Is Noeo Science secular?

[Lovedtodeath]

I think there's a distinction between a) written by a Christian, b) religous curriculum and c) written by a believer of ID/Creationism.

 

It's the last two that generally concern people. The first doesn't really mean anything on it's own.

Okay, so I don't need to worry so much, since I am writing history?

[WishboneDawn]

She's working on a second level of The Elements as well.

 

You just made my night! :D

[funschooler5]

I swear I'm not on a one woman crusade to blow your budget. ;)

 

Are you sure? I already ordered the poster, and I'm already loading up my Amazon cart. :lol:

[Satori]

I think there's a distinction between a) written by a Christian, b) religous curriculum and c) written by a believer of ID/Creationism.

 

It's the last two that generally concern people. The first doesn't really mean anything on it's own.

 

Exactly. Couldn't have said it better. If an evolutionist Christian wrote a science curriculum, I would definitely consider it.

[Lovedtodeath]

 

Exactly. Couldn't have said it better. If an evolutionist Christian wrote a science curriculum, I would definitely consider it.

Thanks Angela. That explains a lot. :) Do you start your history off with evolution of man?

[Satori]

Thanks Angela. That explains a lot. :) Do you start your history off with evolution of man?

 

We started our history this summer with a bang! Hehe, the big bang, as we started with universe and earth prehistory (before humans wrote/documented history). Then moved from one-celled life organisms all the way up to all the animal groups. My daughter especially loved learning how some fish evolved into amphibians which some evolved into reptiles, and seeing the early animals change and evolve into whatever it takes to survive, mate, and reproduce in their niches.

 

We haven't gotten specifically to early humans yet, but she's aware and fascinated by it all. She completely understands it, and both her and I have learned so much in terms of biology from our studies. I know my eyes have been opened more and that's why all this is so important to me (secular science by evolutionists).

 

Can't wait to move past this controversial topic in our studies and move into SOTW 1, as I know some of my blog followers are uncomfortable with it. :)

Edited June 25, 2009 by Satori

[Lovedtodeath]

We started our history this summer with a bang! Hehe, the big bang, as we started with universe and earth prehistory (before humans wrote/documented history). Then moved from one-celled life organisms all the way up to all the animal groups. My daughter especially loved learning how some fish evolved into amphibians which some evolved into reptiles, and seeing the early animals change and evolve into whatever it takes to survive, mate, and reproduce in their niches.

 

We haven't gotten specifically to early humans yet, but she's aware and fascinated by it all. She completely understands it, and both her and I have learned so much in terms of biology from our studies. I know my eyes have been opened more and that's why all this is so important to me (secular science by evolutionists).

 

Can't wait to move past this controversial topic in our studies and move into SOTW 1, as I know some of my blog followers are uncomfortable with it. :)

Did you use the UILE History of the World? DD and I really liked reading the prehistory in there.

[Satori]

Yep, that's what got us started and excited about prehistory, otherwise, I probably would've skipped it and moved right into SOTW Egyptians. DD loved seeing that spiral of time in the book.

 

[Peek a Boo]

Well if the author of the God Delusion wrote a science series and included commentary in the introduction espousing his belief that religion is dangerous and irrational, and God(s) non-existent, I would like-wise take a pass on such materials.

 

Like the author of RS4K, he's already made that belief clear elsewhere. So based on your reasoning, i should dismiss his work?

 

I don't see science materials as an opportunity for an author to "preach" his or her faith (or anti-faith) position to me and my family.

 

And your characterization of my attitudes is flat-out wrong and insulting.

My characterization of your attitude is based on a history of factual posts. It doesn't look "flat out wrong" to me. That, or your posts have been flat out wrong. and I'm not the only one noticing it, as Lovedtodeath shared:

Well then, Spycar didn't call you dishonest with a hidden agenda?

 

Or you could put the opposite, and Spycar would be outraged and refuse to shop there. ;) :lol:

 

I'm sure it is insulting. That kind of thinking should be.

 

You didn't like it when the author of RS4K "hides" her faith and beliefs. So another author says "ok, i think I'll be explicitly upfront so Bill won't flip out. and i'll put it in the non-content introduction of the adult manual so that those w/o internet access will know too." oops, no, not good enough.

