Talk me down, b/c BFSU just ticked me off

[shinyhappypeople]

I am not a conservative Christian, don't embrace a literal 6-24 hr day-creation, and am not easily offended by a secular POV. But.

 

I got BFSU today. I skimmed the first couple of chapters and am (almost) speechless by what I read:

 

In the section "Baloney Detection Kit" he writes:

 

"2. Every effect has a rational cause.

This concept is so embedded in adult thinking that it needs little supporting argument. We automatically assume that there must be a rational cause for a crash, a fire, a disease. But emphasis should be placed on the word rational. Rational cause means that is is amenable to our understanding in terms of real things and/or processes that, in turn will lend themselves to investigation and understanding. For example, up until the early 1800s, many people believed that evil spirits were responsible for disease. Disease was treated by means that were presumed to rid the body of evil spirits. Such treatments were uniformly ineffective and some (e.g., bleeding the patient) undoubtedly did more harm than good. It was only as disease began to be understood in terms of rational causes, namely bacteria and viruses, that real progress began in combating disease.

 

We certainly do not fully or even partially understand the causes of all events or phenomena. Still, the belief in rational causes is more responsible for the advancement of understanding than any other single idea. It invites us to carry on systematic investigations until we find that cause. The very fact that investigations are continually unveiling increased understanding gives validity to the concept itself. On the other hand, beliefs in supernatural causes have not yielded any such increase in understanding. Therefore, beliefs in the supernatural are uniformly without merit."

 

He just labeled all belief systems that involve any acceptance of the supernatural "without merit." So, um, if we can't use the scientific method to study it then it must not exist? Gotcha.

 

And, people wonder why some parents of faith object *so strongly* to how science is taught in the public realm. It's because the instruction sometimes goes beyond the scope of what can be addressed by the scientific method. Stick to science and leave issues of religion and the supernatural to the parents and clergy, 'k? Thanks.

 

Oh, what's kind of funny is that the #1 point in his "Baloney Detection Kit" is "Forceful declarations do not substantiate facts or truth.... Students should learn that some people promote their own particular prejudice, opinion, or mistaken belief by forcefully declaring it to be fact or the truth or labeling it as something "everyone knows." I couldn't agree more.

 

So WHY does he contradict himself in #2 when he says

"This concept [rational cause for everything at all times, no exceptions ever] is so embedded in adult thinking that it needs little supporting argument." IOW, "everyone knows" this. REALLY?

 

Seriously, friend, be consistent. Either (a) support your argument with some evidence (not stereotypes, not misunderstood history but real evidence). I'll evaluate it and make up my mind from there. But even if I still disagree with you, I'll certainly have more respect for you than I do right now. Or (b) stop making absolute statements about subjects that you do not understand or even want to understand.

 

</vent>

 

On the bright side, I borrowed this book so at least I'm not out any money.

Edited May 22, 2012 by shinyhappypeople
typo

[LittleIzumi]

That is the one single part of the entire book that bothered me. I just figured okay, he has different beliefs than me, but that part isn't in the part for students and I haven't seen anything remotely like that in the student parts at all.

Edited May 22, 2012 by LittleIzumi

[justamouse]

We just didn't read that part.

 

I'm not going to find *anything* that I agree with 100%.

 

Heck, even in writing currics when they tell the kid to start tagging all of the saids with adverbs? *bleurgh*.

 

If I can find one I 96% agree with? I'm good to go.

 

The other side of the fence? Yeah, sad.

[stripe]

The author is religious, btw.

[NancyNellen]

That is the one single part of the entire book that bothered me. I just figured okay, he has different beliefs that me, but that part isn't in the part for students and I haven't seen anything remotely like that in the student parts at all.

 

:iagree:

[ByGrace3]

This is one of the reasons I won't use a truly secular science. Yes, I can "not read" parts but the truth is worldview permeates everything you think, say and yes, write. I am not a scientist, and I do not want to miss nuances that are contrary to our worldview. We use a "neutral" curriculum for science, but I like knowing the author is a Christian and therefore much less likely to have such nuances slip by me unnoticed. Just me though, I know others are just fine skipping things such as this. ;) you just have to decide if it something you can live with or not...

[FairProspects]

Honestly, that would really bother me too and would be enough reason for me not to use it. There is a difference between neutral and derogatory.

[stripe]

The author is religious.

