RS4K Evolution Discussion with Dr. Keller - Appropriate or Not?

[usetoschool]

Letter from RS4K author about being willing to discuss her views on this board.

 

"It appears my discussion about how to debate evolution has stimulated a bit of a backlash on the Well Trained Mind Forum. From what I know, it looks like some folks are concerned about my religious views and how these views might affect the RS4K books. This is interesting for me since I also got some concerns about my religious views from Christian side. So, it appears I've upset both sides. Which is good (it means I am defining the middle) as long as the conversation continues.

 

I would welcome the opportunity to respond to the concerns voiced on the Well Trained Mind forum. However, I am not a regular member of that forum and don't want to suddenly jump in with comments. If any of you who are on the Well Trained Mind Forum would like to invite me to discuss what I wrote about on this Yahoo group, I'd be happy to enter a conversation on that forum.

 

Thanks!"

 

So...is the right place for this kind of curriculum discussion or would it be inappropriate to discuss the ins and outs of your own curriculum on another publishers forum? Sounds like an interesting conversation to me (although it may be more intense or heated than she is used to ;) - there are some strong and well reasoned opinions here). Can she just register and start responding without an interest in the forum and its purpose?

[BikeBookBread]

I think she is being very gracious...

[kalanamak]

Letter from RS4K author about being willing to discuss her views on this board.

 

"It appears my discussion about how to debate evolution has stimulated a bit of a backlash on the Well Trained Mind Forum."

 

Can she just register and start responding without an interest in the forum and its purpose?

 

We don't own the board, nor do we delete posts. I'd ask the powers that be. Someone registered and pm'd me about a local scout troop, so, yes, people do come here for other than the "standard reasons". Aurora Lipper made a couple of comments on the K-8 board about her curriculum. I'm guessing that people who are using the internet to promote X, google X periodically.

 

And, "backlash" is a big word. We aren't writing her, picketing her, going to the press about her. Is she trying to sell books or wedge into my life? If she's reading these words, she might consider that old saw about slander (not that I think she has been slandered): "It is like hornets...don't swat unless you can kill in one blow." I can't imagine anyone here would like another dust-up over religion.

[Spy Car]

Letter from RS4K author about being willing to discuss her views on this board.

 

"It appears my discussion about how to debate evolution has stimulated a bit of a backlash on the Well Trained Mind Forum. From what I know, it looks like some folks are concerned about my religious views and how these views might affect the RS4K books.

 

No. We are concerned about your scientific views. And concerned about your duplicity. And concerned about attempts to indoctrinate children to creationism by-stealth. And we are concerned with the mis-leading web-site you run where you appear to be "neutral," while this is clearly not the case.

 

These concerns have nothing to do with your faith, they are all about your advocacy of anti-science and the troubling aspect of your hiding your ID associations from parents considering your materials for use with their children.

 

This is interesting for me since I also got some concerns about my religious views from Christian side. So, it appears I've upset both sides. Which is good (it means I am defining the middle) as long as the conversation continues.

 

The oft-proffered line that because I'm upsetting people on "both sides" I must be "right" is illogical and intellectually bankrupt.

 

I would welcome the opportunity to respond to the concerns voiced on the Well Trained Mind forum. However, I am not a regular member of that forum and don't want to suddenly jump in with comments. If any of you who are on the Well Trained Mind Forum would like to invite me to discuss what I wrote about on this Yahoo group, I'd be happy to enter a conversation on that forum.

 

Thanks!"

 

 

 

Not my call.

 

So...is the right place for this kind of curriculum discussion or would it be inappropriate to discuss the ins and outs of your own curriculum on another publishers forum? Sounds like an interesting conversation to me (although it may be more intense or heated than she is used to ;) - there are some strong and well reasoned opinions here). Can she just register and start responding without an interest in the forum and its purpose?

 

See above.

 

Bill

[jplain]

I think it would be more appropriate for her to host that discussion on her own forum (yahoogroup?). On the other hand, I doubt WTM posters are going to flock over there to register and discuss. I probably won't. There are not enough hours in my day for another internet discussion list.

 

So IMO it is a toss-up. She should probably ask admin here for guidance.

 

It surely would be entertaining an entertaining discussion.... :lurk5:

[elizabeth]

No. We are concerned about your scientific views. And concerned about your duplicity. And concerned about attempts to indoctrinate children to creationism by-stealth. And we are concerned with the mis-leading web-site you run where you appear to be "neutral," while this is clearly not the case.

