Storm Bay Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 Recently there was a thread about secular curricula that had a tangent about RS4K. Someone stated (can't remember who) that the biology has design all over it. I didn't think so, although the word design is used. However, I have just read that the word design is actually used in certain areas of biology regularly, and got these titles from Dr. Keller. Here are some links. Anyone who is interested in this can check these out (I added the links, but didn't come up with the sources myself--I did some quick googling, not extensive research with these articles.) Books An Introduction to Systems Biology: Design Principles of Biological Circuits (Chapman & Hall/Crc Mathematical and Computational Biology) http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Systems-Biology-Mathematical-Computational/dp/1584886420 Journal articles: Protein design in biological networks: from manipulating the input to modifying the output. Van der Sloot AM, Kiel C, Serrano L, Stricher F. Protein Eng Des Sel. 2009 Jul 2. http://peds.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/gzp032v1 A systematic design method for robust synthetic biology to satisfy design specifications. Chen BS, Wu CH. BMC Syst Biol. 2009 Jun 30;3(1):66. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1752-0509/3/66/abstract Synthetic biology: exploring and exploiting genetic modularity through the design of novel biological networks. Agapakis CM, Silver PA. Mol Biosyst. 2009 Jul;5(7):704-13. Epub 2009 May 14. http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/MB/article.asp?doi=b901484e Common themes in the design and function of bacterial effectors. Galán JE. Cell Host Microbe. 2009 Jun 18;5(6):571-9. http://www.cell.com/cell-host-microbe/abstract/S1931-3128(09)00110-3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orthodox6 Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 The author is a believing Protestant, I think. The textbooks, however, stick to straight science. I have read portions of only two RS4K texts, and have not yet noticed any "in your face" Christian didacticism as is the case with some competitor science programs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatCyndiGirl Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 Dr Keller is a proponent of "Intelligent Design". We use RS4K and do NOT belive in ID/Creationism, but we teach what we believe and discuss the rest. Just wondering....are you opposed to the word "design"? Or the idea of ID? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Bay Posted July 8, 2009 Author Share Posted July 8, 2009 Dr Keller is a proponent of "Intelligent Design". We use RS4K and do NOT belive in ID/Creationism, but we teach what we believe and discuss the rest. Just wondering....are you opposed to the word "design"? Or the idea of ID? I'm not opposed to the word design. Someone on another thread was (that's why this is a spin off.) They thought that the word design was all over the Biology book, but I think I found it about 3 times. I like the way she presents science. But some won't use it because they feel she's an ID proponent. She is protestant, and if you heard her speak, you'd realize she's trying to open dialogue between the 3 camps, not close it. As for ID, that's a whole other topic for me. I just wanted to get this out there for those on that other thread (it was a secular curricula thread where there was a tangent on RS4K about this issue, so I went there and linked this thread.) We like RS4K, particularly the Chemistry 1 & 2. I really wanted a neutral approach with no interpretation of how life began (evolution/ID/creationism) and think that RS4K fits the bill. I was surprised to find out that some thought it didn't have that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peek a Boo Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 Just wondering....are you opposed to the word "design"? Or the idea of ID? it seems there are as many Christians latching onto the word theory in the Theory of Evolution as there are secular folk latching on to the word design in RS4K. With pretty much the same effect. neither camp seems to understand the modern scientific use of the words. ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 (edited) This is what Dr Keller say on her Real Science 4 Kids website: "Dr. Keller’s books are as philosophically neutral as possible and do not impose any single overall philosophical interpretation such as Darwinism, Intelligent Design, or Creationism. Instead, they allow students to make up their own minds about what the data show." So first she tries to paint "science" and scientific Theories as "philosophical interpretations". Already this puts her outside of the community of men and women who follow the scientific method. The wording is an attempt to be "clever" but it is insulting to one intelligence. And she tries to cast "Darwinism" as an ideology. It's a propaganda trick. The Theory of Evolution is a science and evidence based. It's is not a religion (or anti-religion) no matter what enemies of science may claim. Scientists and others who accept the Theory of Evolution as the best scientific explanation for the diversity of life on earth and for speciation though "natural selection" are not followers of some philosophy called "Darwinism". It's a cheap trick by those with an anti-science agenda. You can't be "neutral" between science and non-science if you want to be considered a scientist. Intelligent Design and Creationism don't hold up to any scientific scrutiny. If one believes theology trumps science, fine. But let's not compare Intelligent Design and Creationism (which have no evidence to support them), and the Theory of Evolution with is a very well supported scientific Theory. While she pretends to be "neutral" (between science and non-science) on her website and hides her affiliations, Dr Keller has signed a "Dissent from Darwinism" document and is an active proponent of Intelligent Design (while trying to hide this fact from home educators). I wouldn't spend a nickel to support a person who uses these tactics. Bill Edited July 8, 2009 by Spy Car Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmoira Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 I'm not opposed to the word design. Someone on another thread was (that's why this is a spin off.) They thought that the word design was all over the Biology book, but I think I found it about 3 times. I like the way she presents science. But some won't use it because they feel she's an ID proponent. She is protestant, and if you heard her speak, you'd realize she's trying to open dialogue between the 3 camps, not close it.I have said in the past that I won't consider using RS4K because of this (though I've only heard of a handful of examples of the use of the work "designed") because I'm not willing to extend the benefit of the doubt given her affiliations. It's not something I wish to take the time or energy or spend the money to vet because I have other options. However, upon reflection my bias against the product extends further back: A few years ago when I did my initial investigation of the curriculum, the first link that came up was ARN's, one of the distributors of RS4K. Biology that is acceptable to ARN is necessarily missing something I need for biology to be acceptable to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Bay Posted July 8, 2009 Author Share Posted July 8, 2009 it seems there are as many Christians latching onto the word theory in the Theory of Evolution as there are secular folk latching on to the word design in RS4K. With pretty much the same effect. neither camp seems to understand the modern scientific use of the words. ;) Good point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orthodox6 Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 When did the scientific meaning of "theory" change ? That is what I deduce from your paragraph. You do make a good point, if the point is that people who disbelieve in God's creation of the world react reflexively and negatively to the word "design", and that people who reject the theory (yep) of macroevolution react reflexively and negatively to the word "theory." If that's your drift, then I agree that people often shut down without reading further and/or thoroughly. The term "theory", however, has not changed in meaning, to my understanding. it seems there are as many Christians latching onto the word theory in the Theory of Evolution as there are secular folk latching on to the word design in RS4K. With pretty much the same effect. neither camp seems to understand the modern scientific use of the words. ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peek a Boo Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 So first she tries to paint "science" and scientific Theories as "philosophical interpretations". Already this puts her outside of the community of men and women who follow the scientific method. The wording is an attempt to be "clever" but it is insulting to one intelligence. And she tries to cast "Darwinism" as an ideology. It's a propaganda trick. The Theory of Evolution is a science and evidence based. It's is not a religion (or anti-religion) no matter what enemies of science may claim. Scientists and others who accept the Theory of Evolution as the best scientific explanation for the diversity of life on earth and for speciation though "natural selection" are not followers of some philosophy called "Darwinism". It's a cheap trick by those with an anti-science agenda. You can't be "neutral" between science and non-science if you want to be considered a scientist. Intelligent Design and Creationism don't hold up to any scientific scrutiny. If one believes theology trumps science, fine. But let's not compare Intelligent Design and Creationism (which have no evidence to support them), and the Theory of Evolution with is a very well supported scientific Theory. While she pretends to be "neutral" (between science and non-science) on her website and hides her affiliations, Dr Keller has signed a "Dissent from Darwinism" document and is an active proponent of Intelligent Design (while trying to hide this fact from home educators). i do agree that the use of "Darwinism" is inappropriate. however. The Theory of Evolution offers an explanation for something that can't be seen or tested: something that happened millions of years ago. The Theory of Evolution is only pure science as far as we can observe it in a lab. Applying that theory to objects millions of years old is where the theory comes in. Scientifically, there is no conclusive evidence of descent. THAT's where the ToE leaves the realm of Pure Science and enters the realm of philosophy. If it is insulting to point out the obvious, then so be it. There are plenty of philosophical sciences that are upheld by scientists. I have yet to enter an abortion debate w/o someone offering a bioethics argument. but thank you for pointing out that anyone who includes philosophy or religion in a text makes the text completely discredible-- that will come in handy later on. Jorsay had an interesting post about scientists currently redefining words to make theory sound great. But what I don't get-- Apparently the author of RS4K is so intent on deceiving the public that she signs public statements.....yeah..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Bay Posted July 8, 2009 Author Share Posted July 8, 2009 (edited) This is what Dr Keller say on her Real Science 4 Kids website: "Dr. Keller’s books are as philosophically neutral as possible and do not impose any single overall philosophical interpretation such as Darwinism, Intelligent Design, or Creationism. Instead, they allow students to make up their own minds about what the data show." So first she tries to paint "science" and scientific Theories as "philosophical interpretations". Already this puts her outside of the community of men and women who follow the scientific method. The wording is an attempt to be "clever" but it is insulting to one intelligence. And she tries to cast "Darwinism" as an ideology. It's a propaganda trick. The Theory of Evolution is a science and evidence based. It's is not a religion (or anti-religion) no matter what enemies of science may claim. Scientists and others who accept the Theory of Evolution as the best scientific explanation for the diversity of life on earth and for speciation though "natural selection" are not followers of some philosophy called "Darwinism". It's a cheap trick by those with an anti-science agenda. You can't be "neutral" between science and non-science if you want to be considered a scientist. Intelligent Design and Creationism don't hold up to any scientific scrutiny. If one believes theology trumps science, fine. But let's not compare Intelligent Design and Creationism (which have no evidence to support them), and the Theory of Evolution with is a very well supported scientific Theory. While she pretends to be "neutral" (between science and non-science) on her website and hides her affiliations, Dr Keller has signed a "Dissent from Darwinism" document and is an active proponent of Intelligent Design (while trying to hide this fact from home educators). I wouldn't spend a nickel to support a person who uses these tactics. Bill Oh, no, she doesn't claim to be neutral herself, just to have written a neutral text, and those are two entirely different things, IMO. Also, she was a hard core evolutionist until grad school, so she has been on more than one side of this discussion. fwiw, not all evolutionists agree with Darwin, not even neo-Darwinists. If you read his text, you'll easily see what I mean. You really need to read Darwin in order to see the enormous changes that have been made in some key areas, particularly if you consider the theory of evolution to be scientific. What I have found when talking with people is that many proponents of evolution are as ignorant about it as many creationists are about evolution. I grew up in a family with people in the community of respected scientists (not all Christians, some strong atheists), so I am very familiar with how that world thinks (plus I studied biology in university, including evolutionary theory.) As for science, if you study the history of science you'll see that science has never been and still is never totally separate from philosophy and/or religion. All that's happened now is that the philosophical thinking and ideologies that opened the door for evolution to take front seat (not just the geological findings are behind it) have been masked or hidden. I contend that no one is truly neutral, although it is possible to write a book that gets close to that. Another thing to bear in mind is that most people who state that science has to be falsifiable are either totally ignorant of or blatantly ignore the other propositions that were given in the same list as that statement. One of the most important points along with that is that you cannot prove a theory unless you find irrefutable evidence to support it while trying to disprove that theory. (paraphrase) That evidence also has to refute all contending theories. I contend that the scientific community doesn't do this with evolution. From what I've read and seen the opposite is true; they are trying to prove it or assume that it has already been proven. The fellow to read up on this is Karl Popper as he is the one who came up with the list in the first place. Someone once posted a link to a site that lists that list. What is called macro evolution cannot be proved if (and there are more things, of course, I'm just naming a couple): a. They cannot prove the addition of genetic material (so far it hasn't been documented). b. They cannot disprove the other two or more contenders with their evidence. c. They find out which form of the theory of evolution is the correct one. NeoDarwinism is only one theory out there at the moment. In the west, we don't even see all of the evolutionary theories. In my reading, some of the most evolutionary informed people I have read, even though I disagree with them, are a couple of the ID writers (one is agnostic at most, or else atheist.) So, my reasoning behind using RS4K is not because I agree with Dr. Keller on her form of creationism (she's a creationist; I've heard her speak) or that I would join an ID association. It's because I want my dc to study evolution AND ID AND various theologies of creationism, and I want to handle it separately from learning about protists, fungi, etc. Therefore, out of all the biology texts for middle school I am aware of, it best fits the bill. Edited July 8, 2009 by Karin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orthodox6 Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 Thank you, Karin, for much better thought than one normally hears in this ongoing fracas. 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.