Apologia's response to the article re: not teaching evolution

[Ellie]

 

Very well said.

[Orthodox6]

His is not much of "an answer." I was expecting concrete examples of how "real" science buttresses his textbook content. In addition, one does not know what caliber of college is attended by any particular "giver of testimony."

 

P.S. My use of the word "real" does not mean that Apologia's textbooks are not "real" science. I meant only that generally, one best rebuts an attack using comparable arguments.

[Jean in Newcastle]

I thought the valuable part of the answer was that

 

1. The books were written by a "real" scientist

 

2. They do present and discuss evolution but are clear about the fact that they believe the creationist viewpoint is correct.

 

The testimonials are just that - testimonials. They might show that some people are happy with it and that some people get good grades in college after using their material. But of course that's all it shows.

 

But since the argument against them was even more devoid of any research or hard facts, it's hard to hold that against Apologia.

[JudoMom]

I thought the valuable part of the answer was that

 

1. The books were written by a "real" scientist

 

2. They do present and discuss evolution but are clear about the fact that they believe the creationist viewpoint is correct.

 

The testimonials are just that - testimonials. They might show that some people are happy with it and that some people get good grades in college after using their material. But of course that's all it shows.

 

But since the argument against them was even more devoid of any research or hard facts, it's hard to hold that against Apologia.

 

:iagree:

[Parrothead]

Never mind.

[Mejane]

His is not much of "an answer." /QUOTE]

 

I agree, but then I don't think he should have to defend himself. Apologia is a Christian curriculum. Don't believe it, don't use it.

 

ETA: We are not Christian, but my daughter used Apologia very successfully in spite of that fact.

Edited March 11, 2010 by Mejane
Clarification

[JESSICAinMD]

His is not much of "an answer." /QUOTE]

 

I agree, but then I don't think he should have to defend himself. Apologia is a Christian curriculum. Don't believe it, don't use it.

 

 

I agree. He shouldn't have to defend himself at all. Despite what we believe New Earth/Old Earth ect., I think one thing that most of use can agree on is that we don't want anyone else telling us which curriculum to use or what we need to believe.

[aude sapere]

:iagree:

[Audrey]

His is not much of "an answer."

 

I agree, but then I don't think he should have to defend himself. Apologia is a Christian curriculum. Don't believe it, don't use it.

 

ETA: We are not Christian, but my daughter used Apologia very successfully in spite of that fact.

 

:iagree: At least Apologia is open about their christian/creationism bias, unlike some other curricula that try to pass for "neutral" or even "secular" but in fact, are neither at all.

[Danestress]

Of course he doesn't have to do so.

 

But he actually wants to sell his product, and he wants it to be taken seriously as a science curriculum. He could say, "Well, I am entitled to believe what I want" and that's true. Of course he is. But he probably would prefer that people know he's actually thought hard about the evidence supporting evolution and the weaknesses of that evidence, and he probably wants the public to know that his science materials are rigorous and thoughtful.

[Anne in CA]

I do have to say that my son used Apologia for Biology this year and learned so many things that he can apply to day to day life that I am not just impressed, I am dazzled.

 

I will use Apologia for my daughter after his experience because no matter what a science text teaches, if you can not apply the knowledge to every day life, you didn't really learn anything.

 

I had stayed away from these courses because I didn't want to be a "fundie". Now I am sick that my son is almost done with high school and didn't use more of these courses.

[Jane in NC]

Mr. Carman wrote:

 

While creationists and evolutionists are looking at the same evidence found in the natural world, they reach different conclusions.

 

How does Mr. Carman classify someone who believes in both creation and evolution, someone like Francis Collins?

 

The promulgation of an erroneous dualism troubles me.

 

Jane

[Jean in Newcastle]

Mr. Carman wrote:

 

While creationists and evolutionists are looking at the same evidence found in the natural world, they reach different conclusions.

 

How does Mr. Carman classify someone who believes in both creation and evolution, someone like Francis Collins?

 

The promulgation of an erroneous dualism troubles me.

 

Jane

 

Francis Collins is a theistic evolutionist which as a category is different than a creationist.

[_io]

Mr. Carman wrote:

 

While creationists and evolutionists are looking at the same evidence found in the natural world, they reach different conclusions.

 

How does Mr. Carman classify someone who believes in both creation and evolution, someone like Francis Collins?

 

The promulgation of an erroneous dualism troubles me.

 

Jane

Mr. Collins is not a creationist. He believes evolution is correct with the caveat that it is not completely random and undirected. It is operationally the same as evolution with the only difference being the philosophy behind it.

[Cricket]

I do have to say that my son used Apologia for Biology this year and learned so many things that he can apply to day to day life that I am not just impressed, I am dazzled.

 

I will use Apologia for my daughter after his experience because no matter what a science text teaches, if you can not apply the knowledge to every day life, you didn't really learn anything.

 

I had stayed away from these courses because I didn't want to be a "fundie". Now I am sick that my son is almost done with high school and didn't use more of these courses.

 

I've held off on using a science curriculum as well. We just started one of the zoology books. I'm glad to hear you say that!

[Spy Car]

I agree with this part of the "response":

 

"It should be no surprise that Jerry Coyne, a professor at the University of Chicago in the Department of Ecology and Evolution, thinks our books are "promulgating lies to kids."

 

Bill

[Ellie]

His is not much of "an answer." I was expecting concrete examples of how "real" science buttresses his textbook content. In addition, one does not know what caliber of college is attended by any particular "giver of testimony."

 

P.S. My use of the word "real" does not mean that Apologia's textbooks are not "real" science. I meant only that generally, one best rebuts an attack using comparable arguments.

It would not have helped anything if he'd given "concrete examples." In fact, I'm thinking those "concrete" examples are in the text.

[mrsrevmeg]

I thought the valuable part of the answer was that

 

1. The books were written by a "real" scientist

 

2. They do present and discuss evolution but are clear about the fact that they believe the creationist viewpoint is correct.

 

The testimonials are just that - testimonials. They might show that some people are happy with it and that some people get good grades in college after using their material. But of course that's all it shows.

 

But since the argument against them was even more devoid of any research or hard facts, it's hard to hold that against Apologia.

 

:iagree:

[Tea Time]

Very well said.

 

My feeling is there is too much fretting over the wrong issue. Want your kids to do well in science? Teach them math... relentlessly. I highly doubt young people fail or struggle with science courses in high school or college because they know/don't know enough about evolution. If they fail science courses, it is probably because they lack reading comprehension and math skills. Moreover, difficulties with courses in biology, which are generally fairly easy for an average young person to grasp, might stem from a failure to understand chemistry, which can also be traced back to math skills.

 

Evolution can be taught sufficient for high school and undergraduate level college in a day, a week maybe? The discussions about evolution on this board are way beyond what needs to be taught to kids in k-12, unless you want to do more and enjoy it. It concerns me that this issue might frighten people about homeschooling the sciences. It need not.

 

I think Apologia does have to defend itself. So should all text book authors. Scientists (whatever their claims) should have to sell their beliefs to the world just like all scientists through time have had to do. No one ever said it was easy. And no one guaranteed to clear a path or promised to shut out other voices; that will only cause more mistrust. And you can't do it the way advertisers sell products either. It won't work, and it will backfire.

 

As Richard Feynman put it:

 

"But there is one feature I notice that is generally missing in cargo cult science. That is the idea that we all hope you have learned in studying science in school - we never explicitly say what this is, but just hope that you catch on by all the examples of scientific investigation. It is interesting, therefore, to bring it out now and speak of it explicitly. It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that correspond to a kind of utter honesty - a kind of bending over backwards......the idea is to try to give all the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another."

 

BTW, he was put in place to review math and science texts for public schools and he hated them all. So maybe there are other possible problems with science texts that should concern us. As near as I can tell, those issues do not seem to concern our text book industry at all, then or now.

 

He was a great thinker. I wish he had given us more to chew on, but he wasn't a writer after all! Lol!

 

Something to consider. I can't help but wonder if this article was put out right in the middle of the Texas textbook issue for the sole purpose of distracting any criticism about public school text books that might fly around. If people and news organizations (like MSNBC) are looking at the homeschool textbook industry then they will ignore weak science, math, and social studies texts in the public schools. But tax payers pay for those, which makes them up for public scrutiny far more than private publishers which we are free to avoid.

 

Whatever the deal, this issue is terrible press for homeschooling; it puts all homeschoolers and publishers on the defensive, and it undermines our freedom to continue being able to do it as we see fit. I think that is the real issue of concern. But that is all just my take on it.

[Critter]

Very well said, Tea Time.

[Lovedtodeath]

Very well said, Tea Time.

:iagree: