Peek a Boo Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 the term designed is used throughout, well that answers that :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keptwoman Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 (edited) I am trying to convince dh and ds to use History at our House. Wish me luck! Good luck! :willy_nilly: Good luck. I've almost given up. I bought Critical Thinking by Anita Harnadek (definitely secular), but found that it is more geared towards group/class discussion. I suspect it will not work well with 1 mom and 1 monosyllabic teen. Sigh! It is my understanding that the Kreeft book suggested is for adults, not logic stage students. I could be wrong. Yes I've almost given up too. It's something I'd really love to do because I can see the value in it. But I refuse to plough through extreme bias. I also bought Critical Thinking (and a whole bunch of other books from the same company) and it (and they) sits on my shelf unloved and unread. I was under the impression that Ring of Fire was young earth, (WP usees it) am I wrong? I always thought it was what happens just as you give birth. :lol: Sorry.... it's nearly midnight. Probably should go to bed. Well, prepare to get :glare:, Peter Kreeft is Catholic and if you are referring to his book Socratic Logic it is absolutely not secular. UG. So the content (as opposed to the author) is not secular? eta: and you all think it's hard finding secular stuff. It's even worse when you are from overseas... to find curriculum that is both secular and without strong American bias for history anyway.. Very very hard (sorry... comma key still broken) I'm going to take a serious look at Galore Park this coming year; they even write words like colour properly ;) Edited June 17, 2009 by keptwoman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stripe Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 It's even worse when you are from overseas... to find curriculum that is both secular and without strong American bias for history anyway.. Very very hard (sorry... comma key still broken) I would love to know what you find. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melissa B Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 I have not used RS4K either. In another thread it was discussed and this was the conclusion: Though the claim is that RS4K is a secular curriculum, the term designed is used throughout, and the author should have known better. Though I typically prefer secular curriculum, it doesn't bother me. I believe in ID, being an old earth creationist of sorts, but it is good to know for some with whom the term designed would conflict. Could anyone point to this thread or any discussion about this? Is it only in the Pre-levels? I do not own any pre-levels, but I own all the others. I didn't remember the word designed being used at all. I just skimmed all of the books in areas where I would assume it would come up and couldn't find even one reference to 'designed.' It likely wouldn't have bothered me, so maybe I missed it? Anyway, I'd like to look over the actual pages of RS4K being discussed as overusing/or simply using the word designed. Thanks! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Bay Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 (edited) Real Science 4 Kids is not a truly secular curriculum. Dr. Keller is an advocate for Intelligent Design. She has signed a list called Dissent from Darwin. This is a podcast from the Intelligent Design the Future website. Have you read RS4K yourself and heard Dr. Keller speak? First, I've heard Dr. Keller speak and spoken with her personally. She is NOT an advocate of Intelligent Design. I've read her biology text, and it is not design at all. I've read books on ID, evolution and creationism (by advocates of each area, and there is huge variation in each group so I've read more than one of each). Very few people I know can claim the same. Our 2008 edition of RS4K Biology simply states what it without any explanation of design or evolution at all. It is the most neutral biology book I've ever read. She actually supports creationism, but believes ID is a starting point to try and get evolutionists and creationists to talk with each other. Dr Keller was raised an atheist and stayed one until grad school, so she is very familiar with more than one side of the argument here. In fact, she is very well versed in all 3 camps. While some ID proponents are Christian, many are agnostics and some are atheists, etc. What she's trying to do is to stand up for scientists who don't support evolution so that everyone gets a fair shake, which isn't what happens (I have atheist relatives in the sciences and I have a very good idea of how things are viewed in academia.) But is the curriculum secular? The author's bias is a different question. A Christian can write a completely secular curriculum. I have not used RS4K so I can't answer the question i posed. :) Yes, her curriculum IS secular, but it doesn't espouse evolution. Edited June 17, 2009 by Karin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Bay Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 (edited) Could anyone point to this thread or any discussion about this? Is it only in the Pre-levels? I do not own any pre-levels, but I own all the others. I didn't remember the word designed being used at all. I just skimmed all of the books in areas where I would assume it would come up and couldn't find even one reference to 'designed.' It likely wouldn't have bothered me, so