Has anyone used REAL Science-4-Kids?

[melmichigan]

Could you link me to the portion of her website where this is discussed? I looked and in the sections I saw saw the same old "public face" of so-called "neutrality" between -isms, and no acknowledgment that she is a active proponent of ID/creationism.

 

Bill

 

Well dang, it's been changed again. Here is the post I made when it was on her website.

Edited February 5, 2011 by melmichigan

[Guest]

I am not looking to debate anything with anyone. I am not even looking to take sides. I never saw the debate myself so I don't find it fair to take positions and without the facts (without reading up on the situation for myself) once again I am not prepared to get all worked up over a situation I know nothing about. I will do a search for my personal benefit since Melissa said Dr. Keller spoke herself here on the WTM forums, and I am hoping that reading about what both sides had to say may help. One thing to clarify though, what peoples' personal beliefs are does not bother me, once they are not trying to convince me of anything.

 

We only started RS4K a few weeks ago but so far I have not seen anything objectionable. My goal is to discuss with my children all sides of the story when the time comes. As every other parent, I have the right to discuss the matter in my own way with my own children.

 

Anyway, Melissa I have no problem with you bringing it up :). I think it was done in a fair informative way. Walking away now...

[melmichigan]

i'm so glad someone finally said this; i was reading the replies and getting ready to write it out. we used it as a critical reading exercise with the dc. we'd read it, and then ask "so what is the author's position on how life came to be on earth?"....

 

but i have trouble giving money to ID folks, so we're still looking....

 

If it works for your family you can always consider buying used. ;)

 

Anyway, Melissa I have no problem with you bringing it up :). I think it was done in a fair informative way. Walking away now...

 

I'm glad you saw my intent. :)

[Spy Car]

The OP said:

 

I also like the fact that there doesn't seem to be any sort of scientific philosophy layered on top of it. (Please correct me if I'm wrong.)

 

 

And she (and other prospective parents) should know that the author does have an agenda, and that she attempts to conceal that agenda on her website, but has a different face when she speaks to those who share her agenda.

 

This is not the posture of a straight-forward person.

 

Bill

Edited February 5, 2011 by Spy Car

[melmichigan]

nm

Edited February 5, 2011 by melmichigan

[Jen500]

FYI user DrKeller is banned from this forum. :tongue_smilie:

Of course there are numerous reasons why a user might be banned.

[Guest]

This is all I was able to find. Just scroll down to Sept 4th 2009. Again, I did not find anything objectionable but I guess like Dr. Keller says, it depends on people's interpretations. Her blog is gone and if she ever did say something in haste, well, I am sure we have all been guilty of that at one time or another. The point to me is, I have not seen anything objectionable in the curriculum and so I will decide how I will proceed with RS4K based on that :).

 

http://www.idthefuture.com/2009/09/

 

I also did a search on "keller" in the WTM members and the accounts I found had nothing to do with Dr. Keller in any way. Nowhere did I see a DrKeller account, much less banned. I wish people would support their statements with facts.

Edited February 5, 2011 by Guest

[Jen500]

I also did a search on "keller" in the WTM members and the accounts I found had nothing to do with Dr. Keller in any way. Nowhere did I see a DrKeller account, much less banned. I wish people would support their statements with facts.

 

http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?t=136053&page=8&highlight=rs4k

[Guest]

www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?t=136053&page=8&highlight=rs4k

 

Thank you. It did not show up on my search.

 

ETA: Thank you for the link to the thread also. I had not located it yet.

[pahansen]

While I did want to know if the author was pushing an agenda, I don't believe that seeing the word "designed" in one text is likely to bother me much either way.

 

 

And she (and other prospective parents) should know that the author does have an agenda, and that she attempts to conceal that agenda on her website, but has a different face when she speaks to those who share her agenda.

 

This is not the posture of a straight-forward person.

 

Bill

 

This is why I now hate shopping for science curricula. Please, just show my kids the parts of an atom or which animals eat which in the food chain or how oxydation occurs. When teaching science to 6- and 8-year olds, I really don't think it's necessary to inject every chapter with either God or evolution. I am happy to keep that discussion/debate for upper elementary/middle school years.

 

And sadly, there used to be a time when keeping one's personal beliefs from intruding on one's text was considered to be laudable, not an indictment of one's character. Perhaps I'm missing something, though, and Dr. Keller has announced to Creationists that she has a goal of subverting young children.

 

Regardless, I am sorry to see that this post has gone from "is this a solid science curriculum," which it still seems to be, to an investigation into the author's character, which is really irrelevant to me.

