Creation and Evolution

[lexi]

Ok I need some book recommendations. Can anyone suggest some picture books or books aimed for elementary that are about creation and evolution. I would like one well written book for each theory.

Also I'd love one book that is young earth and one from an old earth perspective.

So that makes 4 books! Does anyone have suggestions for those categories??

 

ETA:  Blech!  I should have known that this post would turn into a mess.  Truly not trying to stir the pot or cause a debate. 

I just wanted some good intro level resources to these topics so we can start exploring.  That's it, I promise!  I really don't want to dive into the black hole of semantics and the debate of origins.  Just wanted a beginning for our learning journey. 

[Kathryn]

I've not read this, but I have it saved in an Amazon wish list after seeing someone on here mention it: http://www.amazon.com/dp/1554534305/

[lexi]

Thanks! I'll save that one!

[chiguirre]

Ok I need some book recommendations. Can anyone suggest some picture books or books aimed for elementary that are about creation and evolution. I would like one well written book for each theory.

 

Also I'd love one book that is young earth and one from an old earth perspective.

 

So that makes 4 books! Does anyone have suggestions for those categories??

First off, theory doesn't mean what you think it means. Theory in science speak is equivalent to "we're really, really sure we've got this right". For example, there's the germ theory of disease and the theory of gravitation. You're using theory as though it meant "hypothesis" and that's not what scientists mean by it, at all.

 

Now for the good books. Here's a link to the first in a series of three picture books that cover the big bang and evolution. They're a really nice overview of science. I'd also recommend the new Cosmos with Neil DeGrasse Tyson for your older kids.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Born-With-Bang-Universe-Children/dp/1584690321/ref=pd_sim_b_8?ie=UTF8&refRID=0928ACCZD2BVRFH4A2WM

[TracyP]

When we studied evolution earlier this year we used the books already mentioned (Evolution by Loxton and the Born with a Bang series) and Life on Earth. They were all good. The Loxton book was the most in depth; it was a bit over the head of my 7yo, but good for my almost 10yo.

[Reefgazer]

I like these for the evolution perspective:  "Bang!  How We Came To Be" and "Evolution" by Loxton at the elementary level, and for you or a high-schooler  "Only A Theory" by Ken Miller.  I'm sorry I have nothing to offer about creationism, except the respectful consideration and time Miller gives Michael Behe's creationism ideas in "Only A Theory". 

 

Just to clarify something: The word "theory" as used in science does not mean the same thing that it does in everyday life.  In science, a theory is something that has grown out of a hypothesis that has been tested rigorously over a long period of time and has not been disproven.  That doesn't mean it is 100% true; theories in the scientific sense never are.  It means is has never been demonstrated to be false and that the likelihood it will be falsified is extraordinarily low.  So for example:  Creationism cannot be a scientific theory because it can't be disproven (because you cannot disprove the existence of God).  This doesn't mean God doesn't exist; only that God cannot be disproven and is beyond the scope of scientific theory.  Evolution grew out of the hypothesis that life forms evolved from simpler life forms, and while it is now a theory, it could still be disproven (by finding a complex fossil in a simple layer of sediment that was not put there intentionally or moved there through Earth's crustal movements, for example).

 

Hope this helps.

Ok I need some book recommendations. Can anyone suggest some picture books or books aimed for elementary that are about creation and evolution. I would like one well written book for each theory.

Also I'd love one book that is young earth and one from an old earth perspective.

So that makes 4 books! Does anyone have suggestions for those categories??

 

[mamaraby]

Now for the good books. Here's a link to the first in a series of three picture books that cover the big bang and evolution. They're a really nice overview of science. I'd also recommend the new Cosmos with Neil DeGrasse Tyson for your older kids.

We watch Cosmos together as a family and my oldest is 9. They love it. While Cosmos is great, I'd actually suggest "Your Inner Fish" on PBS as a better video based explanation because it speaks specifically to evolution. It's a three show series and just finished airing this past week. You should be able to find it on the PBS website/app. We've also been watching this together as a family.

 

As for books on evolution, I really like the book list over at Charlie's Playhouse which is organized by age - http://www.charliesplayhouse.com/evolution-books-for-kids.html

 

I can't help you on the creationism/intelligent design part as I don't cover religion/faith in our science studies. Perhaps saddlemomma might be able to help you in that regard.

[Reefgazer]

Inner Fish started out as a book.  I had no idea it was also a PBS series!

We watch Cosmos together as a family and my oldest is 9. They love it. While Cosmos is great, I'd actually suggest "Your Inner Fish" on PBS as a better video based explanation because it speaks specifically to evolution. It's a three show series and just finished airing this past week. You should be able to find it on the PBS website/app. We've also been watching this together as a family.

As for books on evolution, I really like the book list over at Charlie's Playhouse which is organized by age - http://www.charliesplayhouse.com/evolution-books-for-kids.html

I can't help you on the creationism/intelligent design part as I don't cover religion/faith in our science studies. Perhaps saddlemomma might be able to help you in that regard.

 

[MistyMountain]

A few others I read and liked were mentioned already but I have more evolution ones to add.

 

http://www.amazon.com/dp/1584690852/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_ttl?_encoding=UTF8&colid=1B63CJF9Q5KRO&coliid=I12KG6C6CMYL76

This one I haven't read yet because it isn't at the library but I heard it is good and will get it eventually.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Our-Family-Tree-Evolution-Story/dp/0152017720/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1398622161&sr=1-1&keywords=Our+family+tree

This one was decent for younger kids.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Older-than-Stars-Karen-Fox/dp/1570917884/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1398622193&sr=1-4&keywords=Born+with+a+bang

I really love this one. I got it from the library and we read it every day since. I am going to renew it another time and then might buy it. It is the big bang and evolution set to the This is the House that Jack Built rhythm.

[Pen]

author Jennifer Morgan and illustrator Dana Lynne Anderson have a 3 part series (picture books, so not long, but with extra materials in the back also that might still interest older children, timelines on the tops of pages and so on ): Born with a Bang; From Lava to Life; and Mammals who Morph which I think is excellent for elementary age children.

 

There are many wonderful illustrated children's Bibles, and books with Native American creation stories, Asian creation stories, African creation stories etc.

[Saddlemomma]

Now for the good books. Here's a link to the first in a series of three picture books that cover the big bang and evolution. They're a really nice overview of science. I'd also recommend the new Cosmos with Neil DeGrasse Tyson for your older kids.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Born-With-Bang-Universe-Children/dp/1584690321/ref=pd_sim_b_8?ie=UTF8&refRID=0928ACCZD2BVRFH4A2WM

 

I realize not everyone will agree with my post below, but if you're not a Christian, then you should just ignore this post as it probably wouldn't apply to you as you don't share the Christian worldview.  No disrespect at all is intended.

 

Regarding the bolded, if you are a Christian (YE or OE, it doesn't matter), you should be aware that Cosmos twists a lot of science to fit their agenda and misrepresents scientific findings which actually support  ID/Creation quite a bit.  If you are going to watch the series, make sure you balance it out with a thoughtful, equally scientific rebuttal from the Christian side.  Evolution Views & News: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/04/cosmos_episode_1084501.html  is providing a review of each Cosmos episode demonstrating what Cosmos has revised about actual scientific findings or left out completely to make Darwinian evolution seem irrefutable and more reasonable than ID/Creation.  I've been following their rebuttals closely and it's amazing how disingenuous Cosmos is regarding actual facts.

 

It's not a book, but you may like this video from the Creationist's view: http://kids4truth.com/Dyna/Watchmaker/English.aspx

You may also enjoy the book: It Couldn't Just Happen by Lawrence O. Richards (Amazon). For a YE Creation book, you could use Absotively, Posilutely, Best Evidence for Creation (Amazon).

 

[SoCalLynn]

Throwing this out there, because I think he does a great job at explaining the young-earth creationist perspective: Answers in Genesis (Ken Ham) puts out MANY books and articles and educational materials, and has a great website for kids about young earth. If you are looking for an old-earth creation perspective, Hugh Ross at Reasons to Believe is excellent and has a great website.

[Leav97]

 

I realize not everyone will agree with my post below, but if you're not a Christian, then you should just ignore this post as it probably wouldn't apply to you as you don't share the Christian worldview.  No disrespect at all is intended.

