A Question to Old Earth People who use Apologia..

[Mama2Many4]

I am a Catholic with an Old Earth View. Now, I LOVE Apologia Science because of the story and narrative style. It fits into the Charlotte Mason way of learning that we love.

 

BUT

 

Jeannie's view has overtaken her views of science itself. She downs any sort of proof that would lean towards the earth being old and places all of her scientific theory on the Bible. I LOVE the Bible, I read it nightly. But I don't put the Bible up against science. They are not at odds with each other, but they compliment each other. If you are old earth and use the explorer series, how to you work around her views on almost every page. My children love the books, and I'd hate to have to switch. Besides, I have NO CLUE what I'd switch to?! :confused:

 

How can she write science textbooks and then tout that the sun is not old, and have excuse after excuse about why there are sunspots. Why the sun cannot be that old and the moon etc..

 

It seems to me that she is writing young earth creation books, and not "science" books.

 

We're studying Astronomy right now and I've had to cross out so many paragraphs in that book, that sometimes I wonder if it's even worth doing them at all.

[shernandez]

Interested as well...we will be using this series very soon.

[...................]

I am not necessarily old earth but I lean that way and strongly disagree with ken Ham, et. Al

 

What book are you using? The Astronomy book has a ton of YE jargon, but the Zoology does not. The times that I have come across it, I have done a study on the word YOM, on Hebrew 4, on death before Adaam etc.

 

It may seem over their heads but it's not.

 

Reasonstobelieve.org has great info you can share with your kids.

 

I also found a chart that was helpful...I wish I could find one online. It showed the strengths and weaknesses of each view in a simple format.

[TracyP]

FWIW, I am not firmly in either camp but lean OE.

 

I agree with CalmingTea; Zoology was not near as "bad" as Astronomy.

When it comes up, we just discuss the different views. We discuss how science is the facts as we know them right now - it is a fluid thing that changes with new information. We don't use science to prove/disprove the Bible, nor do we use the Bible to inform us about science. My kids seem to have no problem understanding this.

[Syllieann]

I keep looking at the apologia because of the layout and the handy kit but after thumbing through them I think I simply can not reconcile with Church teaching. The attitude kind of makes me want to slap someone too, sort of condescending toward anyone stupid enough to hold an old earth view, like we are so naive and silly. I'm leaning heavily toward mr. Q but I hope to be able to see behold and see irl sometime in the next few months. I like the samples and would probably go that way if it weren't for wanting to combine ages eventually.

[RootAnn]

I'm Catholic & don't have a horse in either the OE/YE camp, but JF's constant twitter about how special Earth is (because God made it just for us) everywhere in the Astronomy book was annoying. I used it three years ago & read it aloud to my kids. I edited on the fly to eliminate all the extraneous material she included. It is the only Elem. Apologia book we've used.

 

I was just thinking the other day whether I'd use it again for next year or not. If I can find something better, I won't use it again.

[Mama2Many4]

I keep looking at the apologia because of the layout and the handy kit but after thumbing through them I think I simply can not reconcile with Church teaching. The attitude kind of makes me want to slap someone too, sort of condescending toward anyone stupid enough to hold an old earth view, like we are so naive and silly. I'm leaning heavily toward mr. Q but I hope to be able to see behold and see irl sometime in the next few months. I like the samples and would probably go that way if it weren't for wanting to combine ages eventually.

 

This is the problem I've had. I've Behold and See in the past, and although liked it, it was not adaptable to all ages. I don't know what to do.:confused:

[Mama2Many4]

I am not necessarily old earth but I lean that way and strongly disagree with ken Ham, et. Al

 

What book are you using? The Astronomy book has a ton of YE jargon, but the Zoology does not. The times that I have come across it, I have done a study on the word YOM, on Hebrew 4, on death before Adaam etc.

 

It may seem over their heads but it's not.

 

Reasonstobelieve.org has great info you can share with your kids.

 

I also found a chart that was helpful...I wish I could find one online. It showed the strengths and weaknesses of each view in a simple format.

 

FWIW, I am not firmly in either camp but lean OE.

 

I agree with CalmingTea; Zoology was not near as "bad" as Astronomy.

When it comes up, we just discuss the different views. We discuss how science is the facts as we know them right now - it is a fluid thing that changes with new information. We don't use science to prove/disprove the Bible, nor do we use the Bible to inform us about science. My kids seem to have no problem understanding this.