 

 

 

we obviously have different ideas of what "preach" vs "stating your belief so all parties are clear" means ;)

 

What i find insulting and anti-science is judging a work based on the author's beliefs, not the content of the work itself.

 

 

2. Science for me, MUST be 110% secular. I don't want the slightest chance of hidden creationism/ID ideas creeping in. Science is the study of the natural world, not the supernatural world. Even though I'm pretty sure Noeo Science doesn't tout creationism/ID, I'd be worried they'd be leaving some science out, or avoiding some true science. (If they do teach true science, let me know.)

 

..and that is why i found it HILARIOUS when during the abortion debates TWO biology books were linked that discussed quite a bit of ethics and THEOLOGY, lol!!!

 

But honestly --how can you know if something teaches "true science" if you don't look at it yourself?

 

True secular curriculums that are done well need to be supported, the industry is dominated by religious curriculums.

.... But again, science is very important for me to know 110% that it is secular.

 

and again: shouldn't true science be supported PERIOD, regardless the scientist's faith? It is completely UNscientific to consider the scientist's FAITH instead of his work.

 

 

I'm Christian and I've ruled out Noeo for the same reason as Bill. The problem with the statement of faith in a homeschool curriculum is that too often it's code for the fact that there will be content a lot of homeschoolers don't feel is scientific or good science will be excluded in order to appeal to certain Christian homeschoolers.

 

except that when you have some secular homeschoolers wanting to know upfront the author's beliefs and others wanting to know that something is 110% secular because of "hidden agendas", then how are those reconciled?? If everyone is automatically assuming "it's code" for some agenda, then how can honest intellectual discourse or assessment of a work take place?

Edited June 26, 2009 by Peek a Boo

[Mom-ninja.]

Those are some cool posters!

 

 

 

As for curriculum authors declaring their faith I have no issue with it. If there is stuff in the material I don't like I've learned to make adjustments....as long as it's not too much to make it hard.

 

With the number of homeschoolers growing it's hard to please everyone.

 

It's good to see secular curriculum becoming a higher demand. Gives me more choices. :D

 

As for NOEO so far I like it. I have not run into any issues at all the religious content. A statement of faith in the intro does not bother me.

 

In fact, I like how NOEO gives a "warning" about secular/evolution content in books they use. Let's me know I'll like the book. ;) Same goes for Rainbow Resource. Their book/curriculum reviews with secular warnings always points me in the right direction. :lol:

[Peek a Boo]

In fact, I like how NOEO gives a "warning" about secular/evolution content in books they use. Let's me know I'll like the book. ;) Same goes for Rainbow Resource. Their book/curriculum reviews with secular warnings always points me in the right direction. :lol:

 

could you elaborate a bit on this?

what kind of warning?

[jplain]

What i find insulting and anti-science is judging a work based on the author's beliefs, not the content of the work itself.

Peek, I agree ~100% with what you've written in this thread, so I'm not trying to be argumentative. This atheist is completely comfortable with both RS4K and NOEO.

 

However, the one thing that trips me up is trying to figure out whether an author's belief system might lead to a subtle bias that I might miss in the content.

 

From the other thread on secular resources, the example of the use of the word design in RS4K is a good one. I'm a biologist, and in my training the word design was thrown around all the time. No one was using it in the creation sense! It was a sort of abbreviation that referred either to something encoded in the DNA, or more directly to a structure and its intended (ha! another loaded word!) function. So I'm not flustered if the word design is used once in a while, even if the writer is a proponent of ID/creationism. I know that's how many biologists talk, and context makes it clear that religion isn't the reason for the use of the word.

 

But moving on to one of the other curricula discussed in the other thread, I'll freely admit that I don't know enough about either history or Objectivism. So I'm not confident that I could identify subtle bias in HAOH, because I'm not sure I know enough about what Objectivism is and isn't. And that makes me think I might fail to provide alternative points of view when necessary.

 

Maybe I sound like an idiot for saying that. Shouldn't I be able to recognize what I do and don't believe? Ack, send those kids to school where the real teachers are! ;) But this is hard stuff, even for adults. I not sure that I"ll have a firm enough grasp on it to make sure I'm not leaving my kids with attitudes about history that I didn't intend to convey.

