I am no longer comfortable buying RS4K

[Paula in PA]

I've given up on finding a specific curriculum for my very science-minded ds for precisely that reason. We've pieced together units on subjects of interest from various sources (with a lot of input from the many working scientists in the family).

 

I also am concerned that the vast majority of science curricula marketed to homeschoolers teaches something I don't believe; more importantly, however, I question the reliability of the materials. This is my hard-and-fast position and not one I'm going to debate; others are certainly free to hold a different position. But I would no more trust a science program from someone who rejects the most fundamental principles and methods of the discipline than I would trust a 20th century history course from, say, Arthur Butz, regardless of his other academic/professional credentials.

 

:iagree: It's why I've decided to piece together logic stage science myself. It's been an interesting hunt so far. :tongue_smilie:

[patchfire]

I also am concerned that the vast majority of science curricula marketed to homeschoolers teaches something I don't believe; more importantly, however, I question the reliability of the materials. This is my hard-and-fast position and not one I'm going to debate; others are certainly free to hold a different position. But I would no more trust a science program from someone who rejects the most fundamental principles and methods of the discipline than I would trust a 20th century history course from, say, Arthur Butz, regardless of his other academic/professional credentials.

 

:iagree:

 

My college major was biology (not that I've used it, but that's another story), and I just cannot wrap my head around how you even teach a biology course that denies or ignores evolution. :confused:

[Audrey]

I appreciate the information. I've actually been looking at that curriculum. I'm about ready to give up on science until high school. In the 8 years I've been homeschooling, I haven't found a secular science program that I really like. I'm always embarrassed when I see threads on this board freaking out over the people who don't think science is important. I do think it's important, I just can't find an acceptable program! When I asked for a secular program on this board, I got more responses for Christian programs. I assumed they either didn't see the word 'secular' or thought I wouldn't mind using something religious anyway. :001_huh: Honestly, I'd rather not use a program at all, than use one that teaches material I don't believe.

 

 

Have you looked at Oak Meadow's science, grades 5 - 8? I only have experience with the middle grades science thus far. Their high school science is textbook based with accompanying syllabi. We have used grade 5 science and are using grade 6 now. We are very pleased, and I don't tolerate ANY religion, no matter how masked, mixed in with our curriculum.

[tdeveson]

There are some secular scientists who do not think the theory of evolution is supported by science. Dr. Michael Behe for instance.

 

 

This guy is not taken seriously by secular scientists.

[MomtoCandJ]

thanks for the suggestions, I am looking at getting Building Foundations of Scientific Understanding, it looks good, or Real Science Odyssey

[tdeveson]

It is called RealScience4Kids

 

http://dir.groups.yahoo.com/group/RealScience4Kids/?v=1&t=directory&ch=web&pub=groups&sec=dir&slk=2

 

 

This is what's coming out of Dr. Keller's Gravitas Press on that forum. She's asking people to get the word out so Dr. Keller will be invited to speak at different places about...

 

"Fighting the Culture War: Creation, Evolution and Intelligent Design": In

this seminar I describe the two main worldviews behind the culture war, the politics behind them, and the impact each has on our lives and on our effectiveness as Christians, outlining a strategy for Christians who want to successfully engage in fighting the culture war.

 

"Reclaiming Science for God": What does science really say and not say? What

is the new data, and what does it mean? In this seminar I will discuss how the average Christian can understand the implications and results that have emerged from scientific laboratories over the last 30 years, how Christians can use this information to battle for the Gospel in the marketplace of ideas and how we can get the next generation of Christian kids to reclaim science for God."

 

I just don't see myself ever putting a dime in this woman's pocket ever again. She's no scientist. I find this kind of duplicitous behavior sneaky and disgusting. Is this a Christian value? I thought Christians were supposed to be honest. (I'm not judging all Christians by her -- I'm just wondering what kind of moral ascendancy she has with this kind of behavior.)

[Lovedtodeath]

I just got here and haven't read all of the replies. Have you seen the blog post Science Without Agenda by the author of Real Science Odyssey? :thumbup1:

[tdeveson]

Hmm ok . If you want creationism and /or its stepchild, intelligent design taught in the public schools with your tax dollars please buy her materials and thus support their agenda. I think it is fine that she howl at the moon in her free time but I will darn well not support her financially in doing so since I have a choice . Here is the PAC that she is involved with and their agenda goes way beyond a little hs science program http://www.arn.org/ I just want people to be informed consumers. FWIW the language used in her materials points clearly to the intelligent design POV .