 

I'm Catholic & don't have a horse in either the OE/YE camp, but JF's constant twitter about how special Earth is (because God made it just for us) everywhere in the Astronomy book was annoying. I used it three years ago & read it aloud to my kids. I edited on the fly to eliminate all the extraneous material she included. It is the only Elem. Apologia book we've used.

 

I was just thinking the other day whether I'd use it again for next year or not. If I can find something better, I won't use it again.

 

I agree with all of you. There is so much orange highlighting crossing major areas out that so much of the book is missing. I'm hoping that other books in the series is not so heavy with creation talk, but I'm afraid to take the chance. I wish she would have kept her opinions and beliefs separate from the actual SCIENCE! If you're going to write a science book, just state the facts!

[Syllieann]

This is the problem I've had. I've Behold and See in the past, and although liked it, it was not adaptable to all ages. I don't know what to do.:confused:

 

Tbh I will probably use mr q for that reason. Rso and mr. Q seem to be the only realistic choices for doing a wtm rotation. I will just make sure that religion is included in other areas and that my dc recognize God as creator of all, including the laws of the universe. I'm a sah catholic mom sitting on a bio and chem degree with a retired curricula writing mother. maybe I should get off my duff and write some better options.

[alef]

I did a lot of editing when we used the Astronomy book. The others have fewer YE elements. I do go through the books with pen in hand to edit where necessary before working through them with my kids.

[Mama2Many4]

Tbh I will probably use mr q for that reason. Rso and mr. Q seem to be the only realistic choices for doing a wtm rotation. I will just make sure that religion is included in other areas and that my dc recognize God as creator of all, including the laws of the universe. I'm a sah catholic mom sitting on a bio and chem degree with a retired curricula writing mother. maybe I should get off my duff and write some better options.

 

Do you know how many Catholics (and non-Catholics alike) would be eternally grateful to you? I really think you should consider it. There is not much available to homeschoolers in the way of good science.

[skeeterbug]

Are you worried about the validity of her arguments against evolution/OE in the Zoology books? I'd be interested to hear from others if/how it is discussed there. We've only used Astronomy so far.

 

We are using Astronomy now and I hear you. I am not YE or OE but lean toward YE. I find the arguments weak and not very scientific. But we read and discuss, or I edit as we read, and move on. I try not to roll my eyes. We don't linger on the arguments but instead linger on the facts we've learned. I imagine there will be much more of this in the Geology/Earth Science book that will come out in a few years.

 

Have you seen the Christian Kids Explore series? There is one for Earth & Space. (More earth than space.) It doesn't go as in-depth but seems to stay away from the YE/OE issues.

[ktgrok]

I'd just go with living books from the library. Get various books/videos on various topics and avoid the textbook approach.

[Mama2Many4]

I'd just go with living books from the library. Get various books/videos on various topics and avoid the textbook approach.

 

It could be a little laziness on my part, but you may be right.

[VeritasMama]

I'm Catholic, I don't really have an opinion on the OE/YE, though I probably lean OE. I use Elemental Science along with living books from the library, and we also are using Science 2 for Little Folks from CHC to insert some religion. Have you looked at the Behold and See books? Not exaclty CM, but very CM friendly, and the science is solid.

[Mama2Many4]

I'm Catholic, I don't really have an opinion on the OE/YE, though I probably lean OE. I use Elemental Science along with living books from the library, and we also are using Science 2 for Little Folks from CHC to insert some religion. Have you looked at the Behold and See books? Not exaclty CM, but very CM friendly, and the science is solid.

 

Yes, I have used CHC in the past and while it was very good, it was hard to implement with two children at different levels. I'm thinking I'm going to be going with Elemental Science myself. I know that she tries very hard to leave religion out of her science books. I think this particular stance will hurt Apologia in the future with prospective customers.

[hsmom2011]

Have you looked at RS4K? We have completed Chem. & Bio., and have just started Physics. I add in library books here and there and reading from the Usborne Science Encyclopedia. I also have my 11yo do the study folder.

[5LittleMonkeys]

I'd just go with living books from the library. Get various books/videos on various topics and avoid the textbook approach.

 

This is what we ended up doing with the Astronomy and Botany books. I gave up trying to edit them after my 2nd grader asked me why we were using books I had to leave so much out of.:tongue_smilie: I ended up just using the TOCs as a guide for topics and order. We were much happier with living books and learned more too.

[Mama2Many4]

Have you looked at RS4K? We have completed Chem. & Bio., and have just started Physics. I add in library books here and there and reading from the Usborne Science Encyclopedia. I also have my 11yo do the study folder.

 

I've looked into them before, but wasn't sure about the cartoonish parts of the program. I'm not sure how my kids will respond to it.

