Jump to content

What's with the ads?


Photo

REAL Science4kids VS REAL Science Odyssey


  • Please log in to reply
74 replies to this topic

What's with the ads?

#1 farming_mum

farming_mum

    Hive Mind Worker Bee

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 97 posts

Posted 12 September 2011 - 04:36 AM

We originally chose REAL Science4kids due to recommendations from the WTM Book.

We have done the first few lessons and I find it a bit boring and there is a lot of writing for the kids compared to the amount of imput/discussion needed. I could do the writing for the kids but I prefer that they do a bit more than discuss each concept. We are doing the Year 1 Biology. :confused:

Has anyone tried both science packages?? I'm thinking of getting the Science Odyssey Ebooks while they are on special as they seem to have some great worksheets.

Thanks

#2 truebluexf

truebluexf

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1115 posts

Posted 12 September 2011 - 08:09 AM

They are very different. I have both. I like how in depth RS4K goes, but it won't really fill your whole year. We've tried RSO twice and just never took off with it. My kids are excited for RS4K chemistry. Also, did you do RS4K chemistry yet? They recommend doing that one before Bio. You could do both this year if you wanted to.

#3 farming_mum

farming_mum

    Hive Mind Worker Bee

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 97 posts

Posted 12 September 2011 - 09:00 AM

Hi truebluexf - thanks for your reply. We only chose to do the biology as this was in line with the WTM book and also our states curriculum.

Year 2 - Earth/Space
Year 3 - Chemistry
Year 4 - Physics
. . . . and then repeat same as history.

Is this right or doesn't it work out like this??

Edited by farming_mum, 12 September 2011 - 09:03 AM.


#4 momma2three

momma2three

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2142 posts

Posted 12 September 2011 - 09:02 AM

I was looking at reviews of them the other day, and the 4kids one seems to be Christian and the Odyssey one is, I think, secular. Does that make a difference to you?

#5 truebluexf

truebluexf

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1115 posts

Posted 12 September 2011 - 09:05 AM

RS4K doesn't officially take a stance. There is nothing Christian in it, nor does it go into evolution, I believe. RS4K also uses a different order, and it makes a lot of sense. You can understand biology better if you first understand chemistry.

#6 ChiknGirl

ChiknGirl

    Hive Mind Level 2 Worker: Nurse Bee

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 135 posts

Posted 12 September 2011 - 09:09 AM

We tried the RS4K biology last year and did not like it. We switched to RSO and were much happier. We stuck with RSO for chemistry this year.

#7 Spryte

Spryte

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4375 posts

Posted 12 September 2011 - 10:14 AM

We love RSO, and have had a great time with Life. We are heading into Earth and Space now.

I waffled between the two, and after research found that RSO tends to be more secular, which is why I chose it (at first). That may not matter for you, though. The author of RS4K is apparently not secular (you can search here, I think, for links to articles or posts to some boards she's written on the topic), and enough people noticed a bias in the upper levels to turn me off to the program.

RSO has been a lot of fun for my science-loving kid. There's not a ton of writing, but just enough for a reluctant writer to get some practice recording observations, etc.

#8 Spy Car

Spy Car

    Beekeeping Professor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18027 posts

Posted 12 September 2011 - 11:03 AM

RS4K doesn't officially take a stance. There is nothing Christian in it, nor does it go into evolution, I believe. RS4K also uses a different order, and it makes a lot of sense. You can understand biology better if you first understand chemistry.


RS4K tries to hide it's stance. The author is a well know opponent of the Theory of Evolution and a supporter of ID. She has publicly stated her program seeks to surreptitiously undermine young people's acceptance of the Theory of Evolution as part of an overall plan to win them to Christ.

But she is only forth-right behind the scenes. The "public face" is that this is a "neutral" program, but that is a lie.

Bill

#9 truebluexf

truebluexf

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1115 posts

Posted 12 September 2011 - 11:49 AM

I was rushing and didn't feel like getting into all that. Yes, she is controversial. However, the fact of the matter is her books are awesome for the young ones. *shrug* There is no outright religion in it. I think the worst of it is using "designed" instead of "evolved" or whatever a preferred term might be. If you are using it with littles, it's really easy to change the word to what you prefer. Her stuff is just presented so differently from anyone else's, I find it really valuable.

