never taught any history / science that would have been pre- 4400 BC. Never knew about any ice ages, none of the historical eras (jurassic, etc) (to this day I still can't name them), never studied neanderthals or cave dwellers. Today I find all of these subjects sheerly fascinating and lean heavily towards theistic evolution (although I still have issues of "fear" to work out due to ideas implanted in my head concerning the fate of those who DO believe in "evolutionary-anything"!).

 

I don't want my kids to ever experience science the way I did. I will teach them both sides of the coin and let them research their own evidence. And I never want them encountering a science textbook which makes fun of and stupidifies 95% of all modern scientists like the ones I grew up with. I felt like a pure idiot when, in my early 20s, I realized the depth of all the science and history that was "sheltered" from us.

 

Anyway, just my 2Cents, from the perspective of someone who grew up under 13 years of indoctrinations from the solidly young earth camp. I honestly feel I was cheated in the area of true God-honoring scientific study.

Edited December 6, 2009 by Coleroo

[StephanieZ]

Yes, you're correct, they do misquote him and originally I wanted to read him for high school. I just don't foresee my eldest getting there at this point and since she's science bound (except at moments when she thinks mathematicians write less than scientists) I want her to have the current stuff down. Also, and I forgot to mention this, she has to read some if Karl Popper to see the origins of the "all science is falsifiable" philosophy and to read a book on the history of math. Plus some history of science. My middle dd may read Darwin since she's also a history buff.

 

Completely OT. . . but as a scientist. . . I encourage you to encourage your science-bound dd to read Darwin!! The "current stuff" changes all the time . . . 50% of what you learn is obsolete in a few years. HONESTLY. The eternal thing is the great thinkers. The ability to think creatively and develop new ideas. . . Basic college science courses reteach anything you learned before college (except the ability to do algebra and read/write/analyze coherently).

 

So, *especially if* a child is interested in science as a career, I would prioritize studying great scientists -- esp. their orig. writings, WOW, that would be cool. Being inspired to discover New Great Ideas would be much more valuable than one more notch in the pre-college science classes belt.

 

Just my 2 c. . .

[asta]

I have used many of the Apologia texts. He does present both views with evidence for both, and admits that evidence is missing for both views and encourages students to look at the evidence and make their own decisions. You can see that he believes in creation and a young earth. It doesn't bother me because we agree and I appreciate him presenting the other view for exposure.

 

See, this is part of what drives me nuts about Apologia: if one is basing a system on faith, then there is no evidence missing on that side. If one is basing a system on science, evidence isn't missing on that side either. I find this to be a specious statement.

 

I'm with the others. We use Apologia and like them, but we also supplement evolution (easy to do with as much as there is out there). I want my kids to know both sides and how each interprets the evidence. To have them go to college and NOT know evolution would be a disservice.

 

And this is my largest beef: no matter how many times I hear moms tell me "but little Suzy is doing GREAT at University of ______ in her science classes" - I just can't buy the argument. I have met (IRL) exactly ONE homeschooled kid who was a die-hard creationist who could successfully argue both creationism and evolution. Her mom has made sure that she can argue circles around anyone. THAT should be the criteria for a well educated child who believes in creationism yet wishes to operate in a scientific environment.

 

JMO

 

 

a

[creekland]

 

And this is my largest beef: no matter how many times I hear moms tell me "but little Suzy is doing GREAT at University of ______ in her science classes" - I just can't buy the argument. I have met (IRL) exactly ONE homeschooled kid who was a die-hard creationist who could successfully argue both creationism and evolution. Her mom has made sure that she can argue circles around anyone. THAT should be the criteria for a well educated child who believes in creationism yet wishes to operate in a scientific environment.

 

JMO

 

a

 

I'm not IRL for you, but I absolutely teach my boys both sides and tell them that there are intelligent people (and Christians) on both sides. I used to be a theistic evolution believer myself and don't feel I was any less intelligent back then. Just over time I came to believe the evidence that's out there more heavily favors creation (either with or without young earth). I can still see it going either way. The only one I can't see is "Life" happening without a creator of some sort (but that's a whole 'nother issue - and I still don't teach that people who are atheist are unintelligent - they just have "faith" in no god).

[LibraryLover]

Dh and I are finding the homeschool world absolutely lacking in good higher level science courses.

 

What to use, what to use...