 

Regarding the bolded, if you are a Christian (YE or OE, it doesn't matter), you should be aware that Cosmos twists a lot of science to fit their agenda and misrepresents scientific findings which actually support  ID/Creation quite a bit.  If you are going to watch the series, make sure you balance it out with a thoughtful, equally scientific rebuttal from the Christian side.  Evolution Views & News: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/04/cosmos_episode_1084501.html  is providing a review of each Cosmos episode demonstrating what Cosmos has revised about actual scientific findings or left out completely to make Darwinian evolution seem irrefutable and more reasonable than ID/Creation.  I've been following their rebuttals closely and it's amazing how disingenuous Cosmos is regarding actual facts.

 

It's not a book, but you may like this video from the Creationist's view: http://kids4truth.com/Dyna/Watchmaker/English.aspx

You may also enjoy the book: It Couldn't Just Happen by Lawrence O. Richards (Amazon). For a YE Creation book, you could use Absotively, Posilutely, Best Evidence for Creation (Amazon).

 

 

 

To be honest any website that claims atheists are using science to create "a new form of human spirituality to replace religion", is immediately put on my way to biased to read list.  And when did the word "materialists" become a synonym for atheist?

[EndOfOrdinary]

Joseph Campbell wrote a book called "In the Beginning." It is a beautifully illustrated book all about Creation myths. It is not specifically about the Creation myths of Evolution or Creationism, but might be another interesting one for your discussion.

 

I also think it is important to note that no one was there when the world started, so we have NO idea how it happened. Everyone is going on a level of faith based on the evidence they have personally seen. We will never know. It is all what we choose to believe. In that way there are no right answers and no wrong ones.

 

This helped my son understand why there were so many different theories (because it really is a theory, regardless of the scientific semantics).

[lewelma]

Lexi, I appreciate your good intentions. Just be aware, however, that to understand evolution, you need to have some understanding of genetics, specifically population genetics.  Thus, any book written for an elementary student will have to be simplified down to the appearance of a story, creating a comparison to Creation that is false by nature. 

 

Instead, I suggest that you get some evolution books written to an adult lay audience, and do some personal education so that you are in a strong position to explain evolution to your kids directly.  There are quite a few suggestions on this thread , and also a lot of explanation on my part.

 

Good Luck,

 

Ruth in NZ

[sbgrace]

I don't know what faith perspective you do or don't come from, but I teach that God created the world, and science can help us understand how. I don't see the age of the earth or evolution or anything else as contradictory to God. They aren't opposed, and I want my kids to know that bible believing Christians can and do hold all three:

 

young earth creation ala Ken Ham http://www.answersingenesis.org/

old earth creation ala Reasons To Believe http://www.reasons.org/

evolutionary creation ala Biologos http://biologos.org/

 

From that perspective, I would use the bible for your creation standpoint.  It's a faith issue.

 

Outside of the that, Ken Ham's group produces lots of kid aimed material that have creation/young earth standpoints together. If you want the faith perspective with either old earth or evolution, the other two are going to be harder to find. That said, it looks like both the above groups do have things more curriculum centered. 

 

Reasons science curriculum suggestions http://www.reasons.org/education/educators-help-desk/curriculum-options

 

Biologos homeschool curriculum http://biologos.org/newsletter/2012/09/new-homeschool-course.html

 

 

 

 

[Reefgazer]

I've seen the old Cosmos with Carl Sagan, but not the new one with Neil DeGrasse Tyson.  What science does he twist to fit his agenda? 

 

I realize not everyone will agree with my post below, but if you're not a Christian, then you should just ignore this post as it probably wouldn't apply to you as you don't share the Christian worldview.  No disrespect at all is intended.

 

Regarding the bolded, if you are a Christian (YE or OE, it doesn't matter), you should be aware that Cosmos twists a lot of science to fit their agenda and misrepresents scientific findings which actually support  ID/Creation quite a bit.  If you are going to watch the series, make sure you balance it out with a thoughtful, equally scientific rebuttal from the Christian side.  Evolution Views & News: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/04/cosmos_episode_1084501.html  is providing a review of each Cosmos episode demonstrating what Cosmos has revised about actual scientific findings or left out completely to make Darwinian evolution seem irrefutable and more reasonable than ID/Creation.  I've been following their rebuttals closely and it's amazing how disingenuous Cosmos is regarding actual facts.

 

It's not a book, but you may like this video from the Creationist's view: http://kids4truth.com/Dyna/Watchmaker/English.aspx

You may also enjoy the book: It Couldn't Just Happen by Lawrence O. Richards (Amazon). For a YE Creation book, you could use Absotively, Posilutely, Best Evidence for Creation (Amazon).

 

 

 

[Reefgazer]

Joseph Campbell wrote a book called "In the Beginning." It is a beautifully illustrated book all about Creation myths. It is not specifically about the Creation myths of Evolution or Creationism, but might be another interesting one for your discussion.

 

I also think it is important to note that no one was there when the world started, so we have NO idea how it happened. Everyone is going on a level of faith based on the evidence they have personally seen. We will never know. It is all what we choose to believe. In that way there are no right answers and no wrong ones.

 

This helped my son understand why there were so many different theories (because it really is a theory, regardless of the scientific semantics).

 

No, it is just not a scientific theory if it cannot be disproven, and no respectable scientist would ever claim such a thing.  That is not up for debate.  You can say some claim is a theory outside of the scientific realm, but do not call it science.  A person cannot go and make up their own scientific definitions and parameters and justifiably call it science, no more than I can make up a law and expect to successfully defend my made-up law in court.

[Reefgazer]

OMG, I am in love with you after I read your referenced thread, LOL! 

Lexi, I appreciate your good intentions. Just be aware, however, that to understand evolution, you need to have some understanding of genetics, specifically population genetics.  Thus, any book written for an elementary student will have to be simplified down to the appearance of a story, creating a comparison to Creation that is false by nature. 

 

Instead, I suggest that you get some evolution books written to an adult lay audience, and do some personal education so that you are in a strong position to explain evolution to your kids directly.  There are quite a few suggestions on this thread , and also a lot of explanation on my part.

 

Good Luck,

 

Ruth in NZ

 

[Free]

Lexi, I appreciate your good intentions. Just be aware, however, that to understand evolution, you need to have some understanding of genetics, specifically population genetics.  Thus, any book written for an elementary student will have to be simplified down to the appearance of a story, creating a comparison to Creation that is false by nature. 

 

Instead, I suggest that you get some evolution books written to an adult lay audience, and do some personal education so that you are in a strong position to explain evolution to your kids directly.  There are quite a few suggestions on this thread , and also a lot of explanation on my part.

 

Good Luck,

 

Ruth in NZ

 

Yes, I agree with this and I think it bears repeating. Most children's books on evolution do not explain how scientists worked out the specifics of the theory and it is easy to come away with a very incomplete understanding. Creation science books, on the other hand, spend a lot of space in refuting an elementary understanding of evolutionary theory.

[MistyMountain]

Lexi, I appreciate your good intentions. Just be aware, however, that to understand evolution, you need to have some understanding of genetics, specifically population genetics. Thus, any book written for an elementary student will have to be simplified down to the appearance of a story, creating a comparison to Creation that is false by nature.

This is very true. The picture books are decent but a lot of them are a very very simplified version of it.

[Cammie]

 

I realize not everyone will agree with my post below, but if you're not a Christian, then you should just ignore this post as it probably wouldn't apply to you as you don't share the Christian worldview.  No disrespect at all is intended.

 

Regarding the bolded, if you are a Christian (YE or OE, it doesn't matter), you should be aware that Cosmos twists a lot of science to fit their agenda and misrepresents scientific findings which actually support  ID/Creation quite a bit.  If you are going to watch the series, make sure you balance it out with a thoughtful, equally scientific rebuttal from the Christian side.  Evolution Views & News: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/04/cosmos_episode_1084501.html  is providing a review of each Cosmos episode demonstrating what Cosmos has revised about actual scientific findings or left out completely to make Darwinian evolution seem irrefutable and more reasonable than ID/Creation.  I've been following their rebuttals closely and it's amazing how disingenuous Cosmos is regarding actual facts.