 

These concerns have nothing to do with your faith, they are all about your advocacy of anti-science and the troubling aspect of your hiding your ID associations from parents considering your materials for use with their children.

 

 

 

The oft-proffered line that because I'm upsetting people on "both sides" I must be "right" is illogical and intellectually bankrupt.

 

 

 

Not my call.

 

 

 

See above.

 

Bill

 

Agree wholeheartedly .

[nmoira]

Thank you, Bill.

 

These concerns have nothing to do with your faith, they are all about your advocacy of anti-science and the troubling aspect of your hiding your ID associations from parents considering your materials for use with their children.

Precisely. In our secular homeschool, we use materials by Christian authors, though not necessarily without parental comment: Susan Wise Bauer, LOF (which has a fair amount of Christian content, though not, IMHO, in a proselytizing bent), innumerable books both fiction and non-fiction, Ellen McHenry, and undoubtedly numerous other materials for which I am unaware of the author's religion (or lack thereof). I won't touch RS4K: I cannot give Dr. Keller the benefit of the doubt given her lack of forthrightness, and I don't want to lend her agenda financial support. That simple.

[hornblower]

She has her own website, she has her yahoo groups - she can post an essay of her rebuttals there.

 

The presenting of herself as holding the middle ground is a problem right off the bat. ID is not middle ground.

 

The issue was and is whether she was being upfront about her ID views and to what extent those views affected her books. I don't see a need to engage in any discussion about this with her. She can post an explanation of why she does what she does on her site.

[Stacia]

I'd tend to agree w/ Bill & Elizabeth, though it's really up to the moderators/head of the board.

 

If anyone is interested in debating Dr. Keller's views, I'm assuming there is a Yahoo group where concerns/questions/debate could happen w/ her (based on your quote by her mentioning a Yahoo group).

 

Why not just post the link to that group instead? Those that are interested could join the conversation over there.

[johnandtinagilbert]

I'd encourage her to contact the providers of this forum.

 

I like the idea that she is willing to speak to people regarding her curriculum, on both sides. I don't believe she said she was right b/c both sides pull, but that she is in the middle. I get what she means.

 

I would like to see the discussion here for 2 reasons.

 

1. my convenience

2. since there was such a lengthy discussion On This Board, it would be nice for her to be able to respond. Straight from the horses mouth, so to speak.

 

Don't be haters. Welcome her here.

[asta]

I agree with Bill.

 

It isn't about hating. It's about intellectual honesty.

 

 

a

[dangermom]

She's not drawing ire because she's in the middle, but because she was being dishonest about her intentions. Hoping to evangelize people who don't believe in creationism by producing a 'secular' science curriculum and trying to insinuate 'wedges' into it is a good way to offend everyone, Christians and secularists, creationists and not.

[Audrey]

Letter from RS4K author about being willing to discuss her views on this board.

 

"It appears my discussion about how to debate evolution has stimulated a bit of a backlash on the Well Trained Mind Forum. From what I know, it looks like some folks are concerned about my religious views and how these views might affect the RS4K books. This is interesting for me since I also got some concerns about my religious views from Christian side. So, it appears I've upset both sides. Which is good (it means I am defining the middle) as long as the conversation continues.

 

I would welcome the opportunity to respond to the concerns voiced on the Well Trained Mind forum. However, I am not a regular member of that forum and don't want to suddenly jump in with comments. If any of you who are on the Well Trained Mind Forum would like to invite me to discuss what I wrote about on this Yahoo group, I'd be happy to enter a conversation on that forum.

 

Thanks!"

 

So...is the right place for this kind of curriculum discussion or would it be inappropriate to discuss the ins and outs of your own curriculum on another publishers forum? Sounds like an interesting conversation to me (although it may be more intense or heated than she is used to ;) - there are some strong and well reasoned opinions here). Can she just register and start responding without an interest in the forum and its purpose?

 

 

I don't think it's appropriate to come here just for the sole purpose of "defending" her curriculum. No matter what she says it is going to come across like schill for her product. :glare:

[Audrey]

 

Why not just post the link to that group instead? Those that are interested could join the conversation over there.

 

 

Good point. It isn't like she doesn't already have another "forum" on which to present her ideas on the matter. Does she think she needs to debate this on every forum that mentions her and has opinions on her in a light she doesn't like?

