Looking for Science Encyclopedia w/o evolution

[Milknhoney]

I checked out Usborne's First Encyclopedia of Space from the library to review it as a possible resource for next year (2nd grade). I decided it had too much "millions of years" stuff in it to actually buy it. But, my son found it on the shelf and started reading through it on his own. That is exactly the kind of book I want to buy - one he will be so interested in that he takes it down on his own to read "for fun". (He doesn't do that with our science textbook - GDL). What resources are out there without the evolutionary bias? I have been looking through the AiG website, but everything I looked at seemed over his grade level and/or boring.

[Sue G in PA]

Not sure you will find an encyclopedia that doesn't teach evolution but I think the Apologia Elementary series are great books. They are colorful and appealing and easy enough for a 2nd grader to read (if he reads well).

[calandalsmom]

I checked out Usborne's First Encyclopedia of Space from the library to review it as a possible resource for next year (2nd grade). I decided it had too much "millions of years" stuff in it to actually buy it. But, my son found it on the shelf and started reading through it on his own. That is exactly the kind of book I want to buy - one he will be so interested in that he takes it down on his own to read "for fun". (He doesn't do that with our science textbook - GDL). What resources are out there without the evolutionary bias? I have been looking through the AiG website, but everything I looked at seemed over his grade level and/or boring.

 

It will be impossible to find an actual science book which leaves evolution out.

[Halcyon]

It will be impossible to find an actual science book which leaves evolution out.

 

 

:iagree::iagree:

[Spy Car]

It will be impossible to find an actual science book which leaves evolution out.

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

 

Bill

[Satori]

:iagree: Sorry to ruin the track record of agree signs, didn't want to be too cheesy, hehe.

[SilverMoon]

.

Edited April 21, 2023 by SilverMoon

[Hedgehogs4]

encyclopedia-wise you're out of luck...my son looks at the usborne and reads it and says, "Mom, do people really think this is true?" In his mind, it doesn't compute.

 

We use the Apologia science curriculum, but at the same time I want him to be familiar with the secular volumes so that he isn't caught off guard when it comes time to discuss these things outside of our home.

[foxbridgeacademy]

Science without evolution? Yeah, not likely. At least not as interesting and engaging as you want it. You could get the book, explain your point of view, regularly, how not all books are the exact truth, which is what I do when it comes to a certain book. Then hope he isn't so mesmerized by all the neat stories as to go over to the other side.

[Halcyon]

Science without evolution? Yeah, not likely. At least not as interesting and engaging as you want it. You could get the book, explain your point of view, regularly, how not all books are the exact truth, which is what I do when it comes to a certain book. Then hope he isn't so mesmerized by all the neat stories as to go over to the other side.

 

 

Wow. Really? :confused: Isn't homeschooling, in part, about exposing kids to differing viewpoints? What is "truth", in this case? One person's truth is another person's myth...right? My kids know about the Christian perspective on the formation of the earth and humankind, and they learned evolution. My younger believes strongly in the Christian perspective, while my older child is firmly in the evolution camp. Their views will evolve and change over time, as their knowledge and exposure grows. I think that's a good thing, no?

Edited March 7, 2011 by Halcyon

[justasque]

...my son found it on the shelf and started reading through it on his own. That is exactly the kind of book I want to buy - one he will be so interested in that he takes it down on his own to read "for fun". (He doesn't do that with our science textbook - GDL).

 

...I want him to be familiar with the secular volumes so that he isn't caught off guard when it comes time to discuss these things outside of our home.

 

If you've got a second grader who will read at or above grade level science materials for fun, then go with it, even if you feel the need to have a few discussions about some parts of the content. He will likely teach himself more this way, especially at that age, than any textbook you could choose.

