Is Noeo Science secular?

[swimmermom3]

So... it looks like Noeo is written with secular materials and has no comment from the authors to stear it in a non-secular way in the lessons, but some may object to their statement in the front that is written in the Teacher's Manual. Is that a good sum up of the OP?

 

I have Noeo Chem. III on deck for 6th grade and that's what it looks like. I read through the materials and all I could find was that opening statement. I hope this course is going to be solid. It's really just lining up materials that are already done by someone else. It's not a "fresh" curriculum. KWIM?

[nmoira]

So... it looks like Noeo is written with secular materials and has no comment from the authors to stear it in a non-secular way in the lessons, but some may object to their statement in the front that is written in the Teacher's Manual. Is that a good sum up of the OP?

The only question remaining is whether evolution is mentioned at all in the scheduled readings in the biology courses.

Edited July 24, 2009 by nmoira
clarity

[Lovedtodeath]

 

The only question remaining is whether evolution is mentioned at all in the scheduled readings in the biology books.

Thanks Moira, I forgot about that. It would seem odd if it weren't. So... someone get on that, will you?

[Storm Bay]

[i thought I'd posted this this morning...]

 

 

I've seen this claim before, but have problems reconciling it with:

 

ID Network Featured Speakers -- 2004

RS4K was begun under the umbrella of ARN (here's link for those not familiar with ARN)

 

ARN seems to be under the impression Ms. Keller is a proponent of ID:

 

 

In New Mexico one newspaper exclaimed “Evolution science staying in schools” after the Board of Education approved a new science standard. What they didn’t report was that “Evolution religion” had been removed. The new draft standard had been replete with materialistic dogma and ideology. Through the involvement and insistence of several proponents of Intelligent Design (including Dr. Rebecca Keller, author of RealScience-4-Kids and research chemist at the University of New Mexico), the curriculum committee agreed that dogma had no place in good science education and most of the offending remarks were removed. Furthermore, even though evolution would be taught as the leading scientific view for life on earth, the Education Department made it clear that developing critical thinking skills was an important part of science education and students and teachers were free to question evolution theory.

And she identified herself as such in an op-ed piece she co-authored for the Albuquerque Journal.

 

She has represented The Discovery Institute:

 

 

The Discovery Institute's two speakers, von Sternberg and Keller, met Jan. 23 in Columbia to tell Education Oversight Committee members why South Carolina's highly regarded science guidelines should carry critical analysis language pushed by Fair.

And a link to the Discovery Institute for those not familiar with it. Note their sub-site: http://www.intelligentdesign.org/

 

Note that though she is described at a former "research professor," most often by the Discovery Institute, this is and error and she was a research assistant. She also did some post doc work. I don't say this it undermine her credentials -- she has a PhD -- and I see no evidence that the initial mistake is hers (apparently dating from the dissent from Darwin statement). It is, however, a commonly seen error.

I haven't heard her claim to have been a research professor, and I don't know if she calls herself an ID proponent or if the editor did.

 

 

When she spoke at the convention I attended, she said that she saw ID as a starting point to open conversation between the 3 main camps in the origins of life, which are evolutionists, ID proponents and creationists (none of which, btw, all agree with each other in their own groups). Her goal is to get everyone talking together, or so she said. However, both evolutionists and creationists seem to hate ID about equally, based on what I've seen so far, so I'm not sure how successful this will be.

 

Perhaps this doesn't alarm me as much as it does you because I'm very alarmed living in a system where we only allow one scientific theory, no matter how crazy or wrong athest evolutionists view others. The reason is because the whole concept of "all science needs to be falsifiable" has been removed from its context (see Karl Popper on that) and in my personal experience with secular, atheist evolutionary scientists I have not seen objective work being done. What alarms me isn't evolution or Dr. Keller, but people who slam doors on dialogue between the camps. What I respect in this case is that she's trying to open those doors. In the article you linked by her, she wrote:

"Our goal from the beginning has been to keep all ideology and dogma out."

 

and

 

" The final draft is a huge step toward teaching science as objectively as possible."

"Evolution will be taught as the mainstream consensus view that it is, but these standards also will allow healthy discussion and critical examination of its claims."

 

This is why I homeschool, so we can have healthy discussions & critical examination of any claims, be they evolution, ID or creationism. I hate to see our society heading back to the old mentality of there being only one valid claim. This is what happened with science back in the middle ages, etc. Should we go back to that type of thinkig? What most people don't seem to realize is that both evolutionists & ID believe in evolution, and that many Christians who think they're evolutionists are actually ID. However, not all ID proponents are Christian or even believe in any kind of god/God.