[JudoMom]

I guess I don't see a problem with it, considering her books are recommended in the new edition of the WTM.

[lionfamily1999]

Another vote for asking the mods.

 

Did she actually say that she was trying to insert "wedges?" I didn't even look into the other argument, being Christian it did not concern me. Now, though, I'm curious. Is there an actual written account from her saying she was attempting to convert kids?

[hornblower]

Another vote for asking the mods.

 

Did she actually say that she was trying to insert "wedges?" I didn't even look into the other argument, being Christian it did not concern me. Now, though, I'm curious. Is there an actual written account from her saying she was attempting to convert kids?

 

I think this was from

http://welltrainedmind.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1272277&postcount=90

and

http://welltrainedmind.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1272241&postcount=87

 

and the ideas she mentions there about 'planting seeds' to change belief.

[lionfamily1999]

I think this was from

http://welltrainedmind.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1272277&postcount=90

and

http://welltrainedmind.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1272241&postcount=87

 

and the ideas she mentions there about 'planting seeds' to change belief.

I can see where the anger came from. She really did not consider her possible audience :(

 

All the same, has this actually effected the books she puts out, or is it just her own personal, rude, opinion?

[Greta]

Appropriate or not is entirely up to the mods.

 

Interesting/Useful or not, I'd have to vote no. Dr. Keller made her position clear in an op-ed piece she wrote in my local paper several years ago. I have had no interest in her materials since then.

[Spy Car]

Here is a salient quote extracted from a longer passage that can be found here:

 

http://welltrainedmind.com/forums/sh...1&postcount=87

 

 

Dr Keller:

 

"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."

 

Bill

[LizzyBee]

And concerned about your duplicity.

 

 

I've been thinking about this accusation since the last thread. I completely understand someone not wanting to support someone whose views are very different than their own, particularly if that person may be involved with an organization that does political lobbying. (re: Someone said that ARN is a PAC, but I didn't go looking for verification.) However, maybe I'm just blind, but I'm not seeing where she's been deceitful. It was clear to me from the first time I ordered her materials that she is a Christian, and I couldn't even find a link on her website that says the materials are secular, even though they are. Most conservative Christians hope to convert others to that point of view, and it seems to me that's a well-known fact regardless of how one might feel about it. Can anyone direct me to specific contradictory statements?

 

As for her posting on this forum, I've seen other authors and publishers post occasionally, e.g. Verticy Academy, and their posts were not deleted.

[lionfamily1999]

"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."

 

Bill

Ah, well, if she was going to claim objectivity for writing the secular books she shot herself in the foot right there.

[Spy Car]

I've been thinking about this accusation since the last thread. I completely understand someone not wanting to support someone whose views are very different than their own, particularly if that person may be involved with an organization that does political lobbying. (re: Someone said that ARN is a PAC, but I didn't go looking for verification.) However, maybe I'm just blind, but I'm not seeing where she's been deceitful. It was clear to me from the first time I ordered her materials that she is a Christian, and I couldn't even find a link on her website that says the materials are secular, even though they are. Most conservative Christians hope to convert others to that point of view, and it seems to me that's a well-known fact regardless of how one might feel about it. Can anyone direct me to specific contradictory statements?

 

It appears (from the best I can tell) that Dr Keller has removed the FAQ page [or whatever it was called] where her carefully parsed explantation of her "neutrality" was a parent's only insight into her position.

 

Now I see nothing to alert parents that she is a proponent of ID/creationism, and clearly she has an agenda to "plant seeds of doubt" in the minds of children.

 

This is reprehensible!

 

Bill

Edited October 29, 2009 by Spy Car

[Annie Laurie]

I've been thinking about this accusation since the last thread. I completely understand someone not wanting to support someone whose views are very different than their own, particularly if that person may be involved with an organization that does political lobbying. (re: Someone said that ARN is a PAC, but I didn't go looking for verification.) However, maybe I'm just blind, but I'm not seeing where she's been deceitful. It was clear to me from the first time I ordered her materials that she is a Christian, and I couldn't even find a link on her website that says the materials are secular, even though they are. Most conservative Christians hope to convert others to that point of view, and it seems to me that's a well-known fact regardless of how one might feel about it. Can anyone direct me to specific contradictory statements?

 

As for her posting on this forum, I've seen other authors and publishers post occasionally, e.g. Verticy Academy, and their posts were not deleted.

