Derek Owens physics course not quite secular

[Teachin'Mine]

Connie, yes the thread has taken off a bit from EKS's original post. I'm just so surprised to see the reactions to this information.I've debated saying more on this, because it's possibly controversial, but I'll give it a go and ask that we each give our own opinion rather than attacking someone else's opinion. I hope that my above post isn't seen as an attack, I'm truly baffled and would like to know if they have thought about this as far as college courses.Well here goes the new territory. For those who strongly object to using texts with this opinion included ... is the part where he gives his opinion based on his faith seen as a threat? Is it just that you believe there is no Creator, or are you afraid that if your children read that an author of a text believes that there is one, then they may lose their atheism? I'm sure I'm not putting that into the right words, but I think you know what I mean. I can say that when my dd was younger I would have avoided texts if they taught that there is no God, but I'm sure that she will come across this belief in many college courses and she certainly has friends who are atheists. But at her age, it's not a concern.I think I'm hearing that you would doubt the validity of the science contained in the book if the author shared religious beliefs, but I don't understand that. Many of the laws of physics were "discovered" and named years ago by people of strong belief in God and yet I don't see those laws being disputed ... or are they? Anything you could put into words to help me understand would be appreciated.

[swimmermom3]

Connie, yes the thread has taken off a bit from EKS's original post. I'm just so surprised to see the reactions to this information.I've debated saying more on this, because it's possibly controversial, but I'll give it a go and ask that we each give our own opinion rather than attacking someone else's opinion. I hope that my above post isn't seen as an attack, I'm truly baffled and would like to know if they have thought about this as far as college courses.Well here goes the new territory. For those who strongly object to using texts with this opinion included ... is the part where he gives his opinion based on his faith seen as a threat? Is it just that you believe there is no Creator, or are you afraid that if your children read that an author of a text believes that there is one, then they may lose their atheism? I'm sure I'm not putting that into the right words, but I think you know what I mean. I can say that when my dd was younger I would have avoided texts if they taught that there is no God, but I'm sure that she will come across this belief in many college courses and she certainly has friends who are atheists. But at her age, it's not a concern.I think I'm hearing that you would doubt the validity of the science contained in the book if the author shared religious beliefs, but I don't understand that. Many of the laws of physics were "discovered" and named years ago by people of strong belief in God and yet I don't see those laws being disputed ... or are they? Anything you could put into words to help me understand would be appreciated.

 

Teachin'Mine, I can answer your question - at least from my viewpoint.

 

First, we have been homeschooling for six years and while we are secular homeschoolers, I have often chosen Christian curriculum because there may not have been a better choice at the time. My youngest, who is now 15, has been reading opinions for many years that conflict with our viewpoints. He has worked his way through Dr. Wile stating that any intelligent person knows that God created the earth or whatever it is that Dr. Wile wants intelligent people to believe, Rod and Staff suggesting that the very best place to start an older student's research paper is with the Bible because it covers all kinds of topics, and TOG suggesting that you staple shut portions of the literature text that cover love poetry because it is not okay for your high school student. We have had some interesting sessions working with John Holzmann's viewpoints on modern American politics. We don't avoid religious or philosophical questions, but embrace and debate them, just not in science class. I suspect my kids will do fine in college with professors who have different beliefs, and I shall be grateful that someone else's head is spinning from all ds's questions, but it won't be mine.

 

With the move to the high school years, I am less comfortable in using Christian curriculum because it does not always meet our academic goals and I am not as willing to devote an exceptional amount of time to discussing theological issues when we need to be working on math and science. Time is short. If I could not find a better secular option for science, then I would use Derek Owens' courses and as I stated before, I would use them because of Kai's recommendations, not in spite of them.

 

Do I see Mr. Owens" statement as a threat? :huh: How? I saw it as trying to scare Christian kids about losing their faith when they go to college because of those atheist academics. I dislike that type of tactic. Does the statement bother me because I don't believe in a Creator? Well, I do believe in a Greater Power, although I do not know what shape that Power takes. Perhaps it is a kinder, gentler, more just Power than the one I grew up with and it sure as heck has a better sense of humor. I think the faulty reasoning in the statement bothered me.

