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

[KJB]

I have used Dr. Keller's Prechem and Chem 1 as well as Physics 1. IME and IMO they do not show bias towards any particular theory of the origin of man. Unless you (anyone??) can point to these alleged "seeds" in these books, your arguments are unfounded.

 

Further, Dr. Keller's comments regarding the seeds she's planting are taken out of context. She is advising someone how to debate the issue of creationism and evolution. She isn't indicating that she has become a farmer reaping a harvest of new little creationists with her curriculum.

 

Again, I've *used* *the* *books*. My husband enjoyed both the physics text (he has a masters in ME) and the chem books (he's an MD). My husband is both a rocket scientist and a medical doctor. He found no bias or "seeds" in the texts.

 

I find this to be somewhat nonsensical.

 

Actually, although a bit heavy on an emotional appeal, her opinion seemed well thought out. Not sure why you would call it 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.

 

Well, in order to ask a question (foundational to the scientific process), one must first be inspired. Dr. Keller indicates she wishes to inspire to boost scientific discovery. Sure the cure could come from anywhere, but the more little scientists out there the more likely a cure will come.

 

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").

 

Who cares? The question isn't rather or not evolution is true. The issue is rather or not Dr. Keller is attempting to invade the minds of innocent children with her magic seeds of doubt through her curriculum. At least, that's what I thought the issue was?

 

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.

 

Not sure why you call her reluctant to share. She's come here to explain her ideas. She's apparently written advice about how to debate evolutionary theory. I'm not sure how that makes her sneaky or tricky or a seed planter of her bias in her texts.

 

 

[JudoMom]

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.

 

I'd appreciate it if you would direct me to this quote (in context, please).

[Jumping In Puddles]

I'd appreciate it if you would direct me to this quote (in context, please).

 

Direct quote from Dr. Keller from the yahoo group:

 

"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"

[Pip]

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

 

I have never seen anything stating that RS4K is secular. I have seen nothing that it is Chrisitian. However, when I called Gravitas to get clarification on their viewpoint, I was told Dr. Keller is a Christian, and that while her beliefs may influence her views, she aims to keep the curriculum neutral. This was not anything I had to drag out of the person who answered the phone. We use it in co-op and I was up front that it was written by a Christian who is a creationist. It is no big secret. In fact, I have been very surprised how neutral the program is.

[JudoMom]

Direct quote from Dr. Keller from the yahoo group:

 

I still don't understand how that quote = Dr. Keller trying to plant seeds of doubt in her science books. She wasn't talking about her books at all. She was trying to help someone learn how to debate evolution vs. creation. :confused: It seems that a lot of conclusion jumping has occurred.

 

Have you looked at RS4K? I've got 4 of her books sitting right next to me. I see nothing but good science. They appear neutral to me. Do you really think a "seed of doubt" could be planted that wouldn't be noticed? I think Dr. Keller is a very smart lady, but I highly doubt she'd be able to stealthily plant these seeds without someone catching them.

 

IF someone has caught them, please, do share.

[elizabeth]

Well, I would be interested in hearing what the relationship is with Gravitas Publications and Access Research Network in Colorado Springs where Dr Keller's materials are available for a "donation" to ARN? What is this non profit organization and what do they support? This is purely a rhetorical question ,I can connect the dots . http://www.arn.org/arnproducts/rs4k/rs20.htm It is not as if this organization where one can purchase Dr Keller's materials for a "donation," sees any controversy between evolution and creationism or its idealogical progeny intelliggent design, they want to do away with evolutionary biology . ARN is also directed by several of the same individuals who authored the "Wedge Document." Link here and note that the individuals at ARN are also found as authors/signatories on The Wedge Document http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html The point is not to examine as to whether there is controversy ,obviously to do away with evolution as a viable cornerstone of biology .Period. To state that the goal is to merely examine and or explore another paradigm as the goal of the curriculum is disingeneous. I realize the materials are not intended for everyone. These organizations would like them to be for everyone ,including in the public schools. Read the links . Here is the Discovery Institute,http://www.discovery.org/csc/fellows.php many of their fellows are the same as ARN and they filed an amicus brief in the Dover case. link here http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=650 The Dover case explores the relationships between religious faith and whether or not it has a place in the public schools in science classes. Here is a link to a NOVA special that explains the complex issues around the case http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/beta/evolution/intelligent-design-trial.html

Edited October 30, 2009 by elizabeth
I cannot type...

