Jump to content

Menu

creation science for high school


Recommended Posts

is there anything like this, but for older kids....https://www.christianbook.com/christian-kids-explore-creation-science-book/robert-ridlon/9781892427236/pd/427238?event=Homeschool|1002718#customer_reviews

 

I have looked on Answers In Genesis and they only have books to read or DVD's to watch....but I am looking for something with a workbook or worksheets.  

 

My kids have enjoyed listening to the Jonathan Park stories and have found they enjoy learning about creation science.  But being in High School we need to step it up a bit, but not a super hard class....this is more of an elective. 

 

thanks.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a high school class? No.

 

I rhink your best bet is to find a regular science or history course that you can supplement as you see fit.

 

If science, you will likely prefer one of the young-earth science curricula: Abeka's books are probably the easiest and are written like typical texts, as are the BJU textbooks, which are very interesting, but much harder. Apologia is written to the student, not laid out like a typical textbook, and is somewhere in between. I'm sure there are others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I understood that.  My kids liked Jonathon Park, too.  And, as I've said, I've never seen or even heard of a high school level course that focuses on the topic.  I have seen portions of it included as part of science or history courses, but never as a course on its own.  That's why I suggested you supplement a regular course as needed to cover the information you still want them to learn.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I would look more towards something like a Philosophy or Worldviews type of class where they look at various viewpoints. A few books to consider:

Understanding the Times (Noebel--there are also DVD's and I think you can access the lectures online...at least you used to be able to. This compares/contrasts 6 major worldviews: Christianity, Islam, Humanism, Marxism, New Age, and Postmodernism.)

What if Jesus Had Never Been Born? (Newcombe--a really thought-provoking book)

The Reason for God (Keller--takes a look at a third viewpoint, theistic evolution)

 

These do not cover only creation/evolution but will dig in and encourage your student to not only think more deeply about his or her own worldview, but to seek to understand others' worldviews as well--great preparation for college and adulthood. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you're not wedded to young Earth, Origins is a great study of creation.  It has discussion questions but no work sheets.  There also is a good study from the Discovery Institute.  I don't have time to find the book I've use on their website now, but they produce a number of products that might work.  Most of the materials I've used are old Earth, so I am coming at it from that angle. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heart of Dakota includes an evolution/creation component of their science in Missions to Modern Marvels, which is often used for 8th grade but could go a little higher, especially if it's an elective. We haven't done it yet so I can't speak to it, but we may in the future. Not sure if it's what you are looking for or not.

 

https://www.heartofdakota.com/missions-to-modern-marvels.php

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look at Evolution:  The Grand Experiment  and the second volume:  Living Fossils Evolution:  The Grand Experiment .  One of my kids did both of these books together as a one semester Creation Science class in high school.  We didn't add much in but it has a lot of potential to be expanded with other books and research/writing projects and could probably be easily extended into a full credit class.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

what they want to study is not science....but creationism vs evolutionism....

 

Or rather, maybe what they want to study is not science . . . but religion. 

 

Why not just have them study it as a religion course? 

 

And then choose a science course that is based on science instead of religion. 

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or rather, maybe what they want to study is not science . . . but religion. 

 

Why not just have them study it as a religion course? 

 

And then choose a science course that is based on science instead of religion. 

I get the impression that the OP may want to teach her child(ren) about the belief systems, assumptions, limitations and distortions which underpin the activities which are collectively known as science.

 

Perhaps OP would like her child(ren) to understand that many (most?) scientists today subscribe to a worldview known as "scientism", which was so eloquently spelled out by Jim Baggott:

Now I want to be absolutely clear and unequivocal upfront.  I trained as a scientist, and although I no longer practice, I continue to believe - deeply and sincerely - that only science, correctly applied, can provide a sure path to true knowledge of the real world.  If you want to know what the world is made of, where it came from, how it works and how it came to be as it is today, then my recommendation is to look to science for the answers.

Ironically, that quote is the first paragraph in his book "Fairwell to Reality," which is an expose about much of what is wrong in physics today.  Perhaps Jim Baggott was never taught, and never realized, that scientism is a self-refuting belief system.

 

Perhaps the OP would like her child(ren) to thoroughly understand what is behind Max Planck's quote:

Anyone who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of any kind realizes that over the gates of the temple of science are written the words 'Ye must have faith.'