 

So I can see why a profession of beliefs, inside or outside of curriculum materials, might lead some to reject a curriculum. Even if it seems fine on a first browsing, the curriculum taken as a whole may be problematic.

Edited June 26, 2009 by jplain

[Peek a Boo]

 

However, the one thing that trips me up is trying to figure out whether an author's belief system might lead to a subtle bias that I might miss.

.......

So I can see why a profession of beliefs, inside or outside of curriculum materials, might lead some to reject a curriculum. Even if it seems fine on a first browsing, the curriculum taken as a whole may be problematic.

 

oh, i understand the reasons behind rejecting a curriculum based on a profession of faith, I'm just finding it a little funny to see atheists rejecting a science curriculum w/o reviewing it AS a science curriculum.

 

It's one thing to say "I don't trust my ability to notice the little things that others might be clever enough to spot," [cuz I've done that myself ;)], but it's quite another in the realm of science to dismiss a scientific work w/o even reviewing the scientific content thoroughly.

 

Of course, based on your comments, i do find it tickling to see atheists griping about design like Creationists gripe about theory... apparently neither side is well-versed in scientific terminology. :D

[Lovedtodeath]

deleted

Edited June 27, 2009 by Lovedtodeath

[Peek a Boo]

I am not sure why you are saying this to me. I will go back and read the post that I responded to in this quote.

 

sorry -- your quote was s'posed to go after ""not the only one" --I misplaced you ;)

 

I'll go fix it.

[Lovedtodeath]

deleted

Edited June 27, 2009 by Lovedtodeath

[Peek a Boo]

Oh! So you aren't arguing with me. Good. I wouldn't want that to happen.;)

Not yet ;)

 

But I certainly agree with your statement :D

[Mom-ninja.]

could you elaborate a bit on this?

what kind of warning?

 

There is just a mention that a certain book contains information about evolution or old earth so that parents who want to avoid that knows it is certain books.

 

I'm sure you've seen such reviews in the RR catalog.

[Lovedtodeath]

 

There is just a mention that a certain book contains information about evolution or old earth so that parents who want to avoid that knows it is certain books.

If there are books that teach old earth without teaching evolution, please turn me on to them. I have yet to find any, and would love to have them.

[Peek a Boo]

There is just a mention that a certain book contains information about evolution or old earth so that parents who want to avoid that knows it is certain books.

 

I'm sure you've seen such reviews in the RR catalog.

 

yeah, but RR isn't exactly being examined as to its secular-ness [secularity? lol...] ;)

in a discussion about whether a science program is secular or not, i would expect that including theology material [old earth] would make Noeo NOT 100% secular in content.

I would expect a 100% secular program to include no links or materials in content that have any theological explanations whatsoever. The biology books i mentioned in a previous post would NOT meet the "100% secular" rating.

 

It does sound like Noeo would fit the "not completely secular, but very usable by a secular family" category.

[sagira]

Deleted

[Peek a Boo]

I don't attempt to speak for Kleine Hexe here, but I *think* she means that RR says things like, "some parents may not be comfortable with the presentation of evolution as fact on pages so and so" and other such comments on their often lengthy reviews. I agree with Kleine Hexe, such "warnings" for conservative Christian parents are great for us secular curriculum buyers as well, as we'll say, Aha! I like this!

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, Kleine Hexe ;)

 

I agree :)

See post #71 for a clarification.

[Lovedtodeath]

Don't you love it when you are quoted and your ability to edit or delete is taken away? It always happens to me.

[Peek a Boo]

Don't you love it when you are quoted and your ability to edit or delete is taken away? It always happens to me.

 

what do you mean? I can still go back and edit posts that have been quoted....

 

Now if you just want to change your mind or rephrase a statement, you can do that too. :D

[Satori]

I don't know what the big deal is here, lol. People shouldn't be forced to consider a curriculum if they don't want, simple as that, for whatever reasons. I know I learned enough on this thread to confirm my suspicions that Noeo is something I'd want to avoid.

 

I feel like someone here is forcing me to consider Noeo... and more importantly is being rather insulting about it. That's more of a turn-off to me. ;)

[Spy Car]

The author's of Noeo have gone way beyond making a statement of faith, they have redefined science as "observing and describing God's

creation".