 

The quote by her from another article you linked contains one quote from Dr. Keller:

"Taking the podium, Keller asked, "Where did we come from, how did we get here? These are both scientific and philosophical questions, and science, religion and/or philosophy have something to say about these two questions. The teacher's viewpoint may differ from the student's, but it is not the job of the teacher to judge between various viewpoints."

 

I agree with this, which is why we prefer to study evolution, etc, separately from biology. Evolutionary biology texts assume one answer without irrefutable proof. The fact is that there are still some very important things evolutionists have yet to prove, such as the addition of genetic material, and a number of biochemical issues where differences among animals is quite equidistant, even when the numbers of generations are enormous (such as insects & blue whales--the differences in the number of generations over thousands of years is astronomical.) Another point is that if we hold with the idea that all science has to be falsifiable, we have to also hold with the entire list, because it was a list of things that was to decide what is scientific. What's more, Dr. Popper, who came up with it, was very clear that this did not mean that science is the only way to find truth.

 

What I want to see are people talking with each other civilly, not slamming doors on each other or good, thoughtful discussion.

 

 

Edited July 24, 2009 by Karin

[nmoira]

I haven't heard her claim to have been a research professor, and I don't know if she calls herself an ID proponent or if the editor did.

I hope I made clear that I don't think the error was hers.

 

 

When she spoke at the convention I attended, she said that she saw ID as a starting point to open conversation between the 3 main camps in the origins of life, which are evolutionists, ID proponents and creationists (none of which, btw, all agree with each other in their own groups).

How does this not make her a proponent of ID?

 

BTW, she is also a member of and has served as an official spokesperson (and be may still) for ID-net in New Mexico. Here is a press release from ID-net NM naming her as such. This membership and her other affiliations are not mentioned on the Gravitas website.

 

What I want to see are people talking with each other civilly, not slamming doors on each other or good, thoughtful discussion.

Fair enough, but as I don't view ID as science I don't want to directly or indirectly support organizations which lobby for its inclusion in public school science curricula or the insertion of wishy-washy language regarding evolution. My original rejection of RS4K as a potential curriculum was because of my worries about her based on her associations and a lack of desire, money, etc. to evaluate it for myself. However, knowing what I know now, even if I had conclusive proof that RS4K were not in the least objectionable content-wise, I still would not purchase her products.

 

There was a bit of discussion about Ellen McHenry earlier in this thread. She has a link to her science museum from her curriculum website. If you Google her name, you don't find references to testimony before state school boards and membership in or affiliation with this or that organization. The author of NOEO clearly states his beliefs in the introduction pages of his books. There are no surprises here. Yes, we all have biases, but it seems that (whether set aside in the development of the curriculum or not) Dr. Keller has made it more difficult for those interested in RS4K to find hers.

Edited July 24, 2009 by nmoira
changed Ms to Dr.

[Storm Bay]

I hope I made clear that I don't think the error was hers.

 

How does this not make her a proponent of ID?

 

BTW, she is also a member of and has served as an official spokesperson (and be may still) for ID-net in New Mexico. Here is a press release from ID-net NM naming her as such. This membership and her other affiliations are not mentioned on the Gravitas website.

 

Fair enough, but as I don't view ID as science I don't want to directly or indirectly support organizations which lobby for its inclusion in public school science curricula or the insertion of wishy-washy language regarding evolution. .

 

 

Well, due to the fact that evolution science doesn't follow all the criteria that is supposed to make science science, I would like any interpretation of how life came to be the way it is today handled separately, therefore including all 3 would come under another subject. Of course, that would be in my ideal educational world ;).

 

The reason I don't want to include only evolution as an explanation for how life began (that always gets included) or for how we ended up with so many life forms, is because I'm not convinced that evolutionary biologists et al are following all of the following criteria, yet they adhere zealously to #4. Here's a link to a piece by Karl Popper where science needing to be falsifiable first came up. If you or others don't have time to read the whole article, here's the list (of course, it's better to read the list in context, so you know how and why he came to this list, etc) http://www.kenrahn.com/jfk/critical_thinking/Science_pseudo_falsifiability.html

 

The list (out of context):

 

 

 

These considerations led me in the winter of 1919–20 to conclusions which I may now reformulate as follows.

1. It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory—if we look for confirmations.

2. Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions; that is to say, if, unenlightened by the theory in question, we should have expected an event which was incompatible with the theory—an event which would have refuted the theory.