 

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

 

 

[elizabeth]

I just got here and haven't read all of the replies. Have you seen the blog post Science Without Agenda by the author of Real Science Odyssey? :thumbup1:

 

Dd is in 9th /10th thus too old for the science but....the History materials are simply divine. Ancient history might be a level 3 Pandia Press option due to several factors. I am darn tired of correlating everything myself as we are a Catholic / Jewish family and the abundance of reformed material that does this for you is not suitable for obvious reasons. I absolutely love JMRoberts as a writer and historian ,the fact that this is the spine for history Odyssey is another plus. All organized , secular and coherent. I think I am in love. You have made my day, week and year. Truly ,thank you for this resource as I had not considered it . Dd has decided that her electives next year are Anthropology, Living Religions of the World and Rhetoric. I could use some assistance and I think Pandia will free me up to focus on those subjects that she seems to be passionately interested in. The article was very interesting as well . Thanks once again for sharing this resource!

[LibraryLover]

I bouth a REAL Science Pandia Press program last year to do this year, and I have been meaning to post about how much my 10yr old is enjoying it (we're not married to it, but it's been interesting to her). I guess now is as a good a time as any to say that she likes it. My dh is a scientist ,and after wanting to stick needles in his eyes looking at other hsing science programs, he's happy dd is happy with this one.

Edited October 20, 2009 by LibraryLover

[Trixie]

I just got here and haven't read all of the replies. Have you seen the blog post Science Without Agenda by the author of Real Science Odyssey? :thumbup1:

 

OK, I just read the post.

 

Two things:

 

1. I'm going to marry Kathleen Desmarais.

 

2. I am actually looking foward to the upcoming level 2 RSO materials, and I am not a "science curriculum" kind o' gal.

[dangerdad]

Oh, my, I didn't know this. I agree - that is reprehensible.

 

And just to clarify -- I'm very religious myself. Hiding your motives (especially hiding your religion!) is what I find reprehensible. I'm unapologetically religious, and would never hide it if it were a motive for my reasoning on something.

[LG Gone Wild]

I only have Chem level 1. I've only seen chemistry stuff. It's so dry, I can't see where Dr. Keller could slip in her views. Perhaps she does want to convert through her science materials but I haven't seen it in what I have purchased. Is it in the biology stuff?

[Night Elf]

How about Singapore?

 

I remember trying it around 3rd grade, but don't remember why we didn't like it. I haven't looked at upper levels until just now. I think I might buy it so we can see it better. But in one of the samples, they are mixing copper chloride and sodium hydroxide. I don't even know what those are. :tongue_smilie:

[Night Elf]

:iagree: It's why I've decided to piece together logic stage science myself. It's been an interesting hunt so far. :tongue_smilie:

 

I thought about this, but because I have such little science background, I was clueless in where to even begin! I got books from the library and they were as dry and boring as textbooks. Either the books were too easy or too complex. We always seem to be in the middle! Of course, I did the same thing with history. I tried getting fiction and non-fiction books but whatever I found seemed so stupid! So we went back to K12 American History that uses the Hakim series for my ds13, and History Odyssey Ancients for my dd11. I'm not sure they are learning or retaining, but at least we enjoy the materials each day. Now if I can find an interesting, not-so-hard science program, I'd be set!

[Night Elf]

Have you looked at Oak Meadow's science, grades 5 - 8?

 

I haven't looked at it lately, but I remember the blank books that students did their work in. I didn't like that idea at all. It was very Charlotte Mason and Waldorf style. I don't know how to explain it, but basically it reminded me of kids dancing with scarves and drawing nature scenes. Does it get better in the middle and high school levels? Is it more rigorously academic and less abstract? Wouldn't I have to buy the whole grade level just to get the science? My dd11 is a sixth grader.