[Crimson Wife]

I'm a strong believer in "teaching the controversy". While I do personally lean towards the 6 days of Creation representing some time period other than 144 modern hours, I make sure to discuss all the various possibilities. Things along the lines of explaining how scientists calculate an age of the universe in billions of years by measuring the distance of various galaxies- but what if God created an "old" universe 6,000 years ago? There would be no way of distinguishing that via science from the mainstream secular explanation. I believe in an omnipotent God so it's certainly a possibility I'm willing to consider. :)

[Guest RecumbentHeart]

I'm a strong believer in "teaching the controversy". While I do personally lean towards the 6 days of Creation representing some time period other than 144 modern hours, I make sure to discuss all the various possibilities. Things along the lines of explaining how scientists calculate an age of the universe in billions of years by measuring the distance of various galaxies- but what if God created an "old" universe 6,000 years ago? There would be no way of distinguishing that via science from the mainstream secular explanation. I believe in an omnipotent God so it's certainly a possibility I'm willing to consider. :)

 

I wouldn't consider a god that couldn't do that to be worth worshiping.

Edited March 12, 2011 by RecumbentHeart

[foxbridgeacademy]

Wow. Really? :confused: Isn't homeschooling, in part, about exposing kids to differing viewpoints? What is "truth", in this case? One person's truth is another person's myth...right? My kids know about the Christian perspective on the formation of the earth and humankind, and they learned evolution. My younger believes strongly in the Christian perspective, while my older child is firmly in the evolution camp. Their views will evolve and change over time, as their knowledge and exposure grows. I think that's a good thing, no?

 

Oh absolutly, what I was suggesting was to make it fit her particular situation. I may get flamed (on this board) for my opinions, very secular, we never sensor, so I didn't state it in such bold terms. If you want I guess I can mention that the "certain book" is the bible, but I didn't want to offend, just offer a possible solution to her particular problem.

As for truth, we as the parents are here to teach our children the"truth"... but only so far as we see it being so. I said we don't sensor, I want my children exposed to the broadest of all versions of "the truth", but I DO have an opinion, and yes that will always come through in our choices. It will come through in the OP choices as well. Just because I don't agree with her does not make her choice invalid, just because she might not agree with me (no evolution????) does not make mine invalid, ect....

 

So in the end, she can expose her child to various ideas, thoughts, beliefs, while supporting those she believes in and explaining those she doesn't. She will the raise a more intelligent child who is not afraid to state their own (disenting?) opinion, a child who enjoys the wonders of life and is not afraid to explore the possibilities. At least this is my hope for my own children.

Even if my DC become's a bible thumping believer, as long as he keeps an open mind, is willing to learn, and accept others differing opinions, I'll be happy.... I hope:tongue_smilie:

Sorry so long, you got me before my morning coffee.

Edited March 7, 2011 by foxbridgeacademy
bad grammar

[Lovedtodeath]

Encyclopedia of Space?

 

And no one has argued that evolution is a biological process?

 

Really... I am disappointed in all of you. For shame.

[foxbridgeacademy]

Encyclopedia of Space?

 

And no one has argued that evolution is a biological process?

 

Really... I am disappointed in all of you. For shame.

:lol:

that occured to me but I didn't want to confuse the issue!

[Lovedtodeath]

MilknHoney, you may want to look at the Wonders of Creation Series. They do a good job of explaining how the evidence can be interpreted in more than one way, and they have a bit more of an encyclopedia like format than the Apologia books. The authors are YEC. We are not, but we want to present as many views as we can and teach my children to be tolerant of them (since I wasn't and learned my lesson). So I also encourage you not to get rid of the Usborne Encyclopedia. ;)

Edited March 7, 2011 by Lovedtodeath

[nmoira]

Encyclopedia of Space?

 

And no one has argued that evolution is a biological process?

 

Really... I am disappointed in all of you. For shame.

It sounded like her beef was "millions of years."

[Lovedtodeath]

It sounded like her beef was "millions of years."

I know. :D I am just ornery.

[nmoira]

I know. :D I am just ornery.

:D

 

ETA: Actually more like :closedeyes: as I'm pre-coffee.

Edited March 7, 2011 by nmoira

[Donna A.]