[shinyhappypeople]

Honestly, that would really bother me too and would be enough reason for me not to use it. There is a difference between neutral and derogatory.

 

Exactly.

[Heidi]

The author is religious.

 

And? :001_smile:

[stripe]

And? :001_smile:

 

Um, what does that mean? People keep posting that he's anti-religion. He's not. He is religious.

 

There's a lot in his Elementary Ed book about morals and religion.

[sagira]

To me that sentence meant believing in the existence of flying unicorns, pots of gold at the end of rainbows or that seeing a black cat is bad luck.

[Wabi Sabi]

To me that sentence meant believing in the existence of flying unicorns, pots of gold at the end of rainbows or that seeing a black cat is bad luck.

 

Yep. I think that maybe you're reading too far into it.

[Hunter]

Um, what does that mean? People keep posting that he's anti-religion. He's not. He is religious.

 

There's a lot in his Elementary Ed book about morals and religion.

 

I never would have guessed :-0 Huh!

 

I posted a similar vent about the same passage a few months ago. There are several lessons where he stresses the important of dispelling magical thinking in children. It really is okay for kindergarteners to believe in magic and fairies and anything their religion allows. There is time enough to learn all the "truths".

 

I didn't see him as anti Christian, just that everyone should believe what he believes. He pretty much contradicts himself sometimes. I said in my post a couple months ago, he reminds me of a friend I have who kind of isn't my friend anymore. I have to hold her at arm's length. She is a retired science professor :-)

 

Don't throw the book out with the bathwater. Just don't reach DIRECTLY from it, and use your OWN judgement about WHAT to teach WHEN.

[momtoamiracle]

To me that sentence meant believing in the existence of flying unicorns, pots of gold at the end of rainbows or that seeing a black cat is bad luck.

 

 

 

that's how I took it.

 

 

 

You could join the yahoo group and ask him directly. He is very good about answering questions, even if it disagrees with him or challenges his statements.

[Rosie_0801]

Would you all feel better if he'd said beliefs in supernatural stuff are without scientific merit? Possibly it was supposed to be obvious that it was scientific merit he was speaking of, seeing how it is a science book?

 

Rosie

[Wabi Sabi]

You could join the yahoo group and ask him directly. He is very good about answering questions, even if it disagrees with him or challenges his statements.

 

Yes, I was going to suggest the same. You'll find the URL for the yahoo group somewhere near the beginning of the book. I've found that Dr. Nebel is a very respectful man who really takes the time to answer any and all questions. I'm sure he'd be happy to clarify his thoughts on this topic if you asked.

[Kathryn]

:iagree:

 

To me that sentence meant believing in the existence of flying unicorns, pots of gold at the end of rainbows or that seeing a black cat is bad luck.

 

Would you all feel better if he'd said beliefs in supernatural stuff are without scientific merit? Possibly it was supposed to be obvious that it was scientific merit he was speaking of, seeing how it is a science book?

 

Rosie

 

Yes, I was going to suggest the same. You'll find the URL for the yahoo group somewhere near the beginning of the book. I've found that Dr. Nebel is a very respectful man who really takes the time to answer any and all questions. I'm sure he'd be happy to clarify his thoughts on this topic if you asked.

[WishboneDawn]

Would you all feel better if he'd said beliefs in supernatural stuff are without scientific merit? Possibly it was supposed to be obvious that it was scientific merit he was speaking of, seeing how it is a science book?

 

Rosie

 

:iagree: Context is important.

 

[Chrysalis Academy]

I love the Baloney Detection kit, we printed it out and posted it on the wall. Teaching critical thinking skills is really important for us. Including critical analysis of the textbooks we read, including finding inconsistencies in author's statements where they exist, and learning not to rely on authority for all the answers.

 

As an atheist and a scientist, I read that line without blinking. What shocks me is when I read science or history texts that state that God did stuff. I'm thinking "Really? Believe what you want, and talk about it in church or religion classes, but interjecting it into science or history texts?" Seems inappropriate to me.

 

So I guess all's I'm saying is that the world looks really, really different to a believer and a not-believer, and I'm sure there are things in a lot of different books that are going to read really strange if they clash with our respective deeply held beliefs. I don't know the answer. I know that it is really, really hard to find secular science and truly secular history targeted at the homeschool market. Maybe it's just as hard for folks of different religious varieties to find material that matches their world view, completely. I think if BFSU doesn't work for you, no harm no foul (since you didn't waste money on it ;)) But I am really, really glad to have it to use in our homeschool.