[Caitilin]

We are using OM for 6th grade this year, and I would say it was very rigorous, and much less Waldorf-y, except that it offers choices for a more visual answer, for instance, in place of a more verbal one. It's working well for us--I too don't "do" religion in my science class. :)

[Joanne]

Toni,

 

I am using RS4K elementary Bio, Physics and Chemistry. I want to thank you for being kind and generous to share your resources with "us" and me and others. I will miss them if you abandon RS4K!

 

Thank you for sharing your work and saving other homeschoolers time. Precious, that.

[Jen500]

Toni,

 

I am using RS4K elementary Bio, Physics and Chemistry. I want to thank you for being kind and generous to share your resources with "us" and me and others. I will miss them if you abandon RS4K!

 

Thank you for sharing your work and saving other homeschoolers time. Precious, that.

 

Are you being sarcastic? I truly can't tell because my coffee hasn't kicked in yet.

[LaxMom]

This is what's coming out of Dr. Keller's Gravitas Press on that forum. She's asking people to get the word out so Dr. Keller will be invited to speak at different places about...

 

"Fighting the Culture War: Creation, Evolution and Intelligent Design": In

this seminar I describe the two main worldviews behind the culture war, the politics behind them, and the impact each has on our lives and on our effectiveness as Christians, outlining a strategy for Christians who want to successfully engage in fighting the culture war.

 

"Reclaiming Science for God": What does science really say and not say? What

is the new data, and what does it mean? In this seminar I will discuss how the average Christian can understand the implications and results that have emerged from scientific laboratories over the last 30 years, how Christians can use this information to battle for the Gospel in the marketplace of ideas and how we can get the next generation of Christian kids to reclaim science for God."

 

I just don't see myself ever putting a dime in this woman's pocket ever again. She's no scientist. I find this kind of duplicitous behavior sneaky and disgusting. Is this a Christian value? I thought Christians were supposed to be honest. (I'm not judging all Christians by her -- I'm just wondering what kind of moral ascendancy she has with this kind of behavior.)

I'm sorry, I just don't get it.

 

This is exactly the perspective I would expect from an evangelical Christian scientist. The way I read this is that she views scientific exploration as understanding God's creation, and would like to have other Christians share in that understanding ... (that's not snarky - I fully expect people's worldview to shape their view of the world) I think Dr. Keller is in a pretty good position to explain both sides of the "culture war" and, certainly, if Christian kids are going to "reclaim science for God" they ought to be able to be conversant in science itself, no?

 

I fail to see what is objectionable. If science is the exploration and understanding of the natural world, what difference does it make if someone views the natural world as happenstance or the creation of a supreme being? They are still using the same methods to define, quantify, explain and understand it. Atoms, molecules, gravity, etc. all work the same way.

 

I find materials that leave out the science in favor of "because God made it so" objectionable, but I have yet to find anything ideological in the RS4K materials. (Though I would agree on the lightness of the materials)

Edited October 20, 2009 by MyCrazyHouse

[Joanne]

Are you being sarcastic? I truly can't tell because my coffee hasn't kicked in yet.

 

OMGoodness. No. I was being very sincere! Her materials have saved me a lot of time and I have been very delighted to incorporate them into my one roomed schoolhouse!

[Joanne]

I'm sorry, I just don't get it.

 

This is exactly the perspective I would expect from an evangelical Christian scientist. The way I read this is that she views scientific exploration as understanding God's creation, and would like to have other Christians share in that understanding ... (that's not snarky - I fully expect people's worldview to shape their view of the world) I think Dr. Keller is in a pretty good position to explain both sides of the "culture war" and, certainly, if Christian kids are going to "reclaim science for God" they ought to be able to be conversant in science itself, no?

 

I fail to see what is objectionable. If science is the exploration and understanding of the natural world, what difference does it make if someone views the natural world as happenstance or the creation of a supreme being? They are still using the same methods to define, quantify, explain and understand it. Atoms, molecules, gravity, etc. all work the same way.

 

I find materials that leave out the science in favor of "because God made it so" objectionable, but I have yet to find anything ideological in the RS4K materials. (Though I would agree on the lightness of the materials)

 

I think it's the agenda disclosed to evangelize through the use of the material.

 

I agree with you. I just posted on my Facebook that I have been helping my oldest with his outsourced Biology. It's so wonderfully complex that I don't *get* how it could ever be random. I'm not a creationist but I do believe that The Cosmic Hand designed and executed whatever the science behind it all is.