MilknHoney, you may want to look at the Wonders of Creation Series. They do a good job of explaining how the evidence can be interpreted in more than one way, and they have a bit more of an encyclopedia like format than the Apologia books. The authors are YEC. We are not, but we want to present as many views as we can and teach my children to be tolerant of them (since I wasn't and learned my lesson). So I also encourage you not to get rid of the Usborne Encyclopedia. ;)

 

I would agree that the Usborne books can be very useful. I've learned this after having once been anti-Usborne. Our favorite multi-resource curriculum has taken a beating for including some books that contain evolutionary material (Usborne), but as has been testified in this thread, it's HARD to find good science resource books that are colorful and engaging without a single mention of evolution. The author of our chosen curriculum has discovered that and is doing what she can to find Creation-focused books in a similar style, but for those topics where she doesn't have such books, she adds plenty of commentary and explanation inside the TMs for the parent to do with what they please.

 

And yes, we present the differing views as well... even moreso as the student gets older.

 

For a 2nd grader, you might also consider adding some of the children's books that Answers in Genesis sells to your home library.

[Lovedtodeath]

 

For a 2nd grader, you might also consider adding some of the children's books that Answers in Genesis sells to your home library.

It depends on your worldview... but just an FYI for others reading this thread... I can't stand books written by Ken Ham. He is very intolerant.

[justasque]

Keeping my personal feelings out of it, why not just rip those pages out? There are plenty of chapters and plenty of info in those encyclopedias so not many pages would be affected.

 

I wouldn't do that. This is a kid smart enough to be reading this stuff on his own, for fun. There's nothing shameful in the ideas presented, it's just scientific information that the OP disagrees with. Why convey the idea that it's a secret, by telling/showing him that he can't be privvy to that knowledge? Better, IMHO, to have the discussion about it than to shove it under the rug. This way, it can be an ongoing discussion, given gradually, rather than something that comes as a shock later on. Shine a light on it. If this kid is a scientific reader, he will come across these ideas all the time. No need to shelter a smart kid.

[Spy Car]

It depends on your worldview... but just an FYI for others reading this thread... I can't stand books written by Ken Ham. He is very intolerant.

 

Worse than that the AiG materials deliberately distort [understatement alert] what the Theory of Evolution postulates.

 

They tell children that "evolutionists" would have those kids believe that their grandparents were monkeys. They are a shamefully dishonest outfit.

 

Bill

[Crimson Wife]

I wouldn't do that. This is a kid smart enough to be reading this stuff on his own, for fun. There's nothing shameful in the ideas presented, it's just scientific information that the OP disagrees with. Why convey the idea that it's a secret, by telling/showing him that he can't be privvy to that knowledge? Better, IMHO, to have the discussion about it than to shove it under the rug. This way, it can be an ongoing discussion, given gradually, rather than something that comes as a shock later on. Shine a light on it. If this kid is a scientific reader, he will come across these ideas all the time. No need to shelter a smart kid.

 

:iagree:Though I would suspect it's the conclusions the author draws from the scientific evidence that the OP objects to, rather than the science itself.

 

Most secular books tend to make statements seem like facts when they aren't. The books will say things like "X is Y" rather than: "Based on what scientists have observed about Z, most scientists believe that X is Y."

[justasque]

... it would just be awesome if they (from any camp) printed books that didn't teach the theories (whatever they are) as if they're known facts that have been tested and repeated.

 

It is wise to explain to kids how science works, and how solid a particular working theory is. Here's how it works: Basically, using as much as possible of the data they have available, someone comes up with an idea, say "the moon is made of green cheese". They put it out there to other scientists. The other scientists think about it, and some of them decide to test it. They do things like say "hmm, if the moon is made of green cheese, then it would melt if it got too hot", and they do some investigating to see about the temperatures now and in the past, and whether there is evidence of parts of the moon melting when it was hot. Another scientist might say "hmm, if the moon is made of green cheese, then if it was frozen, if would kind of break apart in chunks once defrosted", and he would do some investigating to see if that seemed to be true. If the data from both investigations came back consistent with the green cheese theory, then more scientists would begin to be interested in the idea of the moon being made of cheese, and they'd gradually incorporate it into their work, to the point where it would be a kind of working assumption. Now maybe the moon isn't really green cheese, it's really tofu, but if tofu acted in hot and cold like cheese does (and I realize I'm stretching this analogy a whole lot), then the cheese theory could be the main working theory for quite some time, until some scientist came across something that didn't work for cheese but did work for tofu. It would take a little while, and a bunch more testing specifically designed to differentiate cheese from tofu, but eventually scientists would begin to believe the moon was made of tofu. Now, the cheese theory wasn't exactly correct, but it moved the science along, and gave scientists a framework and some ideas to work with that led them eventually to the tofu idea. That's how theories work in science.