Edited December 8, 2009 by LibraryLover

[Peek a Boo]

See, this is part of what drives me nuts about Apologia: if one is basing a system on faith, then there is no evidence missing on that side. If one is basing a system on science, evidence isn't missing on that side either. I find this to be a specious statement.

 

The faith side has no missing evidence: it stands as fact, period.

 

The science stuff is absolutely missing evidence, otherwise we wouldn't have to keep researching and studying ;)

 

And this is my largest beef: no matter how many times I hear moms tell me "but little Suzy is doing GREAT at University of ______ in her science classes" - I just can't buy the argument. I have met (IRL) exactly ONE homeschooled kid who was a die-hard creationist who could successfully argue both creationism and evolution. Her mom has made sure that she can argue circles around anyone. THAT should be the criteria for a well educated child who believes in creationism yet wishes to operate in a scientific environment.

 

 

I agree.

unfortunately there are at least a few secular science colleges who disagree and are questioning giving degrees to Creationists who have fulfilled the scientific requirements.

[Peek a Boo]

Dh and I are finding the homeschool world absolutely lacking in good higher level science courses.

 

What to use, what to use? I don't want any religion in my science.

 

You can laugh at me, but that's how I feel.

 

:iagree:

And like Keller's public statements about ID have tainted her acceptance of her work as "real science" by "real scientists", so also has Dawkins' public statements about God tainted his own credibility as a scientist. But the "real scientists" don't seem to recognize their hypocrisy, lol!

 

There was even an online Biology book shared awhile back that kept bringing religion into the abortion debate instead of discussing whether the embryonic human was indeed just that an embryonic human.

 

I would LOVE to see a good text that explains stuff well but doesn't have bias from the authors. Until then, we try to balance and research as best we can :-)

[Christine]

The faith side has no missing evidence: it stands as fact, period.

 

Now, THAT is an intriguing statement.

[EKS]

Now, THAT is an intriguing statement.

 

Yes.

[Peek a Boo]

Now, THAT is an intriguing statement.

 

hey -- it's simple. Faith IS complete, lol. There simply CAN't be "missing evidence" for God.

 

"missing evidence for God" sounds more like a Far Side cartoon. I can see it now: a buncha lawyers standing at the Pearly Gates w/ a warrant for missing evidence.....:001_huh:

 

:lol:

[LynnG in Arizona]

:lurk5: I know this thread is a wee old, but I couldn't help but want to chime in.

 

I am 26 years old and a SAHM to an 18 mo old and one on the way - we plan to homeschool our kids, and I have been researching my little heart out for over 2 years now.

 

For my own education, I attended an extremely conservative Independent Fundamentalist Baptist Christian private school from kindergarten through 12th grade. They pretty much used Abeka in all the lower grades and BJU press in the higher grades and the attitudes of "you're stupid if you don't believe the way we do" were extremely prevalent in ALL of our science courses - even moreso in the upper grades. I was taught a strict YEC view from day one till I graduated and it wasn't until I was around 22 that it finally hit me that 95% of the world truly thought that view was bonkers. We were taught that those who DIDN'T believe in a young earth were deceived by Satan ("those poor souls"). The only time evolution was mentioned - EVER - was to make fun of it and "debunk" various things about it. Darwin was extremely vilified (I still work through emotional issues when I hear his name and have to sort through what's "truth" verses what I was simply "taught"). The biggest thing I remember learning in science courses was how stupid it was to believe evolution, how stupid & blind modern scientists were, and how stupid you would be if you fell for their traps. We were encouraged to never, ever read or study evolutionist materials because it was "Satan's tools to draw us away from God". I remember my science teacher in physical science (i think it was) laughing at scientists who "fell for carbon dating" and using a weird example of a volcanic rock that was misdated as "proof" that all carbon dating was wrong. There were even cartoons in science books of "dumb" looking evolutionistic scientiest puzzling over the "circular reasoning" of how they dated things - "fossils are dated based on what layer of earth they're in...yet the layer of earth is dated based on what fossils are in them" ("harrrdeee har har!").

 

Sincere, wonderful, kind adults I grew up admiring truly believed all of this.

 

I "believed" it all too until after I left high school, but the attitudes displayed never did set well with me. As more and more years passed I gradually realized the depth of these "you're stupid if you believe this" ideologies.