 

I am a Christian who doesn't want to teach my children Intelligent Design, since neither my husband nor myself consider it to be science. We teach evolution and have no problem reconciling that with a belief in a creator. So I don't assume that because someone is a Christian that they automatically believe in ID and teach it. And science is science so I don't assume that the author's religious beliefs will be inserted into a science curriculum just because the author also has religious beliefs.

 

I don't think the issue is that she has been misleading about being a Christian but that she has been misleading about the content within the curriculum.

[Tidbits of Learning]

Good point. It isn't like she doesn't already have another "forum" on which to present her ideas on the matter. Does she think she needs to debate this on every forum that mentions her and has opinions on her in a light she doesn't like?

 

I don't think authors should try to come and debate their curriculum and why people don't think they like it or don't agree with it on any forum but one they pay for and run.

I have had the unfortunate experience of having an author call me out about a difference in opinion about their material and it was a horrible experience with proponents of the curriculum attacking every little thing that I wrote as well as a direct post to me from the author.

We come to forums to get opinions from other homeschoolers and other parents that have btdt. If I wanted the authors point of view about their curriculum, I would go to their site and their forums.

It is a big can of worms. The actual rules though are...

No advertising

If you are the publisher or author of home schooling (or other) materials, or have a financial interest in a particular program, you may answer direct questions about those materials but don't use a general query ("What science/language arts/history materials should I use?") as a chance to promote your product. When these questions are posed, we hope that parents will hear from other parents not from those who may have a vested interest in the use of a particular program.

 

She has a vested interest and is therefore biased. I personally don't want to come to a forum and have a fear that threads will turn into an author's sounding board. Having been part of a similar thread that got out of control and the author called me out on my opinion, I think it is a big can of worms that should be left alone.

If she wants to respond, do so on her site, yahoo group, forum...whatever.

[LizzyBee]

I don't think the issue is that she has been misleading about being a Christian but that she has been misleading about the content within the curriculum.

 

Numerous people who have used more of her curriculum than I have posted that there is no religious/objectionable content in the curriculum. I've used the chemistry curriculum and there was absolutely no religious/ID content. Do you have any specific examples?

[dangerdad]

She also apears to have deleted her blog (http://gravitashomeschool.wordpress.com/) . Fortunately, it's still recent enough to be in google's cache. Here's the results my search. Here's the cache of the blog, while it lasts (I downloaded a copy from the cache).

 

Here's a quote from a disturbing post (I've left italics and bold as in the original):

What is intelligent design and are evolutionary theory, intelligent design and creationism equally science?

 

Intelligent design is an interpretative framework for evaluating scientific data as are evolutionary theory and creationism. Each are different lenses used to understand and interpret scientific information. For example, the fact that an organism can mutate under a variety of environmental stresses may, to an evolutionary biologist, mean that from random causes alone an organism can further evolve into a different species. But to an intelligent design scientist it may only mean that the organism has been designed to adapt to its environment and a creationist may conclude that this design was created by God. All of these interpretations are somewhat different, but based on the single and agreed upon fact that an organism can mutate under environmental stress. Although I may prefer to use one lens over another, and it may be that the data fit one lens better than the others, I believe that each are valid scientific lenses to use.

 

Is RS4K secular or creation based and does RS4K promote intelligent design?

 

RS4K focuses on the first aspect of science – the practice of science. My goal with RS4K is to (with the best of my ability) present students with the most accurate and up-to-date scientific information available. I also hope to give students the critical thinking tools they need to evaluate the scientific information they are learning, but I leave the interpretation of that information to the students and parents. RS4K is not an evolution only, a creationism only, or an intelligent design only curriculum. Although I do have a personal bias and I do prefer one interpretative framework over another, RS4K is, and will continue to be (to the best of my ability), a practice of science only curriculum.

This is what I was worried about, just like Behe. Hiding your bias is not honest. I know we'll not be using this curriculum in our home.

 

I'm deeply religious personally, yet I believe that however God created life, evolution was involved. And I'm angered that someone who also believes in God would lie to insert their bias into a curriculum.

[Annie Laurie]

Numerous people who have used more of her curriculum than I have posted that there is no religious/objectionable content in the curriculum. I've used the chemistry curriculum and there was absolutely no religious/ID content. Do you have any specific examples?

