Jump to content

Menu

Any Christian homeschoolers NOT teach Providential history...or use Secular curric ?


Recommended Posts

:iagree:

 

I don't know why you would get flamed for simply expressing how you teach your kids!

 

 

Maybe I assumed to much. I just put that in based on similar threads in the past. They do tend to get nasty and it seems like personal attacks start. I am very surprised and impressed that this thread is not even remotely turning that way :D So I appologize for adding that. :001_smile:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God is truth. To teach something that isn't true does not glorify Him in any way. The Bible doesn't sugar-coat anything--God is constantly showing us that our "heroes" were flawed, just like we are. That's why I love SOTW--it tells history as it happened without a lot of opinion or varnish. We can draw our own conclusions. As far as science goes, I like Apologia, but I think it's important to honestly show all views and why people believe differently.

 

If you are Christian and do not use prepared curriculum, what methods do you use to teach your children to reason Biblically when they are faced with issues that are not congruent with your faith? I am interested in the specifics. Do you just tell them or do you take out the Bible or other Bible study materials? How do you teach them Biblical principles?

 

My kids have a pretty solid biblical foundation. We've done family devotions and Sunday School since they were babies and do a Bible curriculum and Scripture memory as part of our homeschooling. From the beginning I've taught them that some publishers believe differently than we do, and that we need to go to God's Word for our answers. So when we find something in a textbook that conflicts with what we believe, we discuss what God's Word says. We'll probably do some Biblical Worldview study when they're older, but it's not necessary at this point.

 

Science is not religion. It has no opinion on God's existence or role. Science is the systematic study of the physical world. It is a method for seeking truth about the physical (not spiritual) world. Evolution is not a fact. A fact is a single observation. Evolution is MUCH more than that. It is a theory, meaning it provides predictions that can be tested and it has been tested for 200 years, just like gravity (actually there is less scientific evidence fro gravity than evolution). Modern biology is not comprehensible without starting with evolution and the greatest advances in science in the last 20 years have been IMO in the genome. You cannot talk about those findings without assuming evolution....

But the current scientific community assumes that there is no connection between the natural world and the spiritual world, and rejects any answer that is even partly spiritual to a question about the natural world. There are many questions (particularly about cosmology, but I believe also about biology and geology) that purely naturalistic science has failed to answer that can be reasonably answered by allowing for the possibility of a spiritual explanation. One can assume that science will ultimately answer those questions, or one can assume that there are answers contained in Scripture, but an assumption is still being made.

 

Jesus was the ultimate seeker and bearer of truth, and the religious higher ups of the time put him to death for it. [No, I won't claim he was a scientist since his truth is about God and humanity, not the nature of the physical world.] Ultimately truth wins out.

I will agree with you there. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a myth that "all theories are created equal" and it's not true. So creationism is a theory and evolution is a theory, so both are equally scientifically valid? Just not true, not even in the slightest.

You know, I have been thinking about this a LOT lately, and thought it would be a good topic for discussion, as I do think lines need to be drawn. Does every conversation need to include the idea that black people really aren't human, the earth might be flat or round, or that the president is really (insert assertion here, like, a Martian), or whatever, and say, "who knows!" OR that every layperson should "look at the evidence and decide for her/himself." At what point are debates not worth having; at what point is something an established fact. At what point am I full of myself to think a) I know the facts, b) I can understand these facts, c) I can draw conclusions about those facts, and d) is something really in dispute or am I insane? I really should start a thread about the idea of always presenting multiple sides.

 

Okay, here it is.

Edited by stripe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must be the oddball because I cannot teach something contrary to my beliefs. We are Christians. We have certain beliefs and we research curriculum well so we know that it agrees with our beliefs. I completely believe the Bible is the absolute infallible Word of God and we absolutely teach that.

 

 

Now- we do not candy coat everything. Do we believe Columbus was this wonderful man? Absolutely not. We do not teach our kids that Columbus was perfect and he did not receive word from God telling him to go discover a new land, but God used him to find the New World. Our kids know how he treated the Indians, they know how cruel he was to his crew. They know that he was basically a tyrant. God used David who was a murderer and adulterer to rule Isreal. God uses flawed people to glorify Him and His Creation.