 

SO - all this is to say that it would be pretty tedious if every second grade science book actually said "most scientists currently think that x" or "scientists are currently working with the assumption that x, but as further investigation is undertaken, that could change" in front of everything. "The moon is made of green cheese", for a second grader, is more accessible than "scientists are currently working with the assumption that the moon is made of green cheese, but as further investigation is undertaken, that could change, and in fact there are some scientists who have hypothesized that it could in fact be made of tofu, but the scientific community is still investigating this idea." I mean, what second grader would slog through that? But indeed, as kids get older, well-written modern non-fiction books do start to draw finer lines and explain more carefully what is felt to be pretty solid working knowledge and what is more emergent knowledge. (I *do* think that many kids can handle the more complex explanation earlier,and benefit from it, and I *am* seeing non-fiction books begin to be more precise in their language.)

 

A math example would be that in 4th grade (ish) we teach that the square root of 16 is 4. In seventh grade, we say "Well, remember we said the square root of 16 is 4? Well, we left something out. Actually, it could be 4 or -4. Let's talk about how that works." Now, if I'm teaching savvy 4th graders, I will often mention the 4/-4 thing, and explain that if they don't get it that's ok, it's a 7th grade thing. And the savvy kids will delight in knowing a 7th grade thing, even if they don't have the whole picture yet. :-)

Edited March 7, 2011 by askPauline

[Tabula Rasa]

Wow. Really? :confused: Isn't homeschooling, in part, about exposing kids to differing viewpoints? What is "truth", in this case? One person's truth is another person's myth...right? My kids know about the Christian perspective on the formation of the earth and humankind, and they learned evolution. My younger believes strongly in the Christian perspective, while my older child is firmly in the evolution camp. Their views will evolve and change over time, as their knowledge and exposure grows. I think that's a good thing, no?

 

Wow I think that is a wonderful thing!

[Milknhoney]

I would agree that the Usborne books can be very useful. I've learned this after having once been anti-Usborne. Our favorite multi-resource curriculum has taken a beating for including some books that contain evolutionary material (Usborne), but as has been testified in this thread, it's HARD to find good science resource books that are colorful and engaging without a single mention of evolution. The author of our chosen curriculum has discovered that and is doing what she can to find Creation-focused books in a similar style, but for those topics where she doesn't have such books, she adds plenty of commentary and explanation inside the TMs for the parent to do with what they please.

 

And yes, we present the differing views as well... even moreso as the student gets older.

 

For a 2nd grader, you might also consider adding some of the children's books that Answers in Genesis sells to your home library.

 

What curriculum are you using? A curriculum that utilizes the "intersting books" (instead of a textbook) and a TM that will help me with explaining the evolution stuff we might run into sounds like a good fit for me.

[Donna A.]

What curriculum are you using? A curriculum that utilizes the "intersting books" (instead of a textbook) and a TM that will help me with explaining the evolution stuff we might run into sounds like a good fit for me.

 

My Father's World http://www.mfwbooks.com/

[Donna A.]

It depends on your worldview...

 

Well, of course. I was assuming from context that the OP's worldview is similar to mine; thus, the suggestion. ;)

[Dana]

A math example would be that in 4th grade (ish) we teach that the square root of 16 is 4. In seventh grade, we say "Well, remember we said the square root of 16 is 4? Well, we left something out. Actually, it could be 4 or -4. Let's talk about how that works." Now, if I'm teaching savvy 4th graders, I will often mention the 4/-4 thing, and explain that if they don't get it that's ok, it's a 7th grade thing. And the savvy kids will delight in knowing a 7th grade thing, even if they don't have the whole picture yet. :-)

 

Thread derail...