[Jen500]

I'm sorry, I just don't get it.

 

This is exactly the perspective I would expect from an evangelical Christian scientist. The way I read this is that she views scientific exploration as understanding God's creation, and would like to have other Christians share in that understanding ... (that's not snarky - I fully expect people's worldview to shape their view of the world) I think Dr. Keller is in a pretty good position to explain both sides of the "culture war" and, certainly, if Christian kids are going to "reclaim science for God" they ought to be able to be conversant in science itself, no?

 

I fail to see what is objectionable. If science is the exploration and understanding of the natural world, what difference does it make if someone views the natural world as happenstance or the creation of a supreme being? They are still using the same methods to define, quantify, explain and understand it. Atoms, molecules, gravity, etc. all work the same way.

 

I find materials that leave out the science in favor of "because God made it so" objectionable, but I have yet to find anything ideological in the RS4K materials. (Though I would agree on the lightness of the materials)

 

But did you read the link from Elizabeth in post #37?

[hornblower]

:iagree:

 

Einstein believed that a god created the universe. His goal in life was to figure out how god did it and how it all worked.

 

Einstein's views on religion are difficult to sort out though. I think he can most comfortably be shelved with spiritual mystics. Although he mentions the word 'god' in many quotes, and the word 'religion' as well, he also wrote this:

 

‘The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.’

 

 

I think when he's saying 'god' he's talking about the grand mysterious forces which we haven't understood yet.

[Lovedtodeath]

I watched a biography on Einstein. He was furiously trying to prove that nothing is random, because God controlled everything down to the last detail. I didn't hear anything confusing in that biography... interesting. Now I feel compelled to do some reading.

[Kristin in Hawaii]

This was the part of one of Dr. Keller's responses which I thought was most indicative of the level of her reasoning -- so my belief in evolution has as much reason as belief that the moon is made of cheese -- Gee thanks for the insult.

 

Quote from one of Dr. Keller's posts "At about this point the conversation is pretty much over. The fact is you can't get functional protein or DNA from chemical precursors (small molecules or atoms). No one has shown how this could happen and there are no viable theories for how it might occur. If you get an educated opponent they may throw out the Miller-Urey experiment and the theory of emergent properties as "proof", and so don't get sidetracked - these are not "proof" and until they can show you how science has shown how water, oxygen, and carbon can make a functional ribosome or any other specific functional protein, then they haven't shown you how science has proven life evolved. End of story. Then you can send them away with a whole bunch of homework. Create a critical thinking lens for each of these steps of evolution and hand it to them. Tell them that until they can come back with all the information filled in then from critical thinking and scientific perspective, what they are saying is no different than saying the moon is made of green cheese. " (emphasis mine)

 

I had bought the whole set of her books ($!) and am struggling with a decision to use them or not -- this has certainly tainted the joy I used to feel when I planned with them.

 

Kristin in Hawaii

[hornblower]

This was the part of one of Dr. Keller's responses which I thought was most indicative of the level of her reasoning -- so my belief in evolution has as much reason as belief that the moon is made of cheese -- Gee thanks for the insult.

 

Good grief.

Funny how it works the other way too. So just because we can't explain something, we should believe in some mythical all powerful entity? Might as well believe in the fairies in the garden AND a moon made of cheese AND god.

 

Can you send it back and ask for a refund?

[Kristin in Hawaii]

Instead of only posting snippits of her post, here is the post I quoted from above. This is from the "supportive" RS4K Yahoo Group I joined as a mom who puchased the RS4K materials. I have no problem with her being a Christian -- but when she is coaching, even on the support group, how to make me look like a fool and to teach them how to "plant a seed of belief" in my unbelieving heart.... whew..... Been there, done that, dunked in a tank and now believe..... I was born okay the first time:tongue_smilie:

 

Now, out hundreds of dollars for her materials I have to decide if we use them anyway -- Well, here is the quote:

 

 

 

"I'll write this up and put it on my website. I'll probably do a blog first and then convert that into an article that I'll put in my elibrary.

 

In the meantime, I'll give you the short answer since the debate is live right now and you need something to respond with.