 

In my 13 years of schooling, we were never taught any history / science that would have been pre- 4400 BC. Never knew about any ice ages, none of the historical eras (jurassic, etc) (to this day I still can't name them), never studied neanderthals or cave dwellers. Today I find all of these subjects sheerly fascinating and lean heavily towards theistic evolution (although I still have issues of "fear" to work out due to ideas implanted in my head concerning the fate of those who DO believe in "evolutionary-anything"!).

 

I don't want my kids to ever experience science the way I did. I will teach them both sides of the coin and let them research their own evidence. And I never want them encountering a science textbook which makes fun of and stupidifies 95% of all modern scientists like the ones I grew up with. I felt like a pure idiot when, in my early 20s, I realized the depth of all the science and history that was "sheltered" from us.

 

Anyway, just my 2Cents, from the perspective of someone who grew up under 13 years of indoctrinations from the solidly young earth camp. I honestly feel I was cheated in the area of true God-honoring scientific study.

 

Coleroo, I just wanted to tell you how much I appreciated your thoughtful, transparent post. :)

 

I grew up the opposite of how you did . . . in a faith tradition that sees no contradiction at all between a God who created the universe and modern scientific theory. My parents believed in theistic evolution, though they didn't necessarily call it that.

 

I attended (good) public schools. In 9th grade we watched Inherit the Wind (the old movie with Spencer Tracy) as a way to expose us to the creationism/evolution debate. Our teacher didn't exactly make fun of the creationist point of view, but she did clearly support the evolution point of view. At that time, I knew absolutely *no one* who didn't believe in evolution and an old earth. Literally no one.

 

And then I became friends with a young man from a literalist/young earth creationist point of view. He was shocked that I saw no problem with believing in God and accepting mainstream scientific principles. When I asked him about fossils, I remember him telling me with a straight face that fossils were falsified evidence inserted into our earth by the devil.

 

Now I am in the homeschool community and attend a more conservative church, and have been exposed to many, many people who believe in a young earth creation. I still personally don't see a contradiction between having an old earth created by God (even if He accomplished that creation in part through some form of evolution), but I have come to understand and cherish my fellow Christians who view things differently.

 

Don't know why I'm sharing this . . . and I'm sorry if I highjacked the thread . . . but I really loved your open post, and thought I would respond with my background for the "opposite" upbringing.

 

By the way, we have used Apologia, but I do find the tone to get slightly dismissive of the old earth/evolution camp. Just slightly.

Edited December 7, 2009 by LynnG in Hawaii

[Tullia]

First thing I'll say is that Apologia seems to have prepared ds well for college chemistry. We supplemented it with the Teaching Company dvd's and MicroChem for lab instead of the experiments listed in the book. I do suggest that if at all possible you allow time to do the first texts in biology, chemistry and physics and at least one of the advanced courses. (assuming, of course that you decide to use Apologia :001_smile:)

 

Ds did not come away from his years of having read Apologia textbooks a raving lunatic, nor did the author influence him to become a contentious or discourteous debater. In fact, ds had the chance to meet Dr. Wile and move many cartons of his books into a local convention. We found Dr. Wile to be a courteous, thoughtful man whose most critical remarks are usually directed at himself, not other folks with whom he disagrees.

 

That said, IMO, he has every right to a vigorous defense of his views. Quite frankly, in an intellectual world in which YEC's are routinely described with utter contempt in terms so obscene that I won't risk breaking the board rule even by a lame attempt at disguising the terms, I find it amusing that Dr. Wile's comparatively mild statements cause folks to gasp in horror. However, come to think of it...HOW DARE HE DISAGREE WITH THE SCIENTIFIC ESTABLISHMENT?--WHAT CHEEK ON HIS PART! For those of you who find Dr. Wile's defense of his opinions offensive, may I respectfully suggest that you look into a book called "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Thomas S. Kuhn? I believe that the 3rd edition is the most recent edition published before the author's death. I think it's important to keep in mind that contrarian views whether they ultimately prove accurate or not provide a genuine service to science.

 

One last point on that note. This is simply one person's opinion, but I believe strongly that to teach our high school students that scientific discourse is always courteous and well-reasoned does them a disservice. The truth is that most academic disciplines have competing paradigms and the competition among them is not always conducted in an edifying way--in fact, it can get downright ugly. The Evolution/ID/Creationist spectrum is one that is reasonably accessible to high school students. Examining some of the different foundational ideas and nuances can be a good thing if it's done in a thoughtful way that prepares them for what they're sure to encounter after high school in one form or another.