#10 Spy Car

Spy Car

    Beekeeping Professor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18027 posts

Posted 12 September 2011 - 12:48 PM

I was rushing and didn't feel like getting into all that. Yes, she is controversial. However, the fact of the matter is her books are awesome for the young ones. *shrug* There is no outright religion in it. I think the worst of it is using "designed" instead of "evolved" or whatever a preferred term might be. If you are using it with littles, it's really easy to change the word to what you prefer. Her stuff is just presented so differently from anyone else's, I find it really valuable.


It is worse than that. She tries to convince children that science involves "facts" and separately there are interpretations of "facts" that, like opinions, are more or less equal, when scientifically that is not the case.

There is no scientific comparison between the Theory of Evolution which has met the heavy scientific burdens of proof to earn it's top-tier status as a Scientific Theory and Intelligent Design which has no scientific credibility.

This line-blurting between science and non-science is intentional, and part of a duplicitous and hidden agenda on the part of the author.

Bill

Edited by Spy Car, 12 September 2011 - 09:44 PM.


#11 GTJo1996

GTJo1996

    Hive Mind Level 2 Worker: Nurse Bee

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 201 posts

Posted 12 September 2011 - 08:22 PM

I love RSO because I feel it is flexible enough to allow me to go more in-depth on the things my DD shows interest in. I also was leaning towards RS4K but after reviewing it at my state HS conference and sitting thru a USELESS seminar/Q&A session, I was fuming mad. The sales rep simply told us what was on the website. Oh how helpful! I did not like that the books were not going to last the whole year with RS4K. At the conference, they were selling a package deal if you bought all 3 subjects at one time but it was not a big savings IMHO.
I managed to scoop up a used copy of RSO from someone on the Hive.

As far as the religious perspective goes, I have no opinion.

#12 imhim

imhim

    Hive Mind Level 5 Worker: Forager Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 369 posts

Posted 12 September 2011 - 08:40 PM

We really like Real Science 4 Kids Pre=level 1 chemistry - the experiments and the pics, the collection of data, the hypothesis - all in the student book - and all. I did not know anything about the author. But I am glad to find out she does not believe in evolution as it is a still un-proven theory according to the evolutionists of today.

#13 momma2three

momma2three

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2142 posts

Posted 12 September 2011 - 08:51 PM

It is worse than that. She tries to convince children that science involves "facts" and separately their are interpretations of "facts" that, like opinions, are more or less equal, when scientifically that is not the case.

There is no scientific comparison between the Theory of Evolution which has met the heavy scientific burdens of proof to earn it's top-tier status as a Scientific Theory and Intelligent Design which has no scientific credibility.

This line-blurting between science and non-science is intentional, and part of a duplicitous and hidden agenda on the part of the author.

Bill


That is very interesting... thanks for that info.

#14 warneral

warneral

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1674 posts

Posted 12 September 2011 - 08:55 PM

I like RSO - the kids think it is fun and it is pretty easy. The only part that I don't like is that it can be tricky having the right weather/season for some of the activities. We did not find a snail at the right time of year but looked for DAYS. Same with the earthworms (we were having very hot, dry weather).

I wish it was a little more meaty but we supplement with books and they are getting a nice little does of science. The most important thing for me is for them to ENJOY science, and RSO does a good job ensuring that.

#15 nmoira

nmoira

    Hard-hearted harbinger of haggis and hypocrisy

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15889 posts

Posted 12 September 2011 - 09:14 PM

But I am glad to find out she does not believe in evolution as it is a still un-proven theory according to the evolutionists of today.

"Un-proven" doesn't mean what you think it means. Outside of such disciplines as math and logic, nothing can be "proven" in an absolute sense. A mere "theory" developed prior to numerous scientific advances, including the discovery of DNA, which has over time seen corroborating evidence arise (often coincidentally) in myriad disciplines and fields is pretty solid.

#16 In2why

In2why

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2141 posts

Posted 12 September 2011 - 09:16 PM

We really like Real Science 4 Kids Pre=level 1 chemistry - the experiments and the pics, the collection of data, the hypothesis - all in the student book - and all. I did not know anything about the author. But I am glad to find out she does not believe in evolution as it is a still un-proven theory according to the evolutionists of today.