Love the green cheese/tofu example :)

 

Have issue with sqrt(16).

For the square root to be a function, there must be ONLY one output for one input, so sqrt(16) = +4 ONLY.

 

If you're solving an equation: x^2 = 16, then when you take the square root, you have two roots, the positive and the negative. This can be seen by factoring as well (difference of squares).

 

So: sqrt(16) = + 4 only

Solving x^2 = 16, next step is x = +/- sqrt(16).

 

This distinction does cause problems so it's one I think is important to make.

[susankenny]

For a second grader, I honestly wouldn't even worry about discussing evolution. If you are reading something to your little boy & it says millions of years - you can simply say "thousands" if that would be easier. It really hasn't come up with my own children yet, and we use many secular textbooks. If you really feel your child needs an encyclopedia set, I say you should buy one. It would be great to have around. Really, evolution will be such a very small part of all the vast information within the set. By chance he should see something pertaining to evolution & read about it, use it as an opportunity to discuss it.

 

 

Susan

[JenninMN]

Apologetics Press has some picture books that would be at your son's reading level. Actually, it sounds like he would be ready for the advanced ones. They don't have an encyclopedia, though. I haven't found much from a creationist point of view that can be read BY a younger child. We used ASCI science from CBD this year so that my son could read some on his own. They have colorful pictures and such. I'm also reading this one TO my son now: http://www.christianbook.com/kids-guide-to-gods-creation/tracy-sumner/9781602607590/pd/607591?event=CFN There is an animal one as well.

We do discuss the millions of years comments. He loves science books so he'll be getting a lot of that.

 

You might try Eye Wonder Space or perhaps Usborne or Kingfisher. . .Some books emphasize the evolutionary content more than others.

 

Jennifer

[Lovedtodeath]

Well, of course. I was assuming from context that the OP's worldview is similar to mine; thus, the suggestion. ;)

Oh yes, I think you were right. :)

[justasque]

Thread derail...

Love the green cheese/tofu example :)

 

Have issue with sqrt(16).

For the square root to be a function, there must be ONLY one output for one input, so sqrt(16) = +4 ONLY.

 

If you're solving an equation: x^2 = 16, then when you take the square root, you have two roots, the positive and the negative. This can be seen by factoring as well (difference of squares).

 

So: sqrt(16) = + 4 only

Solving x^2 = 16, next step is x = +/- sqrt(16).

 

This distinction does cause problems so it's one I think is important to make.

 

That makes sense, though I never thought of the radical sign as a function thing. I thought of sqrt(16) (written with the radical sign) = 4 more of a standard notation thing, a sort of "when we write sqrt(4) we all agree we are referring to the positive square root". But now that I think of it I can see that it pretty much has to be a function in order to return one value, so it boils down to the same thing. (I'm not an expert, so I defer to your explanation. I don't think I'm making much sense anyway!)

 

But I do leave most of that out for the fourth graders! :D

 

(Sorry for the hijack...)

[jewel7123]

I'm also reading this one TO my son now: http://www.christianbook.com/kids-guide-to-gods-creation/tracy-sumner/9781602607590/pd/607591?event=CFN There is an animal one as well.

 

How do you like this? I've been considering purchasing it and/or the animal one for our study of biology in 1st grade. Are you finding this useful?

[mama27]

I checked out Usborne's First Encyclopedia of Space from the library to review it as a possible resource for next year (2nd grade). I decided it had too much "millions of years" stuff in it to actually buy it. But, my son found it on the shelf and started reading through it on his own. That is exactly the kind of book I want to buy - one he will be so interested in that he takes it down on his own to read "for fun". (He doesn't do that with our science textbook - GDL). What resources are out there without the evolutionary bias? I have been looking through the AiG website, but everything I looked at seemed over his grade level and/or boring.

 

Sorry, there probably aren't any. You could take a Sharpie to the "millions of years" garbage. I do that with naked people. ;-)

[JenninMN]

We are enjoying it. I was worried at first that it was over his head. I can't think of a good example off the top of my head, but it was more than the typical elementary science stuff. But he is enjoying it. We only read a page or 2 at a time. I'm glad I waited until 3rd grade for this one. I think the animal one would be slightly easier. It is a BEAUTIFUL book, though.

[nmoira]

Sorry, there probably aren't any. You could take a Sharpie to the "millions of years" garbage. I do that with naked people. ;-)

Garbage? I'll be sure to trot out that term during our next religious studies unit. :rolleyes:

 

I have purchased a couple used books from someone who shares your proclivity for sharpies. I wish the the listings had indicated the books had been defaced. :glare:

[Ritsumei]

...I want him to be familiar with the secular volumes so that he isn't caught off guard when it comes time to discuss these things outside of our home.

 

:iagree:This is my thought as well. We've got the Usborne EWH, and we won't be officially covering their pre-history section. When he notices it, we'll have a conversation about the different things people believe. Although our faith teaches that pure science and pure religion are the same thing, most folks don't agree. Having conversations about that is an important part of the kids' education, IMO. It allows us to talk about what we believe, and why, and also have conversations about how to go about disagreeing agreeably.

 

I'm all for teaching various theories, it would just be awesome if they (from any camp) printed books that didn't teach the theories (whatever they are) as if they're known facts that have been tested and repeated. If anyone knows of one I'd love to know about it.

 

Amen!

Edited March 8, 2011 by Ritsumei

[Donna A.]

Garbage? I'll be sure to trot out that term during our next religious studies unit. :rolleyes:

 

I have purchased a couple used books from someone who shares your proclivity for sharpies. I wish the the listings had indicated the books had been defaced. :glare:

 

Are these kinds of comments really fair in a thread that was clearly addressed to a particular audience which does not share your (plural "your") view?

[Paula in PA]

Are these kinds of comments really fair in a thread that was clearly addressed to a particular audience which does not share your (plural "your") view?

 

I'd say it's about as fair as people of your (plural "your") view posting on threads not addressed to them. This is an open board with open threads. As the saying goes, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

[Lovedtodeath]

I would like for this thread to stay. Please?

[kalanamak]

SYou could take a Sharpie to the "millions of years" garbage.

 

Please see the quote at the top of the page. If I can say "religious content" rather than "god garbage", you could try "OE content". :hat: (<---closest I could get to a "wink, wink, nudge, nudge emoticon)

 

"For questions about specific curricula and their relationship to classical education. Express yourself politely! "

[Lovedtodeath]

Please see the quote at the top of the page. If I can say "religious content" rather than "god garbage", you could try "OE content". :hat: (<---closest I could get to a "wink, wink, nudge, nudge emoticon)

 

"For questions about specific curricula and their relationship to classical education. Express yourself politely! "

Or just replace the word "garbage" with "stuff".

 

Of course, IMO, the reply to that post could have been worded more politely as well. Kalanamak did a pretty good job. Here is another example:

 

"Excuse me, but I have no problem with books that say that the Universe is millions of years old. Could you word that more politely?" and maybe in a PM.

 

Garbage? I'll be sure to trot out that term during our next religious studies unit. :rolleyes:

 

Don't we all say things wrong sometimes? I blew up at some YEC on another forum because they wanted links to proof of flightless birds evolving from flying ancestors. (it was a vestigial organ debate) I don't keep links to everything I read and I don't read everything on the internet, and they are always demanding proof, so I got cranky at them. I was less than polite. Oops. I apologized and moved on.

Edited March 8, 2011 by Lovedtodeath

[justasque]

I'm all for teaching various theories, it would just be awesome if they (from any camp) printed books that didn't teach the theories (whatever they are) as if they're known facts that have been tested and repeated. If anyone knows of one I'd love to know about it.