 

I read it as "If one believes that there is no deity beyond this universe, then one will find life meaningless." The corollary (?not sure if that is the right term) would be that "If one believes that there is a deity beyond this universe, then one finds life meaningful." Mr. Owens then states something to the effect that human experience shows that all mankind finds his own life to be meaningful. Based on that reasoning, there must be a deity. Because I have a certain belief in how a scientist should conduct science, Mr. Owens statements call his level of professionalism into question for me. So you are probably right, I am a little more unsure of the validity of his science because he is including religious statements in with his science. I am not sure how that is related to laws of science discovered by men of God. I am sure that Mr. Owens statements do not affect his customer service or his ability to teach science. But in the back of my mind, I will have a hard time not asking myself, "What kind of science?" This is me and this is not an attack directed at anyone who uses his courses.

 

Am I afraid that Sailor Dude will lose his atheism if he reads statements like Mr. Owens? Not on your life. But recently we watched a lecture on ancient Greece presented by Donald Kagan where he mentioned the importance of religion in a culture - something to that effect and my son had a lot of questions that were triggered by the statement. Kagan's thoughtful, academic comment delivered without condescension gave my boy some things to consider. He is also fascinated by the conversions of Madelaine L'Engle and C.S. Lewis. You have to understand that we have family members of strong faith on both sides of our families. It is not like we sit around bashing the faithful, but life has shown us some ugly lessons with regards to faith and that is where we are at the moment.

 

I think if the tables were turned and a curriculum was presented as non-secular on this board, and you dropped $500 for the course only to find a statement or two that were strongly anti-Christian, a few on this thread would be irked. Yes, you could work around the statements, but maybe there was a better place for your money. That's all.

[Dicentra]

Connie, yes the thread has taken off a bit from EKS's original post. I'm just so surprised to see the reactions to this information.I've debated saying more on this, because it's possibly controversial, but I'll give it a go and ask that we each give our own opinion rather than attacking someone else's opinion. I hope that my above post isn't seen as an attack, I'm truly baffled and would like to know if they have thought about this as far as college courses.Well here goes the new territory. For those who strongly object to using texts with this opinion included ... is the part where he gives his opinion based on his faith seen as a threat? Is it just that you believe there is no Creator, or are you afraid that if your children read that an author of a text believes that there is one, then they may lose their atheism? I'm sure I'm not putting that into the right words, but I think you know what I mean. I can say that when my dd was younger I would have avoided texts if they taught that there is no God, but I'm sure that she will come across this belief in many college courses and she certainly has friends who are atheists. But at her age, it's not a concern.I think I'm hearing that you would doubt the validity of the science contained in the book if the author shared religious beliefs, but I don't understand that. Many of the laws of physics were "discovered" and named years ago by people of strong belief in God and yet I don't see those laws being disputed ... or are they? Anything you could put into words to help me understand would be appreciated.

 

Well, I can't speak for others but, for myself, it isn't a matter of feeling threatened or fearful that philosophical or theological arguments would be presented in a science course. I simply feel that those types of arguments don't belong in a science class. A philosophy of science class or a history of science class - yes. But a straight-up science class - no. Science should be about objective, verifiable data and using the scientific method to analyze that data. Since there is no objective, verifiable data about the existence or the non-existence of a creator, then such a topic doesn't belong in a science class.

 

If the class in question was a philosophy of science class, then bring it on! :) I happen to love the philosophy of science and love debating things (but not arguing :)).

 

Let me make clear, though - I did not write the curriculum in question and so have no authority to tell the author what he should or shouldn't discuss in his writings. Even though my personal feeling is that philosophical/theological arguments do not belong in a straight-up science curriculum, he is free to do as he wishes. I agree with the OP and some of the PPs, though - I do like to know when those types of arguments are included in a curriculum just as I would like to know the topics contained in a particular curriculum. That way, I can make an informed choice about whether to purchase or not.

[TCB]

Good answer Swimmermom3.

[kiana]

I think if the tables were turned and a curriculum was presented as non-secular on this board, and you dropped $500 for the course only to find a statement or two that were strongly anti-Christian, a few on this thread would be irked. Yes, you could work around the statements, but maybe there was a better place for your money. That's all.

 

This is extremely well-phrased. I was thinking about how to respond for some time and you summed it up beautifully.

[Teachin'Mine]

Thank you Lisa and Connie.

 

Lisa, I guess I included the question about whether it's considered a threat because I thought of how some perceive the reverse situation ... as in people of faith coming across authors sharing their belief that there is no God and how they might feel threatened or as though using that text would be putting their children at risk. I felt this way when my dd was much younger. I had no idea about TOG or Rod and Staff and while we've used a couple of Apologia's texts, I haven't read through them myself. I agree with you about the wording in DO's text. I think that sharing one's opinion goes a lot further when it doesn't attack. I doubt that someone who sees life as totally meaningless would care enough to take the time and trouble to teach their own children. What would be the point? I have found, IRL and here on the forum, many non-believers who devote their life to service and making this world a better place because they believe that it's all we've got. I do believe that God is infinitely more merciful and just than many claim and have no doubt that your Greater Power will reveal Himself as such and to have a great sense of humor as well. Thank you for taking the time to explain and I guess it all goes back to EKS's intent that she wanted to inform people that this is a part of the text.