[Writerdaddy]

I don't get what the big deal is. I admit I don't know what curriculum these letters stand for, but can't God be a cause, and a real thing, and fit into this definition for scientific thinking?

 

Or is it, as I am reading it, that the author assumes there is one and only one way to put information together and we have already discovered it perfectly and it is simple and obvious.

 

I am asking truly because I want to understand the viewpoint here... thanks!

 

Alan

[Tracy]

Would you all feel better if he'd said beliefs in supernatural stuff are without scientific merit? Possibly it was supposed to be obvious that it was scientific merit he was speaking of, seeing how it is a science book?

 

Rosie

 

I am a conservative Christian, and I guess I just don't get why this would bother anybody. Science is what you can observe and prove. I understood it the way Rosie shared above. I also was thinking more about things like astrology that present themselves as scientifically-based, and not so much aimed directly at religion.

 

Having been on the Yahoo Group for some time, I find Dr. Nebel to be one of the most respectful people I have ever met on a forum. I would not assume that he intended this in a disrespectful way.

[Targhee]

Um, what does that mean? People keep posting that he's anti-religion. He's not. He is religious.

 

There's a lot in his Elementary Ed book about morals and religion.

 

I can not speak for the pp, but I think the point of that "And?" comment was that whether he is religious or not relevant to the point of the original comment. The original comment was that he was contradictory in his "Balony Dectection" postulate.

[stripe]

I can not speak for the pp, but I think the point of that "And?" comment was that whether he is religious or not relevant to the point of the original comment. The original comment was that he was contradictory in his "Balony Dectection" postulate.

 

Maybe. It's hard to tell when people write dismissive, one word replies, isn't it? :001_smile:

 

Because most people seem to not have read his other book, I thought it was worth mentioning.

 

I think perhaps there is more support among scientists for keeping religion out of science than for bringing religion and such matters into science. But it's books like BFSU that are blasted instead of, say, Apologia.

[FairProspects]

Would you all feel better if he'd said beliefs in supernatural stuff are without scientific merit? Possibly it was supposed to be obvious that it was scientific merit he was speaking of, seeing how it is a science book?

 

Rosie

 

This might have improved my impression. He could even have written that supernatural beliefs are not relevant to the discussion of science and it would not necessarily have bothered me. However, stating that they are "uniformly without merit" is an assertion that transcends far beyond his singular argument and is much too arrogant for my taste.

[Greta]

I read him as referring to superstition, not faith.

 

But on the other hand, I can sympathize. I am a Christian. I accept evolution. I don't think there is a science curriculum out there that teaches the way I would teach. So I improvise. :)

[shinyhappypeople]

Would you all feel better if he'd said beliefs in supernatural stuff are without scientific merit? Possibly it was supposed to be obvious that it was scientific merit he was speaking of, seeing how it is a science book?

 

Precision in language is important.

 

This might have improved my impression. He could even have written that supernatural beliefs are not relevant to the discussion of science and it would not necessarily have bothered me. However, stating that they are "uniformly without merit" is an assertion that transcends far beyond his singular argument and is much too arrogant for my taste.

 

:iagree: Had he written the bolded I would have been in total agreement!

[Bluegoat]

I think the term "supernatural" has become loaded because of the way it has been used by the New Atheist crowd. It tends to make the statement seem to mean a lot more than it probably did.

 

That being said, I had problems with the statement even without that particular word. It tends to imply, I think unintentionally, that pure reason such as philosophy has no basis or is irrational, and it tends to gloss over the philosophical assumptions of science. Rationality does not belong only to scientific inquiry.

 

But I also wonder at the example on the most basic level. Was it, actually, irrational for people to think that demons, or vapours, or whatever, were responsible for disease? THe discovery of micro-organisms and germs was not really just a matter of people suddenly beginning to think "rationally," it was also about advances in technology that allowed us to see that such things existed.

 

It also doesn't really allow for the possibility that it is possible to think about real phenomena in different ways - demons may in fact not be so different from germs.

 

Of course most of this is well outside the scope of an elementary science text. But I do think that lack of precision in discussing the proper understanding of science is a big deal in modern culture and so I hate to see it perpetuated, even unwittingly.

 

That being said, I like BFSU and would use it, whereas I wouldn't touch the creationist stuff with a ten foot pole.