 

(Where's the shrugging shoulders when you need it) :glare:

[AdventureMoms]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Syllieann

Tbh I will probably use mr q for that reason. Rso and mr. Q seem to be the only realistic choices for doing a wtm rotation. I will just make sure that religion is included in other areas and that my dc recognize God as creator of all, including the laws of the universe. I'm a sah catholic mom sitting on a bio and chem degree with a retired curricula writing mother. maybe I should get off my duff and write some better options.

Do you know how many Catholics (and non-Catholics alike) would be eternally grateful to you? I really think you should consider it. There is not much available to homeschoolers in the way of good science.

Yes you should! DW and I have discussed doing something similar (we're sitting on a whole lot of chemistry and physics background over here) but I'd love someone else to do it for me! If it were even MOSTLY secular you'd have a lot of takers! I scanned through the Apologia Astronomy book at a convention and it felt like a book about religion thinly veiling itself as a science text. I would find it pretty frustrating to teach from if I did not share the author's beliefs.

[Sue G in PA]

Would anyone mind if I asked a question of OE believers? I do NOT want to cause a fight. I'm too tired. :tongue_smilie: But I am honestly curious about this. How can the story of creation be read and interpreted as 7 "general periods of time" and not what the text says...7 actual DAYS (24 hours)? I've studies this out. I've read what the word day was in the original Hebrew and where it was used elsewhere in scripture. Everywhere in scripture the word "yom" (Hebrew for day) followed by a number (as in Genesis 1) was used to mean a literal 24 hour period. I realize the word has "other" meanings but nowhere else in scripture does this word, followed by a number, refer to something other than a 24 hour period. And the text itself..."there was evening and there was morning, DAY 1, etc.). I've heard people say they look at the creation story as something more figurative or symbolic. But how can you look at this ONE part of the Word of God as symbolic but not the rest? Again, NO FIGHTING...I'm not picking one. I'm truly and honestly JUST curious. My MIL is catholic and is also OE. To me, it always seemed like she was trying to fit the Word of God into the framework of the "world" instead of STARTING with God's Word (what Christians refer to as the TRUTH) and fitting the "world" into that. Does that make sense? Science CAN be wrong. Carbon dating IS (and has been proven on many occasions to be) fallible. Anyway, I don't want to hi-jack so if you are OE and have time to PM me your thoughts, I'd be very appreciative. Thanks! And to the OP...you might enjoy the CKE series...it isn't as overtly YE as Apologia. At least it isn't "in your face" like Fulbright can be. ;)

[VeritasMama]

Would anyone mind if I asked a question of OE believers? I do NOT want to cause a fight. I'm too tired. :tongue_smilie: But I am honestly curious about this. How can the story of creation be read and interpreted as 7 "general periods of time" and not what the text says...7 actual DAYS (24 hours)? I've studies this out. I've read what the word day was in the original Hebrew and where it was used elsewhere in scripture. Everywhere in scripture the word "yom" (Hebrew for day) followed by a number (as in Genesis 1) was used to mean a literal 24 hour period. I realize the word has "other" meanings but nowhere else in scripture does this word, followed by a number, refer to something other than a 24 hour period. And the text itself..."there was evening and there was morning, DAY 1, etc.). I've heard people say they look at the creation story as something more figurative or symbolic. But how can you look at this ONE part of the Word of God as symbolic but not the rest? Again, NO FIGHTING...I'm not picking one. I'm truly and honestly JUST curious. My MIL is catholic and is also OE. To me, it always seemed like she was trying to fit the Word of God into the framework of the "world" instead of STARTING with God's Word (what Christians refer to as the TRUTH) and fitting the "world" into that. Does that make sense? Science CAN be wrong. Carbon dating IS (and has been proven on many occasions to be) fallible. Anyway, I don't want to hi-jack so if you are OE and have time to PM me your thoughts, I'd be very appreciative. Thanks! And to the OP...you might enjoy the CKE series...it isn't as overtly YE as Apologia. At least it isn't "in your face" like Fulbright can be. ;)

 

I'm not OE or YE, but I don't really have a problem with OE. Could God cause 10 million years of creation to pass within a single day? Of course He could, anything is possible for God, and He certainly could have chosen to create the world in such a manner. He also could have created everything in the literal sense of 7 days, and science could be in error. Either way, it doesn't really have an impact on my faith at all, I just believe that God is the creator and our sense of time, that is the way we divide time into days and weeks, has a deep significance. I don't think the issue is whether you take Genesis literally, but if you only take it literally you will be missing out on the deeper spiritual truths to be found by diving in to the deep symbology within the text. The story of Genesis pre-figures and lays out the coming of Christ and the redemption, and you need to look at it as more than a literal document in order to fully appreciate that. Adam is a figure for Christ, Eve causes the fall of Man but will bear children so eventually the Son of Man will be born, the fruit of the tree of Knowledge is eaten and causes death, but Christ will become the bread of life, and so by eating of His flesh we gain life, etc. etc.