The issue isn't that she is a creationist. The issue is that she isn't upfront about it. Everyone should be able to choose based on the description of materials, and not have to buy something to find out that it doesn't match up. To present her materials as neutral when in fact they are not is a lie.

I don't think that science materials can ever be neutral. Either they are based on science or they are based on beliefs. I am not making a judgement call for what anyone else uses, but I want to know what I am getting when I choose.

#17 leeannpal

leeannpal

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 913 posts

Posted 12 September 2011 - 09:33 PM

The issue isn't that she is a creationist. The issue is that she isn't upfront about it. Everyone should be able to choose based on the description of materials, and not have to buy something to find out that it doesn't match up. To present her materials as neutral when in fact they are not is a lie.

I don't think that science materials can ever be neutral. Either they are based on science or they are based on beliefs. I am not making a judgement call for what anyone else uses, but I want to know what I am getting when I choose.


If there is no religion in the materials, and evolution is not discussed at all,
how are they not neutral? So what if the author has a religious point of view. You aren't inviting her into your house to teach the class.

#18 Spy Car

Spy Car

    Beekeeping Professor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18027 posts

Posted 12 September 2011 - 09:48 PM

If there is no religion in the materials, and evolution is not discussed at all,
how are they not neutral? So what if the author has a religious point of view. You aren't inviting her into your house to teach the class.


She activly undermines the scientific method in children's minds. That is her intention. She is completely dishonest about those intentions, except when speaking to groups she knows will feel the same way she does, but she got "busted" when her duplicity was exposed.

I would not give a person who lies the way she does a dime.

Bill

#19 chepyl

chepyl

    Empress Bee

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3011 posts

Posted 12 September 2011 - 10:08 PM

We are doing RS4K biology prelevel 1 and I love it! So does my son. The pictures and descriptions are great. We did not do chemistry first because I wanted to do biology to line up with the WTM recs. It also lines up with our CC memory work quite nicely this year. I am making it last the year. We spend 2-3 weeks on a chapter. By doing it slowly, he is really remembering it. I add in my own labs and worksheets from the internet. It takes very little effort to expand. I am glad that it does not include evolution. I have not seen anything on the authors plan to undermine children's belief systems. I read up on her before we started the program and what I read, she was pretty upfront about her beliefs, why she believes that way, and why she leaves it out of the curriculum. She also has a blog/discussion board linked from the curriculum site. You can read up on her beliefs there. I feel the curriculum is very neutral.

#20 Where's Toto?

Where's Toto?

    Eclectically Us-Schooling

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4496 posts

Posted 13 September 2011 - 07:43 AM


I don't think that science materials can ever be neutral. Either they are based on science or they are based on beliefs. I am not making a judgement call for what anyone else uses, but I want to know what I am getting when I choose.


:iagree:
A "neutral" science curriculum has to leave out some very basic information to maintain that neutrality. Not just evolution but taxonomy will need to be glossed over, the formation of rocks and minerals, the formation and wear down of mountains, distances in space (light-years), etc. You may be able to teach very young children or at a very surface level without covering these things or by bypassing some of the issues but before long the quality of the education will suffer.

#21 Jen500

Jen500

    Amateur Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4188 posts

Posted 13 September 2011 - 07:57 AM

If there is no religion in the materials, and evolution is not discussed at all,
how are they not neutral? So what if the author has a religious point of view. You aren't inviting her into your house to teach the class.


If you search old posts (maybe 2009?) there are some threads discussing the author's agenda and lack of forthrightness. She (Keller) posted in at least one of those threads.

#22 purplemama

purplemama

    Hive Mind Level 5 Worker: Forager Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 353 posts

Posted 13 September 2011 - 09:13 AM

I and my kids did not like the RS4K Physics Level 1 program. The experiments were too complicated, some didn't work, and there wasn't enough material to fill a whole year. We loved RSO Chemistry Level 1, and I was disappointed that there wasn't a Level 1 Physics program. RSO was great (from a science major's point of view) and my kids enjoyed the funny and sometimes corny things in the text. All of the experiments worked and were easy to do at home. I think it was just what my kids needed.