For instance, she may want her child(ren) to explore why so many scientists have faith in a very popular concept known as Friedmann-Lemaitre spacetime expansion even though the scientific evidence indicates that it does not exist.  In fact, when engineers designed the GPS system, they designed the system to correct for three redshifts in the signals coming from the satellites to the ground: velocity-based redshifts, gravitation-based redshifts, and redshifts due to the expansion of spacetime.  The first two redshifts were discovered by Doppler and Einstein, respectively, and have been demonstrated many times in scientific experiments, but the third was conjured up by astronomers and cosmologists to try to prop up their personal beliefs that we must not be at the center of the Universe.  However, there is NO redshift in GPS signals due to Friedmann-Lemaitre spacetime expansion and thus there is no need for correction for it in the system that many people depend on today.  Perhaps OP would like to understand why even though the existence of suns and planets and galaxies and all the scientific measurements done near Earth attest to the understanding that spacetime expansion simply doesn't exist HERE that very intelligent people insist that it must exist ELSEWHERE.  And why do those same people reject successful explanations of what they see in the cosmos using only velocity-based and gravitation-based redshifts, which are both KNOWN to exist?  And why do the textbooks not detail this contradiction between beliefs and measurements, but rather only teach the beliefs?

 

I don't know OP, but those are the types of things I want my children to explore when they study science.  As Richard Feynman is famous for saying:

Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts.

Without exploring the cracks that exist in our current understanding of the Universe in which we live, we can never advance that understanding and will forever be enslaved by untruth.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get the impression that the OP may want to teach her child(ren) about the belief systems, assumptions, limitations and distortions which underpin the activities which are collectively known as science.

 

Perhaps OP would like her child(ren) to understand that many (most?) scientists today subscribe to a worldview known as "scientism", which was so eloquently spelled out by Jim Baggott:

Ironically, that quote is the first paragraph in his book "Fairwell to Reality," which is an expose about much of what is wrong in physics today.  Perhaps Jim Baggott was never taught, and never realized, that scientism is a self-refuting belief system.

 

Perhaps the OP would like her child(ren) to thoroughly understand what is behind Max Planck's quote:

For instance, she may want her child(ren) to explore why so many scientists have faith in a very popular concept known as Friedmann-Lemaitre spacetime expansion even though the scientific evidence indicates that it does not exist.  In fact, when engineers designed the GPS system, they designed the system to correct for three redshifts in the signals coming from the satellites to the ground: velocity-based redshifts, gravitation-based redshifts, and redshifts due to the expansion of spacetime.  The first two redshifts were discovered by Doppler and Einstein, respectively, and have been demonstrated many times in scientific experiments, but the third was conjured up by astronomers and cosmologists to try to prop up their personal beliefs that we must not be at the center of the Universe.  However, there is NO redshift in GPS signals due to Friedmann-Lemaitre spacetime expansion and thus there is no need for correction for it in the system that many people depend on today.  Perhaps OP would like to understand why even though the existence of suns and planets and galaxies and all the scientific measurements done near Earth attest to the understanding that spacetime expansion simply doesn't exist HERE that very intelligent people insist that it must exist ELSEWHERE.  And why do those same people reject successful explanations of what they see in the cosmos using only velocity-based and gravitation-based redshifts, which are both KNOWN to exist?  And why do the textbooks not detail this contradiction between beliefs and measurements, but rather only teach the beliefs?

 

I don't know OP, but those are the types of things I want my children to explore when they study science.  As Richard Feynman is famous for saying:

Without exploring the cracks that exist in our current understanding of the Universe in which we live, we can never advance that understanding and will forever be enslaved by untruth.

 

I won't pretend I have much of an idea of what the heck you are trying to say with all those words. Maybe it's my science background, but I really have very little idea how all those words connect into meaningful thoughts. I'm just hearing "word salad", to be honest. 

 

I am pretty sure that the OP posted seeking a "creation science" course. That's what I was responding to. 

 

If you're looking to analyze the weaknesses of science historically (and thus get insights into the certain weaknesses of current scientific knowledge), I'd suggest perhaps studying the history of science. Hakim's series Story of Science is a nice starting place.

 

Additionally, to study anything sophisticated about science, you need to actually know science, thus the need to study basic sciences (biology, chemistry, physics, etc.) to a level of competence. Nobody is going to be able to competently understand Einstein's relativity, etc, until they've mastered basic college intro level physics (which will require competence in Calculus to even begin understanding). Not to be insulting, but I'm guessing that the OP's kids are not already all proficient in the basic sciences and math needed to delve into relativity or other advanced science concepts. I.e., you need to understand Newtonian mechanics before Einstein's relativity is meaningful to you . . . 