 

I was referring to the author's own comments which have been quoted in this thread and are linked in the other thread. I was actually planning on using SL Science 3 because I've always had the impression from the comments of those who have used RS4K and from the author's comments on her website, that she left religious content out of it. But after reading her own comments about "planting seeds" I no longer feel confidence in using her curriculum and it's included in SL Science 3. I'm not strong in science so I would have to continually consult my dh about the content and I'm disturbed by the fact that she has said one thing in certain places and something else entirely in other places. It would be completely different if she was being upfront and marketing it as an ID curriculum.

[Spy Car]

Thanks Dangerdad!

 

Bill

[ELaurie]

If we were capable of conducting a civilized discussion about these issues, I would welcome her presence here. I am not a member of the RS4K Yahoo group, and don't really have the time to frequent multiple online forums. I am interested in the discussions about these issues which occur on the WTM forums, but continue to be stunned by the vitriolic tone these threads often take.

 

I honestly don't believe we are capable of engaging in a constructive discussion about topics that are as polarizing as this one seems to be.

 

:sad:

Edited October 29, 2009 by ELaurie

[Carol in Cal.]

Level 1. None whatsoever.

 

And it's the best intro to chemistry I can imagine--it's the 'take out the math but leave in the actual concepts and language' curriculum that I would have had to write if she had not done so. I have a chemical engineering background, and I would encourage you not to miss this outstanding curriculum if you can help it.

[OnTheBrink]

I don't think it's appropriate to come here just for the sole purpose of "defending" her curriculum. No matter what she says it is going to come across like schill for her product. :glare:

 

:iagree:

 

I haven't used her materials and don't really plan to, so I have no horse in this race. I just think her wanting to hash out the issues with her materials should be held on her own bandwidth. JMO, YMMV, et al.

[ELaurie]

for those who are interested in hearing her POV. The threads would remain off of the general boards, and those who do not want to participate could choose not to do so.

 

ETA: Assuming this is acceptable to the Mods, of course.

[dangerdad]

If my conclusion is correct, that she's scrubbing her history off the net, I doubt we could have an honest discussion. It's not usually the sign of an honest person.

[DrKeller]

I was asked by a WTM member to comment on this thread. Thank you in advance for listening to me.

 

There are several comments, both positive and negative, about me and my products and so there are a number of ways I could start this discussion. I think that this should not be a discussion about my religious views per se but rather a discussion about my science curriculum and whether or not my religious views affect the products I am producing. That being said, I did want to tell you all why I am doing what I am doing.

 

In my opinion, comments such as these are quite strong and I don't think the word "backlash" is overblown.

 

"I won't touch RS4K: I cannot give Dr. Keller the benefit of the doubt given her lack of forthrightness, and I don't want to lend her agenda financial support. That simple."

 

"The oft-proffered line that because I'm upsetting people on "both sides" I must be "right" is illogical and intellectually bankrupt."

 

"These concerns have nothing to do with your faith, they are all about your advocacy of anti-science and the troubling aspect of your hiding your ID associations from parents considering your materials for use with their children"

 

"No. We are concerned about your scientific views. And concerned about your duplicity. And concerned about attempts to indoctrinate children to creationism by-stealth. And we are concerned with the mis-leading web-site you run where you appear to be "neutral," while this is clearly not the case."

 

First - I want to address the comments about "upsetting both sides," my "duplicity," and my "lack of forthrightness." I do think it is difficult to define the middle and I do think that when I define the middle I will upset all sides. My comment was that since it seemed like both sides were upset with my posts on the Yahoo group, that in fact I was getting closer to defining the middle. I am not sure how this is "intellectually bankrupt" but that might be one way to see it.

 

So what is the "middle" I am trying to define? And how are RS4K products in the "middle" and "neutral?" A bit of background- I have been in all three camps. I was raised an atheist and was a firm proponent of evolution for many years. Somewhere in my late 20's I became a Christian and so I was open to the possibility of creation. Later, I was doing a post-doc in Berkeley I was introduced to Philip Johnson and Intelligent Design and found the concepts quite intriguing. Today I am both personally and professionally, literally, in the middle of these three perspectives religiously and scientifically. On the scientific end, the middle means being aware of the "isms" associated with each perspective and being able to bring what is valuable from these three perspectives into the arena of science and science education. Being neutral is not being without an "ism" but being aware of the "isms" one holds.

 

I am using the term "ism" to mean any philosophical or religious lens through which science is interpreted. Scientific materialism is an "ism" and although it is often confused with science, it is not science and is instead a philosophical lens through which to interpret science. Creationism is an "ism" - a lens through which to interpret science. Intelligent Design is also an ism - a way to interpret scientific data.