3. Every "good" scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen. The more a theory forbids, the better it is.

4. A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice.

5. Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it. Testability is falsifiability; but there are degrees of testability; some theories are more testable, more exposed to refutation than others; they take, as it were, greater risks.

6. Confirming evidence should not count except when it is the result of a genuine test of the theory; and this means that it can be presented as a serious but unsuccessful attempt to falsify the theory. (I now speak in such cases of "corroborating evidence.")

7. Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld by their admirers—for example by introducing ad hoc some auxiliary assumption, or by re-interpreting the theory ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation. Such a procedure is always possible, but it rescues the theory from refutation only at the price of destroying, or at least lowering, its scientific status. (I later described such a rescuing operation as a "conventionalist twist" or a "conventionalist stratagem.")

ie I don't think that evolution as it exists today should be considered more than a very good hypothesis, therefore, keep it all out of biology class or all in (evolution, ID, creationism, other explanations--I have a book out right now where a native American scholar lambasts both evolution and Christianity, but I'm busy reading Darwin's Origin of Species first. These kinds of threads always get me back reading more of this stuff.)

So, even though I don't agree with everything Dr. Keller does, I can't find another book that keeps away from those things as well as hers does.

 

fwiw, I hope it's clear that I enjoy discussing this and realize that in the end we're probably going to simply have to agree to disagree.

Edited July 24, 2009 by Karin

[nmoira]

fwiw, I hope it's clear that I enjoy discussing this and realize that in the end we're probably going to simply have to agree to disagree.

Understood. :)

 

I'm not going to get into a deeper discussion of ID or evolution here other than to state my own beliefs and expectations of curriculum. My only point of contention with you is that I cannot see how Dr. Keller (I called her Ms earlier... force of habit and I meant no disrespect) cannot be called a proponent of ID. There is also the larger discussion about different curriculums and authors and belief systems and what's acceptable within our own families, but this too has been largely personal, at least on my end.

[Peek a Boo]

That is the point Peek. They do not disclose that and as a person who gives a sizable amount to the Democratic party and is a precinct captain for my area , Southern Poverty Law Center and many other totally liberal,progressive causes there is no way that any ID/creationist PAC or any such company would get my name unless it was from that company.

"no way"?

I wouldn't say that. But I would certainly ask them outright and get confirmation before alleging something that widespread.

Is there any doubt that ARN reaps profits from the curricula sales???I included a link showing that specifically.

ARN is not the publisher. Anyone can buy something and resell it for a profit. Happens quite a bit, actually. So one shouldn't buy RS4K from ARN if they dislike ARN.

 

I am not worried about every dollar that I spend but I will not shop from a company whose entire agenda is completely against my intellectual , political and spiritual values. Walmart is a prime example . Personally ,I think it is great when people choose not to do business with a company that is a substantial supporter of a belief system that they find objectionable. I wish more people that espouse a certain set of beliefs would put their money where their mouth is. FWIW I do not back away from alleging that it is moral weakness and intellectually sloppy to spend money with a company when you know good and darn well that they support /contribute to causes, beliefs etc that you find objectionable.

 

and again --where is Gravitas Publications a "substantial supporter" of ID?

As an incorporated entity, what percentage of its profits go to support causes you don't support? Or are you just talking about salaries? [back to checking where ALL the money goes...]

If I focussed on a specific author, then anything by the author of The God Delusion would be immediately suspect because he obviously can't separate science from theology and thus understands neither. How can I trust my child's science education to someone like THAT?

 

I strongly believe in the power of the pursestrings...odd that this thread has riled up feathers, conservative christians have no problem with boycotting as a general rule ...I often go here

http://www.opensecrets.org/ or http://www.cpac.org/

to see where $$$$ is coming from in the area of politics. It is a reality check for me to see that politicians who espouse one thing and accept money that shows their disingenous pattern of behaviour. As always I appreciate your thoughtful response.

 

I don't mind boycotting something, and understand the concept -- Warren Buffet's Berkshire Hathaway companies support a LOT of pretty vulgar causes. But there are still a lot of us scratching our head here:

A completely secular curriculum is published, and since it is published by a company who pays an author to write curriculum, the work is analyzed from the view of the author's perspective, not what is put forth in the science curriculum. It reminds me of the secular folk dismissing the Christians who are too "weak in faith" to read something that might not be written by a christian author.