 

It's not a book, but you may like this video from the Creationist's view: http://kids4truth.com/Dyna/Watchmaker/English.aspx

You may also enjoy the book: It Couldn't Just Happen by Lawrence O. Richards (Amazon). For a YE Creation book, you could use Absotively, Posilutely, Best Evidence for Creation (Amazon).

 

 

 

 

I would have thought it went without saying, but clearly it needs to be said.

 

Not every CHRISTIAN is a CREATIONIST.  Not every CHRISTIAN believes the way you do regarding ID/Creationism/Evolution.

 

I am a Christian, I believe that Evolution is a proven scientific fact, and I love the COSMOS series.  In fact we sit as a family and watch it together.

 

Therefore, while you can have a "thoughtful, scientific rebuttal from the" CREATIONIST side, please don't call it a rebuttal from the Christian side...implying that those who don't believe the way you do are somehow less Christian.

[Saddlemomma]

I've seen the old Cosmos with Carl Sagan, but not the new one with Neil DeGrasse Tyson.  What science does he twist to fit his agenda? 

 

Episode 6: Tyson expounded upon the "predictive powers" of Darwinian evolution regarding insects and plants.  Unfortunately Darwin didn't see his "predictive powers" the way Tyson does.  In fact, Darwin is quoted as saying: that the "rapid development" of "higher plants" was an "abominable mystery" to his theory.  In fact, this "abominable mystery" is still a problem for scientists today as detailed in a peer-reviewed paper in Trends in Ecology and Evolution.  This means that the sudden appearance of angiosperms was not a successful prediction of Darwinian evolution.  It was the exact opposite.

 

Hiding the Light Episode: Mo Tze (Mozi) was actually more religious than Confucius.  He actually urged the state to encourage religious practices.  He most certainly did believe in the supernatural.  The reason his texts were suppressed was due to being an outspoken critic of Confucianism - the competing idea of the time. 

 

Episode 4:  Tyson alludes to the theory of the multiverse when he suggests that our universe exists inside a black hole inside of another universe.  He kind of leaves that idea hanging rather than presenting the other side of the evidence.  Many prominent physicists, Roger Penrose being one, believe the laws of the universe are finely tuned to allow life to exist.  Nobel laureate Charles Townes thinks this fine-tuning points to intelligent design. (http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2005/06/17_townes.shtml )

 

Tyson also fails to mention the strong, positive religious influences of two renowned scientists mentioned in the episode: Michael Faraday and Clerk Maxwell.  Both men were committed Christians  According to Ian Hutchinson, MIT Professor of Nuclear Science & Engineering, Michael Faraday "in his scientific researches he was reading the book of nature, which pointed to its Creator, and he delighted in it..."  Faraday wrote, "...for the book of nature, which we have to read is written by the finger of God."   Maxwell was even more eloquent about how his faith permeated every aspect of his work.  You can read more about these two great men here: http://silas.psfc.mit.edu/Maxwell/maxwell.html

 

Episode 3: Tyson tells us that Newton's religious studies "never led anywhere".  Numerous prominent historians of religion and science disagree.  John Hedley Brooke wrote: "

Any suggestion that what was revolutionary in seventeenth-century thought was the complete separation of science from theology would be disqualified by Newton himself, who once wrote that the study of natural philosophy included a consideration of divine attributes and of God's relationship with the world. ... Robert Boyle and Isaac Newton saw the study of nature as a religious duty. A knowledge of God's power and wisdom could be inferred from the intelligence seemingly displayed in the designs of nature. Newton affirmed that the natural sciences had prospered only in monotheistic cultures... He believed the universality of his laws was grounded in the omnipresence of a single divine Will ... if he is made to symbolize the new canons of scientific rationality, then it cannot be said that the scientific revolution saw a separation of science from theology. (Brooke, 1996, p. 8) - See more at: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/03/cosmos_scrubs_r083641.html#sthash.0ioy6BBr.dpuf

 

Any suggestion that what was revolutionary in seventeenth-century thought was the complete separation of science from theology would be disqualified by Newton himself, who once wrote that the study of natural philosophy included a consideration of divine attributes and of God's relationship with the world. ... Robert Boyle and Isaac Newton saw the study of nature as a religious duty. A knowledge of God's power and wisdom could be inferred from the intelligence seemingly displayed in the designs of nature. Newton affirmed that the natural sciences had prospered only in monotheistic cultures... He believed the universality of his laws was grounded in the omnipresence of a single divine Will ... if he is made to symbolize the new canons of scientific rationality, then it cannot be said that the scientific revolution saw a separation of science from theology. (Brooke, 1996, p. 8) –

 

Other great historians and philosophers who disagree with Tyson's view that Newton's appealing to God was "the closing of a door.  It didn't lead to other questions," are Ian G. Barbour, Johannes Kepler, Holmes Rolston, III, David C. Lindberg. 

 

Episode 2:  Tyson touts the "transforming power" of "mindless evolution".   He explains that since human breeders artificially selected many dog breeds from wolf-like ancestors, including many popular breeds that "were created in the last few centuries" then it must stand to reason that natural selection over billions of years must have accomplished so much more.  Notwithstanding the fact that the artificially bred dogs had an intelligent breeder in the background driving the genetics.

 

Evolutionist biologist Ernst Mayr explains why this is incorrect thinking:

 

Some enthusiasts have claimed that natural selection can do anything. This is not true. Even though "natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinizing, throughout the world, every variation even the slightest," as Darwin (1859:84) has stated, it is nevertheless evident that there are definite limits to the effectiveness of selection. (What Evolution Is, pg. 140 (Basic Books, 2001).

 

 

Additionally, Tyson ties evolution to gravity implying it is an undeniable fact.  Unfortunately for Tyson, not all evolutionists agree with him. 

 

A 2009 article in New Scientist concluded that the tree of life "lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence."¹³ Why? Because one gene yields one version of the tree of life, while another gene gives another sharply conflicting version of the tree. The article explained what's going on in this field:

 

For a long time the holy grail was to build a tree of life," says Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, France. A few years ago it looked as though the grail was within reach. But today the project lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence. Many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded. "We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality," says Bapteste. That bombshell has even persuaded some that our fundamental view of biology needs to change."

 

There are so many other errors and misinformation in this episode that I can't take the time to relay them all.  You can see more at: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/03/cosmos_episode_083331.html#sthash.yMD81858.dpuf

 

Most of the information I have relayed has come from the above source.  Someone on this thread implied that the rebuttals to Cosmos was not to be considered because of some of the terms used, such as materialists, and what not.  All I can say is the verbiage is no worse than what proponents of ID and Creationists have been called.  In many cases, they are much more charitable than those who call IDers and Creationists ignorant, uneducated, and so on.  None of that appears in any of the rebuttals.  The science is solid as it's taken mostly from other evolutionary biologists and secular, peer-reviewed papers.  There are some peer-reviewed papers from ID scientists but the majority are from secular scientists. 

 

Anyway, I have to go watch a movie with DH and DD now (The Book Thief).  They are sick of me being on the computer.  Have a great night all ;)

 

 

[EndOfOrdinary]

No, it is just not a scientific theory if it cannot be disproven, and no respectable scientist would ever claim such a thing.  That is not up for debate.  You can say some claim is a theory outside of the scientific realm, but do not call it science.  A person cannot go and make up their own scientific definitions and parameters and justifiably call it science, no more than I can make up a law and expect to successfully defend my made-up law in court.

 

I am not speaking as a scientist.  No one said anything about science.  If you read the original post, there is no mention at all about the idea of science theories.  She asked for books about the two topics.  You are jumping to extreme conclusions about what the topics are for, not only that, but you are passing very strong judgements about how other people see things.  You need to go back and read what the original poster asked about.  Again, there was absolutely no mention of science or in any way how these topics could be used.

 

Secondly, since no one was there who is currently on the planet was there when the planet originated, there are plenty of versions about how the planet was created.  It is actually quite interesting to see how various cultures have all asked the same questions and answered them to meet their needs.  To start passing philosophical judgements about whose theory is correct is not very ideal way to teach a child anything about the concept of creation. 