[Tea Time]

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.

 

 

I get what you are saying, but there is another level of ideas going on here than just the scientific process itself. Science does not exist in a vacuum. It is part of a bigger context, which I think is what she is talking about. If every person thinks exactly the same way and has lost the ability to see things from differing paradigms out of fear, intimidation, or lack of exposure, then they will not have any creative force to "think outside the box." You may or may not agree with that premise, but the point would be that no one force should "control" all scientific teaching or education so that we do not become mental clones of one another. I can't imagine thinking that where ideas come from is irrelevant. It is really the only thing that is relevant. Science is just the cooking technique, but if you have no food, then all that cookware is just a waste!

 

Also, I want to know where everyone is finding all these people who do not have any "vested interest," or who do not have any "bias" or who are actually "neutral" in the purest sense of that word. I have never, ever met anyone like that IRL or on the Net. I have only found people who believe in their own minds that they are like that.

 

But, hey, if she is trying to indoctrinate your kids with beliefs other than your own on the sly, then that would be just like public school, and I would not pay for it! But wait... I do pay for that.....

[Joy at Home]

I appreciate this thorough research, Elizabeth. However, it has the feel of a witchhunt, such as was explored in Ben Stein's recent documentary. Proponents of Creationism have no problem with the so-called "Wedge Document", and viewed the havoc in Dover through much different glasses than evolutionists. So all this to say, so what? If these are her affilitations, so what? Do we attempt to discredit her because she sees validity in a theory other than evoluation? I see this as much ado about nothing.

 

Blessings,

Lisa

[elizabeth]

FWIW Ben Stein is a creep . To equate evolution as a cause/contributing factor of the horror of the concentration camps is a disgrace. Dr Keller is certainly welcome to have professional associations wherever and with whomever she chooses. My point is that people who object to ID as a religious subject not a scientific theory should know where their money is being spent if they buy these materials.

[dangerdad]

Indeed, to make sure the Nova special presented Behe fairly in the Dover case, I read the 700 pages of his testimony. I believe the Nova account to be fair.

 

In fact I found out about the ID movement before the Dover trial. I read "Of Pandas and People" at the time and said "this looks like erudite pseudoscience" and later found out about the typo (the term "creationists" was changed to "design proponents" generally, but in one case the beginning and end of the original word "creationists" were accidentally retained, so that "creationists" became "cdesign proponentsists").

 

I don't like being tricked. I don't like lies. I also don't like people trying to teach their religion to my kids (see, that's my job). ID is the same thing as creationism and I distrust those who claim they're different because they're likely trying to trick me. Ben Stein's movie is a perfect example of that trickery.

 

I want to know how wedded Dr. Keller is to science, because if she's trying to trick me, I will be quite put out.

[Joy at Home]

FWIW Ben Stein is a creep . To equate evolution as a cause/contributing factor of the horror of the concentration camps is a disgrace. Dr Keller is certainly welcome to have professional associations wherever and with whomever she chooses. My point is that people who object to ID as a religious subject not a scientific theory should know where their money is being spent if they buy these materials.

\

 

So, by that logic should we research everyone who writes a homeschooling curriculum to make sure we agree with all their affiliations? Is it our concern where "there money's going"? I think some put this in a special arena because it is science, such a hot button issue. But really, don't all resources, be it history, science, etc., have someone on the other end with their own set of beliefs and affiliations and life? I think it goes beyond what is reasonable.

 

And by the way, I like Ben Stein :).

 

Blessings,

Lisa

[DrKeller]

Where'd the blogs go?

 

I have transferred most of the information from the Wordpress blogs to my current blogsite on my website. I was getting some profanity on the Wordpress blogs and since I was not maintaining them, I decided to delete them. I did try to preserve everything I wrote and if I missed something it was just by accident. I did inadvertently delete all the RS4K tests, which I forgot were on there. That was a mess to fix. I can imagine other things got missed too. I didn't even think anyone was even reading those any longer.