 

That is theology, not science. And is clearly not "secular".

[Lovedtodeath]

I don't know what the big deal is here, lol. People shouldn't be forced to consider a curriculum if they don't want, simple as that, for whatever reasons. I know I learned enough on this thread to confirm my suspicions that Noeo is something I'd want to avoid.

 

I feel like someone here is forcing me to consider Noeo... and more importantly is being rather insulting about it. That's more of a turn-off to me. ;)

 

The author's of Noeo have gone way beyond making a statement of faith, they have redefined science as "observing and describing God's

creation".

 

That is theology, not science. And is clearly not "secular".

 

Good points.

[kellycbr]

I don't know what the big deal is here, lol. People shouldn't be forced to consider a curriculum if they don't want, simple as that, for whatever reasons. I know I learned enough on this thread to confirm my suspicions that Noeo is something I'd want to avoid.

 

I feel like someone here is forcing me to consider Noeo... and more importantly is being rather insulting about it. That's more of a turn-off to me. ;)

 

The author's of Noeo have gone way beyond making a statement of faith, they have redefined science as "observing and describing God's

creation".

 

That is theology, not science. And is clearly not "secular".

 

 

:iagree:Thank you both for saying that.:)

 

Kelly

[Lovedtodeath]

what do you mean? I can still go back and edit posts that have been quoted....

 

Now if you just want to change your mind or rephrase a statement, you can do that too. :D

But you can't edit the quote. So everyone can read what you would prefer they not.

[nmoira]

 

I feel like someone here is forcing me to consider Noeo... and more importantly is being rather insulting about it. That's more of a turn-off to me. ;)

Like I said in my very first post on the subject, we all have to draw our own lines and decide when to extend the benefit of the doubt. Our job is not to objectively evaluate any and all curricula, but rather to make the best choices we can for our own families with the information available. We don't owe any curriculum author the benefit of the doubt, and certainly shouldn't be expected to have completed a detailed evaluation (which in most cases would involve actually purchasing the curriculum in question) before expressing why we wouldn't consider it.

[sagira]

Like I said in my very first post on the subject, we all have to draw our own lines and decide when to extend the benefit of the doubt. Our job is not to objectively evaluate any and all curricula, but rather to make the best choices we can for our own families with the information available. We don't owe any curriculum author the benefit of the doubt, and certainly shouldn't be expected to have completed a detailed evaluation (which in most cases would involve actually purchasing the curriculum in question) before expressing why we wouldn't consider it.

 

:iagree:Well said.

 

That said, I do find Noeo interesting, but feel I can do something similar myself without spending so many $$. However, it's still an option (fourth or fifth) if nothing else works.

[Lovedtodeath]

Like I said in my very first post on the subject, we all have to draw our own lines and decide when to extend the benefit of the doubt. Our job is not to objectively evaluate any and all curricula, but rather to make the best choices we can for our own families with the information available. We don't owe any curriculum author the benefit of the doubt, and certainly shouldn't be expected to have completed a detailed evaluation (which in most cases would involve actually purchasing the curriculum in question) before expressing why we wouldn't consider it.

I can really see the point now, because I am often in the position of defending my decision to not use My Father's World. Their philosophy does not agree with my own. Can we not have an argument about it every time?:tongue_smilie:

[swimmermom3]

oh, i understand the reasons behind rejecting a curriculum based on a profession of faith, I'm just finding it a little funny to see atheists rejecting a science curriculum w/o reviewing it AS a science curriculum.

 

It's one thing to say "I don't trust my ability to notice the little things that others might be clever enough to spot," [cuz I've done that myself ;)], but it's quite another in the realm of science to dismiss a scientific work w/o even reviewing the scientific content thoroughly.

 

Of course, based on your comments, i do find it tickling to see atheists griping about design like Creationists gripe about theory... apparently neither side is well-versed in scientific terminology. :D

 

Peek, I wish I had the money and the knowledge to review thoroughly the scientific content of each science program that I am contemplating, but I don't. Often, the only information I have to base my decision on is the introduction on the website or if I'm fortunate, some sample pages. A decision not to use a particular science program isn't a dismissal of the program's scientific content but an acknowledgment that it may not work for one's family or value system.