 

As a couple of other posters have stated, the ideas of Biblical Creation and Evolution do not need to be diametrically opposed.  Again, you have absolutely no idea how the planet was created.  You have the same amount of faith in the ideas presented about Evolution that another person has in the ideas presented in the Bible.  It is all about faith.  It HAS to be about faith.  No one was there.  You cannot see germs anywhere.  It is a matter of faith the same way atomic theory is.  It doesn't mean they are not true.  I wash my hands and make sure my child doesn't spread germs as well, but those are literal actions of faith.  I do not see germs fly out of his mouth.  I do trust they are there.  It is faith based.  Not religious faith, but faith.  He is fascinated with chemistry.  We are very in death studying the periodic table, Dalton, Fermi, and the whole deal, but I cannot show him atoms.  It is faith.  I can show him reactions.  I can talk to him about what people think.  But I cannot present him with an atom and all its working parts. In fact, we have found out within the last 10 years that our idea of electrons was not exactly correct.  It is very much back to the drawing board.  We really do not know nearly as much as many people seem to think.

 

 

We are constantly learning that many of the things which we thought were based in science were not.  We used to bleed people.  Many are turning to chemotherapy in the same ways now.  We used to have TONS of ideas that were thoroughly presented through science that were limited by our own experiences and understanding.  I am not saying that is what is going on with Evolution.  I am saying that if there is one thing I have learned from all the scientists whom I have worked (and there were quite a few, I was not only a science teacher, but also an environmental studies major) it is that science is constantly contradicting itself.  The more we learn, the more we see what we do not know, and what we thought we knew wasn't quite right.  As such, the largest thing all that science taught me was to not pass judgement or leap to conclusions about a situation.

 

You have both passed judgement and leapt to a conclusion. 

 

I am not saying either is right, nor am I saying either is wrong.  I am saying that it is impossible for anyone to catagorically say that another is not true with a situation where no one can actually know.  As such you should present kids with the ideas from many different places and many different ideas about the mythologies of Creation.  Much like it appears the original poster is trying to do.  I can only hope that everyone here is trying to teach their students to critically think, draw their own conclusions, and to not pass judgment upon others because they have different beliefs.

[WishboneDawn]

 

I realize not everyone will agree with my post below, but if you're not a Christian, then you should just ignore this post as it probably wouldn't apply to you as you don't share the Christian worldview. No disrespect at all is intended.

 

Regarding the bolded, if you are a Christian (YE or OE, it doesn't matter), you should be aware that Cosmos twists a lot of science to fit their agenda and misrepresents scientific findings which actually support ID/Creation quite a bit. If you are going to watch the series, make sure you balance it out with a thoughtful, equally scientific rebuttal from the Christian side. Evolution Views & News: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/04/cosmos_episode_1084501.html is providing a review of each Cosmos episode demonstrating what Cosmos has revised about actual scientific findings or left out completely to make Darwinian evolution seem irrefutable and more reasonable than ID/Creation. I've been following their rebuttals closely and it's amazing how disingenuous Cosmos is regarding actual facts.

 

It's not a book, but you may like this video from the Creationist's view: http://kids4truth.com/Dyna/Watchmaker/English.aspx

You may also enjoy the book: It Couldn't Just Happen by Lawrence O. Richards (Amazon). For a YE Creation book, you could use Absotively, Posilutely, Best Evidence for Creation (Amazon).

I'm Christian. I have no idea what Christian worldview I'm supposed to think Cosmos is offending. I don't think it's twisting science at all and I'm quite happy, specifically AS a Christian, that they are not addressing ID/creationism as I'm rather tired of those being portrayed as features of some universal Christian worldview.

[albeto.]

Wow, thanks for taking the time to write all this out!
 

Episode 6: Tyson expounded upon the "predictive powers" of Darwinian evolution regarding insects and plants.  Unfortunately Darwin didn't see his "predictive powers" the way Tyson does.  In fact, Darwin is quoted as saying: that the "rapid development" of "higher plants" was an "abominable mystery" to his theory.  In fact, this "abominable mystery" is still a problem for scientists today as detailed in a peer-reviewed paper in Trends in Ecology and Evolution.  This means that the sudden appearance of angiosperms was not a successful prediction of Darwinian evolution.  It was the exact opposite.

 

Episode 4:  Tyson alludes to the theory of the multiverse when he suggests that our universe exists inside a black hole inside of another universe.  He kind of leaves that idea hanging rather than presenting the other side of the evidence.  Many prominent physicists, Roger Penrose being one, believe the laws of the universe are finely tuned to allow life to exist.  Nobel laureate Charles Townes thinks this fine-tuning points to intelligent design. (http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2005/06/17_townes.shtml )

 

It's interesting to think of such a long-standing, global conspiracy is happening under everyone's noses, with few exceptions. With recent uncovering of NSA spying and otherwise illegal-if-not-for-special-permission-from-themselves policies, one would be wise to explore alternative explanations, even if the idea of holding a "conspiracy theory" gets a bad rap. So do you think these examples suggest that Tyson, along with most scientists, in all fields of science, throughout all cultures, and for the last, 2000-some years of history, is conspiring to suppress the real truth? How could scientists from the 4th, or 8th or 16th centuries, who were Christian themselves, know to contribute to this conspiracy, and why would they have? Were they mistaken, duped, or did they willfully contribute to these ideas to conspire against the truth?
 

Tyson also fails to mention the strong, positive religious influences of two renowned scientists mentioned in the episode: Michael Faraday and Clerk Maxwell.  Both men were committed Christians  According to Ian Hutchinson, MIT Professor of Nuclear Science & Engineering, Michael Faraday "in his scientific researches he was reading the book of nature, which pointed to its Creator, and he delighted in it..."  Faraday wrote, "...for the book of nature, which we have to read is written by the finger of God."   Maxwell was even more eloquent about how his faith permeated every aspect of his work.  You can read more about these two great men here: http://silas.psfc.mit.edu/Maxwell/maxwell.html

 

I'm not sure how this applies. "Science" refers to the methodology by which the natural world is explored and understood. What does religion have to do with it? Or are you saying science only works in conjunction with divine revelation?
 

Episode 2:  Tyson touts the "transforming power" of "mindless evolution".   He explains that since human breeders artificially selected many dog breeds from wolf-like ancestors, including many popular breeds that "were created in the last few centuries" then it must stand to reason that natural selection over billions of years must have accomplished so much more.  Notwithstanding the fact that the artificially bred dogs had an intelligent breeder in the background driving the genetics.
 
Evolutionist biologist Ernst Mayr explains why this is incorrect thinking:
 

Some enthusiasts have claimed that natural selection can do anything. This is not true. Even though "natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinizing, throughout the world, every variation even the slightest," as Darwin (1859:84) has stated, it is nevertheless evident that there are definite limits to the effectiveness of selection. (What Evolution Is, pg. 140 (Basic Books, 2001).

 

 

 

How would one know what these limits are? If we can observe evolution (which means simply, change) on a small scale, why assume there is a limit? Is there evidence that suggests there is a limit given, say 3 billion years of small change after small change, or is it a logical expectation?
 

Additionally, Tyson ties evolution to gravity implying it is an undeniable fact.  Unfortunately for Tyson, not all evolutionists agree with him. 
 
A 2009 article in New Scientist concluded that the tree of life "lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence."¹³ Why? Because one gene yields one version of the tree of life, while another gene gives another sharply conflicting version of the tree. The article explained what's going on in this field:[/url][/font][/size]

 

Well, that's actually how the scientific community works. A peer review process is dedicated to critiquing others' experimental works for the purpose of weeding out mistakes, misapplication of data, and even personal bias (hard to maintain a personal bias when hundreds if not thousands of learned colleagues don't share the same bias, or hold opposing biases). I don't think in the entire history of humanity has any scientific community expected a unanimous agreement, and yet no one thinks there are no scientific facts. So I'm confused as to why this is a problem, or how it points to an agenda.
 

Most of the information I have relayed has come from the above source.  Someone on this thread implied that the rebuttals to Cosmos was not to be considered because of some of the terms used, such as materialists, and what not.  All I can say is the verbiage is no worse than what proponents of ID and Creationists have been called.  In many cases, they are much more charitable than those who call IDers and Creationists ignorant, uneducated, and so on.  None of that appears in any of the rebuttals.  The science is solid as it's taken mostly from other evolutionary biologists and secular, peer-reviewed papers.  There are some peer-reviewed papers from ID scientists but the majority are from secular scientists.