 

I'll have to reject your premise that it is moral weakness and intellectually sloppy to spend money with a company when you know good and darn well that they support /contribute to causes, beliefs etc that you find objectionable. If everyone took your advice, we'd miss out on helping a LOT of people. I find it the height of moral strength to be able to spend money or even time with a company/person that I know darn well supports causes and beliefs that i find objectionable. I wouldn't sit in a bar spending time with my dad, i wouldn't give a friend that works at PP a ride to work when her car breaks down, and I wouldn't babysit the kids of the dancer when her babysitter flakes out if i decided to focus on not being "intellectually sloppy" according to your standards.

 

But i guess if others see me as "morally weak" or "intellectually sloppy" because I know darn well that my time, money, and efforts are going to ultimately support those causes that i find horrific, then so be it.

 

again -- i do understand that some choose to boycott. But to assert that one is morally weak or intellectually sloppy if they don't is flat out wrong.

[Peek a Boo]

Yes, we all have biases, but it seems that (whether set aside in the development of the curriculum or not) Dr. Keller has made it more difficult for those interested in RS4K to find hers.

 

seems pretty easy, actually ;)

[elizabeth]

Peek wrote where is Gravitas Publications a "substantial supporter" of ID Gravitas Publications is Dr Keller's company.

http://www.bizjournals.com/gen/company.html?gcode=A01CD34BCBF8405D84D6CF762984D4EA I do not find her work to be secular due to the use of certain language that clearly indicates a creationist/ID pov that I am not interested in. I have nothing else to say about this and feel that we are simply going to have to agree to disagree but appreciate the response.

[Peek a Boo]

Peek wrote where is Gravitas Publications a "substantial supporter" of ID Gravitas Publications is Dr Keller's company.

http://www.bizjournals.com/gen/company.html?gcode=A01CD34BCBF8405D84D6CF762984D4EA I do not find her work to be secular due to the use of certain language that clearly indicates a creationist/ID pov that I am not interested in. I have nothing else to say about this and feel that we are simply going to have to agree to disagree but appreciate the response.

 

She may have started it, but it is incorporated.

Incorporation is the forming of a new corporation (a corporation being a legal entity that is effectively recognised as a person under the law).

 

 

So again: where does the *company* contribute to ID causes, as opposed to an employee contributing to ID causes? I'm not saying it doesn't, I just haven't seen proof that it does.

 

and the "language" was already discussed: lay folk are perceiving the use of the word "design" differently from how biologists use it. kinda like how some perceive the use of the word "theory."

[nmoira]

The only question remaining is whether evolution is mentioned at all in the scheduled readings in the biology courses.

 

Thanks Moira, I forgot about that. It would seem odd if it weren't. So... someone get on that, will you?

 

I've written the company. I also asked if any of the assigned readings reference the fact that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old.

[Storm Bay]

Understood. :)

 

I'm not going to get into a deeper discussion of ID or evolution here other than to state my own beliefs and expectations of curriculum. My only point of contention with you is that I cannot see how Dr. Keller (I called her Ms earlier... force of habit and I meant no disrespect) cannot be called a proponent of ID. There is also the larger discussion about different curriculums and authors and belief systems and what's acceptable within our own families, but this too has been largely personal, at least on my end.

 

 

It's okay. I've been very personal on this in the past in my life, so I understand. But I've reached an age and stage of development in my life where I don't so much anymore. I can't say that I agree with everything Dr. Keller says and does, just that I respect her for standing up and speaking out and that I was impressed with her intelligence and speaking skills when I saw her speak and answer questions.

[nmoira]

It's okay. I've been very personal on this in the past in my life, so I understand. But I've reached an age and stage of development in my life where I don't so much anymore.

Ooops... I see now that what I wrote was ambiguous to say the least. I meant personal as in my reasons for using this or that are unique to me and I understand that other secular homeschoolers might disagree with my choices, also for personal reasons. We all draw our own lines, as has been made quite clear by this thread. :)

 

As for debate, I just don't want to debate evolution or ID or gun control or abortion or anything here anymore (especially on the curriculum board). It just doesn't seem like a productive use of my time and energy. :)

[Storm Bay]

I've written the company. I also asked if any of the assigned readings reference the fact that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old.

 

 

ID believes the earth is that old (or one of the other ages evolutionists have used) and in evolution, just not in evolution by chance, so to speak. For educational purposes only (since I don't buy ID either) a secular take on ID by someone who doesn't believe in God, I recommend Michael Denton's Book http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Theory-Crisis-Michael-Denton/dp/091756152X I don't agree with all that he says, nor do I agree with ID, but I read the entire book and found it very interesting. Since you're an atheist, this would be a better suggestion than one by a Christian ID as they say that evolution was authored by God. You might be able to get it from the library; that's what I did.

 

Remember, creationists, especially young earth Creationists, hate ID as much as evolutionists do.

[nmoira]

ID believes the earth is that old (or one of the other ages evolutionists have used) and in evolution, just not in evolution by chance, so to speak.

I emailed NOEO, not RS4K. :) I don't think anyone has asserted that NOEO's author is an ID proponent.

[Storm Bay]

I emailed NOEO, not RS4K. :) I don't think anyone has asserted that NOEO's author is an ID proponent.

:o Oops. I saw that other link there and thought you'd emailed someone else. Time to get my foot out of my mouth and off the computer.

[nmoira]

 

:o Oops. I saw that other link there and thought you'd emailed someone else. Time to get my foot out of my mouth and off the computer.

I gave up with the foot thing ages ago. Mine seems permanently wedged in there. :tongue_smilie:

[nmoira]

I've written the company. I also asked if any of the assigned readings reference the fact that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old.

Here's the response:

Hello,

 

Thank you for your interest in Noeo Science. I apologize for the delayed response. I was out of town getting my son registered for college.

 

The Science Encyclopedia contains a short section on evolution. This is covered during the Biology II course. Old earth references are made in several of the books, including the DK Rocks and Minerals book, the Geology Rocks! book, and the Encyclopedia.

 

The question of whether or not the curriculum could be considered secular is mostly a question that is determined individually. The worldview of the student and teacher will determine how they receive the information.

 

If they are reading the materials with a Creator in mind, then that is the belief that they will maintain. If not, then there is no added "pressure" on them to change that. We choose not to use the science curriculum as a platform to inject our own beliefs and commentary. I believe that creation speaks for itself and does not need my help (or potential hindrance).

 

Please let me know if you have any other questions.

 

Sincerely,

Randy Pritchard

Noeo Science Curriculum, Ltd.

www.noeoscience.com

[Lovedtodeath]

Hmm. Thanks Moira. Am I the only one who thinks that the answer could be more clear?

[Storm Bay]

Here's the response:

 

 

Hello,

 

 

 

Thank you for your interest in Noeo Science. I apologize for the delayed response. I was out of town getting my son registered for college.

 

 

 

The Science Encyclopedia contains a short section on evolution. This is covered during the Biology II course. Old earth references are made in several of the books, including the DK Rocks and Minerals book, the Geology Rocks! book, and the Encyclopedia.

 

 

 

The question of whether or not the curriculum could be considered secular is mostly a question that is determined individually. The worldview of the student and teacher will determine how they receive the information.

 

 

 

If they are reading the materials with a Creator in mind, then that is the belief that they will maintain. If not, then there is no added "pressure" on them to change that. We choose not to use the science curriculum as a platform to inject our own beliefs and commentary. I believe that creation speaks for itself and does not need my help (or potential hindrance).

 

 

 

Please let me know if you have any other questions.

 

 

 

Sincerely,

 

Randy Pritchard

 

Noeo Science Curriculum, Ltd.

www.noeoscience.com

 

 

 

We had Noeo Chemistry. It did use old earth, secular books, such as the Usborne Science Encyclopedia. Of course, it was mostly Chemistry, but that is the book used with all that level courses. Honestly, the course didn't work well for us because it was too Charlotte Masony for my dd. We just didn't get around to it often enough. She was far less bored and more focused with RS4K (which we've overdiscussed here.) However, I can't remember how the Teacher's Guide was worded, so I can't say for that. If the Biology is the same, then I don't see how it would teach Creation, especially if many of the readings come from the Usborne book.

[nmoira]

 

If the Biology is the same, then I don't see how it would teach Creation, especially if many of the readings come from the Usborne book.

Yes, and as far as I know, every resource used by NOEO is secular in nature.

[Peek a Boo]

Hmm. Thanks Moira. Am I the only one who thinks that the answer could be more clear?

nope.

 

What's not clear is if any of the resources reference young earth or creationism.

[nmoira]

 

What's not clear is if any of the resources reference young earth or creationism.

You can view the complete list of resources used in each course yourself at the NOEO site. Unless I'm very much mistaken, they're all secular... so no, unless it's in an historical context. The NOEO books themselves add no content; they're merely lesson plans (Read pages x-y, Do a lab report, etc.)

[johnandtinagilbert]

I've been lesson planning all 3 levels of Noeo Chem over the past 3 weeks and yes, the spines are secular with no mention of a Creationist or ID reference. There is, however, an interjection only at the very beginning of the teacher's manual...which are simply charts of reading, questions to answer in notebooks, and words to define.

hth