[Spy Car]

Like the author of RS4K, he's already made that belief clear elsewhere. So based on your reasoning, i should dismiss his work?

 

First the premise is simply not so. Dawkin's has made his Atheism manifestly clear (and at times obnoxiously so) but Keller has done everything possible to hide her affiliation to ID/Creationism. If you read her web-site there is NO MENTION that she is a leading proponent of ID and it tales "detective work" on the part of parents to discover this.

 

As to Dawkins, if he wrote an elementary science series and the introduction said: "God is a delusion, and people who believe in God are barking mad", then I would take a pass on his materials.

 

If an adult or older child want to explore the "God" debate, fine. Read Dawkins on Atheism. But again, this is not "science".

 

If he writes a book that is pure science, what do I care what his "God" position is? Same with a believer. If an author sticks to "science" (and only science) I could care less about their faith (or anti-faith) position.

 

But with an author as notorious as Dawkins my level of skepticism over the possible intrusion of his "world-view" would be higher than it might be with a scientist whose side-line wasn't battling religion.

 

Just as I'm skeptical about Keller and her promotion of ID/Creationism.

 

My characterization of your attitude is based on a history of factual posts.

 

No, it's not Peek. You have added deeply insulting layers of mischaracterizations that I find deeply offensive. And if others are lead to respond to the false characterizations of my views, then it only deepens the offense.

 

You didn't like it when the author of RS4K "hides" her faith and beliefs. So another author says "ok, i think I'll be explicitly upfront so Bill won't flip out. and i'll put it in the non-content introduction of the adult manual so that those w/o internet access will know too." oops, no, not good enough.

 

Read Keller's website. She hides her affiliations. She has every right to publish, and to hold her own opinions. And if any author want to include their theology in their introductions, fine. That way I know what to avoid.

 

The point, which you seem to be missing, is that including theology in an text makes it non-secular.

 

What i find insulting and anti-science is judging a work based on the author's beliefs, not the content of the work itself.

 

Whose done that? But defining science as "observing and describing God's creation" is "content". Keller omitting the Theory of Evolution is an omission of critical content. And an omission based on a theological position.

 

But honestly --how can you know if something teaches "true science" if you don't look at it yourself?

 

I can't. And that's a problem. Because I can't purchase every work on the market for review. I have neither the time nor the budget. And I'm no longer the naive parent after being burned badly more than once. And finding things in materials I find wildly inappropriate. So I have to do the best I can.

 

and again: shouldn't true science be supported PERIOD, regardless the scientist's faith? It is completely UNscientific to consider the scientist's FAITH instead of his work.

 

I completely agree.

 

except that when you have some secular homeschoolers wanting to know upfront the author's beliefs and others wanting to know that something is 110% secular because of "hidden agendas", then how are those reconciled?? If everyone is automatically assuming "it's code" for some agenda, then how can honest intellectual discourse or assessment of a work take place?

 

Are people wrong to want to know if an author has "hidden agendas"? Or even open agendas?

 

Can we pretend that there aren't dozens of programs teaching "secular" subjects like logic, math and science that have very particular religious and political positions of the authors bound up in them?

Edited June 26, 2009 by Spy Car

[Peek a Boo]

But you can't edit the quote. So everyone can read what you would prefer they not.

 

yeah --once those bullets are out you can't really suck them back in. This is where we simply have to eat our words and offer clarifications if need be.

[Lovedtodeath]

Took my questions to PM, sorry.

Edited June 27, 2009 by Lovedtodeath

[Peek a Boo]

First the premise is simply not so. Dawkin's has made his Atheism manifestly clear (and at times obnoxiously so) but Keller has done everything possible to hide her affiliation to ID/Creationism. If you read her web-site there is NO MENTION that she is a leading proponent of ID and it tales "detective work" on the part of parents to discover this.

 

she has attempted to keep her faith out of her science [as so many have asked], and you fault her for that.

it apparently didn't take THAT much detective work to find OUT her beliefs. How is that "trying to hide" them? you don't "do everything possible" to hide your beliefs by signing a Very Public statement. You are mischaracterizing what she has done.