 

Back to the OP's question, though; we supplemented with secular texts for some but not all topics, especially in biology. (the local library usually has several), and periodicals/other outside reading/videos from different perspectives. I also designed a one-semester course I called "The History and Philosophy of Science" built around Teaching Company dvd's and a reading list chosen from among evolutionary, ID, and creationist paradigms. If you're interested in knowing more pm me and I'll give you more details.

 

Martha,

Who is climbing down off her soapbox and asks anyone who wants to lob rotten tomatoes my way to please count five first--I can't duck as fast I once did. :D

[creekland]

Martha,

Who is climbing down off her soapbox and asks anyone who wants to lob rotten tomatoes my way to please count five first--I can't duck as fast I once did. :D

 

Personally, I like what you wrote! I agree wholeheartedly.

[Tullia]

Creekland wrote: Personally, I like what you wrote! I agree wholeheartedly.

 

Thank you! I sometimes get carried away and say too much.

[Storm Bay]

:lurk5: I know this thread is a wee old, but I couldn't help but want to chime in.

 

I don't want my kids to ever experience science the way I did. I will teach them both sides of the coin and let them research their own evidence. And I never want them encountering a science textbook which makes fun of and stupidifies 95% of all modern scientists like the ones I grew up with. I felt like a pure idiot when, in my early 20s, I realized the depth of all the science and history that was "sheltered" from us.

 

Anyway, just my 2Cents, from the perspective of someone who grew up under 13 years of indoctrinations from the solidly young earth camp. I honestly feel I was cheated in the area of true God-honoring scientific study.

 

 

Good post and you made some great points. I grew up with the opposite way of being taught; that evolution was the only right way to think about the development of life. Then, when studying evolutionary biology in university I began to question & rethink things and went the other way. As Peek a Boo said, it hasn't been proven, and the more I study it, the weaker I consider the entire body of evidence when taking in more than the fossil record. I thought carbon dating was great until I really began to think about the lack of good controls, how it's inconsistent (eg Mt. Saint Helen's) and how different radiactive datings disagree.

 

Your example and mine, as well as that of many others, point out that it's important to ask questions, to know the various sides, to learn to think things through. I've found a vast amount of ignorance in all camps; not among everyone, of course. It's a volatile issue, and one where people frequently vehemently disagree. Sometimes we need to agree to disagree, and that can be difficult if we become emotionally attached to our opinions (I'm one who has been known to do that, particularly when I was younger :)).

[Coleroo]

Thanks Lynn & Karin for sharing your *opposite side* stories! :)

 

I have heard the "the devil planted the fossils" reasoning too although we were taught in our school that fossils were a result of the great worldwide flood. The way it's taught makes sense, and for non-scientific minds it doesn't occur to us to think through it deeper (I mean, really, there's so much more in life - sometimes we just have to throw our hands up and believe what we're told instead of scrutinizing everything under the sun...we wouldn't have time to breath if we scrutinized everything).

 

I grew up having absolutely no comprehension how liberal "Christians' could meld Christianity with "evolution". Being from a conservative literal mindset back then, it just didn't make any sense to me how someone could deny the creation-as-told-in-Genesis in favor of chance happening of evolution. It wasn't that I was dumb or whatnot - it was simply impossible for me to mesh those 2 viewpoints.

 

I have a hard time sharing my background and my views between evolution & creation. I can't admit to the people I grew up with that I now lean away from young earth....YET I can't bring myself to acknowledge to others that I now am more accepting of an old earth and that evolution isn't the evil I once thought it was. It's a huge emotional deal inside of me because of all the thoughts implanted in my head about what "God says". Independent Fundamentalist Baptists (at least down here in South Carolina) are extremely literal in the interpretation of the Bible and to this day I can argue all their main points of "why" - and I know them so well that it scares me when I consider "disowning" that part of my core being! This is stuff I grew up believing 100% up through my 21st birthday.

 

There is some ignorance in both camps, but mostly I think a deep hidden fear is a huge motivator for young earth believers. Most people who believe Young Earth truly and sincerely love the Lord and they so very deeply want to believe & honor Him - and when you believe that the Bible is 100% literal, with all the verses used to back that view up, you feel like you're calling God a liar if you believe any differently - (you become a backslider, and it's akin to turning your back on God) - and evolution is as different from Genesis-Creation as you can get. And that's a huge huge thing - no one wants to call someone they view as their beloved Father a "liar".