[swimmermom3]

Thank you Lisa and Connie.

 

Lisa, I guess I included the question about whether it's considered a threat because I thought of how some perceive the reverse situation ... as in people of faith coming across authors sharing their belief that there is no God and how they might feel threatened or as though using that text would be putting their children at risk. I felt this way when my dd was much younger. I had no idea about TOG or Rod and Staff and while we've used a couple of Apologia's texts, I haven't read through them myself. I agree with you about the wording in DO's text. I think that sharing one's opinion goes a lot further when it doesn't attack. I doubt that someone who sees life as totally meaningless would care enough to take the time and trouble to teach their own children. What would be the point? I have found, IRL and here on the forum, many non-believers who devote their life to service and making this world a better place because they believe that it's all we've got. I do believe that God is infinitely more merciful and just than many claim and have no doubt that your Greater Power will reveal Himself as such and to have a great sense of humor as well. Thank you for taking the time to explain and I guess it all goes back to EKS's intent that she wanted to inform people that this is a part of the text.

 

Another thought that I had when I read the statement that Kai posted was, "Based on what I see here, would I be comfortable if my son were to have interactions with this teacher?" What I mean is, in a course where my youngest would have interactions with the teacher, as in opportunities to ask questions, I need a teacher who can respond in a thoughtful and respectful fashion. My son is what I would call a "Questor." He is always in search of answers and he is not asking questions to be rude or obnoxious. He is really thinking about it. In four years, he will get what he gets in college, but right now, I need teachers that can honor that type of inquiry without getting shirty if the kid's beliefs don't match their own. Jay Wile of Apologia has a tone in some of his texts that makes me cringe when I think of talking to young people in that manner.

 

For maybe a better explanation, there is a poster on this board that has many beliefs on the opposite end of the spectrum from me, but I am always grateful when she responds to my questions especially if they are in regards to faith. She never makes me feel stupid for asking the question and I "trust" her responses. She is gracious and thoughtful in her comments and it makes a world of difference. I want that for my son at this point in time. Again, there was some element or tone in his statements that left me unsure that Mr. Owens would be that kind of a teacher. Other than that, I like what I see on his website and still appreciate Kai's heads-up. Does that make sense?

[at the beach]

I think if the tables were turned and a curriculum was presented as non-secular on this board, and you dropped $500 for the course only to find a statement or two that were strongly anti-Christian, a few on this thread would be irked. Yes, you could work around the statements, but maybe there was a better place for your money. That's all.

 

Yes, I would be irked at myself if I found something unacceptable to me in a curriculum product that I had assumed wasn't there. Because ultimately, as a home educator, it is up to me to preview materials. Teachin'Mine is right when she says children will be exposed to all kinds of things from outside teachers. But in this particular case with Derek Owens materials, the content in question could have been discovered in advance by previewing the materials. That takes time to do. But that's the responsibility I have assumed as a home-educator. :) ETA: I definitely do not preview all materials. Sorry if that's how it sounded! I'd only consider doing that if I had serious concerns about potential content, which has never yet happened. What I should have said was that *if* I were going to be irked about something like this, I personally could only be upset with myself for not looking into it thoroughly enough. But that's just my opinion on it.

[Dicentra]

Yes, I would be irked at myself if I found something unacceptable to me in a curriculum product that I had assumed wasn't there. Because ultimately, as a home educator, it is up to me to preview materials. Teachin'Mine is right when she says children will be exposed to all kinds of things from outside teachers. But in this particular case with Derek Owens materials, the content in question could have been discovered in advance by previewing the materials. That takes time to do. But that's the responsibility I have assumed as a home-educator. :)

 

 

It's wonderful that you have the time needed to preview all your home educating materials in their entirety. :) I'm going to make a confession, though - I don't. Part of it is a time issue and part of it is that I simply can't be bothered to look over every page of every book we cover at this level. Because of that, I do appreciate the collective wisdom of this group and other entities like it both online and in real life. I fully expect my daughter to sometimes come across ideas that don't necessarily match with her/our own philosphies and I'm OK with that - that's a major part of helping her grow into a mature and independent learner. Many times in life, we (the general "we") are called upon to make decisions without knowing all the facts or without having had a chance to see all relevant first-hand information with our own eyes. We still make the decisions, though. :) We are often helped to reach those decisions partly by second-hand information from others and partly by our own "snap" judgments based on what first-hand information we have been able to access. That's why I appreciate that we can all share information and experiences with one another to help others make more informed choices. I think that was the original intent of the thread - to share information - not to question anyone's reaction to that information.