 

I think the issue for Christians is not whether you take Genesis literally, but it is about whether or not you have faith in God alone. If you do have faith in God alone, I think you will acknowledge that it could be literal. You are right that science is fallible, God is not. Science is a good thing, but not something we should have blind faith in. I see no problem for Christians to hold an Old Earth view as long as they have a healthy skepticism and not a blind faith in science, and as long as they recognize God as the creator.

 

I know fence sitters can be annoying, but I'm on the fence.

Edited September 9, 2012 by VeritasMama

[Sue G in PA]

Not annoying at all! :001_smile: I appreciate your explanation. I still can't quite reconcile reading the creation account as "figurative" yet not the rest of scripture. Maybe I'm not making sense. But if I can take pieces of the Bible and interpret it to fit into my own, personal (human) way of thinking then the Bible to me (personally) loses all Truth. All validity. The Bible even warns about adding to or taking away from the Word of God. IDK...I'm just stumped, lol! I can't see any "wiggle-room" for anything but a YE view. That's just me. Again, no fighting...I'm really just curious. Thanks for your explanations!

[Mama2Many4]

Not annoying at all! :001_smile: I appreciate your explanation. I still can't quite reconcile reading the creation account as "figurative" yet not the rest of scripture. Maybe I'm not making sense. But if I can take pieces of the Bible and interpret it to fit into my own, personal (human) way of thinking then the Bible to me (personally) loses all Truth. All validity. The Bible even warns about adding to or taking away from the Word of God. IDK...I'm just stumped, lol! I can't see any "wiggle-room" for anything but a YE view. That's just me. Again, no fighting...I'm really just curious. Thanks for your explanations!

 

I can answer only my beliefs on the Genesis account. I know that God exists outside of time. So to Him, one million years could be a "day". He was trying to break things down for the people of that time, that weren't all that smart. They were a primitive people and could grasp very little in the way of understanding. This is told to me by my parish priest. I've had many long discussions with him about this and it would just boggle your head if I went to far into things. :tongue_smilie:

[TracyP]

Would anyone mind if I asked a question of OE believers? I do NOT want to cause a fight. I'm too tired. :tongue_smilie: But I am honestly curious about this. How can the story of creation be read and interpreted as 7 "general periods of time" and not what the text says...7 actual DAYS (24 hours)?

 

Well directly to an OE, that is what the Bible says. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form, and void..."

I read this as saying there was an Earth sitting here for an unspecified amount of time, covered by water, presumably spewing volcanoes underneath all the water. So when it comes to the age of Earth it could be any age, all we know is it was formed sometime before the rest of Creation.

 

Beyond that it gets more difficult in my mind. I think it could be exactly as written or maybe there is something we are not understanding. How was there a 24 hour day when the sun isn't created until day 4? How is grass growing and the water not freezing when there isn't yet a sun. Or is the sun part of the creation of "the heavens and the earth" and the "light to rule the day" means something different that I'm not grasping?

 

It starts to be more than I can understand so I have to step back and remember that all this is completely beside the point. I simply don't know how He did it. I have more, but I gotta run. I hope this makes sense cuz I have no time to edit.

[ktgrok]

Would anyone mind if I asked a question of OE believers? I do NOT want to cause a fight. I'm too tired. :tongue_smilie: But I am honestly curious about this. How can the story of creation be read and interpreted as 7 "general periods of time" and not what the text says...7 actual DAYS (24 hours)? I've studies this out. I've read what the word day was in the original Hebrew and where it was used elsewhere in scripture. Everywhere in scripture the word "yom" (Hebrew for day) followed by a number (as in Genesis 1) was used to mean a literal 24 hour period. I realize the word has "other" meanings but nowhere else in scripture does this word, followed by a number, refer to something other than a 24 hour period. And the text itself..."there was evening and there was morning, DAY 1, etc.). I've heard people say they look at the creation story as something more figurative or symbolic. But how can you look at this ONE part of the Word of God as symbolic but not the rest? Again, NO FIGHTING...I'm not picking one. I'm truly and honestly JUST curious. My MIL is catholic and is also OE. To me, it always seemed like she was trying to fit the Word of God into the framework of the "world" instead of STARTING with God's Word (what Christians refer to as the TRUTH) and fitting the "world" into that. Does that make sense? Science CAN be wrong. Carbon dating IS (and has been proven on many occasions to be) fallible. Anyway, I don't want to hi-jack so if you are OE and have time to PM me your thoughts, I'd be very appreciative. Thanks! And to the OP...you might enjoy the CKE series...it isn't as overtly YE as Apologia. At least it isn't "in your face" like Fulbright can be. ;)