Jennifer

#23 truebluexf

truebluexf

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1115 posts

Posted 13 September 2011 - 09:17 AM

It is worse than that. She tries to convince children that science involves "facts" and separately there are interpretations of "facts" that, like opinions, are more or less equal, when scientifically that is not the case.

There is no scientific comparison between the Theory of Evolution which has met the heavy scientific burdens of proof to earn it's top-tier status as a Scientific Theory and Intelligent Design which has no scientific credibility.

This line-blurting between science and non-science is intentional, and part of a duplicitous and hidden agenda on the part of the author.

Bill


Can you point me to where this happens in the texts?

#24 truebluexf

truebluexf

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1115 posts

Posted 14 September 2011 - 07:14 AM

I wasn't trying to be snarky, I'm genuinely curious now that I have some of the texts!

#25 TaraTheLiberator

TaraTheLiberator

    Apprentice Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7815 posts

Posted 14 September 2011 - 07:49 AM

Can you point me to where this happens in the texts?


In the last chapter of the pre-level chemistry text, it says that kids' bodies are "designed" to be unique. I know that there has been a big kerfuffle about the use of the word designed. Personally, I think people are way over-reading-into (?) that. I read the text as written to my kids, who do not believe in any god, and my dd said, "Who designs our bodies?" I said, "Nature and evolution," and on we went.

I have not read all of the RS4K texts. I have read the pre-level texts, and I have read one and am in the process of reading a second the the level 1 texts. Personally, I find nothing in them that makes me feel like my kids' religious/cosmological/scientific ideas are going to be undermined, and I am pretty sensitive to that as a practitioner of a non-Christian religion in a Christian-dominated culture. I understand that people have ideological oppositions to Dr. Keller and her purported lack of forthrightness about her curriculum (I say purported because I have not looked into it myself). I have ideological opposition to BJU curricula because of their ban on interracial dating (which I know has been lifted). But ...

My kids love RS4K, and at the ages they are at I am satisfied that they are not only learning science but also learning to love science. The latter is huge for me, and I honestly have no problem clarifying things that we may run across that aren't in line with what we believe. My kids are already aware of the evolution/creation issue, and I have made clear to them that, for me, science and religion are separate things and you can't use science to prove religion or vice versa.

Tara

#26 54879525

54879525

    Beekeeping Professor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 55102 posts

Posted 14 September 2011 - 07:57 AM

In the last chapter of the pre-level chemistry text, it says that kids' bodies are "designed" to be unique. I know that there has been a big kerfuffle about the use of the word designed. Personally, I think people are way over-reading-into (?) that. I read the text as written to my kids, who do not believe in any god, and my dd said, "Who designs our bodies?" I said, "Nature and evolution," and on we went.

I have not read all of the RS4K texts. I have read the pre-level texts, and I have read one and am in the process of reading a second the the level 1 texts. Personally, I find nothing in them that makes me feel like my kids' religious/cosmological/scientific ideas are going to be undermined, and I am pretty sensitive to that as a practitioner of a non-Christian religion in a Christian-dominated culture. I understand that people have ideological oppositions to Dr. Keller and her purported lack of forthrightness about her curriculum (I say purported because I have not looked into it myself). I have ideological opposition to BJU curricula because of their ban on interracial dating (which I know has been lifted). But ...

My kids love RS4K, and at the ages they are at I am satisfied that they are not only learning science but also learning to love science. The latter is huge for me, and I honestly have no problem clarifying things that we may run across that aren't in line with what we believe. My kids are already aware of the evolution/creation issue, and I have made clear to them that, for me, science and religion are separate things and you can't use science to prove religion or vice versa.

Tara

I agree. I don't see the big deal.

We used RS4K pre chem and chem and liked it. My only complaint is that we went through the books so quickly. I wish they lasted longer.

I tried RSO and I absolutely could not stand it. The few activities we tried didn't work. It is basically one activity after another (which might appeal to some people).

#27 JABarney

JABarney

    Hive Mind Level 3 Worker: Honeymaking Bee

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 204 posts

Posted 13 October 2011 - 02:19 PM

Thanks Bill! Wow, you are right.
I should have just searched the forums first before wasting my time with the test video for their online course.
It honestly makes me wonder why SWB would even recommend the program in the first place! Does SWB agree with such an approach to education?!