 

A few tips for the debate. The first point is to remember that the person who is asking the questions is in charge of the conversation. Often, especially when the discussion has an emotional charge to it (like evolution-creation debates) we want so much to defend our side that we get stuck in a dynamic of arguing against their information and lose control of the debate. For example, someone says "evolution is fact" and you know that it is not fact, so you launch into a discussion about how evolution is not fact. It's quite easy to get stuck in this back and forth defense against the "data" and end up with the other side controlling the conversation by asking you questions like "how do you know that evolution is not fact?" which puts you in a defensive position arguing how you know evolution is not a fact and losing control of the debate. So - to control the conversation- you ask the questions.

 

The second point is that you are not going to win the argument so give up the agenda of "winning" right from the start. Winning isn't the point anyway. Yes, there is no scientific evidence that we evolved from the primordial soup, and it doesn't matter. These debates are not about the science (even though science is the content of the discussion) - these debates are about beliefs (religion) and you don't change beliefs by arguing against them. You change beliefs by planting a seed that can one day grow into a new belief and so the point of the debate is to plant a seed. Get the other side to doubt, even just a little, what they are saying, and you've taken the first step in growing a new belief.

 

The third point is to keep in mind that the burden of proof is in their lap, not yours. They need to prove to you that science has shown how we evolved from the primordial soup. It is not up to you to prove how science hasn't shown this- even though it is very easy to do.

 

Now -for the science itself. I don't know the exact phrasing of your co-worker's statement, so I am guessing it is something like "Science has shown how man evolved from ... fill in the blank (apes, lizards, fish, chemical precursors, etc.). This statement is an appeal to authority (which you can call them on if you are so inclined) and most people say it without realizing the logical fallacy of their statement. Also, this statement assumes that all of the steps going from chemical precursors to man have been proven by this authority "science."

 

So the first step is to ask "What science?" "Who proved it?" and "What was proven?" [This is the point of the Critical Thinking Kog. If you have a CTKOG pull it out and read the intro and do the first chapter to get you in the Socratic mode of asking these kinds of questions]. Remember you are in control of the debate by asking questions and they have to prove to you how science has shown this by answering your questions.

 

Depending on what they say, you can repeat the questions and ask for details.

 

Like I said, the main assumption in these statements is that each of the stages of evolution have been proven. So big bang to chemical precursors--->chemical precursors to functional protein and DNA--->functional protein and DNA to living single cell---->living single cell to living organism---->living organism to fish or lizard or whatever----> fish, lizard, etc to ape----> ape to man.

 

The scientific reality is that none of these steps have been scientifically proven given the standards of scientific proof. All you need to do is ask your co-worker - How do chemical precursors turn into functional protein and DNA? Who discovered it? When did they discover it? If you did get functional protein and DNA how do you get a functional cell? Which scientist discovered this? When did they discover it? Where is the paper because I'd like to read it?

 

At about this point the conversation is pretty much over. The fact is you can't get functional protein or DNA from chemical precursors (small molecules or atoms). No one has shown how this could happen and there are no viable theories for how it might occur. If you get an educated opponent they may throw out the Miller-Urey experiment and the theory of emergent properties as "proof", and so don't get sidetracked - these are not "proof" and until they can show you how science has shown how water, oxygen, and carbon can make a functional ribosome or any other specific functional protein, then they haven't shown you how science has proven life evolved. End of story. Then you can send them away with a whole bunch of homework. Create a critical thinking lens for each of these steps of evolution and hand it to them. Tell them that until they can come back with all the information filled in then from critical thinking and scientific perspective, what they are saying is no different than saying the moon is made of green cheese.

 

You haven't won the debate and they are still not going to believe you. However, if they are intellectually honest with themselves and eager to prove you wrong, they'll get upset enough to look up all this stuff on their own and maybe even do an "Anthony Flew" (an atheist who has since embraced deism because of the arguments presented by intelligent design).

 

Ok - hope that helps. I'll try to write up something more concrete with references for the blog and elibrary.

 

If you need anything else before then, just let me know.

 

Blessings,

Rebecca"

[Kristin in Hawaii]

"Dear Kristin,

 

Your question is do I state that evolution does not happen?