 

In my opinion, being "neutral" means to be able to separate "the practice of science" from the "interpretation of science" (I have an article about this if any are interested) i.e. the "isms" we use to interpret science. This is the aim of RS4K and this is why I say my curriculum is in the middle and "neutral." It's not a creationist curriculum but it allows students to be open to the possibility of creation. It's not a Darwinist or evolutionist curriculum, but it allows students to be open to the possibility of evolution. It's not an Intelligent Design curriculum, but it allows students to be open to the possibility of design in nature. In my opinion, this is a neutral curriculum.

 

In order to be very forthright and transparent I will tell you exactly my agenda.

 

I believe that the greatest scientific discoveries are born out of the creative tension between opposing viewpoints and so my agenda with RS4K is to help the next generation of scientists learn how to use the creative tension between opposing viewpoints to make tomorrow's next greatest discoveries.

 

That is my main agenda and I designed RS4K around this agenda.

 

In order to utilize the creative tension between opposing viewpoints, you must know what the opposing viewpoints are, and you must value their differences. In order to utilize the creative tension between opposing viewpoints you must not kill, smash out, undermine, belittle, or eliminate viewpoints that are in opposition to your own. My goal with RS4K is to give the next generation of scientists the tools they need to value the multiple ways in which to interpret scientific information, taking from those multiple perspectives the aspects of each that will seed new discoveries. I am happy to talk about this more if you want.

 

Ok - so what's behind this agenda? Why is this so important to me? Is there something I haven't told you? Yes. Is there something I am being careful to talk about? Yes. Is there something I am keeping relatively quiet and not exposing? Yes.

 

I have been sitting here for a bit debating with myself whether or not I should tell you, on this public forum, the real motive behind my agenda? For obvious reasons, divulging my real personal motive on a public forum is risky at best and can be a disaster at worst. Even so, I've decided to take that risk because I think it would be valuable for this particular discussion. I want to tell you, though, that I am not going to post the real motive behind my agenda on my website. I am not going to write a blog about the real motive behind my agenda. I am not going to speak about the real motive behind my agenda in talks, although I might mention it if it is relevant. I won't reveal the real motive behind my agenda in forums and I am only going to talk about the real motive behind my agenda when I am absolutely pressed and only then if I feel like it helpful. Otherwise I am not going to talk about the real motive behind my agenda and I am not going to be transparent about it. I didn't share this on the Yahoo group because I am not going to be transparent about this in every setting. However, like I said, I think it would be helpful for this discussion.

 

(see next post)

[DrKeller]

So what is the real motive behind my agenda to get kids to be open to all viewpoints of science in the RS4K books?

 

I believe the greatest scientific discoveries are born out the creative tension between opposing viewpoints. I believe that the medical cures of tomorrow are going to be born out of the creative tension between opposing viewpoints. I believe that there is a child right now, perhaps in first or second grade, who, if they can utilize the creative tension between opposing viewpoints, might just discover the cure for a terminal illness that affects my child. The truth is, I'll take the cure from anywhere and my deeply personal motive for my agenda in trying to get the next generation of scientists to value the creative tension between opposing viewpoints is because, as a mother, I simply want the cure for my child's illness and I'll take it from anywhere. If a Darwinist came to me and said, "Using only the biological laws of random mutation and natural selection I have discovered the cure for your child's illness"- I'll take it. If a Creationist came to me and said "Praying last night the Holy Spirit moved me and in a dream God revealed to me the cure for your child's illness" - I'll take it. If an Intelligent Design proponent came to me and said, "After looking at the design of cells and using what I know about how a Designer might design such a system, I discovered the cure for your child's illness"- I'll take it.

 

I'll take the cure from anywhere- from any perspective that can give it to me and it doesn't matter from which perspective or which combination of perspectives the cure comes from - I'll take it. In a heartbeat. I believe the best chance for a cure is from a combination of perspectives.

 

A cure won't come in time for my child, but it could come in time for someone else's child and I believe that that child has the best chance of a cure if tomorrow's scientists can utilize the creative tension between opposing viewpoints. Look up any great scientist who made a great discovery - Copernicus, Pasteur, Newton, Einstein - all of these were individuals who could see more than one perspective, who could work both inside and outside the box , and who utilized the creative tension of the opposing viewpoints of their day to make their great discoveries.

