Apologia General Science Question

[Sebastian (a lady)]

I'm considering using Apologia General Science or Physical Science next year. I have very science oriented, strong readers.

 

I don't generally have a problem with a creation oriented text. But I'm wondering how much I'm going to bump heads with the book in the section relating to geology and fossils. Our family does a lot of fossil hunting in our free time. I guess I would describe us as believers in a created universe who don't ascribe to a young earth timeline.

 

Could someone with the book give me an idea of how these topics are addressed?

[tampamommy]

My dc sound like yours, interest- and reading-wise. We sound like you, belief-wise. For us, General Science (7th) and Physical Science (8th) have been great, solid lab sciences.

 

Apologia does have a young-earth, creationist bent. My dc recognize this in their reading of it. But that has really never bothered me. If anything, it's provided a greater opportunity for us to discuss our viewpoints vs. others and that has been a huge positive for our children's learning. Because we have relatives whose ideas are different than our own on this and related topics, it has been very educational and helpful.

 

Because of our open discussions, ds 14 really can converse and write about the differing creation/time line/evolution controversies at quite an adult level. He even did a major research paper on "the case for intelligent design" this year.

 

Personally, I don't understand why some parents (no matter what their personal beliefs) choose to NOT expose their children to all -- and I mean all -- the viewpoints and possibilities out there regarding these topics. If I didn't take that responsibility seriously, I'd feel like I did my dc a disservice - that I sent them out into a world of widely-varying ideas without the proper preparation to understand the different viewpoints and the ability to defend their own beliefs.

 

So for us, it worked!

[Sebastian (a lady)]

My dc sound like yours, interest- and reading-wise. We sound like you, belief-wise. For us, General Science (7th) and Physical Science (8th) have been great, solid lab sciences.

 

Apologia does have a young-earth, creationist bent. My dc recognize this in their reading of it. But that has really never bothered me. If anything, it's provided a greater opportunity for us to discuss our viewpoints vs. others and that has been a huge positive for our children's learning. Because we have relatives whose ideas are different than our own on this and related topics, it has been very educational and helpful.

 

Because of our open discussions, ds 14 really can converse and write about the differing creation/time line/evolution controversies at quite an adult level. He even did a major research paper on "the case for intelligent design" this year.

 

Personally, I don't understand why some parents (no matter what their personal beliefs) choose to NOT expose their children to all -- and I mean all -- the viewpoints and possibilities out there regarding these topics. If I didn't take that responsibility seriously, I'd feel like I did my dc a disservice - that I sent them out into a world of widely-varying ideas without the proper preparation to understand the different viewpoints and the ability to defend their own beliefs.

 

So for us, it worked!

 

So did you give them additional reading for the chapters on fossils, for example?

I think my kids would do well with a presentation of a variety of viewpoints. When we started Sonlight 6 and had week after week of why evolution was wrong, Califlower was asking me for a book that would explain evolution from the viewpoint of someone who thought it was correct.

 

But then, this was the same kid who was asking if the reactors in Japan were in danger of going critical or "prompt critical". He and DH ended up spending the night researching various nuclear reactor disasters.

 

Anyone else?

[C_l_e_0..Q_c]

We sound similar to you too. When we reached the chapters on geology, we just skipped Apologia, and substituted with the free geology curriculum from Answers in Creation (not Answers in Genesis!) I didn't want the kids to spend their time learning wrong things. Our homeschool time is at a premium, and while it would be nice to have those discussions, we just couldn't afford the time.

 

http://www.answersincreation.org/curriculum/geology/geology_curriculum_home.htm

[Michele B]

I bought Gen. Science on the cheap to check it out. I am catholic and believe God created all. I want my daughters to study God's creation.

 

I have looked this book over for 2 years trying to figure out what to do with it. This book has a viewpoint-Young Earth- that's fine - but it concentrates SOLELY on PROVING that point. There is much more "This proves the Young Earth Theory" than giving information about science. I am very disappointed with this book. It beats one over the head with Young Earth. The entire book is dedicated to proving Young Earth. I just want fascinating science information spread before my children - to "Explore Creation." I am now looking elsewhere.

[LauraQ]

I'm considering using Apologia General Science or Physical Science next year. I have very science oriented, strong readers.

 

I don't generally have a problem with a creation oriented text. But I'm wondering how much I'm going to bump heads with the book in the section relating to geology and fossils. Our family does a lot of fossil hunting in our free time. I guess I would describe us as believers in a created universe who don't ascribe to a young earth timeline.

 

Could someone with the book give me an idea of how these topics are addressed?

 

I hate the general science book--too much history of science and scientist bios for my taste (or ds's taste). We dropped it 2 modules in. IMHO it is also quite a bit more dogmatic about the NEC issues than the other books, or at least spends more time on it than the others do. They should be able to handle Phys Sci as long as they are fairly strong in math. I'm thinking they should be in pre-alg or close to ready for it when they do it as there are some tough math parts later in the book.

[Marie in Oh]

if you felt like it was teaching "wrong" things. It is unapologetically young earth in its perspective.

[Paisley Hedgehog]

nm

[Sebastian (a lady)]

I would describe myself as an "old earth creationist", if that matters. :D

 

That would describe me too. I don't mind an occasional aside that I see a different explanation, any more than I mind interjecting when we're reading a book that proposes a random natural-selection only process.

 

I did find it wearisome to have the kids spend weeks on a book in this year's science (Sonlight 6) that seemed to devote all its efforts to knocking down straw man arguements. It seemed like there was an awful lot of science that wasn't getting covered during that period of several weeks (especially since the book only took my kids a couple days to read through).

[Susan Wise Bauer]

I liked this. :-)

 

http://blog.drwile.com/?p=4602

 

SWB

[Luckymama]

I liked this. :-)

 

http://blog.drwile.com/?p=4602

 

SWB

 

Well, that was in interesting read, especially the comments.

[johnandtinagilbert]

Of the two, I can happily suggest Physical Science. While Dr. Wiles views are clear, my dc found the "push" to be less in PS, than GS. B/c of the push in GS, I let them read through, but not actually do the course of the PS. It was pretty good. Good enough that I will actually do the course with the rest of the gang.

 

Can you skip over the opinions and still get solid Gen. Sci, yes. Is it annoying? It was a bit for my kiddos and we are Young Earth, Intelligent Design, scientists.

 

We opted for Noeo + Apologia Anatomy w/ the middle school editions for our "general science" The variety was more interesting and the content less religious in nature (well, we haven't started the Anatomy, so I can only speak for the Noeo selections of Physics and Chemistry).

 

HTH!

[Sebastian (a lady)]

I liked this. :-)

 

http://blog.drwile.com/?p=4602

 

SWB

 

I appreciate the fact that he seems willing to consider that people who hold a different view of ancient beginnings can hold that view out of respect for the Bible and God's creation and not as rejecting faith.

 

I guess I will need to stop by the Apologia table at MidWest and read the chapters to see how they come off to me.

[Paisley Hedgehog]

. 

 

[Tammyla]

Susan, thank you for linking this.

 

I liked this. :-)

 

http://blog.drwile.com/?p=4602

 

SWB

[LauraQ]

if you felt like it was teaching "wrong" things. It is unapologetically young earth in its perspective.

Well, I don't think that's the case for me. I am YEC and dh is OETE. I do NOT think one has to be YEC to be "fully" or "conservative" Christian; likewise, dh does not think one has to be OE anything to be a "real" scientist. Not being dogmatic about YE, I simply prefer a more strait-forward presentation of the facts. I'm the same way about secular textbooks. I abhor dh's Bio text from college because it is dogmatic about evolution to the point that the writing literally comes across sounding like a zealous religious proclamation rather than a rational explanation of how the one can reasonably draw the conclusion of evolution from the facts available at hand. The tone is, IMO, on par with, say, BJU's high school Bio text, but arguing for opposing sides. I don't like that kind of zealotry for *any* theory in my textbooks! You don't see that sort of emotionally-driven pleading for belief about the germ theory of disease anymore--but at one time it was just as heated a debate.

 

Anyway, my point is that I don't think the tone is helpful. Instead, I prefer a text that focuses on learning the theory and skills one needs to be prepared to tackle high school and then college level science, especially for ds who is very science-oriented and may well choose a science career in the future. For him, we use Singapore's Interactive Science for gen. science. He'll still use Apologia's Phys Sci on through Physics and probably an Advanced sci course by them as well. They are also dogmatic, so I supplement them with Singapore texts in the upper grades, but they are less so than the Gen Sci book, so I merely supplement rather than replace.

 

I realize that *all* books contain bias. Sometimes it is more subtle, sometimes it is closer to our own, and sometimes it leans far away from our own views. We can use resources whose biases are similar or dissimilar from our own, as long as we are willing to discuss them and maybe even supplement them, usually. But some books seem to contain a more haughty, dogmatic tone that I do not find useful in what should be a scholarly work, so I forego them, no matter what their leanings. I do not want my children to learn to argue their beliefs and positions in that sort of tone, so I choose instead something more matter-of-fact in its tone instead. It's not enough that a book agree with my opinions--it must help me to teach my children to argue them in an appropriate way as well.

[LauraQ]

I did find it wearisome to have the kids spend weeks on a book in this year's science (Sonlight 6) that seemed to devote all its efforts to knocking down straw man arguements. It seemed like there was an awful lot of science that wasn't getting covered during that period of several weeks (especially since the book only took my kids a couple days to read through).

Yep. Ds used SL Sci 6 but we skipped that first book you're talking about entirely, and replaced it with a TOPS book he was interested in ;-)