 

Also, when taking the Bible as 100% literal (7 day creation, genealogies of the old testament as father/son/age accurate, etc.).... the reason for Christ coming was to provide redemption and restoration to God for the sin & death that had entered the world through Adam during the "fall of man" - which is when Adam & Eve disobeyed God in the beginning of Genesis. Before "the fall of man", God's creation was "perfect". Believing in evolution would mean that a.) adam & eve wasn't the first humans, b.) death & suffering occurred millions of years before humans came on the scene c.) if there was no "fall", then there's no reason for Jesus to die, and thusly d.) all of the Bible would therefore hinge on a lie - so what could you believe after that?

 

I'm not a theologian or whatnot, but I do know how it feels to believe deeply in the 100% literalness of the Bible - and the reasoning in the paragraph above creates a huge fear and core dissonance in any 100% literalism believer. I doubt many young earth people have taking it as far as to reason out those thoughts behind why we believe what we believe...but that's what I've come up with. Most are simply content (like I use to be) to just listen to what they're told about God and use their main reasoning powers for all other aspects of life (like living, child rearing, careers, etc.).

 

Not saying it's wrong or right either way. It's just a little insight to what triggers the "attack" response in many young earth creationists. It angers me when I see others from the evolutionary camp speak of people who believe in this as if they're sheer idiots - because none of the people I grew up with were idiots. They're just sincere, loving, kind (most of them!!!) honest people who have a completely different background and REASON for believing what they do. On the flip side, however, I can no longer tolerate jabs I now recognize as "making fun of" evolutionists (like those I witnessed in my science curriculum growing up).

 

:) Hope this gives a little further insight. If only people everywhere would just stop to consider that each individual truly does have a deep-seated reason and background for believing what they believe (religious or not), then there might be a whole lot less arguing in the world.

[asta]

Coleroo,

 

I think that was probably the single most helpful post I have read on this site in all of the 8 billion posts discussing evolution/young earth/old earth/ID/creationism/etc., etc.

 

As you have most likely seen via the search function, evolution topics on this board are lengthly and heated. There is always pertinent info and good resources in them, but it gets buried in the he said/she said.

 

I don't think I've ever seen anyone express things the way you just did.

 

My son, who claims Pastafarian more than anything else, looks at the debate in this manner:

 

"Any creator big enough to create the universe is big enough to have created evolution. And he or she didn't necessarily have to inform us of it, either; we haven't always been all that enlightened of a people, you know."

 

Have a great day, Coleroo.

 

 

asta

[Coleroo]

Coleroo,

 

I think that was probably the single most helpful post I have read on this site in all of the 8 billion posts discussing evolution/young earth/old earth/ID/creationism/etc., etc.

 

As you have most likely seen via the search function, evolution topics on this board are lengthly and heated. There is always pertinent info and good resources in them, but it gets buried in the he said/she said.

 

I don't think I've ever seen anyone express things the way you just did.

 

My son, who claims Pastafarian more than anything else, looks at the debate in this manner:

 

"Any creator big enough to create the universe is big enough to have created evolution. And he or she didn't necessarily have to inform us of it, either; we haven't always been all that enlightened of a people, you know."

 

Have a great day, Coleroo.

 

 

asta

 

 

Thank you, Asta. I'm very much humbled. Indeed I do know very well how heated this debate can get...it's all so emotional. I remember one thread on here from a while back that was 400 gazillion (or something like that!) :) pages long. Very, very few people are able to look at this without letting emotion run rampant, and that's completely understandable, especially for those who view the "answer" in light of their eternal salvation. When I first began to pull away from young earth belief, I scoured the internet for months on end for an unbiased, fact-bearing site that would provide me with logical details that could help me bridge that gap between believing in a creator while at the same time not closing my eyes to the sheer amount of evidence as to the age of the earth & universe. In 99.9% of all resources I read, the main undertones of the author was NOT to enlighten, but to belittle. Buzz words such as "stupid, unenlightened, mythological god, biblegod, backwards, uninformed" turn me off immediately. It's amazing that a 3,000 word article can repeat the same shallow thing a dozen ways (such as "evolution is modern fact, you're stupid if you believe otherwise", blah blah) without having any depth to it at all. I've seen way too many of those in the past few years. Even if the information discussed has truth to it, it's easy to turn a deaf ear to it when you detect that the author has a hidden bias - even if it only sprouts itself in one sentence. I once was reading a recently written book about ancient greece in which the author made one passing statement of "Back in those days, uninformed people believed in imaginary beings so they would have answers to life's mysteries. Intelligent people today now know modern science provides those answers ". It was said at an inappropriate time (not in a chapter regarding greek myths) so it gave away the author's bias immediately - and I had a hard time not judging the rest of the book in light of that because I immediately felt like my childhood culture and all the people I loved were demeaned and insulted. Irrational emotional response, I know, but it was a strong emotion in me that I could not surpress. No one likes the people they admire to be insulted by a stranger. In all these years I only remember finding one evolutionary resource who's author in no way demeaned, made fun of, or mocked Christians.