 

--Pamela

[Guest]

Regardless, I am sorry to see that this post has gone from "is this a solid science curriculum," which it still seems to be, to an investigation into the author's character, which is really irrelevant to me.

 

:iagree: Thank you!

[Upstatemamma]

Marie,

 

You said it!! :iagree:

[AngelBee]

That is really awesome that you can see the product before buying it.

 

Thanks for linking that. :)

[msk]

I really appreciate knowing an author's perspective ahead of time. I don't think it's possible to write an "unbiased" science curriculum any more than "unbiased" history, so I want to know the bias and choose one that suits my family.

 

For example, as a person with no problems with evolution, reading Chapter 1, Level 1 of Biology on the sample site (I love that the sample exists, by the way!), I'd be left wondering, "Huh, why didn't the book explain WHY some groups of animals are more similar to each other than others??? It's much easier to understand and remember all this stuff if you know what the pattern is and why that pattern exists, isn't it?" For me, the "why" is that these animals are related by a common ancestor; leaving that explanation out is a critical problem for me, and I don't want a science text with what I personally perceive as big gaping holes cut out of it. It would be like reading those history books everyone complains about that never, ever mention religion. But, I realize that for other families who have a different explanation of the "why," having important spaces left open to fill with their own answers may be the high point of the books. The fact that those "blank spaces" are there DOES need pointing out, however, because for people like me the "blank spaces" really stand out, and make it *not* a solid science choice for my kids.

 

It's impossible to write about biology in a way that's going to make everyone happy, and anyone who says differently is selling something. (Cough.) So, thanks to those who pointed out what the author's perspective was here.

[Guest]

I really appreciate knowing an author's perspective ahead of time. I don't think it's possible to write an "unbiased" science curriculum any more than "unbiased" history, so I want to know the bias and choose one that suits my family.

 

For example, as a person with no problems with evolution, reading Chapter 1, Level 1 of Biology on the sample site (I love that the sample exists, by the way!), I'd be left wondering, "Huh, why didn't the book explain WHY some groups of animals are more similar to each other than others??? It's much easier to understand and remember all this stuff if you know what the pattern is and why that pattern exists, isn't it?" For me, the "why" is that these animals are related by a common ancestor; leaving that explanation out is a critical problem for me, and I don't want a science text with what I personally perceive as big gaping holes cut out of it. It would be like reading those history books everyone complains about that never, ever mention religion. But, I realize that for other families who have a different explanation of the "why," having important spaces left open to fill with their own answers may be the high point of the books. The fact that those "blank spaces" are there DOES need pointing out, however, because for people like me the "blank spaces" really stand out, and make it *not* a solid science choice for my kids.

 

It's impossible to write about biology in a way that's going to make everyone happy, and anyone who says differently is selling something. (Cough.) So, thanks to those who pointed out what the author's perspective was here.

 

My understanding of how the author wrote this curriculum (and from what I have observed from the Pre-Level 1 Biology program that we have) is that it was designed to be neutral. By inserting what you are asking you are essentially asking for the curriculum to have a certain slant that was not the author's intention. If that is what you are looking for then yes, it definitely does not appear to be a curriculum that would work for you.

[Jen500]

My understanding of how the author wrote this curriculum (and from what I have observed from the Pre-Level 1 Biology program that we have) is that it was designed to be neutral.

 

:lol: For some reason this almost made me spit my coffee out this morning! (said with a friendly chuckle :))

[Spy Car]

:lol: For some reason this almost made me spit my coffee out this morning! (said with a friendly chuckle :))

 

:lol::lol::lol:

 

 

My understanding of how the author wrote this curriculum (and from what I have observed from the Pre-Level 1 Biology program that we have) is that it was designed to be neutral. By inserting what you are asking you are essentially asking for the curriculum to have a certain slant that was not the author's intention. If that is what you are looking for then yes, it definitely does not appear to be a curriculum that would work for you.

 

"Neutrality" is used by Keller as a euphemism for infidelity to science and the scientific method. Pretending not to "take sides" between valid scientific theories and ideas that have either been disproven as "junk science" or ones that lie in the realm of un-provable/un-disprovable creation stories from a sacred tradition is not the position of a scientist.

 

Besides Keller is not "neutral." She is a well known ID/creationist proponent (a position she still hides on her website) and her attempting to make "neutrality" seem like a valid option is part of her effort to undermine the principles upon which science is predicated.