 

My kid doesn't have cancer - so don't assume you know what is going on with him. I've shared what I thought was relevant and I am not going to discuss it further.

 

I would disagree that the inspiration for scientific investigation is irrelevant to the scientific process.

 

Tell that to Johannes Kepler "I give you thanks, Creator and God, that you have given me this joy in thy creation, and I rejoice in the works of your hands. See I have now completed the work to which I was called. In it I have used all the talents you have lent to my spirit." I think he thought that the inspiration he got from his religion was directly relevant to his scientific process, and I think he did some pretty amazing science.

 

Or tell it to Isaac Newton "The most beautiful system of fun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel ad dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being." I think Newton thought where his inspiration came from was relevant to his scientific process and he did some pretty amazing science.

 

I am open to honest debate and hearing criticism about my curriculum or my views on science. I am not open to debate or discussion about my personal agenda and personal motives behind creating RS4K. I told you what my reasons are and I am not going to discuss them again. I am Ok if my lack of openness about my personal motives gives you pause and concerns about my sincerity. That's OK. The point is not my personal motives or my personal agenda but whether or not my books provide what kids need for learning science. Evaluate my books on that basis and if you decide they do not meet your standards, then don't use them.

 

Kind regards,

Rebecca Keller

[Joy at Home]

I want to know how wedded Dr. Keller is to science, because if she's trying to trick me, I will be quite put out.

 

 

Is this a threat, or is my Nyquil buzz kicking in?

 

Blessings,

Lisa

[Joy at Home]

The point is not my personal motives or my personal agenda but whether or not my books provide what kids need for learning science. Evaluate my books on that basis and if you decide they do not meet your standards, then don't use them.

 

Kind regards,

Rebecca Keller

 

Bravo. Thank you, Doctor.

 

Blessings,

Lisa

[DrKeller]

"how can you expect secular, evolutionist homeschoolers to trust that your curriculum materials are not intended to undermine belief in the theory of evolution?"

 

I want to point out a language issue. When you say "undermine the belief in the theory of evolution" you are turning a scientific discussion into a religious discussion. I shouldn't need to "believe" in the theory of evolution if it is a scientific theory. I should only need to be convinced by the scientific evidence.

 

I will restate what I said in that post - the burden of proof is in the evolutionists lap. I am not convinced by the scientific evidence that Evolution (primordial soup--->man) has been proven. Show me the data. Tell me how to go from chemical precursors to a functional protein. Show me how to go from a protein/DNA/RNA mixture (I'll give you those as precursors) to a functional cell. I will say it again - none of the steps I lay out in that post have been scientifically proven. There is no scientific data to support these claims.

 

Am I undermining your "belief" in evolution. I hope so. I want to keep this a scientific discussion, so show me the scientific data for the necessary steps of evolution I mapped out in that post and we can have a scientific discussion about evolution. If you want to continue to "believe" in evolution, that's ok too.

 

Kind regards,

Rebecca Keller

[DrKeller]

I do have a personal bias and prefer one framework to another.

 

My biases tend to fluctuate depending on recent scientific discoveries and debate. At the moment, I tend to lean in the design direction. I just picked up Steven Meyer's new book "Signature in the Cell" and I am reading it alongside of Dawkins's new book "The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution" and I have to say I am more intrigued by Meyer's arguments than by Dawkins.

 

Have you read either book and if so what did you think?

 

Kind Regards,

Rebecca Keller

[elizabeth]

\

 

So, by that logic should we research everyone who writes a homeschooling curriculum to make sure we agree with all their affiliations? Is it our concern where "there money's going"? I think some put this in a special arena because it is science, such a hot button issue. But really, don't all resources, be it history, science, etc., have someone on the other end with their own set of beliefs and affiliations and life? I think it goes beyond what is reasonable.

 

And by the way, I like Ben Stein :).