maybe I missed it? Anyway, I'd like to look over the actual pages of RS4K being discussed as overusing/or simply using the word designed. Thanks! ETA see my post to Peek a boo Edited June 17, 2009 by Karin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Bay Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 (edited) I have not used RS4K either. In another thread it was discussed and this was the conclusion: Though the claim is that RS4K is a secular curriculum, the term designed is used throughout, and the author should have known better. Though I typically prefer secular curriculum, it doesn't bother me. I believe in ID, being an old earth creationist of sorts, but it is good to know for some with whom the term designed would conflict. We've read the word design once so far in chapter 3, so that's not being used throughout. If you read the entire page, it's neither teaching nor refuting design. It's talking about the shape/structure of the leaf and she used the word design. Bear in mind, she is not an advocate of ID (see my other post.) Back to this, as we're just doing this book. She does use the word design several times about plants, but as far as I can see, whether the design happened by accident (evolution) or on purpose (ID which includes a form of evolution or creationism) isn't specified. I will say that to me, this is a refreshing change from curricula that either has creationist theology or evolutionary hypotheses thickly threaded through them. Then we have to spend half our time wading through those (we don't necessarily agree with that theology or with that evolution.) She makes no comment of design that I can see in the first 2 chapters, and discusses the metamorphosis of the frog and of the butterfly with NO mention of design. She also manages to discuss our "delicate ecosystem" with no reference to design. For me it is refeshing not to have someone's explanation of how these things came to be interwoven with the facts. I can overlook 3 or 4 uses of the word design in the chapters on plants--so much easier than the Christian or secular evolutionary texts. To me, just because God isn't mentioned, doesn't make something secular. Just because the word design appears doesn't make it ID. Just because ID is mentioned, doesn't make the person a Christian or even a believer in God (the first ID proponent I can think of is not a Christian by any stretch of the definition.) I can't see anything in RS4K that takes any kind of leap of faith or huge jumps in assumptions. Edited June 17, 2009 by Karin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peek a Boo Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 Have you read RS4K yourself and heard Dr. Keller speak? First, I've heard Dr. Keller speak and spoken with her personally. She is NOT an advocate of Intelligent Design. I've read her biology text, and it is not design at all. I've read books on ID, evolution and creationism (by advocates of each area, and there is huge variation in each group so I've read more than one of each). Very vew people I know can claim the same. RS4K Biology simply states what it without any explanation of design or evolution at all. It is the most neutral biology book I've ever read. She actually supports creationism, but believes ID is a starting point to try and get evolutionists and creationists to talk with each other. Dr Keller was raised an atheist and stayed one until grad school, so she is very familiar with more than one side of the argument here. In fact, she is very well versed in all 3 camps. While some ID proponents are Christian, many are agnostics and some are atheists, etc. What she's trying to do is to stand up for scientists who don't support evolution so that everyone gets a fair shake, which isn't what happens (I have atheist relatives in the sciences and I have a very good idea of how things are viewed in academia.) Yes, her curriculum IS secular; there is simply no interpretation at all. ok, well i guess THAT is that, lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Bay Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 (edited) well that answers that :) ETA I stand corrected, but not from this thread, I'm just putting that in this post that I'm editing first. I finally found the word design in chapter 3, and, honestly, in the context it doesn't scream ID or creationism. In fact, I can't see how it contradicts any of the 3 big ones. I think she could have used the word structure though, instead of design. She wrote "Because of their design, leaves can collect much more sunlight than any other part of the plant." However, if you read the entire page and book, she's not teaching design. And since I know she isn't an ID theorist I suppose it clouds my perspective of that. She does discuss how cells and organelles are highly organized, but there are evolutionists who call them highly organized; the difference would be in how they came to be highly organized. What I think is interesting is that the old family friend we have who is studying evolution is using bacteria because they are simpler and don't have junk DNA (so I didn't get my junk DNA question answered when I saw him at my brother's wedding.) Edited June 17, 2009 by Karin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audrey Posted June 17, 2009 Author Share Posted June 17, 2009 eta: and you all think it's hard finding secular stuff. It's even worse when you are from overseas... to find curriculum that is both secular and without strong American bias for history anyway.. Very very hard (sorry... comma key still broken) I'm going to take a serious look at Galore Park this coming year; they even write words like colour properly ;) I hear you! I struggle with this constantly. I much prefer the British offerings -- after all, we share a Queen -- and supplement from there. Galore Park is not only completely secular, it is also of excellent quality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Bay Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 ok, well i guess THAT is that, lol. :001_smile: I just edited my other post to you... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunshine State Sue Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 Yes, her curriculum IS secular, but it doesn't espouse evolution. :iagree: I only have experience with RS4K Physics for 4th grade, but I would call it secular. And although I didn't continue with RS4K, it was due to the expense for what you get rather than anything else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovedtodeath Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 Thank you so much for your very thorough explanation Karin. Now everyone can more accurately decide if RS4K would present a problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wjpike1 Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 I have used all 3 of the RS4K books and I think they are completely secular as far as I remember. I didn't see any reference to intelligent design other than in her own commemts oon the website about her own beliefs. It doesn't come through in the books though. I think she wanted to make it usable for anyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wjpike1 Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 Yes, her curriculum IS secular, but it doesn't espouse evolution. But to be clear, I don't really think the subject of evolution would need to come up with the subjects of Physics, Chemistry, and Biology (at this level). For Biology she talks about cells, vertebrate vs invertebrates, living vs non-living, parts of a plant, etc. It doesn't go into natural selection or evolution. At least with the Level 1 books I used. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patchfire Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 I don't really think the subject of evolution would need to come up with the subjects of Physics, Chemistry, and Biology (at this level). For Biology she talks about cells, vertebrate vs invertebrates, living vs non-living, parts of a plant, etc. It doesn't go into natural selection or evolution. At least with the Level 1 books I used. I'm going to disagree wrt to biology. As someone trained as a biologist and who "believes" in evolution (as much as one can use that term for a scientific theory), evolution IS biology. As my college advisor loved to quote, "Evolution is THE central unifying principle of biology." Yes, we did 1st grade biology without touching on evolution. Would I ever attempt logic stage biology without evolution (or creationism, or ID, for that matter)? Emphatically, no. YMMV. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wjpike1 Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 I agree with you. I used the Level 1 materials. I don't think you have to discuss evolution in regard to the parts of a plant at that level. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peek a Boo Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 ETA I stand corrected, but not from this thread, I'm just putting that in this post that I'm editing first. I finally found the word design in chapter 3, and, honestly, in the context it doesn't scream ID or creationism. In fact, I can't see how it contradicts any of the 3 big ones. I think she could have used the word structure though, instead of design. She wrote "Because of their design, leaves can collect much more sunlight than any other part of the plant." However, if you read the entire page and book, she's not teaching design. And since I know she isn't an ID theorist I suppose it clouds my perspective of that. aha! well, THAT's gotta be the final answer, no? :D :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovedtodeath Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 aha! well, THAT's gotta be the final answer, no? :D :lol: Ah, yes... the type of things that make me take 3 times longer writing. I have to scrutinize every word. I am very sorry that if I perpetuated misinformation. The author of RS4K has my apologies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karenciavo Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 UG. So the content (as opposed to the author) is not secular? It is an excellent handbook on logic, but there are some examples and exercises that mention God and Jesus. Kreeft includes passages from writer's such as Augustine, Anselm, and Aquinas. These men were very logical. He also uses arguments made by men such as Machiavelli, Marx, and Mill, and of course Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. There is no prosthelytizing (sp :confused:) that I can recall, but it's simply a matter of fact in the book that Jesus is the son of God. Peter Kreeft is a very good teacher. I think I would still like this book even if I were not a Christian. I know I still love his teaching even when he disses the theology I hold as true (he's a convert to Catholicism.) I don't percieve any agenda. But it's an expensive book so that's the problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 I am very sorry that if I perpetuated misinformation. The author of RS4K has my apologies. Why? She has a viewpoint way outside of the scientific mainstream (understatement as she is a leading advocate of "Intelligent Design") and tries to hide her affiliations on her web-site. This is not straight-forward. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovedtodeath Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 Why? She has a viewpoint way outside of the scientific mainstream (understatement as she is a leading advocate of "Intelligent Design") and tries to hide her affiliations on her web-site. This is not straight-forward. Bill Well, I really spoke out of line considering that I have not used nor looked over the curriculum. I merely perpetuated hearsay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 Well, I really spoke out of line considering that I have not used nor looked over the curriculum. I merely perpetuated hearsay. Then go to her web-site and see for yourself if she owns up to her ID associations, or if she hides them. Then you can decide if her approach seems straight-forward to you. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovedtodeath Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 (edited) Then go to her web-site and see for yourself if she owns up to her ID associations, or if she hides them. Then you can decide if her approach seems straight-forward to you. Bill I thought we were wanting to know if RS4K was useable. I don't consider the author's beliefs an issue unless they turn up in the program. Of course, you are discussing this with someone who fought using Abeka tooth and nail until a teacher friend gave the Arithmetic program to her. And it saved my DD from Dad putting her in Public School... I am a bit more open-minded now. Edited June 18, 2009 by Lovedtodeath Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heather in VA Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 Best: Analytical Grammar Life of Fred VideoText Algebra Classical Writing Heather Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Bay Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 Why? She has a viewpoint way outside of the scientific mainstream (understatement as she is a leading advocate of "Intelligent Design") and tries to hide her affiliations on her web-site. This is not straight-forward. Bill She's a creationist, or so she said in person. As I mentioned, she wants to use ID to open dialogue between evolutionist and creationists as well as ID people. What she doesn't like is how those who don't agree with evolution are often verbally attacked (yes, it really happens--I've seen it in person.) Since theories come and go and there are different varieties of evolution, and since most evolutionists have held onto the "science should be falsifiable" part and ditched the rest of the points made with that, and since I think that we ought to remember that evolution that includes the addition of genetic material and separation beyond fish to fish or fly to fly has yet to be proven we need to leave the door open for other theories and explanations. This is just ethical. You don't have to agree with them all, of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Bay Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 (edited) I'm going to disagree wrt to biology. As someone trained as a biologist and who "believes" in evolution (as much as one can use that term for a scientific theory), evolution IS biology. As my college advisor loved to quote, "Evolution is THE central unifying principle of biology." Yes, we did 1st grade biology without touching on evolution. Would I ever attempt logic stage biology without evolution (or creationism, or ID, for that matter)? Emphatically, no. YMMV. As someone who was a firm believer (yes, I use that term without quotes) in evolution until I studied in detail in university (not as any kind of Christian at the time) I think that evolution, ID and creationism should all be studied and discussed using logic and thinking. All 3, and intelligently, whether or not you agree with any of them (you're not likely to agree with all of them ;).) What I prefer, however, is to separate that discussion from my regular biology textbook. This is why I like RS4K. I think that the labs for level 1 biology are sometimes too simple for that level and can see areas that could be improved (Chemistry is her longsuit), but it makes it so much easier for me to handle science the way I want to handle it. I plan to have my dc read books and/or articles by evolutionists, ID proponents and creationists and use methodology, etc with them. I also plan to have my dc read some of Karl Popper with me since he's the one who came up with the "All science should be falsifiable" point so they can read it in the context he wrote it and see all the other points he included in what he thought ought to make science scientific. I find that many of the important points there are ignored, so I think it would be great to explore that. That will be an area where we can combine philosophy, logic and science. fwiw, he didn't say that science was the only way to come up with truth. Perhaps there are others who've written on that that we'll read about that we don't know about yet. What scares me is when there is only one acceptable scientific explanation for biology allowed. I don't think that the evidence for evolution is as strong as the evidence for the atomic theory and that ought to be my inherent right to think since we're supposed to have intellectual freedom here. I don't see that going from one fish to a