 

That is my deeply personal reason for pursing the path that I am on. Does this make me "duplicitous?" Maybe. Does this make me "intellectually bankrupt." Perhaps. Am I trying to get kids to consider Creation? Yes. Am I trying to get kids to consider evolution? Yes. Am I trying to get kids to consider Intelligent Design? Yes. All of the above.

 

RS4K is designed, to the best of my ability, to give kids the best information I can on the practice of science. I want kids to know their science well. I want them to understand the essential core elements of chemistry, physics, biology, and earth/space. I want them to get a rock solid foundation in the elementary grades so that when it comes time to learn the tougher stuff they have the foundation. I want them to enjoy science and be amazed and moved to study more. I want them to ask all the questions a curious mind could ask without censorship from any opposing viewpoint. And then I want them to evaluate science through as many perspectives as possible. The Kogs series is designed to help kids utilize the creative tension between opposing viewpoints by helping students become aware of the different perspectives people use to interpret scientific information. I want kids to value all perspectives, understanding that we simply don't know with certainty where the next great discoveries are coming from. And I want kids to have the tools to evaluate critically all perspectives so that they can use the creative tension opposing viewpoints offer.

 

I know that RS4K is not for every family and not for every child and I am not writing this curriculum for every child because I only need one. I only need one child to risk viewing science from multiple perspectives and utilize the creative tension those perspectives give. Einstein was one person who opened a door for a whole new understanding of physics. Copernicus was one person who opened a door for a whole new understanding of the cosmos. I know that there is some first or second grader who can open the door for a whole new understanding of biology and perhaps from that new understanding of biology, a cure for my child's illness will be found. I will consider all of this worthwhile if one day, when a mother walks into the doctor's office, the diagnosis presented to her for her child is not the devastating blow of a terminal illness, but rather a calm "Oh yes - and this is easily treatable. We found the cure."

 

That is my private motive behind the agenda to get kids to value and open up to the Creationist viewpoint, the Darwinist viewpoint, and the Intelligent Design viewpoint. This is what RS4K is all about for me.

 

I am happy to discuss more. If you want more about how I define the middle, or if you want to talk about the core foundation for science, or how the Kogs fit in, or how sometimes it seems I lean in one direction and then at other times it seems I lean in another direction, just ask me. I am willing to discuss any of your concerns.

 

Kind regards,

 

Rebecca Keller

[Old Dominion Heather]

Thank you for taking the time to clarify. This is very helpful.

[dangerdad]

I find this to be somewhat nonsensical.

 

Also, your response is largely similar to the blog entry I found in the google cache (note my post above)--but the blog is gone now. Why'd the blog go away?

 

The practice of science includes finding out what works. That means any "cancer cure" would be determined scientifically. The inspiration for looking into the cure could come from anywhere and is irrelevant to the scientific process.

 

As far as evolution goes, it's been scientifically investigated. ID has even been adjudicated in court to be no different from creationism ("Of Pandas and People" had a copy/paste error the proved it was "creationism" before it was "intelligent design").

 

A key part of the process of science is honest, open debate and criticism. Your reluctance to share your agenda runs counter to that and gives me pause to wonder at the level of your sincerity in your application of the scientific method.

[Lovedtodeath]

I guess I don't see a problem with it, considering her books are recommended in the new edition of the WTM.

:iagree:She is not a competitor. And competitors do post here, in fact... (LCC anyone?)

 

I was not, however, looking forward to it.

[Lovedtodeath]

If we were capable of conducting a civilized discussion about these issues, I would welcome her presence here. I am not a member of the RS4K Yahoo group, and don't really have the time to frequent multiple online forums. I am interested in the discussions about these issues which occur on the WTM forums, but continue to be stunned by the vitriolic tone these threads often take.

 

I honestly don't believe we are capable of engaging in a constructive discussion about topics that are as polarizing as this one seems to be.

 

:sad:

Well said.

[katilac]

Yes, curriculum providers often post info/clarification on the boards. I have no problem with it. Read it if you like, and take from it what you will.

[Old Dominion Heather]

I find it interesting that you don't understand the explanation. She doesn't care what the people using her curriculum believe. She tried to make a science curriculum that anyone could use (which makes sense in a homeschool market). If you find that you can't use it, then don't.

 

Maybe you can find a elementary Chemistry curriculum that is written by evolutionists that is as rigorous and better suits your needs, though I am not sure it exists.