 

Name-calling aside, when looking at the scope of information provided, are you suggesting there is a conspiracy to suppress scientific facts, even though the scientific community uses the same code of peer review for each submission? In your opinion, was this code of peer review designed purposefully to suppress the facts and protect the false theory of evolution?

[Free]

Episode 2:  Tyson touts the "transforming power" of "mindless evolution".   He explains that since human breeders artificially selected many dog breeds from wolf-like ancestors, including many popular breeds that "were created in the last few centuries" then it must stand to reason that natural selection over billions of years must have accomplished so much more.  Notwithstanding the fact that the artificially bred dogs had an intelligent breeder in the background driving the genetics.

 

Evolutionist biologist Ernst Mayr explains why this is incorrect thinking:

 

Some enthusiasts have claimed that natural selection can do anything. This is not true. Even though "natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinizing, throughout the world, every variation even the slightest," as Darwin (1859:84) has stated, it is nevertheless evident that there are definite limits to the effectiveness of selection. (What Evolution Is, pg. 140 (Basic Books, 2001).

 

That was a lot of copy paste that you did there, but the above quotation caught my eye. Are you aware of the limitations Ernst Mayer was proposing in his book? He was not proposing that there are limits to the forms evolution can create at all, but rather that there are limits to natural selection being able to select the best adapted forms. Here is the rest of the quote which was mined without context:

 

Nothing demonstrates this more convincingly than the fact that 99.99 or more percent of all evolutionary lines have become extinct. We must ask ourselves, therefore, why is natural selection so often unable to produce perfection? Recent studies have revealed numerous reasons for such limitation. A discussion of these constraints can contribute a great deal to the understanding of evolution

You can see the entire quote in context in Google Books.

 

Additionally, Tyson ties evolution to gravity implying it is an undeniable fact.  Unfortunately for Tyson, not all evolutionists agree with him. 

 

A 2009 article in New Scientist concluded that the tree of life "lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence."¹³ Why? Because one gene yields one version of the tree of life, while another gene gives another sharply conflicting version of the tree. The article explained what's going on in this field:

 

For a long time the holy grail was to build a tree of life," says Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, France. A few years ago it looked as though the grail was within reach. But today the project lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence. Many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded. "We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality," says Bapteste. That bombshell has even persuaded some that our fundamental view of biology needs to change."

 

It seems Discovery Institute either misunderstood or misrepresented the quote. The scientist in question does not disagree with the TOE at all. Here is a good explanation for how the tree of life is being replaced by the "web of life" at least for early organisms. http://sandwalk.blogspot.in/2009/01/darwin-was-wrong.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/4312355/Charles-Darwins-tree-of-life-is-wrong-and-misleading-claim-scientists.html

 

Taken from the first link:

This net, or web, of life is characteristic of the earliest stages of evolution when all organisms were single cells and the distinction between eukaryotes and prokaryotes was barely discernible. Once the main groups rose out of the web, they evolved pretty much as you might expect by binary speciation events. This gives rise to a traditional tree-like pattern.

[ItoLina]

First off, theory doesn't mean what you think it means. Theory in science speak is equivalent to "we're really, really sure we've got this right". For example, there's the germ theory of disease and the theory of gravitation. You're using theory as though it meant "hypothesis" and that's not what scientists mean by it, at all.

 

Now for the good books. Here's a link to the first in a series of three picture books that cover the big bang and evolution. They're a really nice overview of science. I'd also recommend the new Cosmos with Neil DeGrasse Tyson for your older kids.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Born-With-Bang-Universe-Children/dp/1584690321/ref=pd_sim_b_8?ie=UTF8&refRID=0928ACCZD2BVRFH4A2WM

These books are awesome!

[Chrysalis Academy]

never mind . . . backing slowly away from the argument.  :gnorsi:

 

[pehp]

Rebecca Rupp has a website with a large and long section on Darwin.  There are picture books included in her list! http://www.rebeccaruppresources.com/?p=4000

[Chrysalis Academy]

 

 

It's not a book, but you may like this video from the Creationist's view: http://kids4truth.com/Dyna/Watchmaker/English.aspx

 

 

 

 

I watched this video.  I'm not sure how it's relevant to any actual debate about origins.  It doesn't respond to any actual claims made by biologists, and the only argument it makes is an argument by analogy - a cell is like a watch, and since a watch requires a maker, a cell must require one too - but it's a bad analogy, because a cell is unlike a watch in all the ways that matter to this debate - like, for instance, its origin.  Watches don't self-replicate, but cells do, in a process in which DNA is copied, and that copying mechanism can have errors - mutations - that can then be incorporated into the new cell, affecting its fitness.  The watch thing is a total non sequiter in a discussion about origins.

 

I think there are thoughtful, intelligent discussions and debates about the evidence that occur between people, in good faith, including scientists, about what the totality of the evidence indicates about origins.  But I don't think this video is part of that discussion - I think it's a fluff piece designed to make you feel good about what you already believe, not to make you examine and question the evidence.

[WishboneDawn]

That was a lot of copy paste that you did there, but the above quotation caught my eye. Are you aware of the limitations Ernst Mayer was proposing in his book? He was not proposing that there are limits to the forms evolution can create at all, but rather that there are limits to natural selection being able to select the best adapted forms. Here is the rest of the quote which was mined without context:

 

 

 

Nothing demonstrates this more convincingly than the fact that 99.99 or more percent of all evolutionary lines have become extinct. We must ask ourselves, therefore, why is natural selection so often unable to produce perfection? Recent studies have revealed numerous reasons for such limitation. A discussion of these constraints can contribute a great deal to the understanding of evolution

You can see the entire quote in context in Google Books.

 

 

It seems Discovery Institute either misunderstood or misrepresented the quote. The scientist in question does not disagree with the TOE at all. Here is a good explanation for how the tree of life is being replaced by the "web of life" at least for early organisms. http://sandwalk.blogspot.in/2009/01/darwin-was-wrong.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/4312355/Charles-Darwins-tree-of-life-is-wrong-and-misleading-claim-scientists.html

 

Taken from the first link:

 

This net, or web, of life is characteristic of the earliest stages of evolution when all organisms were single cells and the distinction between eukaryotes and prokaryotes was barely discernible. Once the main groups rose out of the web, they evolved pretty much as you might expect by binary speciation events. This gives rise to a traditional tree-like pattern.

I was looking up the citations and quotes from the site she used last night intending to post a rebuttal of Saddlemama's post. I got sidetracked but what I found typical for what I've come to expect. One citation was from a paper that want scientific but was an exploration of what Darwin meant when using certain terms, more literary. That's fine except that the quote used was being represented as a scientific statement. Another quote was from a NYT article ON a paper as if that was somehow useful.

 

But much of the objections belonged to the realm of history, not science. THAT'S a valid point as I've been reading quite a bit from historians and specifically historians of science who aren't happy with how some events have been represented on both Cosmos series but it says absolutely nothing about the science being presented on Cosmos.

[Reefgazer]

Thanks for these references.  I haven't seen the new Cosmos and I'll have to watch for this when it comes out on DVD.  In the meantime, I'll have to ask a friend of mine who has been watching Cosmos what he thinks.

 

ETA:  A few things at quick glance that I see here that look odd to me are:

1.  The ideas of the predictive power of Darwin's theory being criticized and the citations of the religious nature and beliefs of various scientists.  Darwin predicted "descent with change" and that has not been disproven in any peer reviewed journal.  The rapid development of certain plants and animals that puzzled Darwin was long before molecular genetics, which explains some of the puzzles that you allude to.  I cannot remember a line in Origin of Species, nor Darwin's original paper detailing evolution, that places a time length on how long a species may take to evolve.  In addition, "puzzles" in science are the norm, and are not in any way the same as "disproof" of something.  It sure would be helpful if you could you tell me which exact paper in Trends in Ecology and Evolution has this information that seemingly disproves evolution so I can see for myself, because mysteries are not in any way disproof; by definition, they are unknowns. 

 

2.  The religious nature of scientists and historians and their writings and thoughts on religion are completely irrelevant to evolution.  Many scientists are religiously inclined (and historians too), but that is not disproof of evolution.  A religious scientist who can produce a peer reviewed paper that disproves evolution has produced disproof of evolution, and that has not happened yet.   