 

I absolutely use Christian science because we believe God created as Genesis said He did. We do teach the kids about evolution, but we show them the fallacies involved with the theory and that it is just that, it is a theory.

 

Do not misunderstand me. When we do math, we learn math. When we do English, we learn English. We are not Bible thumpers but we have our absolute set of beliefs that we will not waver from.

 

I generally agree with this. I do believe in evolution (of the planet and animals, at least, I'm not really sure about humans, though dh believes in human evolution and dd1 speaks as if she does) and we use a Catholic science program that reflects that.

 

We don't teach Provdential history because we don't believe it. But I certainly put forth an effort to use curricula that fits our belief system. I'm not sure what's odd about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the current scientific community assumes that there is no connection between the natural world and the spiritual world, and rejects any answer that is even partly spiritual to a question about the natural world. There are many questions (particularly about cosmology, but I believe also about biology and geology) that purely naturalistic science has failed to answer that can be reasonably answered by allowing for the possibility of a spiritual explanation. One can assume that science will ultimately answer those questions, or one can assume that there are answers contained in Scripture, but an assumption is still being made.

 

It's the complete removal of God the has me leaning towards Christian based science books. Now, we have gone back to using TWTM sources, which means there isn't much one way or another, it's 90% experiments. As we get back into Biology, though, I'm leaning towards Christian resources. I am not comfortable teaching my children with things that assert an absence of God from creation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe I assumed to much. I just put that in based on similar threads in the past. They do tend to get nasty and it seems like personal attacks start. I am very surprised and impressed that this thread is not even remotely turning that way :D So I appologize for adding that. :001_smile:

 

 

:grouphug: You're free to state your opinion. :001_smile: These threads can get scary sometimes. You never know what's going to happen! :tongue_smilie:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe I assumed to much. I just put that in based on similar threads in the past. They do tend to get nasty and it seems like personal attacks start. I am very surprised and impressed that this thread is not even remotely turning that way :D So I appologize for adding that. :001_smile:

 

No worries! I know that flaming does happen - but you are right - none on this thread :001_smile:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, no, secular science does NOT. [This is something in WTM that I completely disagree with the authors (as any scientist would) but it just shows they were history majors not science majors..]

 

There is a myth that "all theories are created equal" and it's not true. So creationism is a theory and evolution is a theory, so both are equally scientifically valid? Just not true, not even in the slightest.

 

Science is not religion. It has no opinion on God's existence or role. Science is the systematic study of the physical world. It is a method for seeking truth about the physical (not spiritual) world. Evolution is not a fact. A fact is a single observation. Evolution is MUCH more than that. It is a theory, meaning it provides predictions that can be tested and it has been tested for 200 years, just like gravity (actually there is less scientific evidence fro gravity than evolution). Modern biology is not comprehensible without starting with evolution and the greatest advances in science in the last 20 years have been IMO in the genome. You cannot talk about those findings without assuming evolution.

 

So, if your religions beliefs prevent you from studying large segments of science, fine. That's your choice. But it is not because science is somehow "biased" against creationism. Creationism is not science. It is a story and a belief. Science is about following truth regardless of where it leads and what previously held beliefs it unravels. Scientist have been poisoned, burned alive and persecuted for thousands of years when their findings of truth do not agree with other's interpretation of the bible. Many were speakers of truth and died for it, and yet truth wins out: we now accept the earth is not flat, the sun does not orbit the earth, etc, ad nauseum.

 

Jesus was the ultimate seeker and bearer of truth, and the religious higher ups of the time put him to death for it. [No, I won't claim he was a scientist since his truth is about God and humanity, not the nature of the physical world.] Ultimately truth wins out.

 

You might want to read The Language of God, by Dr. Francis Collins, you might remember him as the head of the Human Genome project.

 

Those of us that heave been here a season or two just get tired of joining in these conversations-though I agree with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...