lisasaysto Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 The Usborne Illustrated Encyclopedia of the Natural World is out of print. Is it worth trying to find a used copy or will another book be a good substitute? I'd like to have a good science encyclopedia on hand in case we are running behind on trips to the library. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mommy22alyns Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 I used that book for a different life science this year and although I love Usborne books, that was not my favorite. If you can't find a good price on a used copy, I'd find a different text. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasharowan Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 We used the life science this year without it. We have the Kingfisher Science Encyclopedia a couple of times, but mostly we used books from the library on whatever we covered. This was with 2nd & 3rd graders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillieBoy Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 We used the Kingfisher Science Encyclopedia. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lisasaysto Posted July 4, 2009 Author Share Posted July 4, 2009 Thanks, y'all! I'm always hesitant to buy something I can't see samples of. I guess the Internet has spoiled me. I see the Natural World volume is available used on Amazon in various conditions if anyone who stumbles on this thread wants a copy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenmamato3 Posted July 5, 2009 Share Posted July 5, 2009 (edited) this is really great to know about the natural science volume. i think i'll opt for the Kingfisher Science Encyclopedia. Do you generally feel it works for early grammar as well as later? Or is it just too heady for lower grammar? ALSO how does the Usborne Internet-Linked Science Encyclopedia compare to the Kingfisher? I'd really prefer to NOT have a bulk of pages at the front about evolution and all that. we're schooling from creation standpoint. Edited July 5, 2009 by greenmamato3 forgot one thing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillieBoy Posted July 5, 2009 Share Posted July 5, 2009 this is really great to know about the natural science volume. i think i'll opt for the Kingfisher Science Encyclopedia. Do you generally feel it works for early grammar as well as later? Or is it just too heady for lower grammar? ALSO how does the Usborne Internet-Linked Science Encyclopedia compare to the Kingfisher? I'd really prefer to NOT have a bulk of pages at the front about evolution and all that. we're schooling from creation standpoint. I would say the Kingfisher would take you up through 6th grade or so, it is pretty meaty and somethings are a bit over a 1st grade level. You also may not like it because it bills itself as a Science Encyclopedia and does not adapt to a creation standpoint. I did find an interesting web site that has some other sources http://www.answersincreation.org/homebook.htm but I'm not sure how it will relate to R.E.A.L. Cheers, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenmamato3 Posted July 5, 2009 Share Posted July 5, 2009 thanks for the look at those. i have a few dinosaur story books that handle that issue, and everything else will be "framed up" by me from a creation standpoint. the reason for avoiding the initial "evolution" pages and "what happened 38 million yrs ago" is b/c DS LOVES to sit and look through encyclopedia type books and there are certain ones that i cant let him just peruse b/c of how incongruent the facts in there are with what we're teaching him. we're not trying to keep him in the dark ... we're just trying to make sure we convey that we believe God formed it all .... soooo. i'm debating between the usborne internet-linked science and the kingfisher science. my kingfisher history enc has about 3 or 4 pages of "400 million yrs ago, et al" (ha!), and the usborne internet-linke world history enc has like 15 or 20. :( so if that's the same with the science . . . well, then i have my answer. anyone know?! 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.