 

3.  According to your quote, Tyson clearly mentions that natural selection hasn't had nearly the effect on current species as evolution over billions of years.  Mayr clearly agrees with Tyson; the piece of the quote you typed supports Tyson.  I have this book.  Perhaps it would be more instructive to all board members if you posted the entire quote, in its context, as it was written by Mayr.   ;). 

 

 

 

 

Episode 6: Tyson expounded upon the "predictive powers" of Darwinian evolution regarding insects and plants.  Unfortunately Darwin didn't see his "predictive powers" the way Tyson does.  In fact, Darwin is quoted as saying: that the "rapid development" of "higher plants" was an "abominable mystery" to his theory.  In fact, this "abominable mystery" is still a problem for scientists today as detailed in a peer-reviewed paper in Trends in Ecology and Evolution.  This means that the sudden appearance of angiosperms was not a successful prediction of Darwinian evolution.  It was the exact opposite.

 

Hiding the Light Episode: Mo Tze (Mozi) was actually more religious than Confucius.  He actually urged the state to encourage religious practices.  He most certainly did believe in the supernatural.  The reason his texts were suppressed was due to being an outspoken critic of Confucianism - the competing idea of the time. 

 

Episode 4:  Tyson alludes to the theory of the multiverse when he suggests that our universe exists inside a black hole inside of another universe.  He kind of leaves that idea hanging rather than presenting the other side of the evidence.  Many prominent physicists, Roger Penrose being one, believe the laws of the universe are finely tuned to allow life to exist.  Nobel laureate Charles Townes thinks this fine-tuning points to intelligent design. (http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2005/06/17_townes.shtml )

 

Tyson also fails to mention the strong, positive religious influences of two renowned scientists mentioned in the episode: Michael Faraday and Clerk Maxwell.  Both men were committed Christians  According to Ian Hutchinson, MIT Professor of Nuclear Science & Engineering, Michael Faraday "in his scientific researches he was reading the book of nature, which pointed to its Creator, and he delighted in it..."  Faraday wrote, "...for the book of nature, which we have to read is written by the finger of God."   Maxwell was even more eloquent about how his faith permeated every aspect of his work.  You can read more about these two great men here: http://silas.psfc.mit.edu/Maxwell/maxwell.html

 

Episode 3: Tyson tells us that Newton's religious studies "never led anywhere".  Numerous prominent historians of religion and science disagree.  John Hedley Brooke wrote: "

Any suggestion that what was revolutionary in seventeenth-century thought was the complete separation of science from theology would be disqualified by Newton himself, who once wrote that the study of natural philosophy included a consideration of divine attributes and of God's relationship with the world. ... Robert Boyle and Isaac Newton saw the study of nature as a religious duty. A knowledge of God's power and wisdom could be inferred from the intelligence seemingly displayed in the designs of nature. Newton affirmed that the natural sciences had prospered only in monotheistic cultures... He believed the universality of his laws was grounded in the omnipresence of a single divine Will ... if he is made to symbolize the new canons of scientific rationality, then it cannot be said that the scientific revolution saw a separation of science from theology. (Brooke, 1996, p. 8) - See more at: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/03/cosmos_scrubs_r083641.html#sthash.0ioy6BBr.dpuf

 

Any suggestion that what was revolutionary in seventeenth-century thought was the complete separation of science from theology would be disqualified by Newton himself, who once wrote that the study of natural philosophy included a consideration of divine attributes and of God's relationship with the world. ... Robert Boyle and Isaac Newton saw the study of nature as a religious duty. A knowledge of God's power and wisdom could be inferred from the intelligence seemingly displayed in the designs of nature. Newton affirmed that the natural sciences had prospered only in monotheistic cultures... He believed the universality of his laws was grounded in the omnipresence of a single divine Will ... if he is made to symbolize the new canons of scientific rationality, then it cannot be said that the scientific revolution saw a separation of science from theology. (Brooke, 1996, p. 8) –

 

Other great historians and philosophers who disagree with Tyson's view that Newton's appealing to God was "the closing of a door.  It didn't lead to other questions," are Ian G. Barbour, Johannes Kepler, Holmes Rolston, III, David C. Lindberg. 

 

Episode 2:  Tyson touts the "transforming power" of "mindless evolution".   He explains that since human breeders artificially selected many dog breeds from wolf-like ancestors, including many popular breeds that "were created in the last few centuries" then it must stand to reason that natural selection over billions of years must have accomplished so much more.  Notwithstanding the fact that the artificially bred dogs had an intelligent breeder in the background driving the genetics.

 

Evolutionist biologist Ernst Mayr explains why this is incorrect thinking:

 

Some enthusiasts have claimed that natural selection can do anything. This is not true. Even though "natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinizing, throughout the world, every variation even the slightest," as Darwin (1859:84) has stated, it is nevertheless evident that there are definite limits to the effectiveness of selection. (What Evolution Is, pg. 140 (Basic Books, 2001).

 

 

Additionally, Tyson ties evolution to gravity implying it is an undeniable fact.  Unfortunately for Tyson, not all evolutionists agree with him. 

 

A 2009 article in New Scientist concluded that the tree of life "lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence."¹³ Why? Because one gene yields one version of the tree of life, while another gene gives another sharply conflicting version of the tree. The article explained what's going on in this field:

 

For a long time the holy grail was to build a tree of life," says Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, France. A few years ago it looked as though the grail was within reach. But today the project lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence. Many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded. "We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality," says Bapteste. That bombshell has even persuaded some that our fundamental view of biology needs to change."

 

There are so many other errors and misinformation in this episode that I can't take the time to relay them all.  You can see more at: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/03/cosmos_episode_083331.html#sthash.yMD81858.dpuf

 

Most of the information I have relayed has come from the above source.  Someone on this thread implied that the rebuttals to Cosmos was not to be considered because of some of the terms used, such as materialists, and what not.  All I can say is the verbiage is no worse than what proponents of ID and Creationists have been called.  In many cases, they are much more charitable than those who call IDers and Creationists ignorant, uneducated, and so on.  None of that appears in any of the rebuttals.  The science is solid as it's taken mostly from other evolutionary biologists and secular, peer-reviewed papers.  There are some peer-reviewed papers from ID scientists but the majority are from secular scientists. 

 

Anyway, I have to go watch a movie with DH and DD now (The Book Thief).  They are sick of me being on the computer.  Have a great night all ;)

 

[Reefgazer]

Yes, we are all saying something about science; this is a thread that discusses the scientific topic of evolution, after all. 

 

I am not passing judgments as to how others see the world; I don't care all that much how others see the world.  I corrected your definition of "theory" as it relates to science.  The reason I corrected your definition was because you referenced a book, "In The Beginning", and said it "...helped your son to understand why there were so many different theories (because it really is a theory, regardless of the scientific semantics)".  No, they're not all theories.  There is only one scientific theory on how life originated at this time, and that is evolution.  Anything else is a story, but it isn't a scientific theory.  If the OP is going to teach the scientific origins of life to her child, regardless of what else she teaches, she deserves an honest answer as to what a scientific theory actually is.  My post was not a discussion on what story or theory is right or wrong; it was a correction of the mangling of the word "theory" as it relates to science.  To repeat, stories of faith, whether true or not, cannot be disproven and so they cannot be considered in the realm of scientific theories.  Conversely, evolution is a scientific theory because it can be disproven (see my earlier post) and for this reason is a scientific theory.

 

The remainder of your post was a rant on things I made no comment about.  The rant demonstrates a clear and massive lack of understanding of how science progresses and standards for scientific discovery, science teacher or not. 

 

ETA (because it was too dang funny *not* to comment on): Yes, you can see germs everywhere.  I see them everyday because I use microscopes in my job everyday.  Scrape your tongue and look under a microscope, and you'll see that ain't faith wiggling around on that slide.

 

I am not speaking as a scientist.  No one said anything about science.  If you read the original post, there is no mention at all about the idea of science theories.  She asked for books about the two topics.  You are jumping to extreme conclusions about what the topics are for, not only that, but you are passing very strong judgements about how other people see things.  You need to go back and read what the original poster asked about.  Again, there was absolutely no mention of science or in any way how these topics could be used.

 

Secondly, since no one was there who is currently on the planet was there when the planet originated, there are plenty of versions about how the planet was created.  It is actually quite interesting to see how various cultures have all asked the same questions and answered them to meet their needs.  To start passing philosophical judgements about whose theory is correct is not very ideal way to teach a child anything about the concept of creation. 