 

I guess if the knowledge that the writer hold different beliefs that your family is that bothersome to you, you would just make the sacrifice of the RS4K curriculum and use something else. I assume it is a problem because there is nothing comparable to RS4K?

[jplain]

Dr. Keller, would you mind commenting on something you wrote that was quoted here? Quote from Dr. Keller on the RS4K site After reading that, how can you expect secular, evolutionist homeschoolers to trust that your curriculum materials are not intended to undermine belief in the theory of evolution?

[JudoMom]

I find this to be somewhat nonsensical.

 

Also, your response is largely similar to the blog entry I found in the google cache (note my post above)--but the blog is gone now. Why'd the blog go away?

 

The practice of science includes finding out what works. That means any "cancer cure" would be determined scientifically. The inspiration for looking into the cure could come from anywhere and is irrelevant to the scientific process.

 

As far as evolution goes, it's been scientifically investigated. ID has even been adjudicated in court to be no different from creationism ("Of Pandas and People" had a copy/paste error the proved it was "creationism" before it was "intelligent design").

 

A key part of the process of science is honest, open debate and criticism. Your reluctance to share your agenda runs counter to that and gives me pause to wonder at the level of your sincerity in your application of the scientific method.

 

I'm curious--have you used RS4K? Have you looked at it? If you have looked at it, what, exactly, do you find so objectionable? If you haven't looked at it or considered it, why are you so concerned about Dr. Keller's personal beliefs?

 

It seems to me that Dr. Keller shared her agenda quite clearly.

 

Really, I don't understand your point.

[Carol in Cal.]

I'm curious--have you used RS4K? Have you looked at it? If you have looked at it, what, exactly, do you find so objectionable? If you haven't looked at it or considered it, why are you so concerned about Dr. Keller's personal beliefs?

 

It seems to me that Dr. Keller shared her agenda quite clearly.

 

Really, I don't understand your point.

 

:iagree:

 

I agree, and frankly, I am embarrassed for us that we are going off like this; I don't understand the vitriol at all. There are a lot of views on this issue, and Dr. Keller's are no secret and never have been. At the same time, the curricula have not reflected anti-evolutionist views at all that I have been able to find. Why is there so much ire over this and not over Apologia?

[Lovedtodeath]

:iagree:

 

I agree, and frankly, I am embarrassed for us that we are going off like this; I don't understand the vitriol at all. There are a lot of views on this issue, and Dr. Keller's are no secret and never have been. At the same time, the curricula have not reflected anti-evolutionist views at all that I have been able to find. Why is there so much ire over this and not over Apologia?

That's easy. Apologia does not claim to be secular/neutral.

[JudoMom]

That's easy. Apologia does not claim to be secular/neutral.

 

But where is RS4K NOT secular/neutral?

[Spy Car]

Dr Keller, in the past you wrote:

 

"Although I do have a personal bias and I do prefer one interpretative framework over another.....".

 

Can you please unequivocally state which is the "one" interpretation you prefer?

 

Bill

[Lovedtodeath]

I think these statements are fair. I wish I could have stated it so clearly.

 

I have used some of the books. After reading Dr. Keller's posts I'm left wondering what specifically in the curriculum attempts to fulfill her goals. I don't see how it does. She does mention the Kogs books. I haven't seen those.

I was wondering the same thing.

 

I have seen mention of KOGs elsewhere. Are they on the RS4K site?

[Jumping In Puddles]

I find it interesting that you don't understand the explanation. She doesn't care what the people using her curriculum believe. She tried to make a science curriculum that anyone could use (which makes sense in a homeschool market). If you find that you can't use it, then don't.

 

Maybe you can find a elementary Chemistry curriculum that is written by evolutionists that is as rigorous and better suits your needs, though I am not sure it exists.

 

I guess if the knowledge that the writer hold different beliefs that your family is that bothersome to you, you would just make the sacrifice of the RS4K curriculum and use something else. I assume it is a problem because there is nothing comparable to RS4K?

 

Maybe it is not so clear in this thread as some of the others linked, but the objection is not that the writer holds different beliefs it is that she says her product is neutral but in the yahoo group she says she is planting seeds in the minds of the children who believe in evolution so that they turn to creation/intelligent design. Can you see why that is a problem?

 

Apologia tells you up front, no hidden agenda but that does not appear so with RS4K.