[WishboneDawn]

This might have improved my impression. He could even have written that supernatural beliefs are not relevant to the discussion of science and it would not necessarily have bothered me. However, stating that they are "uniformly without merit" is an assertion that transcends far beyond his singular argument and is much too arrogant for my taste.

 

Taken out of context, sure. But within a book that's all about the discussion of science and developing scientific thought...? Shouldn't a reader, by that point in the book, understand that the sentence is addressing the specifics of science and does NOT transcend his arguments?

[WishboneDawn]

I think the term "supernatural" has become loaded because of the way it has been used by the New Atheist crowd. It tends to make the statement seem to mean a lot more than it probably did.

 

That being said, I had problems with the statement even without that particular word. It tends to imply, I think unintentionally, that pure reason such as philosophy has no basis or is irrational, and it tends to gloss over the philosophical assumptions of science. Rationality does not belong only to scientific inquiry.

 

But I also wonder at the example on the most basic level. Was it, actually, irrational for people to think that demons, or vapours, or whatever, were responsible for disease? THe discovery of micro-organisms and germs was not really just a matter of people suddenly beginning to think "rationally," it was also about advances in technology that allowed us to see that such things existed.

 

It also doesn't really allow for the possibility that it is possible to think about real phenomena in different ways - demons may in fact not be so different from germs.

 

Of course most of this is well outside the scope of an elementary science text. But I do think that lack of precision in discussing the proper understanding of science is a big deal in modern culture and so I hate to see it perpetuated, even unwittingly.

 

That being said, I like BFSU and would use it, whereas I wouldn't touch the creationist stuff with a ten foot pole.

 

Great points.

[Alte Veste Academy]

To me that sentence meant believing in the existence of flying unicorns, pots of gold at the end of rainbows or that seeing a black cat is bad luck.

 

Yep. I think that maybe you're reading too far into it.

 

I don't know. I read it the same way the OP did. In fact, it immediately reminded me of

.

 

Would you all feel better if he'd said beliefs in supernatural stuff are without scientific merit? Possibly it was supposed to be obvious that it was scientific merit he was speaking of, seeing how it is a science book?

 

Rosie

 

:iagree:And faith and science can be separate. Isn't faith the belief in something for which there is no proof? No right or wrong implied in that, just very different premises for each.

Edited May 22, 2012 by Alte Veste Academy

[Ray]

:auto:

[FairProspects]

Taken out of context, sure. But within a book that's all about the discussion of science and developing scientific thought...? Shouldn't a reader, by that point in the book, understand that the sentence is addressing the specifics of science and does NOT transcend his arguments?

 

I think it is inflammatory enough to require some qualifiers.

[Incognito]

That line also stuck out to me the other day. I had to re-read the section to come to terms with it.

 

In context, he really is saying that supernatural beliefs do not advance scientific understanding. Read the entire paragraph the "without merit" bit is in. He should have said "without scientific merit" in order to keep the statement from being taken poorly. Well, and he shouldn't have used the word "uniformly" either. I assumed he accidentally let a bit of his own non-religious bias slip into his writing, but since it has been mentioned above that he is religious I'm not sure how he ended up saying it that way.

 

I'm still going to be using the book - it is very good, and I don't think that as a believer in God any of the teaching itself goes against that belief (I've read a number of the lessons and haven't found anything objectionable). As a scientist by training I really appreciate the way his lessons unfold.

[Targhee]

:iagree:And faith and science can be separate. Isn't faith the belief in something for which there is no proof? No right or wrong implied in that, just very different premises for each.

 

I do think they can be approached separately, though I feel settled in my own combination of the two. But the point is well brought out here: science is how we explain the world around us using the tangible and directly-inferable; faith is how we elucidate the transcendental. You cannot use empirical data to confirm faith any more than you can use it to dispute it.

[Alte Veste Academy]

I do think they can be approached separately, though I feel settled in my own combination of the two. But the point is well brought out here: science is how we explain the world around us using the tangible and directly-inferable; faith is how we elucidate the transcendental. You cannot use empirical data to confirm faith any more than you can use it to dispute it.

 

Well, of course. :)

[MomatHWTK]

I pretty much assume that any material that it teaching science is going to be using scientific standards and language. It's like a computer program, it may be able to do great things but there are limits to the scope of what it can do. Science can't go beyond fact.