 

Bill

Edited February 7, 2011 by Spy Car

[Veritaserum]

"Neutrality" is used by Keller as a euphemism for infidelity to science and the scientific method. Pretending not to "take sides" between valid scientific theories and ideas that have either been disproven as "junk science" or ones that lie in the realm of un-provable/un-disprovable creation stories from a sacred tradition is not the position of a scientist.

 

Besides Keller is not "neutral." She is a well known ID/creationist proponent (a position she still hides on her website) and her attempting to make "neutrality" seem like a valid option is part of her effort to undermine the principles upon which science in predicated.

 

Bill

 

I totally agree! I am so very frustrated over the lack of real science for homeschooled kids. I want the age of the earth to be stated as billions of years old because that is what scientific evidence suggests as the most likely answer. If scientists find a substantial body of evidence that disproves an old earth, they will modify the theory. I want even early levels of science to at least mention evolution in simple terms because evolution is what the evidence points to.

 

"Neutrality" on these topics leaves me thinking that a particular science course is leaving out too much information. Science is already neutral. Science (good science, anyway) is not concerned with hurting people's feelings or challenging tradition. Science is concerned with what can be observed and tested.

 

I already knew that I wouldn't be able to use Dr. Keller's program. I was hoping to use Nebel's series, but knowing that he is explicitly avoiding the topic of evolution even in his grade 6-8 book is very disappointing.

Edited February 7, 2011 by Veritaserum

[msk]

As I said before, I don't think writing an "unbiased" biology textbook is actually possible. Leaving things out is NOT "neutral." It is a conscious decision on the author's part to leave out evolution, or a literal interpretation of Genesis, or any other important explanation for the patterns biologists study. But leaving out something that's absolutely fundamental to the way a huge number of scientists understand biology is not "neutral." I am perfectly happy that different texts include or leave out different things-- that is why so many alternatives exist. It is calling them "neutral" or "unbiased" because of what they choose to leave out that is a problem.

 

So, can we just describe this as "a curriculum that carefully avoids any mention of either evolution or any alternative explanations" and not as a "solid, unbiased" one?

[melmichigan]

So, can we just describe this as "a curriculum that carefully avoids any mention of either evolution or any alternative explanations" and not as a "solid, unbiased" one?

 

Isn't the author assuming that ID is an "alternate explanation" with the continued use of "design"?

 

I'm really not trying to argue, just to understand what you are trying to say...

 

I find the word design workable for many homeschoolers but I have a hard time saying it's unbiased with the admissions of the author's beliefs.

Edited February 7, 2011 by melmichigan

[Spy Car]

So, can we just describe this as "a curriculum that carefully avoids any mention of either evolution or any alternative explanations" and not as a "solid, unbiased" one?

 

This formulation does not work in Keller's case because the omissions are made in a context where she attempts to differentiate between "facts" and the "interpretation" facts, with the former being matters of "science" and the latter being matters of ideology or worldview. This is, of course, not the case in mainstream science.

 

There are very high demands for scientific evidence to validate scientific therories. Theories are based on scientific evidence are are intrinsic to a scientic understanding of the physical world. Keller attempts to subvert a scientific world view by claiming "Darwinism" is just another "-ism" that has no more scientific credence than creationism or Intelligent Design (and in fact she thinks the Theory of Evolution is incorrect).

 

Her's are not the positions of a scientist. The agenda she attempt to advance, which is that "interpretation" of scientific facts are matters of "opinion" or belief, is not consistant with the scientific method or a scientific worldview.

 

And it is not an accidental posture, there is a purpose to both the omissions and her attempt to make the ToE seem like a matter of "opinion" rather than a very well-validated scientific theory.

 

Bill

[Shellydon]

I really love the way the workbooks look! I like that you can see everything on their site. I think we may give this a try next year, perhaps paired with Apologia.

[Guest]

:lol: For some reason this almost made me spit my coffee out this morning! (said with a friendly chuckle :))

 

:lol: I totally missed it :lol:. And here I thought I wasn't funny :D.

[Guest]

I really love the way the workbooks look! I like that you can see everything on their site. I think we may give this a try next year, perhaps paired with Apologia.

 

We are currently using RS4K Pre-Level 1 Biology with BFSU and are hoping to add in Apologia later this year after we finish RS4K (and if I can stay off the forums :tongue_smilie:). Next year so far it looks like it will be a combo of RS4K and Apologia for us too. I am looking at adding stuff like DVD's, science books, science kits etc to expand on the RS4K materials.

[Shellydon]

We are currently using RS4K Pre-Level 1 Biology with BFSU and are hoping to add in Apologia later this year after we finish RS4K (and if I can stay off the forums :tongue_smilie:). Next year so far it looks like it will be a combo of RS4K and Apologia for us too. I am looking at adding stuff like DVD's, science books, science kits etc to expand on the RS4K materials.

