Jump to content

Menu

x-post Is Runkle's Geography actually secular?


Recommended Posts

My copy arrived today, so I haven't yet read every word; however, thus far I've not seen any mention of geologic time. In the first chapter, light speed is discussed and Earth's place in the Solar System, but there's no mention of the age of the universe. That's easy enough to deal with, but there's no mention of Pangea in the chapter dealing with plate tectonics. I saw more than one "over time" with respect to the formation of mountains and subduction zones, but that's it. Please tell me I'm missing something, or does it get worse? This isn't something I expected to have to supplement to make it functionally secular instead of merely "not religious" solely by omission of direct religious references. :(

Edited by nmoira
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm. It's been a few years, but I used it with my youngest when he was logic stage and yes I consider it secular. It is a physical geography, rather than a geology or earth science, text. It is about the earth we have today, how the geography of the planet effects the people who live on it, which why she would not touch upon the age of the planet and solar system.

 

It is complete and, as I remember, excellent for what it covers. If you want to add materials on Pangea or the big bang or on all the epochs of geologic time it shouldn't be that hard, and shouldn't be a deal breaker for the book. The material in the later chapters (I don't have it in front of me) cover topics that wouldn't be in a geology program, topics like the location of the raw materials for industry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't it published by the same folks who do Trail Guide to Bible Geography?

 

Cathy Duffy's review calls it "secular but 'Christian-friendly'" and notes that it does not contain any evolutionary content.

 

I think if you want something with an OE POV, you'd need to find a different book.

 

Thanks. Since I've already made the purchase, I'm going to adapt it a bit and use it. This is an area in which I'm more than confident enough to supplement, and I haven't seen any content that is questionable, only the omissions.

 

OT, but I had a couple email exchanges with Ellen McHenry this week, and all but one of the problematic references in Carbon Chemistry have been removed since the earliest versions. It's possible that the last, a parenthetical remark about a world-wide flood, will be removed in later revisions, but this will not be in the near future. What I didn't realize is that she frequently updates her materials to reflect new findings.

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...