 

 

This sort of reminds me of someone trying to develop and teach a biblical worldview without actually deeply studying the bible in its entirety first and continuously. One needs to deeply study actual science before they will be able to effectively and meaningfully learn to analyze its weaknesses. Finding those weaknesses (and pursuing new knowledge in those areas) is the root of much advanced studies in science. 

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OP, my kids studied both evolution and creation (reasons for why those who believe them believe the way they do) because I wanted them to understand the nuances of what belief systems (science based) are out there for their own knowledge and to be able to carry on a (correct) conversation about it with essentially anyone.  We did not do it for a class or any sort of credit.  We did it for the curiosity of learning more/deeper.

 

We almost totally used the internet - sources for both that believed what they promote and stuck with science articles within those sources because there are plenty of general sound bites that give nothing but "believe this - forget about "why."  Do NOT use just one source to get both sides.  It will never work as either can/will distort the other side (or maybe they just don't know the pros/cons thoroughly?).  It's been several years now, so better sources might be out there.  I think the main ones we looked at were TalkOrigins from the Evolution side and Institution for Creation Research if my memory serves me correctly, but we also did some wider searches on the net when we had questions.

 

FWIW, there are pros/cons for both sides when one looks deep enough.  Perhaps it's better to say both sides have more reasonable answers and unanswered questions pending topic.  It can be interesting when one really looks deep enough with an open mind - even more interesting with open minded folks to discuss thoughts with.

 

BUT!!!  Note that both websites (and other articles) will stray from their information to diss the other side - sometimes quite annoyingly with swear words (mostly TalkOrigin) or "heathen" type name calling (mostly ICR).  It would be so much better if they could just stick with the science reasoning behind their topics - and maybe they do now, I don't know.  We've been done with that homeschooling subject for years.

 

Unless you're planning on your kids going to Christian colleges, there's no reason to assign a credit for the course you are proposing.  I don't believe any secular college will count it as a credit.  I suspect even Christian colleges won't actually care that it's there.

 

Sometimes learning can be done just for fun or for the education.  It doesn't all have to be for credit.  This also eliminates the need to assign worksheets or tests, etc.  Discussion is all that is needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or rather, maybe what they want to study is not science . . . but religion. 

 

Why not just have them study it as a religion course? 

 

And then choose a science course that is based on science instead of religion. 

The OP already said straight out that they did not want to study science.

 

She also already said straight out that this was an elective, not a "science" course.

 

I'm sure you were only trying to be helpful, but I don't think she was looking to have someone define the types of courses she wants. ("Religion" vs "Science")  It's pretty clear what she's looking for. It's pretty clear that you don't approve of what she's looking for. You didn't really offer an answer to her specific question (resources on creation science), just made your point about science & religion.

 

I've always loved the education boards because they are relatively free of the unpleasantness that seems frequent on the Chat board. It's dismaying to see a hint of it showing up here. The Chat board might be a better place to discuss the benefits, differences, ... of a "religion" course and a "science" course.

Edited by yvonne
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The OP already said straight out that they did not want to study science.

 

She also already said straight out that this was an elective, not a "science" course.

 

I'm sure you were only trying to be helpful, but I don't think she was looking to have someone define the types of courses she wants. ("Religion" vs "Science")  It's pretty clear what she's looking for. It's pretty clear that you don't approve of what she's looking for. You didn't really offer an answer to her specific question (resources on creation science), just made your point about science & religion.

 

I've always loved the education boards because they are relatively free of the unpleasantness that seems frequent on the Chat board. It's dismaying to see a hint of it showing up here. The Chat board might be a better place to discuss the benefits, differences, ... of a "religion" course and a "science" course.

 

 

I read the OP. I hadn't/haven't read all the follow ups. I clearly misunderstood OP's intention if she wasn't looking to teach creationism as science. That's great if I was wrong. I don't know where the term "creation science" came from or what it implies, as I'm clearly not a creationist (nor are the vast majority of my religious friends, and of course neither are the nonreligious people I know), and I generally avoid these sorts of discussions as they just frustrate and sadden me.  It was the term "creation science" in the title that drew me in, as it just shocked me to see creationism labeled as science so blatantly, and I guess I was curious to see what this new (to me) term entailed. I clearly should have avoided this thread, and I regret that I didn't.

 

I have had enough conversations with other homeschoolers over the years to know that many families do teach creationism as science, and I do think that's a bad idea educationally. I spent my first decade or so homeschooling dancing around the evolution vs creation science debate. . . and now that I'm well into my second decade of homeschooling and close to half a century on the planet, I've lost interest in pretending that something that is unacceptable is acceptable. This is an education board, and I do think it's reasonable to call attention to something that is educationally perilous, as is teaching religion and calling it science. I think it is within parents rights to educate their children in their religion, but I also think it is the responsibility of a homeschooling parent to provide their child with a comprehensive and sound education, and, IMHO, teaching religion as science does not do that.

 

And, FWIW, having flown two kids off to college, I've been very involved in preparing transcripts, so labeling courses is significant to me. I'd be horrified to see a transcript with "creation science" on the science course list, as it could certainly be a big red negative and a big red flag on many admission committee's review of a transcript and likely bring skepticism to every course on that transcript. Labeling does matter if college is on the horizon.

 

That said, I'll leave this discussion to others, as I don't have further of value to add. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

is there anything like this, but for older kids....https://www.christianbook.com/christian-kids-explore-creation-science-book/robert-ridlon/9781892427236/pd/427238?event=Homeschool|1002718#customer_reviews

 

I have looked on Answers In Genesis and they only have books to read or DVD's to watch....but I am looking for something with a workbook or worksheets.  

 

My kids have enjoyed listening to the Jonathan Park stories and have found they enjoy learning about creation science.  But being in High School we need to step it up a bit, but not a super hard class....this is more of an elective.

 

what they want to study is not science....but creationism vs evolutionism....

 

I am currently teaching a course for adults which I have billed as follows:

 

The Nexus of Science & Christianity:  A broad-ranging survey of the Bible and popular science topics, exposing weaknesses in many scientific views.

 

I had been asked to make the course on creation versus evolutionism, but I refused to limit the discussion to just those topics and am discussing topics such as physics, astronomy, cosmology, biology, biochemistry, mathematics, and the history and philosophy of science.

 

The class meets in person once per week and includes members with a broad range of backgrounds including some with a high-school diploma to one with two PhDs: one in physics and one in mathematics.  As such, while the discussions are technical, I limit how deep we go in the class and provide access to a technical resources online as well as a reading and viewing lending library.

 

This course does not have a workbook and worksheets, but I have the following in case you are interested:

- Slides from a 90-minute introductory presentation which details some of the claims made in the Bible along with what science is, its assumptions, limitations and distortions which impact both scientific research and how it is communicated and understood by others.  As an example of what you might learn in the course, the presentation also covers a 10-question science quiz including the responses received along with details of scientific measurements related to that topic.

- I have two lending libraries on science topics which are available for members of the class to borrow: one including DVDs and one including books.  While these materials are in physical form, the libraries are documented online, which could serve as a reference list for areas to look for information.

- I will be documenting each of our discussions to detail what was covered each week and to provide links to additional resources for the topic, both online and in physical form.  This will be in an online form and updated weekly, but I am a little behind in getting this part put together.

 

If you are interested in any of this information, please let me know via PM.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 101 series includes Bio 101, Chem 101, and Physics 101. I am using the Chem 101 as a supplement to Dr. Wile's Discovering Design in Chemistry.Originally, I bought it so I could review it before teaching Dr. Wile regular chemistry course with all the math.  I am also using it to supplement my middle school student and very bright elementary student who are using the AIG Chemistry God's Design series.  The 101 series is not heavy or hard. It includes a PDF book of the content. You have plenty of time for outside research, science projects, and additional reading. The DVDs are all of fun and include a nice mix of science history with scientific concepts. I personally would not use it alone for a hs school credit, but I do love it as a supplement. The course is designed to be part of a science curriculum -  not just watch the DVDs and you're done. These are Christian perspective. Younger children can also learn from these.  Great review for parents too!

 

http://www.the101series.com/index.html

 

I am also exploring the Body of Evidence anatomy DVDs as an option for part of our next school year. Christian perspective.

https://timberdoodle.com/products/body-of-evidence-8-dvd-set

 

 

Have you checked Aurora Lipper's website for her Supercharged Science and e-science courses? She describes herself as "creation neutral."  So, she just does not teach origins science theories. My family really enjoys her experiment videos. I have not yet explored her high school science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...