 

Blessings,

Lisa

Certainly it is not possible to research every publisher. The sole reason these debates are so lively is that I think every person here cares deeply about the how and what of education. I absolutely disagree with these particular beliefs and especially with the intent to put religious materials into the science classes in public schools. I admire the people who actually put their money where their beliefs are and think that progressives should do the same. If your beliefs lead you to a consistent pro life ethic and you find certain organizations and their publications problematic do not buy them. Sounds simple and I like to put my money where my mouth is . However, to do so I need to know where a person stands. That's all. It is my concern if a company is found to use child labor, or if a political action committee is pushing an agenda I find reprehensible. It is all our business to know these things and act in accordance with our values to the best of our ability. No witch hunt just trying to raise my child accoridng to my beliefs and with materials that support them.

[dangerdad]

If every person thinks exactly the same way and has lost the ability to see things from differing paradigms out of fear, intimidation, or lack of exposure, then they will not have any creative force to "think outside the box." You may or may not agree with that premise, but the point would be that no one force should "control" all scientific teaching or education so that we do not become mental clones of one another. I can't imagine thinking that where ideas come from is irrelevant. It is really the only thing that is relevant. Science is just the cooking technique, but if you have no food, then all that cookware is just a waste!

 

The key part of science that makes it science is comparing your idea to reality via experiment. It is irrelevant where the idea comes if it can be verified experimentally. Different paradigms are irrelevant, because the only paradigm that matters in science testable reality. A hypothesis may come from a dream, from a hallucination, or from space. If it tests out against reality, it wins. That's the point of science, and why it's been so successful. Testing is the great equalizer.

 

From what Keller has written, it seems to me (Dr. Keller, please correct me if I'm wrong) that anything short of reproducing every step of abiogenesis and evolution will not qualify as proof of evolution. This is a fallacy that's common among creationists (the so-called "god of the gaps").

 

 

Where'd the blogs go?

 

I have transferred most of the information from the Wordpress blogs to my current blogsite on my website. I was getting some profanity on the Wordpress blogs and since I was not maintaining them, I decided to delete them. I did try to preserve everything I wrote and if I missed something it was just by accident. I did inadvertently delete all the RS4K tests, which I forgot were on there. That was a mess to fix. I can imagine other things got missed too. I didn't even think anyone was even reading those any longer.

I only found it because it was the first hit on a google search about the curriculum, and happened to address the question of ID to some degree. Since the cache was from less than a month ago I was surprised it was missing. The posts in question were from 2007 and your current archive appears to only go back to 2008.

 

My kid doesn't have cancer - so don't assume you know what is going on with him. I've shared what I thought was relevant and I am not going to discuss it further.

I didn't realize that you were talking specifically about your child, until I went back and reread your post. My comments were about cures generally, not anything so personal. That in order for a medical intervention to be verified as a cure, the work has to be done to determine that it was the intervention that fixed the problem.

 

I would disagree that the inspiration for scientific investigation is irrelevant to the scientific process.

 

Tell that to Johannes Kepler .... I think he thought that the inspiration he got from his religion was directly relevant to his scientific process, and I think he did some pretty amazing science.

 

Or tell it to Isaac Newton ... I think Newton thought where his inspiration came from was relevant to his scientific process and he did some pretty amazing science.

 

I don't see how these quotes are relevant. The scientific process is not affected by the religious beliefs of Kepler or Newton, nor by the atheism of Einstein or Feynman. The process is what comes after the inspiration. My personal belief that God wrote the laws of Physics and that Jesus performed miracles matters not when testing what hypotheses I may have against what nature actually does.

 

I am open to honest debate and hearing criticism about my curriculum or my views on science.

That's my concern: your view on science. Especially if your personal belief about ID is that it's a valid hypothesis, worthy of being presented alongside evolutionary theory.

[Blessedfamily]

I can understand some getting upset about the comment as it was reported....

 

 

but truthfully, Dr. Keller was ALREADY being greatly criticized and called deceitful for not revealing her beliefs on her website, and not revealing her associations with ARN LONG before this comment on the Yahoo group?

 

 

As far as those who were already criticizing her for being an ID proponent and associated with ARN....When I pick up a college text, public school text, or any other science text, which often have a dozen authors, do I know their personal views or associations? Are they all required to reveal their personal views as long as the views don't effect the text?

 

In all of the discussions about the texts before this Yahoo group thing, there weren't examples of problems in the text except the omission of evolution. That's a big omission to some-no problem.