 

Our core beliefs are a deeply personal quest we must all journey through. Some of us feel ("know") we've already found the answer. Some of us pick up the search and continue going at various times in our lives. I guess none of us will ever *truly* know until we each pass through that last breath in life...

 

Hope you have a wonderful day too. :)

Edited December 8, 2009 by Coleroo

[creekland]

The gist of the issue to me is that many people believe in one or the other in some way or fashion. I just did a google search of "evolution vs creation polls" and got several that came up - all pretty much showing the same thing - the US is split. Creation tends to come out on top, but with that, many also believe God worked through evolution.

 

Therefore, I feel that my children are best suited knowing both theories - regardless of which way they choose to believe themselves.

 

AND they should know both theories from the viewpoint of scientists that believe in them - not hearsay from non-scientists - and not the lame teachings (often inaccurate) of those that don't believe side A or side B.

 

For what it's worth, I've never seen an argument saying 'the devil planted the fossils.' That was a new one for me. Sources we use say the majority of the fossils are from Noah's Flood with regards to creation.

 

Interestingly enough, in our public school I'm often in subbing for Bio during a section of the evolution part. Each year some students ask me why they have to learn this stuff... my reply is always the same as what I've written above. Many people in the world including many scientists believe evolution is the way life got to the point where we are today. It's your choice whether you want to believe it or not, but it sure doesn't hurt to learn about what many people believe. That's what education is all about - knowing what's going on out there.

 

Which all goes back to my original statement. Children that grow up NOT knowing what half the US believes (either half) are not well-educated (in my mind). Obviously, those with closed minds (either side) want their kids to believe as they do so might want to shelter their offspring - it's human nature - but personally, I wouldn't want to grow up only seeing one side of the coin (and I did - the evolution side - but that was in the day before creation science became well-known).

[TravelingChris]

may I respectfully suggest that you look into a book called "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Thomas S. Kuhn?

 

I am going to look into this book but not for evolution debates. I took a class from him in college and it was extremely interesting. Thanks for the memory.

[LynnG in Arizona]

Coleroo (Lisa),

 

Another absolutely brilliant, transparent, and extremely thoughtful post. Thank you so very much for sharing and explaining so well the point of view you grew up with.

 

I don't (unfortunately) have time to do your post justice with my own thoughtful reply, but I do thank you for it.

 

Ironically, this subject just came up last night at a homeschool group meeting I attended. I tried to explain my own point of view, which is that I am very clear on the "Who" of the creation question - God - but am just uncertain as to the "How". It's not so much that I believe in evolution per se (because that it inself can become a form of religion), but that I am open to the possibility that God used that process, in some form, to effect his magnificent creation. In similar fashion, I am unclear as to the age of the earth and do not view it as a salvation issue.

 

Although I am sorry to the OP that this thread has gone a bit off track, I do so appreciate the thoughtful and gentle discussion that has resulted - more of a sharing of backgrounds/points of view as opposed to a (fruitless) attempt to "force" a set of beliefs (either way) on one another.

 

Thanks again. :)

[Tullia]

may I respectfully suggest that you look into a book called "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Thomas S. Kuhn?

 

I am going to look into this book but not for evolution debates. I took a class from him in college and it was extremely interesting. Thanks for the memory.

 

Ok, I AM jealous, lol. What a wonderful opportunity! I have the 2nd edition of the book and the cover price says $3.45. It was, ahem, a few years ago...I talked with my favorite prof recently and he tells me the 3rd edition is still required reading in lots of grad programs. Along similar lines I enjoy David Lindberg's work. We used his "The Beginnings of Western Science" for our homemade half-credit course.