new fish proves the addition of genetic information (because there is no increase there). But even with the atomic theory, there is still so much we don't know and understand. So much has changed there since I was in hs, and none of us knows what it will look like in 50 or 100 years. Edited June 18, 2009 by Karin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovedtodeath Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 As someone who was a firm believer (yes, I use that term without quotes) in evolution until I studied in detail in university (not as any kind of Christian at the time) I think that evolution, ID and creationism should all be studied and discussed using logic and thinking. All 3, and intelligently, whether or not you agree with any of them (you're not likely to agree with all of them ;).) What I prefer, however, is to separate that discussion from my regular biology textbook. This is why I like RS4K. I think that the labs for level 1 biology are sometimes too simple for that level and can see areas that could be improved (Chemistry is her longsuit), but it makes it so much easier for me to handle science the way I want to handle it. I plan to have my dc read books and/or articles by evolutionists, ID proponents and creationists and use methodology, etc with them. I also plan to have my dc read some of Karl Popper with me since he's the one who came up with the "All science should be falsifiable" point so they can read it in the context he wrote it and see all the other points he included in what he thought ought to make science scientific. I find that many of the important points there are ignored, so I think it would be great to explore that. That will be an area where we can combine philosophy, logic and science. fwiw, he didn't say that science was the only way to come up with truth. Perhaps there are others who've written on that that we'll read about that we don't know about yet. What scares me is when there is only one acceptable scientific explanation for biology allowed. I don't think that the evidence for evolution is as strong as the evidence for the atomic theory and that ought to be my inherent right to think since we're supposed to have intellectual freedom here. I don't see that going from one fish to a new fish proves the addition of genetic information (because there is no increase there). But even with the atomic theory, there is still so much we don't know and understand. So much has changed there since I was in hs, and none of us knows what it will look like in 50 or 100 years. Oh Karin, please write a science curriculum. That is exactly what I would like to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Bay Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 Oh Karin, please write a science curriculum. That is exactly what I would like to do. :lol::lol: I don't have the credentials; I don't have enough degrees. I'm going to do the best I can, which probably won't be as much as I'd like to since there are only so many hours in a day, my dc have activities, I garden, and my dc aren't always as excited about doing all of this as I am. Plus, there is no way to do this and please everyone. Perhaps not anyone ;). But one of the main reasons we homeschool is because I want my dc to learn how to think for themselves. This is a lot harder than most of us realize, and it's a lot harder than I thought it would be. I'm reading a great, secular book called Iconoclast that I'm finding extremely interesting, and just how hard it is to form independent ideas and opinions comes up in that book. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radiobrain Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 I personally *adore* the Aquatic ape theory... :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenny in Atl Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Best: GP (most all of their stuff - Latin, science, English, history...). PH Science Explorers & and a new one we will use next year, Science Matters by Robert Hazen Susan Strauss-Art's early and middle ages history bks Warriner's Grammar Foerster's Algebra I & Singapore Math Spielvoge's The Human Odyssey (though a high school level text, it's not too hard for a bright middle schooler) The Book of Think (logic) History of Art for Young People by Janson Not so hot: History Odyssey (also found it to be boring and too much busy work) Analytical Grammar (It was overkill with Classical Writing, which is not totally secular, but great. I should have listed it above, but I'm trying to list all secular texts). Power Glide:tongue_smilie: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovedtodeath Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 The Book of Think (logic) Did you all see this??? :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunshine State Sue Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Did you all see this??? :D I've already requested it from my library. ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Bay Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 I've already requested it from my library. ;) I've ordered it from my library, too. Of course, I want to know just how you determine if a problem is twice your size ;). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jen500 Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Did you all see this??? :D LOL. I just looked at this on Amazon (The Book of Think) and realized I have it on my bookshelf, along with Math for Smarty Pants. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngieW in Texas Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Best Singapore Primary Math Prentice Hall Science Explorer Rewards Reading (remedial reading program for 6th grade and up) Winston Grammar Megawords Sequential Spelling IEW SWI-B US history-based writing lessons volume 1 (volume 2 is geared more towards high school) Daily Math Practice workbooks from Evan-Moor, but they only go up to 6th grade level I don't really have a worst list. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovedtodeath Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 LOL. I just looked at this on Amazon (The Book of Think) and realized I have it on my bookshelf, along with Math for Smarty Pants.Well I have two books to add to my wishlist. For later, of course, or maybe they could help kick my brain into gear. ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stripe Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 (edited) Thank you for the suggestion of Susan Strauss Art ; I'd never heard of her before but the books look interesting. LOL. I just looked at this on Amazon (The Book of Think) and realized I have it on my bookshelf, along with Math for Smarty Pants. I read these books when I was young; I have vivid memories of them (also This Book is About Time). I wonder if I've got them in a box somewhere....? Edited June 19, 2009 by stripe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiana Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 I read these books when I was young; I have vivid memories of them (also This Book is About Time). I wonder if I've got them in a box somewhere....? Me too, also The I Hate Mathematics Book and Martin Gardner's Aha Gotcha and Aha Insight. I think these books did more for my overall mathematical ability than any curriculum we used. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kareni Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 And if anyone does have a source for a good secular logic, please do let me know! Every time I see a new title mentioned I get all excited and check it out, only to find out that it is Christian. :glare: I'm this close to buying the Kreeft book and trying to parse it (someone please don't tell me that one isn't secular too). This blogpost from hmsindefatigable lists a couple of interesting resources for a secular study of logic and philosophy. Regards, Kareni Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stripe Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 It might be more appropriate for those wanting wants an in depth discussion of history curricula in terms of SOTW vs. HAOH or whatever the acronyms are, could start a spin-off thread and go into that there. I think the pros and cons of various approaches can be helpful, but the thread is about secular curricula in grades 5-8, not only these two. Just thinking.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radiobrain Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 And I think I was the first one to mention his curriculum. But that was so many pages ago... who knows:tongue_smilie:! I know that as he is an advertiser in Secular HS mag, and Deborah is pretty stringent about her advertising, it would be an important secular curriculum option for grades 5-8. I plan on using it this year. I appreciate anyone who caters to the secular HS community, as there are few options out there.... really. Why else are there so many threads about secular stuff or "can I secularize x,y,z?". I think any discussion and mention of any product that is a. secular and b. not a school curriculum modified for HSing is a good thing. Also, I always appreciate people mention several things they like, as people who enjoy one type of thing, usually like another.... and if I agree with a few of their selections, I trust that I will probably find value in their other selections. So, as this thread is insanely long, and I need to get off the computer I will re-list my suggestions for this age group.. as I have a 5th & 4th grader, but they are TAGlets with a crappy set of writing skills. MCT LA series --excellent Singapore/ Zaccaro / KEy to..../ Penrose the mathmatical cat- theoni pappas books Teaching Company video/ audio lectures graphic novels seeing shakepeare performed live AAS (spelling) bits and peices of Bravewriter I will be using HAOH Science, I am still unsure about, but they do classes at the local gifted program several times a year The way life works Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kckamy Posted June 24, 2009 Share Posted June 24, 2009 My favorites are: Wordly Wise Easy Grammar Evan Moor Daily Paragraph Editing Scott Foresman Science (have 2nd + 3rd grade for sale) Amy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovedtodeath Posted June 24, 2009 Share Posted June 24, 2009 My favorites are: Evan Moor Daily Paragraph Editing Scott Foresman Science (have 2nd + 3rd grade for sale) Amy :auto: I love this thread! Checking these out! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rafiki Posted June 24, 2009 Share Posted June 24, 2009 . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Bay Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 For those who followed this thread and the comments about RS4K being design, here's a link to a post I just made with some links to articles & a book that apparently show that the word design is regularly used in this field, and doesn't necessarily mean ID. http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?t=112829 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.