 

and we're just going to have to leave it at each other being insulted. your views of handling debate in the scientific community are pretty insulting. You call it mischaracterization; i call it doing the exact same thing y'all are doing to authors: looking for code words and hidden/obvious agendas and pointing them out.

 

If he writes a book that is pure science, what do I care what his "God" position is? Same with a believer. If an author sticks to "science" (and only science) I could care less about their faith (or anti-faith) position.

 

which is what Keller did. but apparently you care very much about her position.

 

 

The point, which you seem to be missing, is that including theology in an text makes it non-secular.

no, I have that point VERY clear. The point, which YOU seem to be missing, is the purpose of an introduction and realizing that the introduction is very often quite independent from the content.

 

 

Whose done that? But defining science as "observing and describing God's creation" is "content". Keller omitting the Theory of Evolution is an omission of critical content. And an omission based on a theological position.

 

"The essence of science is simply observing and describing God's creation."

 

That is in the introduction to the parent. That's not "redefining" what science IS, it is clarifying to what he believes science applies. Redefining science would be something like "observing, describing, and making assumptions about the world around us."

 

the omission would be based on the fact that we have no evidence of evolutionary changes in so-called transitional fossils. Any interpretations of those fossils would be just that: interpretations. She makes it pretty clear what her science curriculum does and does not cover. I guess that's another "hidden" agenda. I find it stunning how things that can be easily figgered out are considered "hidden" lol.

 

and as far as open agendas? well that would be considering the scientist's faith or beliefs instead of judging their work. That became quite evident when a number of secular folk used RS4K for quite some time with little complaint, and then when someone bothered doing a google search about her beliefs, all of a sudden her curriculum is no longer acceptable. That's pretty telling.

 

You can certainly say that Keller omits non-observable material in her work --that would be basing your decision on the content, not the author's beliefs.

You can say that Noeo includes theological statements in the introduction. But does the content itself - that which is to be taught to the kids--include theological positions? based on what has been shared about them including OE resources, I would say YES, it does. THAT's where the "pure science" breaks down, not in his introduction.

 

 

I can't. And that's a problem. Because I can't purchase every work on the market for review. I have neither the time nor the budget. And I'm no longer the naive parent after being burned badly more than once. And finding things in materials I find wildly inappropriate. So I have to do the best I can.

 

we all have those experiences :). Where we obviously disagree is what is "wildly inappropriate."

 

 

Can we pretend that there aren't dozens of programs teaching "secular" subjects like logic, math and science that have very particular religious and political positions of the authors bound up in them?

 

nope.

don't forget history! :D

[Peek a Boo]

People shouldn't be forced to consider a curriculum if they don't want, simple as that, for whatever reasons. I know I learned enough on this thread to confirm my suspicions that Noeo is something I'd want to avoid.

 

I feel like someone here is forcing me to consider Noeo... and more importantly is being rather insulting about it. That's more of a turn-off to me. ;)

 

nobody's forcing anyone to consider Noeo --my only bugaboo is people who can't separate theological statements from scientific ones. That's about as logical as me reading the God Delusion and deciding to ignore all work by that particular author.

 

Often, the only information I have to base my decision on is the introduction on the website or if I'm fortunate, some sample pages. A decision not to use a particular science program isn't a dismissal of the program's scientific content but an acknowledgment that it may not work for one's family or value system.

 

maybe for you, but many ARE dismissing THE CONTENT completely. back to my response an inch above ;)

 

Like I said in my very first post on the subject, we all have to draw our own lines and decide when to extend the benefit of the doubt. Our job is not to objectively evaluate any and all curricula, but rather to make the best choices we can for our own families with the information available. We don't owe any curriculum author the benefit of the doubt, and certainly shouldn't be expected to have completed a detailed evaluation (which in most cases would involve actually purchasing the curriculum in question) before expressing why we wouldn't consider it.

 

I absolutely agree.

-- but if the reason you [general you] give for not considering it is at odds with the curriculum's actual content, then we end up in big discussions like this. :)

[Satori]

I actually seriously looked into Noeo science this spring, when homeschooling was still a tentative idea. I had never heard of the Hive, people were discussing it on another board. Ruled it out then based on their very first phrase on science "The essence of science is simply observing and describing God's creation."