[Teachin'Mine]

Yes Lisa it does make sense. Thank you.

 

At the beach, ideally I would have read the whole of Apologia texts, but what I did was a bit of reading and a quick look through and gave my dd a heads-up on some of their thinking and how it differs from what I believe and asked her to let me know if she had any questions or wanted to discuss anything. I think the working of the physics and chemistry problems kept her sufficiently busy that she probably skimmed over the questionable areas.

[at the beach]

It's wonderful that you have the time needed to preview all your home educating materials in their entirety. :) I'm going to make a confession, though - I don't. Part of it is a time issue and part of it is that I simply can't be bothered to look over every page of every book we cover at this level. Because of that, I do appreciate the collective wisdom of this group and other entities like it both online and in real life. I fully expect my daughter to sometimes come across ideas that don't necessarily match with her/our own philosphies and I'm OK with that - that's a major part of helping her grow into a mature and independent learner. Many times in life, we (the general "we") are called upon to make decisions without knowing all the facts or without having had a chance to see all relevant first-hand information with our own eyes. We still make the decisions, though. :) We are often helped to reach those decisions partly by second-hand information from others and partly by our own "snap" judgments based on what first-hand information we have been able to access. That's why I appreciate that we can all share information and experiences with one another to help others make more informed choices. I think that was the original intent of the thread - to share information - not to question anyone's reaction to that information.

 

 

W/re to previewing all materials, yikes, I never meant to say I previewed everything we use. If it sounded that way, no, that's not what I do. Not by a long shot. :tongue_smilie: What I intended to say was that if I had such immense concerns about certain material and if that sort of material would bother me that much, I'd make sure I checked over the material myself first. That's really all I was saying. :) In 7 years of homeschooling, I can't recall a time where I've been nastily surprised by what's in a curriculum or a time where I was so concerned I felt I needed to read the material first. I knew in Apologia Biology there would be stuff I didn't agree with. I looked it over and found suitable additional information to use instead.

 

Also, I totally agree with you that we need to rely on the wisdom of others. My initial post in this thread was that if I had these kinds of concerns, I'd have asked the teacher because I felt that reading about his Christian background on his website was a tip-off that there might be Christian material in his courses. But perhaps others wouldn't see it that way. Obviously, everyone is different in how they perceive things. And I totally appreciate learning from others on boards like this. My only point was that I think I personally could only end up feeling irked with myself if I was surprised by content I didn't agree with if I hadn't previewed it myself. I would not feel irked with the teacher if I hadn't asked him first about my concerns. I would not feel irked with those whose wisdom I relied on even if those comments later turned out to not be accurate. And probably for me personally I wouldn't be irked at all. :)

[EKS]

W/re to previewing all materials, yikes, I never meant to say I previewed everything we use. If it sounded that way, no, that's not what I do. Not by a long shot. :tongue_smilie: What I intended to say was that if I had such immense concerns about certain material and if that sort of material would bother me that much, I'd make sure I checked over the material myself first. That's really all I was saying. :) In 7 years of homeschooling, I can't recall a time where I've been nastily surprised by what's in a curriculum or a time where I was so concerned I felt I needed to read the material first. I knew in Apologia Biology there would be stuff I didn't agree with. I looked it over and found suitable additional information to use instead.

 

Also, I totally agree with you that we need to rely on the wisdom of others. My initial post in this thread was that if I had these kinds of concerns, I'd have asked the teacher because I felt that reading about his Christian background on his website was a tip-off that there might be Christian material in his courses. But perhaps others wouldn't see it that way. Obviously, everyone is different in how they perceive things. And I totally appreciate learning from others on boards like this. My only point was that I think I personally could only end up feeling irked with myself if I was surprised by content I didn't agree with if I hadn't previewed it myself. I would not feel irked with the teacher if I hadn't asked him first about my concerns. I would not feel irked with those whose wisdom I relied on even if those comments later turned out to not be accurate. And probably for me personally I wouldn't be irked at all. :)

 

The surprise was that after using two other DO courses in their entirety where there was zero religious content, and after getting through 10 of 13 chapters of the physics course, the religious commentary seemed to come out of the blue. Usually when there are religious references, they are scattered throughout.