 

Sounds great! We are using SL Science 2 this year, and it is fine but I don't LOVE it. I love all of our other curriculum and I want to love science too. I think if we do Apologia as a kind of read aloud and then RS4K as workbooks, we'll the best of both worlds.

[Guest]

This formulation does not work in Keller's case because the omissions are made in a context where she attempts to differentiate between "facts" and the "interpretation" facts, with the former being matters of "science" and the latter being matters of ideology or worldview. This is, of course, not the case in mainstream science.

 

There are very high demands for scientific evidence to validate scientific therories. Theories are based on scientific evidence are are intrinsic to a scientic understanding of the physical world. Keller attempts to subvert a scientific world view by claiming "Darwinism" is just another "-ism" that has no more scientific credence than creationism or Intelligent Design (and in fact she thinks the Theory of Evolution is incorrect).

 

Her's are not the positions of a scientist. The agenda she attempt to advance, which is that "interpretation" of scientific facts are matters of "opinion" or belief, is not consistant with the scientific method or a scientific worldview.

 

And it is not an accidental posture, there is a purpose to both the omissions and her attempt to make the ToE seem like a matter of "opinion" rather than a very well-validated scientific theory.

 

Bill

 

Bill, I have to give you that, when you commit to a cause you really commit to a cause! Dr Keller responded to you and others in that thread (which I read all through) but no matter what she said you have made up your mind to condemn her. Wow! I wish no one ever puts you through that for something you said!

 

Her personal beliefs are her personal beliefs and don't concern me in the least. I am not ID nor am I YE but I have seen the curriculum come across as completely neutral and that is fine with me and exactly what I am looking for. She does not push any agendas. Just lets you insert what you want to insert as an explanation with your kids. As several people said in that old thread, it would be pretty hard to add anything that would be missed by the home-teacher.

 

However, your persistence with the topic makes me feel like you think that the rest of us are dumb and cannot decide for ourselves, and that I just don't get :confused:.

Edited February 7, 2011 by Guest

[Shellydon]

This formulation does not work in Keller's case because the omissions are made in a context where she attempts to differentiate between "facts" and the "interpretation" facts, with the former being matters of "science" and the latter being matters of ideology or worldview. This is, of course, not the case in mainstream science.

 

There are very high demands for scientific evidence to validate scientific therories. Theories are based on scientific evidence are are intrinsic to a scientic understanding of the physical world. Keller attempts to subvert a scientific world view by claiming "Darwinism" is just another "-ism" that has no more scientific credence than creationism or Intelligent Design (and in fact she thinks the Theory of Evolution is incorrect).

 

Her's are not the positions of a scientist. The agenda she attempt to advance, which is that "interpretation" of scientific facts are matters of "opinion" or belief, is not consistant with the scientific method or a scientific worldview.

 

And it is not an accidental posture, there is a purpose to both the omissions and her attempt to make the ToE seem like a matter of "opinion" rather than a very well-validated scientific theory.

 

Bill

 

I am new here and you obviously are not. I must say however, that beating a dead horse usually doesn't get anyone anywhere. I think your point that the author of RS4K is a believes in ID has been thoroughly made, has it not?

[SnMomof7]

I really love the way the workbooks look! I like that you can see everything on their site. I think we may give this a try next year, perhaps paired with Apologia.

 

:iagree:

 

I'm about to send off Paypal for a used copy of Chemistry Pre Level 1. :D

 

My daughter keeps asking me to load up the student text for her to read on the computer, so I knew I had to get her a copy of her own!

[Shellydon]

:iagree:

 

I'm about to send off Paypal for a used copy of Chemistry Pre Level 1. :D

 

My daughter keeps asking me to load up the student text for her to read on the computer, so I knew I had to get her a copy of her own!

 

 

Where did you find it? I'll have to stalk some used curricula sites.:)

[Guest]

Sounds great! We are using SL Science 2 this year, and it is fine but I don't LOVE it. I love all of our other curriculum and I want to love science too. I think if we do Apologia as a kind of read aloud and then RS4K as workbooks, we'll the best of both worlds.

 

We have SL K and did give it a go but it was not for us. After a few weeks all we were enjoying were the hands-on activities/ experiments (DVD and Usborne Experiments book) but we have the older edition. One thing that I have found is that programs that jump between topics just don't work for us. We are mastery oriented and like sticking with a topic. This is another reason that I have pretty much decided on Apologia and RS4K for us. They seem to be exactly what I am looking for where that is concerned.

 

With a science kid I am rethinking my order for next year. We also use TOG and I may have to really focus on using a spine there in order to add more science books to our collection. I am seeing that it is not fair to be pushing too much history on a kid that loves to do science and will most likely be going in that direction :tongue_smilie:. My order will be changing so many times in the months to come :rolleyes: while I am struggling between everything I want to do and what is best for my son.

Edited February 7, 2011 by Guest

[SnMomof7]

Where did you find it? I'll have to stalk some used curricula sites.:)

 

I found it...HERE! :)

 

:party:

 

The WTM For Sale board is awesome. I've also had some very good success at the Want To Buy board too!

 

You do need to do some stalking though...

[msk]

Isn't the author assuming that ID is an "alternate explanation" with the continued use of "design"?

 

I'm really not trying to argue, just to understand what you are trying to say...

 

I find the word design workable for many homeschoolers but I have a hard time saying it's unbiased with the admissions of the author's beliefs.

 

I guess I wasn't clear: I'm agreeing with you that it's *not* unbiased, and that even in the lower two levels (where I didn't see anything about "design" at all) leaving evolutionary theory out altogether constitutes a significant bias all by itself. So, thanks for the heads-up on the author's perspective, since I'm new here and missed this whole issue last time it came up.

[melmichigan]

I guess I wasn't clear: I'm agreeing with you that it's *not* unbiased, and that even in the lower two levels (where I didn't see anything about "design" at all) leaving evolutionary theory out altogether constitutes a significant bias all by itself. So, thanks for the heads-up on the author's perspective, since I'm new here and missed this whole issue last time it came up.

 

Now I get it. Thanks for clarifying! :)

 

 

FYI, Level 1 Astronomy is up to view in edit format, although I'm not sure for how long, they are just starting to take preorders.

[Guest]

As I said before, I don't think writing an "unbiased" biology textbook is actually possible. Leaving things out is NOT "neutral." It is a conscious decision on the author's part to leave out evolution, or a literal interpretation of Genesis, or any other important explanation for the patterns biologists study. But leaving out something that's absolutely fundamental to the way a huge number of scientists understand biology is not "neutral." I am perfectly happy that different texts include or leave out different things-- that is why so many alternatives exist. It is calling them "neutral" or "unbiased" because of what they choose to leave out that is a problem.

 

So, can we just describe this as "a curriculum that carefully avoids any mention of either evolution or any alternative explanations" and not as a "solid, unbiased" one?

 

It's all a matter of interpretation in my book :).

[Guest]

Isn't the author assuming that ID is an "alternate explanation" with the continued use of "design"?

 

I'm really not trying to argue, just to understand what you are trying to say...

 

I find the word design workable for many homeschoolers but I have a hard time saying it's unbiased with the admissions of the author's beliefs.

 

The word design in just a word. I don't see it as implying or pushing the author's beliefs but once again it all depends on our own personal interpretations :). I guess I am one of those homeschoolers that find the word design workable. Look at how I used it without even thinking about it ;).

[Elohcin]

Sorry it took me forever to get back, I have been away from the boards. We did not add anything and it took us a little less than 4 weeks. We focused on it for our Jan term, so other than math, co-op homework, lit, and a bit of writing-We did chemistry. We really enjoyed it.

[Guest]

Sorry it took me forever to get back, I have been away from the boards. We did not add anything and it took us a little less than 4 weeks. We focused on it for our Jan term, so other than math, co-op homework, lit, and a bit of writing-We did chemistry. We really enjoyed it.

 

No problem. Thank you for replying :). OK, I see now why it went so fast for you. I stretch ours out to two weeks and do the activity on the second week because we are also using BFSU. I think next year I will redo Pre-Level 1 Biology and get the Chemistry Text and just expand on them to stretch them out with various resources. I wish some resource recommendations where included but oh well. I will just figure it out on my own. I don't think I will add the lab workbooks and teacher's guide after this year. I will just add resources and activities of my choice. I want to also add the second Zoology Apologia book alongside that for next year. I can then add Physics the following year and perhaps redo Chemistry and another Apologia book on the side. I think that could work :D.

[SnMomof7]

I think RS4K and Apologia is a good combination. What dd and I have read together in the pre level 1 chem student text is already enriching our Apologia astronomy study!

[Guest]

I think RS4K and Apologia is a good combination. What dd and I have read together in the pre level 1 chem student text is already enriching our Apologia astronomy study!

 

Yep, that was my idea from the start ;). It was why I also included BFSU. Now I can just use BFSU as an additional resource, when needed :).