#28 hsmom2011

hsmom2011

    Hive Mind Royal Larvae

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 990 posts

Posted 13 October 2011 - 02:32 PM

n/m

#29 zoo_keeper

zoo_keeper

    Hive Mind Level 5 Worker: Forager Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 551 posts

Posted 13 October 2011 - 03:31 PM

She activly undermines the scientific method in children's minds.


Bill, I remember reading the reeeeeeeeally long threads on the author's stance, but can you point out exactly in the text (which is online) where she directly undermines the scientific method? And I'm not looking for the use of "designed" but an actual misstatement/misapplication of science.

#30 54879525

54879525

    Beekeeping Professor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 55102 posts

Posted 13 October 2011 - 03:36 PM

I'm not in love with either program. They aren't even comparable. If your kids like a lot of hands on they would probably like the Odyssey books. It's mostly experiments and hands on stuff. There isn't a lot of reading (other than whatever you want to add to it). That works out well for some people.

I think RS4K is well done and serious science for younger kids. My biggest complaint is that it's too short. We were done with Chemistry in 2 months (taking our time). In terms of the amount of writing, I just didn't make my son do all of the writing. We discussed a lot of things.

#31 zoo_keeper

zoo_keeper

    Hive Mind Level 5 Worker: Forager Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 551 posts

Posted 14 October 2011 - 05:55 PM

I'm bumping this because I sincerely would like to know specific examples where Dr. Keller undermines the scientific method or promotes inaccurate information in her RS4K textbooks. So far, all that I have seen is that many posters don't like the author's personal views and object to her usage of the word "designs." IMO, that's not enough to discard a program. If there's more, I'd really like to know.

#32 ChandlerMom

ChandlerMom

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 875 posts

Posted 14 October 2011 - 06:03 PM

I'm bumping this because I sincerely would like to know specific examples where Dr. Keller undermines the scientific method or promotes inaccurate information in her RS4K textbooks. So far, all that I have seen is that many posters don't like the author's personal views and object to her usage of the word "designs." IMO, that's not enough to discard a program. If there's more, I'd really like to know.


See, when you have the author on record (in print) saying that is precisely her INTENT, I don't personally feel any need or responsibility to consider her product further. Not being clear on the concepts of fact and theory pretty much makes someone incompetent to write a science curriculum.

Put another way -- would you consider religious educational material written by an atheist who publicly said their intent was to make people uncertain of God's existence? Wouldn't their statement of intent be enough for you?

#33 nmoira

nmoira

    Hard-hearted harbinger of haggis and hypocrisy

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15889 posts

Posted 14 October 2011 - 06:14 PM

See, when you have the author on record (in print) saying that is precisely her INTENT, I don't personally feel any need or responsibility to consider her product further. Not being clear on the concepts of fact and theory pretty much makes someone incompetent to write a science curriculum.

Put another way -- would you consider religious educational material written by an atheist who publicly said their intent was to make people uncertain of God's existence? Wouldn't their statement of intent be enough for you?

This. But even if I were to be assured the early materials are fine, I have no wish to help fund her agenda.

#34 Walking-Iris

Walking-Iris

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3364 posts

Posted 14 October 2011 - 06:21 PM

http://rebeccawkelle...he-facts-please


Thank you!!! I have been struggling to find a science curriculum that would fit with my family's worldview.

I have considered this---but have been under the impression that it may be too Christian-which we are not But we're also a very spiritual family.

The idea of a science curriculum written from a ID perspective intrigues me. And it appears from this blog post that she is not a young Earth-er or Bible literalist.

This discussion seems odd to me---considering that SWB is very open about her religious beliefs and has even bemoaned the publishers attempt at neutrality in her book on the WTM website.

One question to those who use S4K---is there any references to verses or Biblical figures etc.?

#35 zoo_keeper

zoo_keeper

    Hive Mind Level 5 Worker: Forager Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 551 posts

Posted 14 October 2011 - 06:39 PM

http://rebeccawkelle...he-facts-please


Thank you!!! I have been struggling to find a science curriculum that would fit with my family's worldview.

I have considered this---but have been under the impression that it may be too Christian-which we are not But we're also a very spiritual family.

The idea of a science curriculum written from a ID perspective intrigues me. And it appears from this blog post that she is not a young Earth-er or Bible literalist.

This discussion seems odd to me---considering that SWB is very open about her religious beliefs and has even bemoaned the publishers attempt at neutrality in her book on the WTM website.

One question to those who use S4K---is there any references to verses or Biblical figures etc.?


Goodness, I never thought about the different treatment of WTM materials vs. RS4K materials! That is food for thought... And no, so far I haven't found any Bible references or anything remotely religious in her books. As a secular HSer, I try to avoid such things (although my girls are loooving LoF where God references are scattered about here and there).

#36 Spy Car

Spy Car

    Beekeeping Professor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18027 posts

Posted 14 October 2011 - 06:52 PM

See, when you have the author on record (in print) saying that is precisely her INTENT, I don't personally feel any need or responsibility to consider her product further. Not being clear on the concepts of fact and theory pretty much makes someone incompetent to write a science curriculum.

Put another way -- would you consider religious educational material written by an atheist who publicly said their intent was to make people uncertain of God's existence? Wouldn't their statement of intent be enough for you?


:iagree:

I do not—will not—own her books. She made her intent plain. Part of her "method" is on her website, it is to say there are "facts" (which are "science") and there are "theories" to explain those facts that are akin to "opinions", one as valid as the next. And that is rubbish. That is not science.

She said it is her intention in these books to undermine children's acceptance of the Theory of Evolution as a way to eventually win them to Christianity. She says this only to "friendly audiences." She also attempts to obfuscate her leading role promoting Creationist and ID causes, and letting her works be distributed to raise founds for such groups.

She is a dishonest person. I have no respect for her or her underhanded methods. Other Creationists are at least honest about their true positions, they don't try to "fool anyone," but not Keller.

Bill

#37 zoo_keeper

zoo_keeper

    Hive Mind Level 5 Worker: Forager Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 551 posts

Posted 14 October 2011 - 07:17 PM

So, still, there is no mention of this anywhere in the actual books, right? People's negative reactions stem from comments and information posted elsewhere, not in the material read by children?

#38 TaraTheLiberator

TaraTheLiberator

    Apprentice Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7815 posts

Posted 14 October 2011 - 10:31 PM

Not being clear on the concepts of fact and theory pretty much makes someone incompetent to write a science curriculum.


I realize that this debate is more about Dr. Keller's personal views than it is about the actual content of the RS4K materials, but I thought I would point out that Dr. Keller is, indeed, very competent to write a science curriculum.

"Dr. Keller received her Ph.D. in biophysical chemistry from the University of New Mexico in 1992. She continued her work with an NSF postdoctoral fellowship in the Department of Molecular Biology at UNM followed by a Burroughs Wellcome Fund Postdoctoral Fellowship in the Department of Molecular Biology at the University of California, Berkeley."

http://rebeccawkeller.com/bio

Tara (who doesn't know Dr. Keller and is in no way affiliated with RS4K)

#39 ChandlerMom

ChandlerMom

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 875 posts

Posted 14 October 2011 - 11:50 PM

I realize that this debate is more about Dr. Keller's personal views than it is about the actual content of the RS4K materials, but I thought I would point out that Dr. Keller is, indeed, very competent to write a science curriculum.

"Dr. Keller received her Ph.D. in biophysical chemistry from the University of New Mexico in 1992. She continued her work with an NSF postdoctoral fellowship in the Department of Molecular Biology at UNM followed by a Burroughs Wellcome Fund Postdoctoral Fellowship in the Department of Molecular Biology at the University of California, Berkeley."

http://rebeccawkeller.com/bio

Tara (who doesn't know Dr. Keller and is in no way affiliated with RS4K)