 

BTW, a general disclaimer for those not familiar with the book: Kuhn's book isn't about evolution; the title is self-explanatory. However, many of the ideas he develops do have implications for the perennial debates that crop up on these boards.

[LibraryLover]

:lol: OMG. Here we go! :auto:

 

:iagree:

And like Keller's public statements about ID have tainted her acceptance of her work as "real science" by "real scientists", so also has Dawkins' public statements about God tainted his own credibility as a scientist. But the "real scientists" don't seem to recognize their hypocrisy, lol!

 

There was even an online Biology book shared awhile back that kept bringing religion into the abortion debate instead of discussing whether the embryonic human was indeed just that an embryonic human.

 

I would LOVE to see a good text that explains stuff well but doesn't have bias from the authors. Until then, we try to balance and research as best we can :-)

Edited December 8, 2009 by LibraryLover

[swimmermom3]

Ok, I AM jealous, lol. What a wonderful opportunity! I have the 2nd edition of the book and the cover price says $3.45. It was, ahem, a few years ago...I talked with my favorite prof recently and he tells me the 3rd edition is still required reading in lots of grad programs. Along similar lines I enjoy David Lindberg's work. We used his "The Beginnings of Western Science" for our homemade half-credit course.

 

BTW, a general disclaimer for those not familiar with the book: Kuhn's book isn't about evolution; the title is self-explanatory. However, many of the ideas he develops do have implications for the perennial debates that crop up on these boards.

 

Martha, would you mind telling me more about "The Beginnings of Western Science"? This resurrected thread has been most insightful. I'm not sure why I stray from the high school board, except that sometimes there is more here to think about than I am prepared to process.:tongue_smilie:

[Tullia]

Martha, would you mind telling me more about "The Beginnings of Western Science"? This resurrected thread has been most insightful. I'm not sure why I stray from the high school board, except that sometimes there is more here to think about than I am prepared to process.:tongue_smilie:

 

Sometimes it's important to take a rest, eh? My starting place with the Lindberg book was a Teaching Company dvd set "History of Science: Antiquity to 1700." It was suggested in the TC booklet as supplement to the lectures. The subtitle gives an even better idea of the contents: "The European Scientific Tradition in Philosophical, Religious, and Institutional Context, 600 B.C. to A.D. 1450." Quite a mouthful, I know, and the book also has sections on Islamic science which I found interesting because outside the Spanish connection most of the Islamic history of science (especially the early part) was new to me.

 

My son enjoyed reading the book, and I used it to design writing assignments. It amplifies a lot of the history and literature we'd read over the years. And, it's not nearly as difficult reading as the title might imply. The author's stated purpose is to be "synthetic", not "encyclopedic" and I think he succeeds. The most interesting perspective he uses (IMO) is to look at each era in its own context rather than giving the usual patronizing recital of the ways in which ancient and medieval science were inferior to modern science.

 

Ds also enjoyed the other book we used "Cathedral, Forge, and Waterwheel: Technology and Invention in the Middle Ages. (Frances and Joseph Gies)

[Peek a Boo]

My starting place with the Lindberg book was a Teaching Company dvd set "History of Science: Antiquity to 1700." It was suggested in the TC booklet as supplement to the lectures. The subtitle gives an even better idea of the contents: "The European Scientific Tradition in Philosophical, Religious, and Institutional Context, 600 B.C. to A.D. 1450." Quite a mouthful, I know, and the book also has sections on Islamic science which I found interesting because outside the Spanish connection most of the Islamic history of science (especially the early part) was new to me.

 

My son enjoyed reading the book, and I used it to design writing assignments. It amplifies a lot of the history and literature we'd read over the years. And, it's not nearly as difficult reading as the title might imply. The author's stated purpose is to be "synthetic", not "encyclopedic" and I think he succeeds. The most interesting perspective he uses (IMO) is to look at each era in its own context rather than giving the usual patronizing recital of the ways in which ancient and medieval science were inferior to modern science.

 

Ds also enjoyed the other book we used "Cathedral, Forge, and Waterwheel: Technology and Invention in the Middle Ages. (Frances and Joseph Gies)

 

YES!

 

I lucked out a our library sale shelf and for $5.00 acquired an 8-volume set of Science and Its Times- a chronological history of science :-)

 

we're LOVING it!