 

No. Evolution does happen but I want to be very clear about what I mean about evolution. The language is important here and so I want to say that when someone says "evolution" there are two possible meanings. Evolution simply means "change over time" but what change and over what time? To clarify, small scale changes over short times I will call evolution and large scale changes over long times I will call Evolution with a capital "E."

 

An example of evolution is the use of nylon as a food source for some bacteria. Since we know that nylon is a man-made material, we know that these bacteria have "evolved" (changed over a short time on a small scale) to be able to use nylon as a food source. Another equivalent term is "adapt." I could use the term evolve and adapt interchangeably and mean the same thing. I would say that this type of evolution does happen and I am convinced by the scientific evidence.

 

An example of Evolution (large scale, long time) is the claim that all living things evolved from a primordial soup of chemical precursors. This is the scenario I discussed in my previous post. I actually don't find this evidence convincing. I am Ok with the Catholic perspective that God may have used Evolution to create, but I don't see any scientific evidence for it. So my argument against Evolution (big "E") is a scientific one not a religious one. One example is that you can't evolve a ribosome from chemical precursors or even a mixture of the right proteins and DNA. When I was a post-doc one of the projects I got excited about working on was trying to build a minimal cell (similar to what Craig Venter is trying to do) and I couldn't get past the ribosome. There was no easy way to assemble one and the best I could do was borrow a functional ribosome from another organism. That wasn't very satisfying because then my cell wasn't so minimal. Anyway, I never got the problem fixed and neither has anyone else and not only is this a problem for the ribosome, but a problem for most proteins. In fact, most proteins require a set of proteins called chaperones to help them become assembled into a functional form. So to make a functional protein you need a functional chaperone which is a functional protein. So it's kind of a chicken and egg problem and I couldn't get around it and as far as I know, no one else has either.

 

So - where on the steps of evolutionary process from primordial soup to man is the science solid? So far, none, as far as I can tell. So, I don't think Evolution (large scale, long time) has been proven. And we can talk about the fossil record but that only starts after you already have a functional organism, plus the fossil record is a historical narrative which is different than a scientific narrative and so is different kind of "evidence" that doesn't entirely line up (but that is another discussion all together.)

 

So does this clarify?

 

Warmly,

Rebecca"

 

--- In RealScience4Kids@yahoogroups.com, "sicutquercus" <beautifulbooks@...> wrote:

>

> Okay... I just woke up and am sipping my first cup of coffee. My eyes are still blurry with sleep but I will try to respond.

>

> Dr. Keller, are you stating that evolution does not happen? I guess I was confused. I thought I had read something you wrote that indicated your beliefs were somewhere similar to the Catholics in that you believe in intelligent design but that that included evolution. Perhaps, along the lines of how God supposedly gives us free choice but is omnipresent so knows what we will choose. Please clarify.

>

> Thank you,

>

> Kristin in Hawaii

> RS4K customer

[Spy Car]

I had bought the whole set of her books ($!) and am struggling with a decision to use them or not -- this has certainly tainted the joy I used to feel when I planned with them.

 

Kristin in Hawaii

 

Thank you for the information and the quote.

 

Years ago, when I was still unbelievably naive (and my son was still an infant) I started getting excited about his future education and all the things I wanted to share with him.

 

RS4K was one of my first "discoveries." I saw the sample on-line and thought: "How wonderful!"

 

In my excitement I showed showed my wife (who thought I might be a little ahead of the game :D) this wonderful program we could use to teach our child about science.

 

After being "burned" by Dr Keller, and many other purveyors of HS materials with agendas and axes-to-grind I'm not naive anymore. But being "cynical" is less joyful a state of being than I'd prefer. So the duplicity of people like Keller really bothers me. It comes at a cost to the human spirit.

 

Bill

[Lovedtodeath]

She really should sell materials to creationists and forget trying to be secular. She could include a course that teaches her view of evolution. I am sure she would do quite well with that.

[LibraryLover]

It comes at a cost to the human spirit.

 

Bill

 

Thank you.

[Jen500]

And Dr. Kellar suggested that when presented with the argument of id, one would do an 'Anthony Flew'.

 

And this statement gave me concern:

You change beliefs by planting a seed that can one day grow into a new belief and so the point of the debate is to plant a seed. Get the other side to doubt, even just a little, what they are saying, and you've taken the first step in growing a new belief.