 

Personally, I, and many orthodox jews whose story it was first, look at it as allegory, not science. A way of explaining things that made sense to people back then. Honestly, I don't think God could have asked Moses to write down quantum physics and evolutionary theory and expect people to understand it. He was meeting them where they are, giving them the "gist" of the story without all the complicated astrophysics that they would have no way of understanding.

[TKDmom]

Personally, I, and many orthodox jews whose story it was first, look at it as allegory, not science. A way of explaining things that made sense to people back then. Honestly, I don't think God could have asked Moses to write down quantum physics and evolutionary theory and expect people to understand it. He was meeting them where they are, giving them the "gist" of the story without all the complicated astrophysics that they would have no way of understanding.

 

:iagree:

 

The bible is full of allegory. I was reading a Christian book about the human body once and it stated that people are created in God's image, but then it went on to say that we're not literally created in God's image--because he doesn't have a body like we do--we just have the same qualities. I can't remember the exact argument, but it surprised me because I do believe that we are literally created in God's image--body and all. When I discussed it with dh, he pointed out that we all pick and choose what to take literally from the Bible, but we're not always aware of what our biases are.

[VeritasMama]

Maybe I'm not making sense. But if I can take pieces of the Bible and interpret it to fit into my own, personal (human) way of thinking then the Bible to me (personally) loses all Truth. All validity. The Bible even warns about adding to or taking away from the Word of God. IDK...I'm just stumped, lol! I can't see any "wiggle-room" for anything but a YE view. That's just me. Again, no fighting...I'm really just curious. Thanks for your explanations!

 

I understand where you are coming from, and I see the danger of what you are describing. But, the OE explanation does not add or take away from the Genesis account, imo. That is what I was trying to express. If the OE view explains how the earth was created, this does not add extra meaning to the story. The meaning is laid out, and it is all the meaning that we need. In other words, everything we need to learn from the Genesis account is already there, and I don't see how OE views are adding to scripture.

 

As I said, I believe God created the world in 7 days to the understanding of human beings, but as the previous poster said God exists outside of time and space, and so 7 days for God does not necessarily mean the same as it does for human beings. However, God chose to use that amount of time when explaining the story in order to teach us certain lessons about life on Earth, so that is what I take away from the story.

 

Reading the Bible must be done in context, and you once you know the end of the story it sheds more light on the beginning. That is what I meant by reading into the symbology, it has nothing to do with my own interpretation or worldview, it is simply the way scripture has been read for thousands of years, and for Jews, Catholics and Orthodox Christians it is exactly what He always intended. The symbology is all laid out within scriptures, you simply need to pay attention to it.

 

ETA: For Catholics and other denoms, truth is absolute. I don't mean to imply that this type of reading means that it is open to your own personal version of "truth." That is where the authority of the Church and Tradition comes in, without it you descend into chaos with literally thousands of different versions of the "truth." I don't make my own personal interpretations, I rely on thousands of years of Christian teachings and tradition for instruction.

Edited September 9, 2012 by VeritasMama
spelling

[Syllieann]

:iagree:

 

The bible is full of allegory. I was reading a Christian book about the human body once and it stated that people are created in God's image, but then it went on to say that we're not literally created in God's image--because he doesn't have a body like we do--we just have the same qualities. I can't remember the exact argument, but it surprised me because I do believe that we are literally created in God's image--body and all. When I discussed it with dh, he pointed out that we all pick and choose what to take literally from the Bible, but we're not always aware of what our biases are.

:iagree:too, well put.

 

As far as taking it literally, it should be noted that Genesis describes a geocentric view of the universe as well as numerous problems in the definition of a day and how a day could exist before the sun, etc. Plus, they probably didn't have a word for "nucleotide".

[Mama2Many4]

:iagree:too, well put.

 

As far as taking it literally, it should be noted that Genesis describes a geocentric view of the universe as well as numerous problems in the definition of a day and how a day could exist before the sun, etc. Plus, they probably didn't have a word for "nucleotide".

 

:smilielol5: