Staying away from Christian science curriculum

[happi duck]

The majority of you referring to the elementary levels? I've gotten the impression elementary vs. high school is very different. I dropped the elementary levels due to what you all are discussing. I haven't seen it yet but got the impression high school was quite different. Yes? No? Thanks!

 

Jessica,

 

Yes, I only have experience with the elementary levels. I have heard that the higher levels are different, though I am loathe to try them because of my experience.

 

Elementary level is very, VERY different...different author, different approach. We tried the elementary zoology 1-3, 1-2 were just ok and we hated zoo. 3. We've like the jr hi and high school courses we've done so far.

 

Based only on the elementary series I'd be leery too. It would be worth it to borrow a copy of the jr hi/high school books to look at for yourself.

[Embassy]

I can't imagine studying science without the Creator being involved in that study!

 

You don't need a curriculum by a Christian publisher to include the Creator. It is hard to not include Him when He lives in you.

 

On a side note - my son is a science nut, but has been exposed to secular materials most of his life. Just recently he came to me to discuss dating issues he encountered in his independent studies. We allow for possibilities and discuss them, but don't come out of it having a set viewpoint. Openmindedness, I believe, is crucial. But I bring it all back to the first verse in the Bible. In the beginning God created... Do when know when the beginning was for sure? Science is full of theories and the Bible doesn't spell that out, but in the beginning God did it. There is still so much unknown. I think one day it will all make sense, but that will likely be after listening to the Creator explain it.

[AuntPol]

I struggle with this:

 

I am Creationist, but I am not YEC by any stretch of imagination. I am an evolutionist too. Technically I am a theistic evolutionist. As far as my Hebrew studies go, I can not warp my head around how anyone can see it Genesis 1 as literal (though I really don't care if they do). I have no problem reconciling religion and science.

 

Then comes the problem of teaching science. Elementary Science has been fine and easy to do. I am struggling on what to do after this. I have thought about using Apologia all the way through starting in 7th grade because a) It's easy to use and easy to understand b) It doesn't require a lot of the parent c) There are a lot of resource available to help schedule, etc. d) It's what most of the parents around here use and often Co-Op. e) It's affordable in terms of labs and easy to pick up used at local used book store. I have not seen a secular alternative that meet those criteria.

[WishboneDawn]

Interesting thought. Playing along with you, it seems possible that perhaps secular science is built upon defending the thermometer, forgetting what is was they set out to measure in the first place...

 

Not sure I get where you're going with this...

[WishboneDawn]

 

Then comes the problem of teaching science. Elementary Science has been fine and easy to do. I am struggling on what to do after this. I have thought about using Apologia all the way through starting in 7th grade because a) It's easy to use and easy to understand b) It doesn't require a lot of the parent c) There are a lot of resource available to help schedule, etc. d) It's what most of the parents around here use and often Co-Op. e) It's affordable in terms of labs and easy to pick up used at local used book store. I have not seen a secular alternative that meet those criteria.

 

But what should be the first and foremost question is, "is it good science?" Is it seductive in terms of ease of use and such? But for those of us who don't believe in creationism or ID is it good science? I've decided no.

 

Singapore has some great science texts. I think we'll be using MPH and Interactive Science next year.

[DebbS]

I am a Christian and for Biology chose a secular curriculum for my son and will do the same for my daughter. I wanted them to learn evolution for a few reasons. One is that I don't know how God created the world. I have faith that he did. Thus, I don't want my children to stake their faith on the evolution argument but rather relationship with God. In addition, evolution, whether true or not true is the current paradigm from which science is working from. And it has yielded some very applicable knowledge. If my children want to be scientists, they need to understand the theory.

 

Another area where I differ with at least one or two Christian curriculum's is my focus on caring for the earth. I think it's very important to do so and I think this from the perspective that the task to dress it and keep it was given to humans. I've done some fairly rigorous research on sustainability concepts in the Bible. The idea and practices are definitely there.