 

ETA: I have volume 1 and while I find it OK as an introduction to science and a good guide for parents to get going on the topic, I have noticed that the marterial is not always as complete as I would like. I would tend more toward not introducing a topic that I didn't think a small child could understand over introducing it using broad terms. But- I wonder if I'm wrong in that thinking. My younger two kids really do enjoy having science lesson that is approachable. I may be a little too rigorous in my science teaching for my 1st and 2nd graders. :glare:

Edited May 22, 2012 by MomatHWTK

[Free]

I don't think Dr. Nebel meant to say that faith in God is without merit, but that "belief in supernatural" is without merit insofar as finding causes for events.

 

The whole point of the Baloney detection kit in BFSU is to promote children to think critically and to encourage them to eschew "miraculous" thinking (which I think is more common in children) at least as far as everyday events are concerned. I think it is a worthy goal.

[Critterfixer]

The whole point of the Baloney detection kit in BFSU is to promote children to think critically and to encourage them to eschew "miraculous" thinking (which I think is more common in children) at least as far as everyday events are concerned. I think it is a worthy goal.

It wouldn't be a worthy goal in my house. Critical thinking I agree with, but personally, I think knowing how a caterpillar becomes a butterfly does not disqualify the miraculous thinking when it flies away.

Context is one thing, and perhaps the author did not mean to offend. But there is an argument in his words that implies that if the standards of science are not met, then there is no merit in belief in the supernatural.

The implied message to me would be more of a concern than the actual statement itself.

 

So, OP, it would have ticked me off, too.

[justamouse]

I think the term "supernatural" has become loaded because of the way it has been used by the New Atheist crowd. It tends to make the statement seem to mean a lot more than it probably did.

 

That being said, I had problems with the statement even without that particular word. It tends to imply, I think unintentionally, that pure reason such as philosophy has no basis or is irrational, and it tends to gloss over the philosophical assumptions of science. Rationality does not belong only to scientific inquiry.

 

But I also wonder at the example on the most basic level. Was it, actually, irrational for people to think that demons, or vapours, or whatever, were responsible for disease? THe discovery of micro-organisms and germs was not really just a matter of people suddenly beginning to think "rationally," it was also about advances in technology that allowed us to see that such things existed.

 

It also doesn't really allow for the possibility that it is possible to think about real phenomena in different ways - demons may in fact not be so different from germs.

 

Of course most of this is well outside the scope of an elementary science text. But I do think that lack of precision in discussing the proper understanding of science is a big deal in modern culture and so I hate to see it perpetuated, even unwittingly.

That being said, I like BFSU and would use it, whereas I wouldn't touch the creationist stuff with a ten foot pole.

 

Exactly (on all points). Thank you.

[pixeldog]

Interestingly enough, I find that the more I learn about a subject from a scientific perspective, the more I believe that there is an intelligent Creator at work! For me, this melds the scientific with the miraculous! :D

[Tracy]

Here is another thought. It seems to me that lumping all religion into the category of the "supernatural" is a fairly recent phenomenon. It used to be that religion referred to Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Jewish, etc., and the supernatural referred to things like astrology, numerology, mind-reading, etc. Perhaps Dr. Nebel, coming from an older generation, was not referring to religion at all.

[Free]

I think knowing how a caterpillar becomes a butterfly does not disqualify the miraculous thinking when it flies away.

 

Interestingly enough, I find that the more I learn about a subject from a scientific perspective, the more I believe that there is an intelligent Creator at work! For me, this melds the scientific with the miraculous! :D

 

It is natural to feel awe when we see things such as lightning, a caterpillar turning into a butterfly or a single celled zygote developing into a baby. It is possible to see these processes as a work of God and thus call these miracles. IMO Dr. Nebel is not referring to such a concept at all in his Baloney Detection Kit. He is instead referring to the tendency of ascribing effects to supernatural causes instead of natural processes (and that is what I meant when I said "miraculous thinking").

 

Dr. Nebel, btw, is not above referring to "God's hand". When discussing evolution in BFSU3 he says "Nor does the process obviate the idea that there is a purpose behind it all. I will leave it to you and your students to debate and decide whether that potential [for evolution], which was present from the very beginning or it would not have occurred at all, was just an accidental happenstance, a matter of trial and error, or a grander design with purpose behind it all."