 

Also, with the DO material, it is not feasible to preview the entire course. The written material could be scanned for religious references, but it doesn't make sense to watch all of the videos.

 

The funny thing is, when I asked my son what his reaction was when DO started talking about God, he said "What do you mean?" It turns out that he had *skipped* those videos because they appeared to be irrelevant to a physics course!

[Julie in MN]

I really doubt most college science classes in non YE colleges are infiltrated with religiosity. Certainly that wasnt dh's experience.

I do think there is a debate going on with science professors in particular right now, that might not have been there when you were in college. Even at the high school level, very secular programs such as Miller-Levine http://millerandlevi...ersy/index.html and the Howard Hiughes Institute http://www.hhmi.org/...Listing&catId=2 have the passion to dedicate whole sections of websites and video series to "correcting" a target audience of children (i.e. not adults) raised in homes where evolution is not taught, seemingly in order to contradict what their parents might be teaching them? Even college level materials such as the Teaching Company (eg Joy of Science) will always seem to include, somewhere or another, an off-the-cuff, dismissive snippet about non-evolutionary thinking as ignorant of "all the facts" and certainly not scientific -- discounting any scholars in any science fields who have come to other conclusions, now or in the past, as not worth even having a mention.

 

I realize that physics is not biology, and I also realize evolution is not the dividing line between secular and non-secular, but it's the example I can best illustrate with personal experiences.

 

Maybe because secular science is the "majority" opinion right now, some "minority view" teachers might just assume that it doesn't need to be defended, and not spend time explaining that side of it? I can see how that wouldn't help a student who wanted to explore the issue, but at least where i live, you can walk into any museum or nature center and get an earful of how the world was created totally out of nothing, by itself, with exact dates, exact orders, details of things that have never actually been seen (in all fields of science - the layers of the earth's core, the reason seashells are on mountain tops, the source of chemical makeups, and the basis of energy and matter) all worked out and printed on plaques. All without a single mention of which facts are scientifically reproducible, or how often scientific theories change and those official plaques need to be re-done. So, a curious student might be interested to hear that a professor he respects has ideas contrary to the norm in his field, and a short bit on why?

 

I have no opinion on Derek Owens science since I've only used his geometry, and only for a short time. He seemed open and honest to me. But I just thought it worth mentioning that there seems to be a bigger and more pervasive conversation going on these days than we might realize based on our homeschools or our past college experiences, and perhaps his own statement of belief was a part of that larger conversation that he is aware of out there, or meant to answer questions in that regard, even if it was overly generalized for our detailed minds?

 

Well, there's my Sunday sermon LOL,

Julie

[swimmermom3]

Yes, I would be irked at myself if I found something unacceptable to me in a curriculum product that I had assumed wasn't there. Because ultimately, as a home educator, it is up to me to preview materials. Teachin'Mine is right when she says children will be exposed to all kinds of things from outside teachers. But in this particular case with Derek Owens materials, the content in question could have been discovered in advance by previewing the materials. That takes time to do. But that's the responsibility I have assumed as a home-educator. :) ETA: I definitely do not preview all materials. Sorry if that's how it sounded! I'd only consider doing that if I had serious concerns about potential content, which has never yet happened. What I should have said was that *if* I were going to be irked about something like this, I personally could only be upset with myself for not looking into it thoroughly enough. But that's just my opinion on it.

 

 

You can be quite careful in previewing materials, but I am not sure that this particular statement would have come up unless you had already made the purchase and were working through the materials. A diligent preview is no guarantee, that's why I trust the information provided to me by certain posters who already have the program in hand.

[Happy2BaMom]

 

I am past being tired of it. It's sickening and disgusting and ignorant.

 

 

To me, the issue is not that he chose to include the statements he made, although I would agree they are "off-topic" - it's the way he characterizes those who do not subscribe to his own particular worldview.

 

He is clueless about them. And he appears to be completely unaware how clueless he is, or perhaps he finds it easier to just lump-sum the materialists/naturalists/academics/scientists/and who-knows-who-else together and state that they think that "our lives are completely meaningless", with "no ultimate purpose" and that these people must hold a "pessimistic view of the universe" (although my snarky side wants to ask him what's more pessimistic than believing that the 2/3 of all humanity who are non-Christian will end up burning eternally in hell?)

 

I just came here to research Mr. Owens' classes. We still might partake in them, but I think he has certainly shown his hand here.

 

It'll make for good discussion with the children, about stereotypes, and how they are used against people who don't believe the same as those making the stereotypes. And how terribly, terribly wrong they are.

 

Not to mention mean.