[Jenny in Atl]

Not sure if anyone has mentioned Galore Park's So You Really Want to Learn Science yet... We have both level and have enjoyed them very much. Just another secular option to RS4K.

[EmilyK]

This has been really helpful, though depressing. I'm bummed about the secret culture war aspect, and the issue about promoting ID in schools. I'm actually fine with using frankly Christian materials in some contexts, and I'm a Christian myself (albeit nonliteral interpretation). But I guess the key is frankness.

 

And science is different for me than some other subjects. Though I'm troubled by providentialist history too.

 

I'm sure this is just supply and demand, but I also wish there were materials from other religious traditions available, and writers from different religious backgrounds.

[LibraryLover]

This has been really helpful, though depressing. I'm bummed about the secret culture war aspect, and the issue about promoting ID in schools. I'm actually fine with using frankly Christian materials in some contexts, and I'm a Christian myself (albeit nonliteral interpretation). But I guess the key is frankness.

 

And science is different for me than some other subjects. Though I'm troubled by providentialist history too.

 

I'm sure this is just supply and demand, but I also wish there were materials from other religious traditions available, and writers from different religious backgrounds.

 

 

It is very depressing.

[Lovedtodeath]

Though I'm troubled by providentialist history too.

 

I'm sure this is just supply and demand, but I also wish there were materials from other religious traditions available, and writers from different religious backgrounds.

:iagree:

[Jen500]

Not sure if anyone has mentioned Galore Park's So You Really Want to Learn Science yet... We have both level and have enjoyed them very much. Just another secular option to RS4K.

 

What grade level are these used for? I have never seen them, but we like SYRWTL French.

 

We have tried Singapore's MPH Science but it seemed too easy. I ordered the Higher Order Thinking Skills book to take a look and see if we might try MPH again and just accelerate a bit faster and if HOTS would make it more challenging.

[nmoira]

What grade level are these used for? I have never seen them, but we like SYRWTL French.

Middle school. The First book could probably be used in 5th or 6th grade.

 

We have tried Singapore's MPH Science but it seemed too easy. I ordered the Higher Order Thinking Skills book to take a look and see if we might try MPH again and just accelerate a bit faster and if HOTS would make it more challenging.

DD the Elder zipped through MPH (the old series, and we were missing HOTS for 6A/6B). I found it to be simple, sometimes deceptively so, but elegant. Its greatest strength is in integration of concepts -- force, energy, etc. -- across disciplines. It's not full of factoids, but IMHO it does give an excellent introduction to science and, more importantly, scientific thinking. If you're very into science, you can do more than one level per year; DD the Elder completed the entire sequence in less than a year (she was doing Science 5 days a week). Because MPH does seem simple, I was surprised by how much of the material in SYRWTL Science Book 1 had been covered.

 

Edited to add: We have both levels of SYRWTLS, but I have a feeling we're going to end up using Singapore (based on the online samples... as I have yet to properly evaluate it).

[Desert Rat]

Thanks to the OP. I've been using RS4K with mixed feelings. Now, their not mixed any more. I'll start looking again. Thanks for the heads up.

[tdeveson]

:iagree:

 

Einstein believed that a god created the universe. His goal in life was to figure out how god did it and how it all worked.

 

He was also wrong about the only thing he brought god into. He said "god doesn't play dice with the universe," about quantum mechanics. Yet we now know he missed the bus on that one. Because he held on to his magical belief in god, he was unable to see the truth. Just my opinion, but a scientist who posits god first, is incapable of true scientific inquiry. For that you need an open mind and the ability to accept data on its face, whether or not it fits in with your world view. You cannot be a scientist and be in it to support your pre-existing views simultaneously. Just mho.

 

I have absolutely zero quarrel with people of faith. I have a quarrel with people of faith who try to pass off their beliefs in the supernatural as science.

Edited October 20, 2009 by tdeveson

[tdeveson]

 

Quote from one of Dr. Keller's posts "At about this point the conversation is pretty much over. The fact is you can't get functional protein or DNA from chemical precursors (small molecules or atoms). No one has shown how this could happen and there are no viable theories for how it might occur.

 

She is so full of it. She needs a subscription to Nature Magazine and she needs to bring her information up to speed. Not only are there viable theories, they have been creating functional proteins AND dna-like structures in the lab from chemical precursors for at least six months to a year. And not just in one lab. In several. She's going to need a new argument to shore up her belief in evolution. But she won't have any trouble -- these people are a moving target. Prove them wrong and they'll have a new argument tomorrow. I'm sorry, that's not science.

Edited October 20, 2009 by tdeveson

[tdeveson]

Toni,

 

I am using RS4K elementary Bio, Physics and Chemistry. I want to thank you for being kind and generous to share your resources with "us" and me and others. I will miss them if you abandon RS4K!

 

Thank you for sharing your work and saving other homeschoolers time. Precious, that.

 

I won't abandon the work I began this year. Lots of people are counting on it. I won't ever use it again. But don't worry. I'll come up with something equally delicious for science next year. :)

[G5052]

When I heard that she had a written a secular curriculum but was active in her beliefs about science, I actually thought myself, "She's going to get into controversy over that at some point." Yes, there are creationists who write materials that secular folks are confortable with, but they haven't inserted themselves into the debate like Dr. Keller has. :D

[Jen500]

I won't abandon the work I began this year. Lots of people are counting on it. I won't ever use it again. But don't worry. I'll come up with something equally delicious for science next year. :)

 

Ok, I get it now. :001_smile:

[NavyWifeandMommy]

I liked the Chemistry of RS4K. Good luck with finding a new curriculum. If you cannot find anything soon you can just do your own thru books at library and bios of people in the scientific world.

[sleepymommy]

But being "cynical" is less joyful a state of being than I'd prefer. So the duplicity of people like Keller really bothers me. It comes at a cost to the human spirit.

 

Bill

 

This sums it up for me.

 

I wasn't actually interested in RS4K, dh didn't think it was meaty enough when he looked through it at a hs conference. But things like this will make me much more hesitant and weary with other curriculums.

[sunshine]

Hmm ok . If you want creationism and /or its stepchild, intelligent design taught in the public schools with your tax dollars please buy her materials and thus support their agenda. I think it is fine that she howl at the moon in her free time but I will darn well not support her financially in doing so since I have a choice . Here is the PAC that she is involved with and their agenda goes way beyond a little hs science program http://www.arn.org/ I just want people to be informed consumers. FWIW the language used in her materials points clearly to the intelligent design POV .

 

Ok, I have a problem with this. My tax dollars are paying for evolution to be taught in the public schools and everyone says that is alright, it is good and "mind opening" for children to be taught other points of view besides the intelligent design taught at home. What is the difference then for intelligent design to be taught as an alternative point of view to Atheist kids if Christian kids are getting tax supported dollars for Evolution?

 

Screams double standard.

[sunshine]

He was also wrong about the only thing he brought god into. He said "god doesn't play dice with the universe," about quantum mechanics. Yet we now know he missed the bus on that one. Because he held on to his magical belief in god, he was unable to see the truth. Just my opinion, but a scientist who posits god first, is incapable of true scientific inquiry. For that you need an open mind and the ability to accept data on its face, whether or not it fits in with your world view. You cannot be a scientist and be in it to support your pre-existing views simultaneously. Just mho.

 

I have absolutely zero quarrel with people of faith. I have a quarrel with people of faith who try to pass off their beliefs in the supernatural as science.

 

 

Science said the Earth was flat.

Science said that bleeding was good for the sick

Science said that Doctors didn't need to wash their hands

 

Science is not infallible. It has made thousands of years of mistakes and changed it's theories. It will continue to do so with each generation of brilliant minds and curious scientist. They will continually disprove old theories and discover more exciting ones. But to say one theory is absolute truth is a dangerous place to be. The next microscopic discovery or picture from space could knock the world off it's axis.

[KidsHappen]

Ok, I have a problem with this. My tax dollars are paying for evolution to be taught in the public schools and everyone says that is alright, it is good and "mind opening" for children to be taught other points of view besides the intelligent design taught at home. What is the difference then for intelligent design to be taught as an alternative point of view to Atheist kids if Christian kids are getting tax supported dollars for Evolution?

 

Screams double standard.

 

Because evolution is science while ID is religion. School are allowed to teach science not religion.