 

We will be going with The Spectrum Chemistry this year. I chose it because of the labs and will be using Zumdahl's as an additional resource. Although The Spectrum is Christian based, I'm not sure how that will effect what is taught about chemistry. I guess I'll find out. We are also doing Conceptual Physics which is a secular program.

[creekland]

But what should be the first and foremost question is, "is it good science?" Is it seductive in terms of ease of use and such?

 

For those curious, there is a current thread on the high school board discussing Apologia's high school Chemistry course(s).

 

http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?t=186725

[Laurie4b]

We've used both because we outsource science and that is what has been chosen by the instructor. However, I think Christian kids losing their faith is not as related to the curricula they use as to two other things:

 

1) Parents who roll too much up into the "this is what it means to be a Christian" ball. We attend a nondenominational church in which people have a variety of beliefs about evolution & creation. The belief that all would agree to is that God was in charge; He created. I tend toward old earth creationism, but we don't attempt to make this a condition of faith. If Jesus did not rise from the dead, our faith is worthless, according to Scripture; whether evolution was in play or not doesn't rise to that level.

 

2) Avoid any shoddy science. A lot of creation science is shoddy science.

 

3) When I went to college, my faith was shaken by the things I was learning in my psychology classes. What I was learning caused real questioning. However, having completed my psych. major and gone on to a master's degree and into clinical practice, I also found that some of what I had been taught as an undergrad wasn't the whole story. Some had been taught by profs with particular worldviews, and I didn't as an undergrad distinguish their bias from fact. In other cases, I didn't detect that while the "facts" did derive logically from the assumptions, that perhaps the assumptions weren't correct. At any rate, the more I learned, the less conflict there was with my faith. It was my lack of training in how to think (see the assumptions, etc.), giving too much credence to the "authority" of texts and professors, and lack of experience of how "science" can swing wildly within a few years to the opposite opinion that caused my troubles. (e.g. of swinging wildly: when my children were young, the "scientific" advice based on research was to avoid peanut products until after age 3 to reduce the incidence of peanut allergies. Now, I am reading that "scientific research" says that waiting until age 3 to introduce peanuts increases the probability of allergies. I have seen so much of this over the years that I no longer take "scientific research" as authoritative in the same way that I took it as authoritative as an undergrad.)

[AuntPol]

But what should be the first and foremost question is, "is it good science?" Is it seductive in terms of ease of use and such? But for those of us who don't believe in creationism or ID is it good science? I've decided no.

 

Singapore has some great science texts. I think we'll be using MPH and Interactive Science next year.

 

That is what I don't know. It seems plenty of homeschoolers do well on the AP tests after using Apologia so apparantly they are learning something.

 

My thoughts are that evolution is really a minor topic in the overall scheme of Science. It is something that I just don't see worthy of spending more than month on (and that's reaching). I think I spent a week at most in Honors Biology class covering the Theory of Evolution. I am trying to figure how much is actually devoted to what would be called "bad science".

[asta]

That is what I don't know. It seems plenty of homeschoolers do well on the AP tests after using Apologia so apparently they are learning something.

 

 

Or, some people who test well happen to have used Apologia.

 

The real question would be, how many homeschoolers who have used Apologia have failed miserably (on AP, SATII, further coursework, etc.) vs done well?

 

 

a

[WishboneDawn]

That is what I don't know. It seems plenty of homeschoolers do well on the AP tests after using Apologia so apparantly they are learning something.

 

My thoughts are that evolution is really a minor topic in the overall scheme of Science. It is something that I just don't see worthy of spending more than month on (and that's reaching). I think I spent a week at most in Honors Biology class covering the Theory of Evolution. I am trying to figure how much is actually devoted to what would be called "bad science".

 

Then I think your biology teacher did you a disservice. :) Evolution is one of those foundational theories like nuclear theory that so much other science rests on. Try germ theory in medicine without a firm grasp of evolution. It's also closely tied to other fields of study like geology.

 

More reason to try the Singapore Science materials. :D