[Wheres Toto]

 

Dr. Nebel, btw, is not above referring to "God's hand". When discussing evolution in BFSU3 he says "Nor does the process obviate the idea that there is a purpose behind it all. I will leave it to you and your students to debate and decide whether that potential [for evolution], which was present from the very beginning or it would not have occurred at all, was just an accidental happenstance, a matter of trial and error, or a grander design with purpose behind it all."

 

Sorry for the tangent but - so he does cover evolution in the higher levels? I was a member of his yahoo group a while ago and he had said he didn't plan to cover evolution at all. It seems that may have changed?

[Guest adjunctmom]

Here is another thought. It seems to me that lumping all religion into the category of the "supernatural" is a fairly recent phenomenon. It used to be that religion referred to Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Jewish, etc., and the supernatural referred to things like astrology, numerology, mind-reading, etc. Perhaps Dr. Nebel, coming from an older generation, was not referring to religion at all.

 

:iagree:

 

He's of the same generation as my parents. If you told my mother that God is part of a supernatural belief system, she'd look at you like you had a second head. To her, supernatural is astrology, tarot, ghosts -- that sort of thing. Religion is its own category.

[Greta]

It wouldn't be a worthy goal in my house. Critical thinking I agree with, but personally, I think knowing how a caterpillar becomes a butterfly does not disqualify the miraculous thinking when it flies away.

Context is one thing, and perhaps the author did not mean to offend. But there is an argument in his words that implies that if the standards of science are not met, then there is no merit in belief in the supernatural.

The implied message to me would be more of a concern than the actual statement itself.

 

So, OP, it would have ticked me off, too.

 

Now, to me, there is a profound difference between the kind of superstition that Dr. Nebel was talking about and the kind of faith that you're talking about here.

 

Superstition shuts down the search for rational answers. Faith does not. If I have a superstitious belief about the cause of disease, then I've stopped looking for the rational, natural causes. I've limited my understanding. On the other hand, I can rationally understand the transformation of a caterpillar into a butterfly, I can investigate every stage of that and explain reasonably what's going on, and still be awed by the beauty, the mystery, the miracle behind it.

 

From what I know of Dr. Nebel through his books and his yahoo group, I firmly believe that he was talking about superstitious beliefs that impede rational thinking, and NOT faith that transcends rational thinking.

[Hunter]

This curriculum doesn't meld well with Waldorf 1-3 :lol: I'm not getting into religion here. I just don't believe in stealing magical thinking from children so young. I think it's just plain mean.

 

And I believe there are things that happen in this universe that are not explained by the current language of science,and I get annoyed when scientists try to force me into their naive way of looking at the world. It reminds me of a 2 year old that yells, "there was no Mommy before I was born!"

[Amy Jo]

I have found nothing objectionable in the lessons. I'll have to re-read the baloney kit, I skimmed in order to get to the main part. I do like the book in general, and I can't wait to get the 2nd one.

 

Sorry for the tangent but - so he does cover evolution in the higher levels? I was a member of his yahoo group a while ago and he had said he didn't plan to cover evolution at all. It seems that may have changed?

 

From looking a the table of contents, this was the only lesson on evolution. I would compare it to D-9 about Resources in the first book, kind of a look at a bigger issue to wrap things up and synthesize.

[Greta]

This curriculum doesn't meld well with Waldorf 1-3 :lol: I'm not getting into religion here. I just don't believe in stealing magical thinking from children so young. I think it's just plain mean.

 

I do think that things like the baloney detection kit and logic lessons are more appropriate for middle school or high school. There's nothing wrong with letting kids be kids.

 

And I believe there are things that happen in this universe that are not explained by the current language of science,and I get annoyed when scientists try to force me into their naive way of looking at the world. It reminds me of a 2 year old that yells, "there was no Mommy before I was born!"

 

:lol: :iagree:

[Amy Jo]

This curriculum doesn't meld well with Waldorf 1-3 :lol: I'm not getting into religion here. I just don't believe in stealing magical thinking from children so young. I think it's just plain mean.

 

We are still reading fairy tales and great stories, we are loving the Hobbit with dragons and Gandalf, and then will continue the Prydain series with magical swords, Gurgi, etc. Why does learning about the wonder of the real world conflict with the wonder of a make believe world? The kids still play games with imagination, magical items, etc. I'm rambling, I guess I don't see this as stealing magical thinking, just one more area to focus on wonder and delight.