Sorry, but a PhD does not have ANYTHING to do with competence! It just means they sat thru the classes, said enough "right" stuff on the exams, and convinced 5 people to sign a piece of paper that their research (which was vetted and managed by a professor advisor) isn't crap. Post-docs are awarded based on how high up your advisor was and how good you are at arse-smooching at conferences as a grad student -- it's a measure of politics, not technical competence. I say this as someone with a PhD in science, btw, so I know what I'm talking about. I know plenty of folks that should be asking you if you want fries with that, not working with PhDs. I just spent my evening reviewing a journal article that, well....didn't wow me with competence either, and it was written by 3 PhDs. :lol:

Competence is measured not in titles and degrees but in actions, and a "scientist" who cannot distinguish between their beliefs and the scientific method, who blurs absolute concepts like "facts" and "theories" with common parlance because it is convenient or suits their ulterior purposes are NOT competent. She has demonstrated that she is not competent to write a curriculum and call it "science".

As to SWB and SOTW -- religious beliefs always influence one's perspective on history. Any bias can be easily addressed by editing or adding other resources. After all, she isn't subverting what history IS to suit her beliefs. Keller is intent on intentionally and KNOWINGLY misleading readers about what science IS to promote her religious convictions. See a difference?

...and I'm done on this subject. :D I only wanted to remind folks not to be too impressed with degrees and titles, be it a PhD, MD, or all those brilliant economists (MBAs and PhDs) that created derivatives that contributed sooo much to our economy. :p

Edited by ChandlerMom, 15 October 2011 - 12:12 AM.


#40 Spy Car

Spy Car

    Beekeeping Professor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18027 posts

Posted 15 October 2011 - 12:12 AM

Competence is measured not in titles and degrees but in actions, and a "scientist" who cannot distinguish between their beliefs and the scientific method, who blurs absolute concepts like "facts" and "theories" with common parlance because it is convenient or suits their ulterior purposes are NOT competent. She has no business writing curriculum and calling it "science".

THe fact she is dishonest about her motives, makes her the worst kind of fraud.


:iagree:

She is utter dishonest. This is the sort of constant "big lie" perpetuated by Keller:

Real science doesn’t choose sides. So when teaching science, it’s important that the lessons let kids explore all sides. Otherwise, choosing one side can get in the way of understanding the real science. Darwinism, creationism, intelligent design theory, and all the other “isms” are simply paradigms (or “lenses”) through which science is viewed. The “-isms” are *philosophies based on perceptions for how science is interpreted. *

This is the biggest load of anti-scientic bull ever. Science conforms to the scientic method, not to "perceptions" or "isms" or "world views" or "philosophies." This is Keller's method to undermine affinity to science.

She pretends to be "world view neutral" (which is an absolute lie). The truth is she is a signitor of the Dissent from Darwinism statement put out by the Discovery Institute (an advocacy group of ID) and speaks and fundraises for ID causes.

What she advances is anti-science.

Bill

#41 54879525

54879525

    Beekeeping Professor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 55102 posts

Posted 15 October 2011 - 06:03 AM

So, still, there is no mention of this anywhere in the actual books, right? People's negative reactions stem from comments and information posted elsewhere, not in the material read by children?


She uses the word "designed" in the pre-level 1 chemistry book a few times. I didn't see the word used in level 1 chemistry.

I didn't even notice until it was pointed out.

I still like the books.

Edited to add that if you go to her website you can see the full books.

Edited by WendyK, 15 October 2011 - 06:10 AM.


#42 jplain

jplain

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2005 posts

Posted 15 October 2011 - 06:46 AM

I've only looked at a subset of the RS4K materials, but so far I'm in agreement with WendyK.

I've read the objections posted here. The claim is that she undermines the scientific method: okay, exactly where is this in the materials? AFAIK, the materials are available for online previewing. Surely you can find examples to back up your accusations without spending a dime to support her agenda. And yet, examples are never provided....

As far as the word "designed" goes, I've posted before that among bench scientists (biologists) the word "designed" is thrown around carelessly, without any religious meaning. It is a handy word that conveys the idea that form serves function. That's all. Nothing nefarious about it.

#43 TaraTheLiberator

TaraTheLiberator

    Apprentice Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7815 posts

Posted 15 October 2011 - 07:29 AM

I've read the objections posted here. The claim is that she undermines the scientific method: okay, exactly where is this in the materials? AFAIK, the materials are available for online previewing. Surely you can find examples to back up your accusations without spending a dime to support her agenda. And yet, examples are never provided....