 

As a couple of other posters have stated, the ideas of Biblical Creation and Evolution do not need to be diametrically opposed.  Again, you have absolutely no idea how the planet was created.  You have the same amount of faith in the ideas presented about Evolution that another person has in the ideas presented in the Bible.  It is all about faith.  It HAS to be about faith.  No one was there.  You cannot see germs anywhere.  It is a matter of faith the same way atomic theory is.  It doesn't mean they are not true.  I wash my hands and make sure my child doesn't spread germs as well, but those are literal actions of faith.  I do not see germs fly out of his mouth.  I do trust they are there.  It is faith based.  Not religious faith, but faith.  He is fascinated with chemistry.  We are very in death studying the periodic table, Dalton, Fermi, and the whole deal, but I cannot show him atoms.  It is faith.  I can show him reactions.  I can talk to him about what people think.  But I cannot present him with an atom and all its working parts. In fact, we have found out within the last 10 years that our idea of electrons was not exactly correct.  It is very much back to the drawing board.  We really do not know nearly as much as many people seem to think.

 

 

We are constantly learning that many of the things which we thought were based in science were not.  We used to bleed people.  Many are turning to chemotherapy in the same ways now.  We used to have TONS of ideas that were thoroughly presented through science that were limited by our own experiences and understanding.  I am not saying that is what is going on with Evolution.  I am saying that if there is one thing I have learned from all the scientists whom I have worked (and there were quite a few, I was not only a science teacher, but also an environmental studies major) it is that science is constantly contradicting itself.  The more we learn, the more we see what we do not know, and what we thought we knew wasn't quite right.  As such, the largest thing all that science taught me was to not pass judgement or leap to conclusions about a situation.

 

You have both passed judgement and leapt to a conclusion. 

I am not saying either is right, nor am I saying either is wrong.  I am saying that it is impossible for anyone to catagorically say that another is not true with a situation where no one can actually know.  As such you should present kids with the ideas from many different places and many different ideas about the mythologies of Creation.  Much like it appears the original poster is trying to do.  I can only hope that everyone here is trying to teach their students to critically think, draw their own conclusions, and to not pass judgment upon others because they have different beliefs.

 

[lexi]

I'm sneaking back into my original post and trying to hide!  I did not want to start a debate I was just hoping that people could offer some ideas for resources for the topics that I posted.  My kids are little and I know that resources for their age level will not be all-encompassing but I need to start somewhere!  And I don't mind some reading for me. 

 

I don't want to get into semantics or a huge discussion.  Just wanted some help for resources. 

 

I edited my original post...........now I'm going to go eat a cupcake and think about kilts because this thread is stressing me out!  :crying:

[albeto.]

I'm sneaking back into my original post and trying to hide!  I did not want to start a debate I was just hoping that people could offer some ideas for resources for the topics that I posted.  My kids are little and I know that resources for their age level will not be all-encompassing but I need to start somewhere!  And I don't mind some reading for me. 

 

I don't want to get into semantics or a huge discussion.  Just wanted some help for resources. 

 

I edited my original post...........now I'm going to go eat a cupcake and think about kilts because this thread is stressing me out!  :crying:

 

Sorry it's stressing you out. That's no fun at all.

 

It might help to know that while you didn't intend to start a debate, the issues and topics being explored in this thread will be of value to others who are reading and wondering the same things. I know I glean a lot of really useful information and insight through these kinds of discussions, even when (especially when) I don't participate. It's like being in a trial and watching both sides argue their points for the jury, only we are a jury of one and we get to ask questions or seek clarification if we want. 

 

So, although I hope I didn't contribute to your stress, I hope you can see some good come out of it. Btw, the first evolution book is a good one. I first came here to suggest it, but it was already here.  

[8filltheheart]

I have not read any of the responses b/c after your edit I don't want to get involved in any discussion.

 

Anyway, here is a recommendation from the evolution perspective for little kids: Life Story.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Life-Story-Virginia-Lee-Burton/dp/0547203594/ref=tmm_pap_title_0

[lewelma]

Lexi, my kids learned about evolution by watching David Attenborough nature documentaries. There are a LOT. Evolution is the underlying theory explaining all of biology, and DA uses it to explain specific situations, organisms, and communities in different biomes throughout the earth. My kids learned from a master teacher who has given them not just a very clear understanding of evolution but also a sense of wonder and appreciation of life on earth.

 

I have adopted this approach for our family because I am then using evolution as it is meant to be used - to explain the natural world and all its variety, rather than using it as an idea to be studied in isolation.

 

Ruth in NZ

[Pen]

 

ETA:  Blech!  I should have known that this post would turn into a mess.  Truly not trying to stir the pot or cause a debate. 

I just wanted some good intro level resources to these topics so we can start exploring.  That's it, I promise!  I really don't want to dive into the black hole of semantics and the debate of origins.  Just wanted a beginning for our learning journey. 

 

 

I want to repeat my suggestion (that others have also made) of Born with a Bang and the rest of its series of 3 books.

 

They are lovely books suited to your children's ages. They do not fit a YE view since they clearly give a timeline that goes back into the millions and billions of years. But they are also not anti-God in any way that I noticed, and keep the sense of wonder and awe about the universe and its beings, while still trying to be accurate about what science currently believes...and also stating that that scientific understanding itself will change as more is learned. And while I understand Ruth (Lewelma)'s point about anything for children having to bring the idea of evolution down to a story where it is very like a creation myth, I think a) that is what you were asking for was a good illustrated story for children where the oldest is 8 years old, and 2) I think if she actually read all of Born with a Bang through to Mammals who Morph, including the extra material for more understanding in the backs of the books, that she might think they have more science, more "there" there than one would think could be packed into such books. I think in terms of a single resource to start with, this is what I would most strongly suggest for you. (ETA, at least in terms of being exactly what I think you are seeking, and being excellent, both.)

 

Like Ruth/Lewelma, my son also watched and loved Attenborough films about nature. And I too recommend that highly.  I also highly  recommend the film version of Iain Stewart's Earth.

 

 

 

We also did a lot of gardening and spend time in actual nature which is also rewarding in many ways.

 

When I was in parochial school long ago, an Old Earth view was taken, which is to say, they taught that one could believe in God and also study evolution, but if one were going to reconcile Genesis and science then one had to view the idea of creation in 7 days as if each of those days were vast stretches of time--perhaps "days" in God's view, but not in our sense of what a day is. 

Friends of mine who take a Young Earth view believe that the creation story at the start of Genesis is to be taken totally literally and with our own modern sense of time as to what a day is.  

Either way, a child's illustrated Bible story of the creation would give the basics for either of these understandings.  Or for that matter, you could just read the start of Genesis from whatever translation of the Bible you like. Or if you can read it in Hebrew, that could be nice too, and you might then read that In the Beginning, Gods created...   (plural)

 

ETA: In another church affiliated school I attended, there was no particular attempt to reconcile religion and science.  They were regarded as both being important, but very different realms.  And this is actually the way most people I currently know who believe in God seem to approach the matter. 

Or, for some, they are starting to experience a God sense in the realm of quantum physics...things that start to get talked about in movies like Through the Wormhole narrated by Morgan Freeman, but that would be outside what I think any of your children would find interesting at the ages you list in your signature.

 

 

 

With my son, we also looked at a number of other Creation stories, how people in many places viewed their Gods as having created, or if they did not seem to have gods, what their stories were like without invoking creator gods.  Many of these stories are very beautiful or funny or charming, and I think that was a good thing to have done.  I did not know about Joseph Campbell having a collection of such creation stories, that might have been excellent, and even now it sounds interesting.  In any case, it gave some sense of appreciation for the ideas of many people in many places.

 

ETA: also he was at a brick and mortar Waldorf, which has its own different views that are not supposed to be explicitly taught to the children, and yet are part of the classroom ambience nonetheless (religious pictures, toy gnomes, reincarnation, etc.), so that itself was also an exposure to yet another variant view.

 

 

 

 

[Alessandra]

No, it is just not a scientific theory if it cannot be disproven, and no respectable scientist would ever claim such a thing. That is not up for debate. You can say some claim is a theory outside of the scientific realm, but do not call it science. A person cannot go and make up their own scientific definitions and parameters and justifiably call it science, no more than I can make up a law and expect to successfully defend my made-up law in court.

OP, since it sounds as though you want to expose your dc to a wide spectrum of ideas, You may want to incorporate books on creation stories from various cultures.

[WishboneDawn]

My apologies for contributing to the derail, Lexi.

[Pen]

Lexi, another book you might want to consider, at least for you and your 8 year old (but I think it would be too mature for those younger than 5 years old  even though it is an illustrated book for children), would be The Magic of Reality: How We Know What's Really True by Richard Dawkins. The author is an atheist, of, I think, not just the does not believe in God, but is rather more anti-religion, anti-theist than just a-religious and a-theist (so far as I can tell...   and the book is not only about Creation and Evolution, but also goes into other questions a child might wonder, like what is light, what is a rainbow, what is an earthquake, etc.  You might find it of interest. I think the parts about science and how we know things are very helpful. He also tells some myth stories, but given his perspective, tends to tell them in ways that, to me, lose what beauty and benefits they have just as myth ...   so I'd probably want some other source for the myths to be told as myths.

 

http://www.amazon.com/The-Illustrated-Magic-Reality-Paperback/dp/B00EDZ0K08/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1399077532&sr=8-3&keywords=The+Magic+of+Reality

 

There is also a non-illustrated version, but I think the illustrated version is more accessible.

 

 

[Pen]

I have not read any of the responses b/c after your edit I don't want to get involved in any discussion.

 

Anyway, here is a recommendation from the evolution perspective for little kids: Life Story.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Life-Story-Virginia-Lee-Burton/dp/0547203594/ref=tmm_pap_title_0

 

I had not known of this one before, but it looks like another good option for the younger children.

[IsabelC]

We have The Magic of Reality, and I wasn't overly impressed with it either. While a lot of the stories and information are interesting to my children, especially Mr 10, I found the structure seemed a little forced and the book didn't flow all that well compared to Dawkins' other work. Also I felt that he was somewhat disingenuous in his stance towards the myths (although perhaps that's just my personal opinion, as I'm a bit more Gould-leaning; I don't base my scientific beliefs on mythology, but neither do I think science should undermine the importance of mythology).

 

I haven't yet seen a really good and really engaging book about evolution for kids, so quite interested to see what people suggest. 

 

Another idea you might want to consider is evolution games. There are quite a few free online ones, or you can even make up your own (non computer) ones.

[eternalsummer]

There's sort of a difference between evolution/natural selection as a process and evolution/big bang as an origin theory.  Evolution as a process is really exceptionally useful to study not just to understand the animal/plant/bacteria/fungi (I feel like I'm missing one, but I can't remember which, been a while) world but also the development of human society and culture.  As a mechanism, you can see it almost as a law of physics (only a much more complicated one, sort of a law of physics incarnate in the living world).

 

For origin stories, I read something somewhere about how every society has more than one origin myth.  For example, the Jews have Adam and Eve, then Noah, then Abraham, then Moses - all are foundation myths.  The Romans had Romulus and Remus, and also the Aenid thing, right?

 

In the US, we have Columbus, the Mayflower, the American Revolution.

 

So you can also see the Big Bang as one aspect of a set of creation myths.

[eternalsummer]

Lexi, my kids learned about evolution by watching David Attenborough nature documentaries. There are a LOT. Evolution is the underlying theory explaining all of biology, and DA uses it to explain specific situations, organisms, and communities in different biomes throughout the earth. My kids learned from a master teacher who has given them not just a very clear understanding of evolution but also a sense of wonder and appreciation of life on earth.

 

I have adopted this approach for our family because I am then using evolution as it is meant to be used - to explain the natural world and all its variety, rather than using it as an idea to be studied in isolation.

 

Ruth in NZ

 

 

I just wanted to say, thanks for referring me to Attenborough.  I have gotten more science ideas from your posts than the rest of the internet combined.

 

Also I agree about evolution in context - we also use it to explain to the kids (or have them figure out, if they can) the causes behind some aspects of human civilization, since we're part of the natural world too :)

[IsabelC]

Big Attenborough fans here too :)

[strawberries]

My kids are 6 and 9 and we liked Life on Earth: The Story of Evolution by Steve Jenkins.

[Pen]

We have The Magic of Reality, and I wasn't overly impressed with it either. While a lot of the stories and information are interesting to my children, especially Mr 10, I found the structure seemed a little forced and the book didn't flow all that well compared to Dawkins' other work. Also I felt that he was somewhat disingenuous in his stance towards the myths (although perhaps that's just my personal opinion, as I'm a bit more Gould-leaning; I don't base my scientific beliefs on mythology, but neither do I think science should undermine the importance of mythology).

 

I haven't yet seen a really good and really engaging book about evolution for kids, so quite interested to see what people suggest. 

 

Another idea you might want to consider is evolution games. There are quite a few free online ones, or you can even make up your own (non computer) ones.

 

 

 

I had thought I had said what I wanted to on this thread, but I came back to read and noticing this comment on what I wrote, feel I need to clarify:

 

I do not dislike the Magic of Reality book; had I disliked it, I would not have mentioned it here. I think it could be of help to OP on the side of understanding the science aspects of the creation/evolution question, and more generally of help in understanding the issue of "how we know what we know," and why it is not true that just because a theory is not certain, any other idea or explanation is equally valid as has been asserted at one point in this thread (thus the book could also be of help to EndofOrdinary or whoever it was had made those comments). In other words, it explains things like how even though we cannot directly see germs, we can use microscopes, and have other ways of knowing and figuring things out that go beyond our immediate senses plus mere imagination. I think it is quite strong on its science side, including particularly the explanations about creation (Big Bang v. Solid State theories, etc.) and evolution, are quite good in a way likely to be simple enough at least for OP's 8 year old, and maybe the 5 year old too if OP were to read it aloud using the illustrated version.  I think, for example, the analogy to a 40 mile long bookshelf with photographs of one's parents and grandparents going back and back and back, could be helpful for a child trying to understand.

 

While I was also not "overly" impressed--I think for someone just starting on a quest to understand these areas, which is what I gather is the case for OP, I think it does have a lot to offer. And for her children, not just about creation/evolution, but also other questions that may interest them, like what is "light," and other things that kids often ask, especially if OP does not yet have a children's science encyclopedia for them.

 

I agree with you that it does not flow very well, and is not Dawkins best, but I don't think that OP probably has read other books by Dawkins to compare it to, and given her question that suggests wanting a starting point for books about creation and evolution that would be suitable also for children, I think it fits that very well. Though I do personally prefer the Born with a Bang series, which do flow well and do have much explanatory material in the back, as well as being more accessible for her youngest children (as read-alouds, that is); the Dawkins book has much that those do not have, including in particular explaining how things are figured out when we cannot directly see, hear, taste, smell, touch them. It has a very different view on consciousness--the Born with a Bang book gives a sense of consciousness as if present at the Big Bang, while Dawkins allows for it only for advanced mammals. This is an area currently being debated by scientists, including even the question what is "consciousness."

 

I similarly highly recommend the Iain Stewart DVD series on  Earth: a biography since, among other things, for those of us who cannot ourselves travel to a fossil site or place where we can see layer upon layer of earth strata, it takes us on a film journey to such places, and may make it easier to understand what it means when scientists use depth location to date artifacts and fossils and changes in the strata to understand phenomena that happened before there were any people in existence to experience something. It is very good, and was my son's very favorite film for a long time, especially the volcano and surfing on air parts.

 

My caveat is that, like you, I do not think Magic of Reality does justice to the myth/religion side of experience, nor the way he tells the myth stories, or the Biblical creation stories that the OP also expressed interest in. That said, if one wanted to have just 4 books to cover everything at a child level, the 3 in the Born with a Bang series, plus Magic of Reality would, in a sense, do that, including even tellings of some of the Biblical stories and creation stories.

 

 

[Pen]

My kids are 6 and 9 and we liked Life on Earth: The Story of Evolution by Steve Jenkins.

 

 

Yes.

 

But I think it may have some errors as to humans as "descended from apes" ideas, "survival of the fittest" ideas etc.???  That is, perhaps errors in taking some popular misconceptions and putting them in as if they are what scientists believe to be fact???

 

I did not read it, so that was just an impression I had been given. How does it deal with those topics?