 

Taking a quick look on my shelf, the Usborne Internet-Linked Science Encyclopedia does a nice job of this, IMHO. The section on The Universe, for example, says "...How the universe was created is not fully understood. Most scientists believe that it began about 15,000 million years ago with an unimaginably violent explosion known as the Big Bang. This idea is called the Big Bang Theory." (italics mine) There is a section explaining the theory, and a brief section titled Big Bang Evidence which has a paragraph about an echo signal that could be evidence, and a paragraph explaining that if the theory is true, then there must be more matter in the universe than we currently know about. So it's sort of a "this piece looks like it fits, this other piece may or may not" kind of thing, which is nice. They then briefly explain three theories of the future of the universe (slowing down, oscillating, big crunch). I think the whole section does a nice job of showing that some of the ideas are more accepted/supported than others, as a sort of example of science as a work in progress. The Evolution page has a similar "most scientists believe" sentence, and refers to "the theory of evolution" and "the theory of natural selection". They do not get into how life came into being at the beginning.

 

This is clearly not a Bible-based book. However, as a secular science book, it does seem to do a decent job of conveying the current state of what most scientists believe without overstating the case. Plus, it is a huge, beautiful book full of good info for a budding scientist to peruse on a rainy day.

Edited March 8, 2011 by askPauline

[Hedgehogs4]

"For questions about specific curricula and their relationship to classical education. Express yourself politely! "

 

thank you. :glare:

[Milknhoney]

When I started this thread, I was really just looking for some creation-based resources that would help feed my son's interest in science. I didn't intend to start a debate on whether or not I should be teaching him evolution along with it.

 

But since it came up... I wholeheartedly agree that he needs to look at both sides and make up his own mind. That's true of being a Christian - God doesn't have any grandchildren, we each need to make our own choice to make Jesus our Savior. And very closely knit with that is coming to the decision that the Bible is God's inerrent word, including the first two chapters of Genesis. You have to trust it because you are convinced of it, not just because someone told you to.

 

However, I don't think that this age is the appropriate time to try to present him with two opposing truth claims and ask him to choose which one is right. He will be better equipped for that exercise in the logic stage. Isn't that what the logic stage is all about? Right now I am focusing on presenting him with the worldview that his father and I believe is the truth. If evolution comes up, we talk about it and move on, but I am looking for books that don't require explanation since there are so few options out there!

 

I have considered the "Sharpie" option, but... that works this year when there's just a passing comment about "bears have lived for 3 million years" and we can easily pass right over that. Next year with earth & space science it isn't so easy to do that. You can't just mark something out without replacing it with new information, otherwise he'll be left with a lot of unanswered questions about the earth and the universe.

 

So... thanks to those of you that recommended some books for me to look at. I would love it if anyone else had other recommendations, too.

[jewel7123]

When I started this thread, I was really just looking for some creation-based resources that would help feed my son's interest in science. I didn't intend to start a debate on whether or not I should be teaching him evolution along with it.

 

It's a shame that those who tried to start a debate and made comments that were in poor taste couldn't just politely leave this particular thread alone. It's obvious they weren't going to offer you any resources that would be helpful, since their viewpoint is the polar opposite of yours. Sigh.

 

Are you looking for books he can read on his own? These may be below his reading level, but have a look at these books by Heno Head:

 

http://www.amazon.com/Made-Outer-Space-Happy-Books/dp/0784710449/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&qid=1299610078&sr=8-12

 

http://www.amazon.com/Gods-World-Weather-Simple-Science/dp/0784711011/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1299610078&sr=8-4

 

Also maybe these would be helpful to you, for activities and such, not as a textbook.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Made-God-School-Specialty-Publishing/dp/0742428095/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1299610165&sr=1-3

 

http://www.amazon.com/Made-God-Solar-System/dp/0764709763/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1299610195&sr=1-1

[nmoira]

 

Don't we all say things wrong sometimes?

Often, it's one of the few constants in my life. I've also been taken to task here for expressing what I acknowledged was my own opinion about the place of ID (or creationism?) in science (i.e. It is not science). By you, IIRC. ;) Edited March 8, 2011 by nmoira
clarity