 

I'm not going to study science with my child by simply observing and describing GOD's creation. I don't want to teach my daughter that the natural world was created by god, that to me is definitely religion.

 

If I can't separate that obvious theological statement from a scientific statement, then I don't know who can.

 

So Peek, we agree, let's move on then. Get over it. ;)

 

nobody's forcing anyone to consider Noeo --my only bugaboo is people who can't separate theological statements from scientific ones.

Edited June 27, 2009 by Satori

[Lovedtodeath]

Like I said in my very first post on the subject, we all have to draw our own lines and decide when to extend the benefit of the doubt. Our job is not to objectively evaluate any and all curricula, but rather to make the best choices we can for our own families with the information available. We don't owe any curriculum author the benefit of the doubt, and certainly shouldn't be expected to have completed a detailed evaluation (which in most cases would involve actually purchasing the curriculum in question) before expressing why we wouldn't consider it.

 

 

Moira, thank you for your balanced helpful reviews in this topic (secular science). I have seen them in other posts as well.

[Satori]

I will have to check nmoira's posts out on secular science! Based on your helpful posts on this thread (that IMO has spiraled out of control needlessly), I'm will be looking forward to reading more of your posts.

[Lovedtodeath]

let's move on then. (that IMO has spiraled out of control)

:iagree:I am going to do my part to rectify that.

Edited June 27, 2009 by Lovedtodeath

[Lovedtodeath]

Those are some cool posters!

It is a page from the Usborne Internet Linked Encyclopedia of History. The pictures and details of fossils/etc. in the pre-history section are excellent.

[Corraleno]

NOEO is not a written curriculum, but rather a series of lesson plans.

I just wanted to reiterate what nmoira said: the Noeo "instructor guide" is basically just a list of pages to read -- for each week there is a page that basically says "Read pp. X-XX in Such-n-such book. Write and draw what you learned." That's it. I was very disappointed in them. Ditto the "experiment kits" -- you're basically paying for someone else to put 2 balloons, some string, and a toothpick in a bag for you.

 

For a grammar stage science program that's very similar to Noeo (uses most of the same books), but with much better content and worksheets IMHO, look at the downloadable Elemental Science programs written by Paige Hudson ("Pata in VA" here on the forum).

 

I bought Chemistry for the Grammar Stage and thought it was much better than Noeo -- there are about 100 different student worksheets, tied to the content the student is reading, instead of one or two blank sheets that just have the student "write and draw what you learned." The Instructors Guide is also much more detailed than Noeo's -- and it's only $6 to download the IG and Student workbook. Directions for the experiments are included in the teacher's guide, and there's a handy list of all materials needed, week by week, in the front. You can then buy the recommended books 2nd hand or on Amazon or even borrow them from the library. There's also a yahoo group for those using the curriculum.

 

You can download the curriculum here:

http://www.elementalscience.blogspot.com/

 

Jackie

[Pata]

Thanks Jackie, I'm glad that you like what you see in Chemistry for the Grammar Stage. Just wanted to say that you can also purchase Elemental Science at out website, http://www.elementalscience.com.

[Peek a Boo]

I'm not going to study science with my child by simply observing and describing GOD's creation. I don't want to teach my daughter that the natural world was created by god, that to me is definitely religion.

 

If I can't separate that obvious theological statement from a scientific statement, then I don't know who can.

[/size][/size]

 

move on!?? but we were doing so well nitpicking the issue! ;)

 

seriously, one of the things that leaves me scratching my head here is how easy it IS to separate that obvious theological statement in an intro from the content of the science. Kinda like the RS4K stuff -- if there's nothing in the WORK that is theological, then why would her beliefs matter from a purely scientific perspective?

 

back to my irreconcilable question earlier.

 

oh well. mooovin' on......

[KidsHappen]

It would be great entertainment to have Peekaboo and Spycar over for dinner!

 

Are you kidding? I would find it quite scary.:scared:

[Marylou]

Are you kidding? I would find it quite scary.:scared:

 

:lol:

[Spy Car]

Could be scary AND entertaining :D

[kiana]

Could be scary AND entertaining :D

 

I'll bring the popcorn!

 

:lurk5: