nonsecular biology

[Pen]

I do not want to start a debate and heated and upset discussion. I would just like to know, please, what is in nonsecular biology programs that differs from secular ones? If a description in Rainbow Resource says something like that a course will help prepare students to debate with people they meet in future who do not share their faith view, what does that mean?

[AK_Mom4]

I think the primary difference between secular and non-secular biology curriculum would be the discussion of evolution and (possibly) geological time.  As for "preparing students for debate", that sounds to me like the material includes at least an overview of the most common questions that come up when discussing creationism , such as Where Do Dinosaurs Fit Into The Bible?

 

That's my best guess, anyway.  We have used both secular and religious-themed biology materials at different times and those are the areas remember being different.

[mamaraby]

I do not want to start a debate and heated and upset discussion. I would just like to know, please, what is in nonsecular biology programs that differs from secular ones? If a description in Rainbow Resource says something like that a course will help prepare students to debate with people they meet in future who do not share their faith view, what does that mean?

Without knowing which one this refers to, my guess is a YE, biblical literalist perspective.

[Desert Strawberry]

In my limited experience, secular science begins with questions and looks for answers. There are no base assumptions. Everything comes from evidence and observation.

Nonsecular science begins with a set of beliefs which it seeks to prove through selected observations. There is no search for answers. There is only a search for argument that backs up the belief.

[IsabelC]

There are two main types of religious texts: the ones that are pretty much the same as normal/secular ones but that omit parts of science that may contradict or not work well with the reader's religious beliefs (most commonly not mentioning times earlier than around 4000BCE or the evolution of life, but can omit other things as well, such as information about human reproduction, s3x and s3xuality, or sometimes the conservationist viewpoint found in many mainstream texts); and the ones that are written in a completely different tone with a strong emphasis on religious topics (anything from mentioning God through to interspersing scriptural quotations and references or even including elements of apologetics).

[Jackie]

There are a few things that will either be left out of nonsecular texts or be specifically from a YE perspective. In general, curriculum marked as Christian is from a YE perspective and will include YE counter arguments to mainstream scientific beliefs - this would include the ones that you mention as "preparing students to debate". Also in general, curriculum marked as neutral leaves out or barely mentions mainstream science topics that disagree with YE perspective.

 

Here are some of the topics that may be left out or not agree with mainstream science:

 

Biology - evolution, natural selection, timeline/geologic periods/age of earth

 

Physics and Astronomy - Big Bang

 

Chemistry - carbon dating, evidence of climate change

 

History - (obviously not science, but the other subject frequently differentiated between YE and mainstream beliefs) Ancients may differ on what are true stories, anything before Ancients would differ due to age of earth timelines

[Pen]

One more specific question--would explanations about cell be the same in general whether secular or nonsecular? I'm wondering for example about things like the idea that mitochondria might be incorporated bacteria.

 

 

Does anyone reading this know if there are nonsecular biology materials that also not Christian--say Hindu perhaps? Is nonsecular pretty much just Christian, or am I just seeing that because of having catalogues like RR with that bent?

 

Thank you to everyone who has answered thus far, both for your answers and also for keeping things calm, civil, and pleasant as I requested!

[IsabelC]

If you are in the US, the majority of non secular materials are going to be Christian. In other countries, it might be different. There are a lot of Muslim creationists, so I would hazard a guess that Muslim schools might have their own teaching resources to be better in accord with the Qur'an. I have no idea about Hindu educators.

 

Regarding cell biology, that is likely to vary depending on the level of study being pursued. I gather it isn't that difficult to avoid issues such as evolution during the elementary years, but this would probably become more difficult as the student advances, because mainstream biology takes evolution theory as foundational to the discipline (as opposed to being up for debate).

 

Maybe if you post which specific program you are looking at, somebody will be able to provide a more definite answer? (I know you post here quite a lot, but I don't remember what curricula people are using or considering unless it's in their signatures, sorry!)

[Desert Strawberry]

Buddhism does not conflict with modern science at all. The Dalai Lama is known to be highly scientifically minded. Buddha was a proponent of observation and logical thinking. There is no need for nonsecular Buddhist materials. 

I can't speak for other religions.

[kiana]

Does anyone reading this know if there are nonsecular biology materials that also not Christian--say Hindu perhaps? Is nonsecular pretty much just Christian, or am I just seeing that because of having catalogues like RR with that bent?

 

Thank you to everyone who has answered thus far, both for your answers and also for keeping things calm, civil, and pleasant as I requested!

 

There are some Islamic ones but most of those wouldn't be in English.

 

This is purely speculation, of course, but those who are sufficiently religiously conservative to need to write their own science texts are frequently also linguistically conservative. Texts intended for nonsecular education in other belief systems, therefore, would tend to be in whichever language is historically associated with the region where that belief system is practiced rather than in English.

[Dolphin]

If you are looking for one from the Hindi perspective you might be in luck searching for an Indian book. There are so many tribal languages that many books are written in English.

[raptor_dad]

One more specific question--would explanations about cell be the same in general whether secular or nonsecular? I'm wondering for example about things like the idea that mitochondria might be incorporated bacteria.

 

 

The endosymbiont  hypothesis presupposes both deep time and evolution. As such it is unlikely to be compatible with non-secular, religious, curriculums.

 

[elegantlion]

NoteMonk has Indian textbooks online. I'm assuming they're secular. It's interesting to see how other countries line up their science teachings though. http://www.notemonk.com/ncert/

[Pen]

If you are in the US, the majority of non secular materials are going to be Christian. In other countries, it might be different. There are a lot of Muslim creationists, so I would hazard a guess that Muslim schools might have their own teaching resources to be better in accord with the Qur'an. I have no idea about Hindu educators.

 

Regarding cell biology, that is likely to vary depending on the level of study being pursued. I gather it isn't that difficult to avoid issues such as evolution during the elementary years, but this would probably become more difficult as the student advances, because mainstream biology takes evolution theory as foundational to the discipline (as opposed to being up for debate).

 

Maybe if you post which specific program you are looking at, somebody will be able to provide a more definite answer? (I know you post here quite a lot, but I don't remember what curricula people are using or considering unless it's in their signatures, sorry!)

 

 I was trying  to ask the question here in a way that would help me get information without starting a feud over issues like evolution, and getting the thread shut down by moderators.  And then too, the more I explored the question the more I got interested in wondering about it. I also started wondering because a University in our area apparently has Evolutionary Biology as a required course, and I was told that it was because many children from this area get to that stage not having heard of evolution, or having heard that it is a false teaching or something like that. So I am also wondering what they'd be likely to have been learning going into college stage....and if it would only be Christian kids or others too. Of course, I am sure that many or most are coming from some school background, but maybe private or religious ones rather than homeschool.

 

Also, we have neighbors are doing Apologia (I believe) and something like Our Fathers World or World of our Fathers or some such title--both I gather are for more than just science, the former for older kids and the latter for younger...but I am not sure. Trying to understand what they are doing or what sorts of things the kids are learning--without ending up in a conversation IRL that could result in bad feelings with some of the few other home schoolers left in neighborhood-- lead me to trying to explore the RR catalogue for hints and to starting this thread.

[kiana]

 I also started wondering because a University in our area apparently has Evolutionary Biology as a required course, and I was told that it was because many children from this area get to that stage not having heard of evolution, or having heard that it is a false teaching or something like that. So I am also wondering what they'd be likely to have been learning going into college stage....and if it would only be Christian kids or others too. Of course, I am sure that many or most are coming from some school background, but maybe private or religious ones rather than homeschool.

 

Hm, for bio majors or for everyone? It's been a required course for bio majors at most schools I've been at.

 

A lot of times evolution is not taught well in high schools, even when it's a secular school. A lot of people come out with the impression that one day, a fish was born with legs and walked out of the water, or an ape gave birth to a human, or something similar. Re-teaching is a big part of this course.

 

I'm not sure where you are, but here in the deep South there are definitely a fair number of HS teachers who don't believe in evolution and thus either teach that it's false or teach it badly.

 

[IsabelC]

 I was trying  to ask the question here in a way that would help me get information without starting a feud over issues like evolution, and getting the thread shut down by moderators.  And then too, the more I explored the question the more I got interested in wondering about it. I also started wondering because a University in our area apparently has Evolutionary Biology as a required course, and I was told that it was because many children from this area get to that stage not having heard of evolution, or having heard that it is a false teaching or something like that. So I am also wondering what they'd be likely to have been learning going into college stage....and if it would only be Christian kids or others too. Of course, I am sure that many or most are coming from some school background, but maybe private or religious ones rather than homeschool.

 

Also, we have neighbors are doing Apologia (I believe) and something like Our Fathers World or World of our Fathers or some such title--both I gather are for more than just science, the former for older kids and the latter for younger...but I am not sure. Trying to understand what they are doing or what sorts of things the kids are learning--without ending up in a conversation IRL that could result in bad feelings with some of the few other home schoolers left in neighborhood-- lead me to trying to explore the RR catalogue for hints and to starting this thread.

 

Ha, you must be a little bit like me with getting curious about things and going looking for answers. 

 

Um, yes, I think evolution is pretty widely misunderstood, even among well educated adults (religious or not). But I have also noticed, from the limited amount of college level science I studied, that there is a lot of 'unlearning' done in many topics, because kids are often taught things at elementary level that bear little resemblance to what they are going to learn later on (eg 'there are five senses: sight, hearing, taste, smell and touch'). I guess there is quite a difference between a kid who wasn't that interested in biology and whose parents didn't push it, and a kid who has been given 'creation science' teachings as part of their education.

 

As for things that kids don't know, I guess that reflects the sheer variety of things that people could possibly learn, along with widely held assumptions we seem to have around other people knowing the same stuff we know.

 

Slight tangent: the other day I was watching Life At 9 (Life At ... is a popular series we have, which follows a group of kids from birth, making a new documentary about them every 2 years), and they stated that many 9yos has never been on a bush walk, and had trouble walking over uneven ground. Huh?

[IsabelC]

Yeah, for sure. I wasn't having a go at families who don't take their kids hiking. I meant more that it's always so incredibly weird to think that some people don't do stuff that I'd consider regular, normal stuff (or is that just my inner aspie lol). Doubtless there'd be things that dh and I never do with the kids that many people would take for granted. 

[Pen]

Hm, for bio majors or for everyone? It's been a required course for bio majors at most schools I've been at.

 

 

 

 

I thought it was for everyone, but may have misunderstood.

[Pen]

 

 

Slight tangent: the other day I was watching Life At 9 (Life At ... is a popular series we have, which follows a group of kids from birth, making a new documentary about them every 2 years), and they stated that many 9yos has never been on a bush walk, and had trouble walking over uneven ground. Huh?

 

 

I really liked the 7Up etc. series and heard that there were others like it being done elsewhere.  I wish I could see this and the others!

[ElizaG]

Catholic science texts (both vintage & modern) are going to be different from the Protestant ones you'd find at Rainbow Resource, etc.  

 

I haven't seen any with much discussion of YEC/OEC, or apologetics.  There will be references to the beauty and order of God's creation, and more careful use of terms like "substance" (which secular textbooks often use to mean "material substance").   They'll sometimes get into philosophy, such as the Thomistic/Aristotelian distinction between inanimate matter, plants, animals, and humans.  Some authors put a strong emphasis on ecology, in the context of responsible stewardship.    

 

The elementary books will sometimes draw analogies between scientific facts and topics from catechism lessons.  Chapters on human biology might have prominent discussion of the physical characteristics and needs of the unborn and elderly, reflecting the publishers' desire to promote respect for all human life.   I find these things can be awkwardly done at times, but many families like them.  

 

That's about all I can think of right now.  HTH!   :001_smile:  

 

ETA:  I don't think there are any Catholic high school biology texts on the market right now.  I do have a couple of vintage ones on order, though, and will let you know if there's anything in particular about them that might be of interest.  

[Dolphin]

If you are looking for some secular choices in science you might look at Galore Park. It is a company in the UK and has some great texts. My kids really like them. Another place to look is your local science museum. 

[lewelma]

 I was trying  to ask the question here in a way that would help me get information without starting a feud over issues like evolution, and getting the thread shut down by moderators.  And then too, the more I explored the question the more I got interested in wondering about it. I also started wondering because a University in our area apparently has Evolutionary Biology as a required course, and I was told that it was because many children from this area get to that stage not having heard of evolution, or having heard that it is a false teaching or something like that. So I am also wondering what they'd be likely to have been learning going into college stage....and if it would only be Christian kids or others too. Of course, I am sure that many or most are coming from some school background, but maybe private or religious ones rather than homeschool.

 

Also, we have neighbors are doing Apologia (I believe) and something like Our Fathers World or World of our Fathers or some such title--both I gather are for more than just science, the former for older kids and the latter for younger...but I am not sure. Trying to understand what they are doing or what sorts of things the kids are learning--without ending up in a conversation IRL that could result in bad feelings with some of the few other home schoolers left in neighborhood-- lead me to trying to explore the RR catalogue for hints and to starting this thread.

 

 

 

what is in nonsecular biology programs that differs from secular ones?

 

I am NOT trying to start an argument, but just answering the above question.

 

As a biologist, the main thing I notice when I talk to kids who have used YEC textbooks is that they don't understand that the scientific  process can allow knowledge to be inferred through indirect evidence.  They say things like "Well, no one was *there*, so we can't really know." This is a serious misunderstanding of the scientific method.  The other thing is that the kids seem to think science is about belief, and will say something like "I dont *believe* that", rather than the evidence does not support that conclusion. I believe that teaching evolution in this way influences the way the kids view all of science.

 

Ruth in NZ

[jaderbee]

I am NOT trying to start an argument, but just answering the above question.

 

As a biologist, the main thing I notice when I talk to kids who have used YEC textbooks is that they don't understand that the scientific process can allow knowledge to be inferred through indirect evidence. They say things like "Well, no one was *there*, so we can't really know." This is a serious misunderstanding of the scientific method. The other thing is that the kids seem to think science is about belief, and will say something like "I dont *believe* that", rather than the evidence does not support that conclusion. I believe that teaching evolution in this way influences the way the kids view all of science.

 

Ruth in NZ

I don't think that's a YEC phenomenon. The idea that you can select your reality seems to be prevalent in our culture. You can give someone facts and they will just write it off as something that's ok for you but not for them (instead of debating the meaning or cause of the facts). Now, I'm just a mom not a scholar but it seems like we have generations of people who lack the ability to know truth and argue (traditional meaning here not yelling) for it or about it. I do think some of this has stemmed from raising kids in a church culture that emphasizes feeling and emotions over facts but church going families are in the minority now so that can't be the only cause.

[lewelma]

I don't think that's a YEC phenomenon. The idea that you can select your reality seems to be prevalent in our culture. You can give someone facts and they will just write it off as something that's ok for you but not for them (instead of debating the meaning or cause of the facts). Now, I'm just a mom not a scholar but it seems like we have generations of people who lack the ability to know truth and argue (traditional meaning here not yelling) for it or about it. I do think some of this has stemmed from raising kids in a church culture that emphasizes feeling and emotions over facts but church going families are in the minority now so that can't be the only cause.

 

That  might be true of using the word 'belief' when referring to science.  But it is definitely a result of the YEC textbooks that the kids think that you cannot understand scientific processes in the past because no one was there.  This is a serious misunderstanding of the scientific method, and affects their understanding of many more fields than just evolution.

[Pen]

I am NOT trying to start an argument, but just answering the above question.

 

As a biologist, the main thing I notice when I talk to kids who have used YEC textbooks is that they don't understand that the scientific  process can allow knowledge to be inferred through indirect evidence.  They say things like "Well, no one was *there*, so we can't really know." This is a serious misunderstanding of the scientific method.  The other thing is that the kids seem to think science is about belief, and will say something like "I dont *believe* that", rather than the evidence does not support that conclusion. I believe that teaching evolution in this way influences the way the kids view all of science.

 

Ruth in NZ

 

 

Thank you! This is the sort of thing I am wanting to know exactly: what kids taught with nonsecular science would be thinking. Any more specifics like that would be appreciated.

 

I feel sure we can do this in a mature way without arguments and bad feelings. It seems to be going very well so far!

[Pen]

NoteMonk has Indian textbooks online. I'm assuming they're secular. It's interesting to see how other countries line up their science teachings though. http://www.notemonk.com/ncert/

 

I spent 3 hours earlier today in a fascinating exploration of Indian science and math! The math is not exactly on topic to this thread, but was fascinating...including linkages between, as I understand it, math and scriptures: "Vedic math."

[ElizaG]

Thank you! This is the sort of thing I am wanting to know exactly: what kids taught with nonsecular science would be thinking. Any more specifics like that would be appreciated.

 

I feel sure we can do this in a mature way without arguments and bad feelings. It seems to be going very well so far!

If this is what you wanted to know exactly, I'm puzzled as to why you were asking a different question in previous posts in the thread.  

 

What students end up thinking isn't always a very close match to the contents of their textbooks.   I couldn't speak with any certainty about what (if anything) students who've used Catholic science books might be thinking about the topics I've mentioned.  For one thing, many of these are relatively minor points in the text, which they might just "blip" right over.  For another thing, children and parents/teachers tend to have minds of their own.  I know many families who do a lot of editorializing, supplementing, and discussing as they go along, whatever type of text they're using.  

 

It seems as if you might be better off doing a survey.  You know, scientifically, and all that.    ;)

[Χά�ων]

I spent 3 hours earlier today in a fascinating exploration of Indian science and math! The math is not exactly on topic to this thread, but was fascinating...including linkages between, as I understand it, math and scriptures: "Vedic math."

I printed off one of the 5th math program (the first chapter is about fishing). It is different way to go about things and giving DS a bit of a challenge having more language in the math, if that makes sense. I plan to use it this fall along side his other math.

[Pen]

 

 

Thank you! This is the sort of thing I am wanting to know exactly: what kids taught with nonsecular science would be thinking. Any more specifics like that would be appreciated.

 

I feel sure we can do this in a mature way without arguments and bad feelings. It seems to be going very well so far.

 

 

If this is what you wanted to know exactly, I'm puzzled as to why you were asking a different question in previous posts in the thread. 

 

 

...

It seems as if you might be better off doing a survey.

 

I think some people start a thread with an idea, and never move from that starting point.  

 

Similarly, some start with a fixed curriculum plan and manage to stick to it absolutely, but I tend to find things of interest in discussion threads, like I do in home school that lead to rabbit trails of learning. So where I was in my first post changed and developed as I read and learned more through the progress of the thread (not only through what is in this thread, but also what I am learning beyond the thread on my rabbit trails). I was not expecting Vedic Math nor Life at 9--neither which I recall hearing of until a few days ago.  From my perspective, it is all learning and all good.

 

Sometimes as the discussion goes on, my understanding of my own interest or own question becomes clarified. Perhaps that is why the Bravewriter approach to writing resonates with me.

 

I was in Catholic school for part of my own education and thus do have familiarity with a biology class in a Catholic school--at least the one I took. In my experience there was very little deviation between that and my later secular AP Biology class. But there does clearly seem to be something different between what either of those classes covered and what seems to be being taught in some more religious based curricula such as what my neighbors seem to be doing.

 

Ruth's comment helped me understand what might be part of a whole "mindset" difference. It came as an "aha" for me, perhaps if I had had her comment and the understanding it brought me before I started the thread, my initial post would have been worded differently. Perhaps not.

 

I do not know how I could do a survey. Do you mean a poll on this forum? I've never done one. How would you word a useful survey about this subject?

[Pen]

I printed off one of the 5th math program (the first chapter is about fishing). It is different way to go about things and giving DS a bit of a challenge having more language in the math, if that makes sense. I plan to use it this fall along side his other math.

 

I think I missed that one. I'll go back and look for it.

 

I'm trying to understand Vedic Multiplication. It is supposedly easier than our regular long multiplication, but so far I am just confused.

[ElizaG]

I do not know how I could do a survey. Do you mean a poll on this forum? I've never done one. How would you word a useful survey about this subject?

I think you'd have to be fairly specific in what you were looking for.   For instance, if you wanted to follow up on lewelma's anecdote, you could ask whether people were educated using "Protestant" or "other" science books, and whether or not they held certain ideas about science.  

 

My own feeling is that the attitude of "we weren't there in prehistoric times, so we don't know scientifically," might have more to do with the way the scientific method is generally taught in elementary curricula.  For instance:

 

Scientific Method Printable for Kindergarten 

The Scientific Method

An Overview of the Steps of the Scientific Method for Kids

The Scientific Method -- Science Bob

 

It's a bit of a leap from that sort of lesson -- which emphasizes hands-on experimenting, with direct observation of sensory data while varying the conditions -- to the types of activities that lead scientists to draw conclusions about life millions of years ago.   Like this:

 

The Scientific Method -- Paleopix blog

 

It might be that the students from non-YEC backgrounds are just as uncertain about how this works, but are less likely to raise objections, simply because it doesn't matter as much to them one way or the other.  

[Free]

My own feeling is that the attitude of "we weren't there in prehistoric times, so we don't know scientifically," might have more to do with the way the scientific method is generally taught in elementary curricula.

 

It is possible to develop a misunderstanding of the scientific method due to incorrect pedagogy, but that is different from certain YEC in particular which actually teaches that the scientific method can be used to infer only that which can be tested through experiments. YEC defines testability and reproducibility differently from mainstream science.

 

[Pen]

...

 

My own feeling is that the attitude of "we weren't there in prehistoric times, so we don't know scientifically," might have more to do with the way the scientific method is generally taught in elementary curricula.  For instance:

 

Scientific Method Printable for Kindergarten 

The Scientific Method

An Overview of the Steps of the Scientific Method for Kids

The Scientific Method -- Science Bob

 

It's a bit of a leap from that sort of lesson -- which emphasizes hands-on experimenting, with direct observation of sensory data while varying the conditions -- to the types of activities that lead scientists to draw conclusions about life millions of years ago.   Like this:

 

The Scientific Method -- Paleopix blog

 

It might be that the students from non-YEC backgrounds are just as uncertain about how this works, but are less likely to raise objections, simply because it doesn't matter as much to them one way or the other.  

 

 I had the feeling that the "We weren't there" or "no one was there" idea leads to a belief that evidence and data can thus be ignored with a conclusion that if no one was there all is just a matter of faith.  ????

[Pen]

... certain YEC in particular which actually teaches that the scientific method can be used to infer only that which can be tested through experiments. YEC defines testability and reproducibility differently from mainstream science.

 

 

Another "aha"...

 

Thank you! More specifics would be appreciated.

[Suzanne in ABQ]

 Also, we have neighbors are doing Apologia (I believe) and something like Our Fathers World or World of our Fathers or some such title--both I gather are for more than just science, the former for older kids and the latter for younger...but I am not sure. Trying to understand what they are doing or what sorts of things the kids are learning--without ending up in a conversation IRL that could result in bad feelings with some of the few other home schoolers left in neighborhood

Apologia publishes science textbooks written from a YE, creation perspective.  The high school texts are Exploring Creation with Biology, Exploring Creation with Chemistry, and Exploring Creation with Physics.  They also have an advanced biology text called Human Body (an AP text).  They write science texts for middle school age as well, General Science and Physical Science are designed for 7th and 8th graders.  I haven't used any of these except the General Science, which my dd read for herself, so I can't answer your specific questions.  I can only say that, according to her, it was much more thorough than any book she had read up to that point (secular elementary and middle school).  It did include a lot of comparative discussion on the topics commonly disputed (and listed in other posts).

 

My Father's World does not write science textbooks, or any textbooks.  They select texts and other materials from many publishers and bundle them together to form a complete curriculum for each grade level, Pre-K through High School.  They do write and publish lesson plans for Christian homeschoolers, and they sell the curriculum bundles for each grade level that go along with these lesson plans.  These bundles and plans incorporate Apologia science texts, along with Christian and secular materials for Math, Language Arts, History, Art, etc.

 

I hope this helps you understand what your neighbors are doing.  :)

[Free]

More specifics would be appreciated.

 

Are you looking for specific examples of how the YEC position misinterprets the meaning of testability and reproducibility? You can check out this YEC science curriculum description from AIG https://answersingenesis.org/what-is-science/what-is-science/.

 

I have not seen any non-secular science curricula, but I suppose those that are of the YEC persuasion propagate similar views in their texts as well.

 

[lewelma]

It did include a lot of comparative discussion on the topics commonly disputed (and listed in other posts).

 

YEC textbooks definitely 'teach the controversy'.  Problem is, there is no controversy over evolution in the scientific community. None. And there hasn't been for well over 50 years (since the discovery of DNA and plate tectonics). So a controversy is created and taught where none exists.  This leads to confusion over how scientific ideas go through the peer review process to be either accepted or rejected.

[Jayne J]

Are you downloading the Indian math books? Or is there a way to look through them online? (Sorry for the momentary hijack!)

[Pen]

Are you looking for specific examples of how the YEC position misinterprets the meaning of testability and reproducibility? You can check out this YEC science curriculum description from AIG https://answersingenesis.org/what-is-science/what-is-science/.

 

I have not seen any non-secular science curricula, but I suppose those that are of the YEC persuasion propagate similar views in their texts as well.

 

 

 

YEC textbooks definitely 'teach the controversy'.  Problem is, there is no controversy over evolution in the scientific community. None. And there hasn't been for well over 50 years (since the discovery of DNA and plate tectonics). So a controversy is created and taught where none exists.  This leads to confusion over how scientific ideas go through the peer review process to be either accepted or rejected.

 

 

These help me understand--Thanks

 

Anyone on Indian materials, feel free to derail away. I don't even think it IS a derail! rather a new interesting source of some possible extra material.

[Pen]

I'd like to adjust thread title to reflect what is here--Indian texts and all-- ideas?

[kiana]

A tag might work.

[Dmmetler]

I am NOT trying to start an argument, but just answering the above question.

 

As a biologist, the main thing I notice when I talk to kids who have used YEC textbooks is that they don't understand that the scientific process can allow knowledge to be inferred through indirect evidence. They say things like "Well, no one was *there*, so we can't really know." This is a serious misunderstanding of the scientific method. The other thing is that the kids seem to think science is about belief, and will say something like "I dont *believe* that", rather than the evidence does not support that conclusion. I believe that teaching evolution in this way influences the way the kids view all of science.

 

Ruth in NZ

My DD's bio mentor has suggested that we basically skip high school bio texts and go straight to college level, because she sees the same, even with students coming in from public, secular schools. The texts tend to underemphasize evolutionary biology so they'll be acceptable to state adoption boards of non-scientists, and the result is that kids come into college with the idea that if you haven't observed it it can't be science (and conversely, if you've observed it once, or someone claims to have observed it, it's proven fact).

[Pen]

My DD's bio mentor has suggested that we basically skip high school bio texts and go straight to college level, because she sees the same, even with students coming in from public, secular schools. The texts tend to underemphasize evolutionary biology so they'll be acceptable to state adoption boards of non-scientists, and the result is that kids come into college with the idea that if you haven't observed it it can't be science (and conversely, if you've observed it once, or someone claims to have observed it, it's proven fact).

 

That's an interesting idea. Any particular titles that you are aware of that might be good for this?  It could be an interesting way to start into practice with a college level text if not too difficult.

[Wheres Toto]

My plan for high school is to use college level texts for non-majors.   They aren't at that high of a level but avoid a lot of the junk that pops up in high school texts for the reasons stated above.

 

[kiana]

That's an interesting idea. Any particular titles that you are aware of that might be good for this?  It could be an interesting way to start into practice with a college level text if not too difficult.

 

College level texts for non-majors are usually scientifically accurate but written to interest, engage, and inform college students who don't much care for science. They're also usually written to get selected by individual subject-area experts rather than by committees of non-scientists, each of whom has a separate axe to grind. I think they're a great set-up to prepare for a serious college course.

[Dmmetler]

We're using Campbell's Essential Biology, which is the 1 semester, non-major version, an edition back where the supplements were on CD. It's pretty accessible, and cost a whopping $5.

[Pen]

We're using Campbell's Essential Biology, which is the 1 semester, non-major version, an edition back where the supplements were on CD. It's pretty accessible, and cost a whopping $5.

 

I have a used Campbell's text put away in a box somewhere so I cannot see exact title right now. I thought it was a high school text though. Do they make both? 

[Dmmetler]

According to Pearson's website, there is an AP version of Campbell's, so that may be what you have. I don't think there's much difference between what is taught in 1 semester non-majors general bio and high school biology.