Yeah, that's how I feel. I have now read six of the Rs4K books at two different levels. I don't see anything that's anti-scientific, and I have never seen anyone post anything to show me where this anti-scientific stuff is. I really think this debate is more ideological than about the actual content of the book. Which is fine, because I have ideological oppositions to things. But I'm not very fond of the idea of trying to dissuade people from using something simply because you think the author is a big stinking jerk unless you can point to instances in the text of where she actively undermines science. And I would want to know where those are, if they are there.

Tara

#44 54879525

54879525

    Beekeeping Professor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 55102 posts

Posted 15 October 2011 - 07:39 AM

Yeah, that's how I feel. I have now read six of the Rs4K books at two different levels. I don't see anything that's anti-scientific, and I have never seen anyone post anything to show me where this anti-scientific stuff is. I really think this debate is more ideological than about the actual content of the book. Which is fine, because I have ideological oppositions to things. But I'm not very fond of the idea of trying to dissuade people from using something simply because you think the author is a big stinking jerk unless you can point to instances in the text of where she actively undermines science. And I would want to know where those are, if they are there.

Tara


I agree. I see nothing wrong with the heads up, but I'm not sure the witch hunt is warranted against this author.

#45 Penelope

Penelope

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1793 posts

Posted 15 October 2011 - 08:29 AM

Yeah, that's how I feel. I have now read six of the Rs4K books at two different levels. I don't see anything that's anti-scientific, and I have never seen anyone post anything to show me where this anti-scientific stuff is. I really think this debate is more ideological than about the actual content of the book. Which is fine, because I have ideological oppositions to things. But I'm not very fond of the idea of trying to dissuade people from using something simply because you think the author is a big stinking jerk unless you can point to instances in the text of where she actively undermines science. And I would want to know where those are, if they are there.

Tara


:iagree:

My biggest complaint with the books is that IMO they need a lot added to them to be a full science program. We used level 1 biology, and I heavily added and supplemented.

I'm not going to get into the "science" debate as I have not read much of this author's views other than the few pages that have been posted in this thread and in the past. I don't have a problem with her stance for an elementary science curriculum.

#46 54879525

54879525

    Beekeeping Professor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 55102 posts

Posted 15 October 2011 - 08:50 AM

:iagree:

My biggest complaint with the books is that IMO they need a lot added to them to be a full science program. We used level 1 biology, and I heavily added and supplemented.


That is my complaint as well.

#47 Walking-Iris

Walking-Iris

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3364 posts

Posted 15 October 2011 - 08:56 AM

You're right---not quite a complete science. But I'm liking what I'm reading online so far. The chemistry/physics/astronomy stuff alludes me---so I would see this as wonderful unit studies of sorts and reference materials.

I've always found science curriculum a bit too one way or the other---too heavy in evolutionary theory or too heavy in Christian religious references. Or just plain schoolish text boring. And it's a bit time consuming to search out activity books etc to pull together your own science curriculum. Which I have been trying to do.

The use of the word design doesn't bother me. There are people out there who believe in a designed Earth or creator but who are not Fundamentalist Christians.

They are pricey though---so the search is on!

#48 54879525

54879525

    Beekeeping Professor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 55102 posts

Posted 15 October 2011 - 09:15 AM

I've always found science curriculum a bit too one way or the other---too heavy in evolutionary theory or too heavy in Christian religious references. Or just plain schoolish text boring. And it's a bit time consuming to search out activity books etc to pull together your own science curriculum. Which I have been trying to do.


Of all the secular elementary science curriculum I've seen and used (and it's a long list) I have yet to come across one that even mentions evolutionary theory.

#49 Spy Car

Spy Car

    Beekeeping Professor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18027 posts

Posted 15 October 2011 - 09:23 AM

I would like to be linked to an elementary science program that teaches the Theory of Evolution as the higly validated scientic theory that it is.

Pretty please?

Bill

#50 Jen500

Jen500

    Amateur Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4188 posts

Posted 15 October 2011 - 09:24 AM

I would like to be linked to an elementary science program that teaches the Theory of Evolution as the higly validated scientic theory that it is.

Pretty please?

Bill


:bigear:


What's with the ads?