 

Is their some other issue with the content of the texts?

Edited October 30, 2009 by Blessedfamily

[DrKeller]

Do I want to "plant seeds" so that other viewpoints are an option. Yes. Why would I want to do that?

 

Let me share with you a quote from a great book by Karl Albrecht on Practical Intelligence. It is a purely secular book, if that matters. In a section called "The Plexity Scale" he talks about different types of thinkers. On one end of the scale are the "Simplex thinkers... who typically out of fear and ignorance crave simple answers, simple world views, simple explanations...Their hostility typically arises from a latent, suppressed fear that there might be multiple explanations for reality and that their personal worlds might crumble if they started considering complex options."

 

On the other end of the scale are "Ominplex Thinkers ...who are people who have not only become tolerant of ambiguity and complexity, but who seem to enjoy it. They appreciate the mental stimulation of realizing that human beings only know an infinitesimal fraction of what can be known; they find the idea strangely exhilarating rather than frightening...They are open, at least in principle, to the most seemingly outlandish ideas, ethereal concepts, and preposterous options....One of the most inspiring role models for omniplex thinking...was R. Buckminster Fuller, who said of himself, "I seem to be a verb."

 

Do I want kids to think more like Buckminster Fuller? Yes. Do I think it's a good idea to "plant seeds" of other viewpoints so that more kids (and adults) can be more "omiplex" in their thinking? Yes.

 

That's why I said that.

 

Kind regards,

Rebecca Keller

[hornblower]

See, I'm getting confused now. Because I thought Dr Keller was going to explain something about why she chose to or chose not to disclose her personal biases. And now it's veering into Dr Keller using her debating technique of 'put the onus on them by asking questions' by asking people to defend evolution.

 

All I wanted to know from your website, Dr Keller, when I was shopping for curriculum, was this part regarding evolution -

 

"There is no scientific data to support these claims.

 

Am I undermining your "belief" in evolution. I hope so. I want to keep this a scientific discussion, so show me the scientific data for the necessary steps of evolution I mapped out in that post and we can have a scientific discussion about evolution. If you want to continue to "believe" in evolution, that's ok too. "

 

If these statements (or similar ones; I cut this from your post in this thread) had been on your site from the beginning this discussion wouldn't be happening now. It's the perception that it was being kept hidden, to spring on families later when they went on the yahoo list to get support, - that's the problem.

 

Oddly enough, if I had been waffling about using your Chem programs - which so many people are really adamant contain no overt ID bias & so would probably pass muster - your comments in this thread would have cemented my decision to not use your materials.

 

BTW, I'm reading Dawkins' latest now and I AM more than intrigued.

[Joanne]

Dr. Keller,

 

I am using your elementary RS4K with my one room school house (I homeschool my children as well as a few others). The ages range from kindergarten to Freshman. I have found your materials to be a very "flexible" match and complementary to the outsourced Biology course of my High Schoolers.

 

I am a Christian and tend towards a Theistic but non literal understanding of God's Creation. Ultimately, the science behind the creation doesn't matter to me because it's an awesome work of our creator God regardless of specifics.

 

I am open to honest debate and hearing criticism about my curriculum or my views on science. I am not open to debate or discussion about my personal agenda and personal motives behind creating RS4K.

 

Please, understand that most of the vocal posters here regarding this issue have been searching for a secular science curriculum. As you know from the homeschooling community, it is still predominently populated by conservative Christians and the curriculum choices still reflect that. It's difficult for non conservative Christians or non Christians to find support groups, activities and a curriculum that matches their family perspective.

 

They thought they found such a match in your curriculum. When the facts began unfolding that perhaps they had not, they are understandably reacting. In many cases, it's a compliment to your work as they were quite pleased with your curriculum and regret that they might have to let it go.

 

It's not your science that they want to discuss; it is the topic you've stated you won't discuss.

 

I do hope that your business continues to grow and thrive and that you weather these growing pains with grace and confidence.

 

A happy RS4K user,

 

Joanne

[[email protected]]

Discussions about correct methods of scientific investigation are welcome on this board. However, this has become a defense of a particular curriculum by its writer and should be hosted by the publisher of this material, not by TWTM forums.

 

Moderator