Is Quark Chronicles secular friendly?

[fairy4tmama]

I am really leaning towards using quark chronicles. I love the idea of a sci-fi narrative science book and the sample seemed engaging but I can't get a sense of how it sits on the spectrum of secular - religious. I know that wayfarers includes bible study but it looks like the mark all books that are from a Christian perspective. Can anyone give me any insight?

 

 

 

Edited April 12, 2016 by fairy4tmama

[My4arrows]

I read somewhere that it is written in a neutral perspective. We are mostly through botany and there hasn't been anything from a Christian perspective.

My kids have really been enjoy it! It's Been our favorite science out of all we've tried!

Edited April 12, 2016 by Clmegancm

[Chrysalis Academy]

I don't think there is anything to worry about, though I'm not too far in.  The premise is that the kids are space travelling aboard a ship with an AI, and they meet all kinds of interesting aliens, one of whom is a sentient moss-creature who has lived for millenia.  So there is certainly no fundamentalist perspective here!  The recommended books are all secular, with the possible exception of some of the very old-fashioned children's science books that they suggest as read alongs. We aren't reading those, so I can't comment on them.   

[Farrar]

There's a statement on the website that says it's neutral.

 

I wish that some really science literate person would read it and give their take. Evolution is the underpinning of so many concepts in biology. You can do an elementary unit study without touching on it, sure, but I have the sense that the science in these is supposed to be more like middle school level. I can't decide how I feel about leaving out one of the foundational concepts of biology. Of course, one could always add it in, but it seems so awkward. It's like studying history without integrating any geography or without being able to mention dates or something. Like, okay, you could, but... 

 

Anyway, I'm no biologist, which is why I'd love to see someone better informed give their take. I've been really on the fence about using it.

[JoJosMom]

From their website:

 

Quark Chronicles is worldview neutral, meaning that you can use it regardless of how you feel about creationism, intelligent design, and evolution. Some science facts are just…facts. We don’t believe that science always has to be a divisive subject.

[My4arrows]

There's a statement on the website that says it's neutral.

 

I wish that some really science literate person would read it and give their take. Evolution is the underpinning of so many concepts in biology. You can do an elementary unit study without touching on it, sure, but I have the sense that the science in these is supposed to be more like middle school level. I can't decide how I feel about leaving out one of the foundational concepts of biology. Of course, one could always add it in, but it seems so awkward. It's like studying history without integrating any geography or without being able to mention dates or something. Like, okay, you could, but...

 

Anyway, I'm no biologist, which is why I'd love to see someone better informed give their take. I've been really on the fence about using it.

I'm curious if you've read the books or not? I only ask because I don't feel that the way they are written that it would be awkward to read additional information, adding in your own view. I am also coming from a elementary perspective, so that may be why I differ. I believe that the books themselves are not meant to be an entire curriculum, but you are to be adding in additional sources.

Also not a biologist here, but just wondering more about your perspective.

[fairy4tmama]

There's a statement on the website that says it's neutral.

 

I wish that some really science literate person would read it and give their take. Evolution is the underpinning of so many concepts in biology. You can do an elementary unit study without touching on it, sure, but I have the sense that the science in these is supposed to be more like middle school level. I can't decide how I feel about leaving out one of the foundational concepts of biology. Of course, one could always add it in, but it seems so awkward. It's like studying history without integrating any geography or without being able to mention dates or something. Like, okay, you could, but... 

 

Anyway, I'm no biologist, which is why I'd love to see someone better informed give their take. I've been really on the fence about using it.

Me too! I was secretly hoping that perhaps you had read it and would be able to chime in. 

[Farrar]

I'm curious if you've read the books or not? I only ask because I don't feel that the way they are written that it would be awkward to read additional information, adding in your own view. I am also coming from a elementary perspective, so that may be why I differ. I believe that the books themselves are not meant to be an entire curriculum, but you are to be adding in additional sources.

Also not a biologist here, but just wondering more about your perspective.

 

I haven't. But biologists call evolution the unifying theory of biology. In other words, it's the basic underpinnings of the whole shebang. Every single thing in biology has a connection with evolution. I'm sure that a neutral source would be written to the details and not to the big picture. It would have to be to seem at all comprehensive. Which, okay, fine. Details have value. So, okay, maybe Quark and other "neutral" science sources could be supporting a secular biology? But certainly not the other way around because there's too much missing there just off the bat.

 

I also just wonder how good any "neutral" source can really be. Most of them, when I read that people trained in real science have turned a critical eye to them, tend to have wording that's deeply misleading. That's why I'd love to see a secular reader better versed in the science turn their eye to it. Because I *love* the concept. I'd love for someone to sway me that we should read them and say, yes, I'm a scientist, I'm secular, I think even though there's a lot missing, it could be a component, it's not actively misleading. I was greatly disappointed by Sassafras's attempt at the same concept and I've heard that these are at least well-written and imagined, which is great.

 

It's also just really a question of whether there can be such a thing as a "neutral" science. Can you leave out the unifying theory of a subject and really have it be "neutral" - because that doesn't sound very neutral to me. It sounds pretty opinionated.

[Eagle]

I have a science background, but not in any of the fields relevant to evolution. We are halfway through Quark Botany, and I have no objections whatsoever to the content up to this point. I have not noticed any subtle phrasing that could indicate a religious bias, and that is usually something that jumps out at me.

 

I think you have to look at Quark for what it is: a set of novels. It is not a science curriculum. Rather than look at Quark as the spine, I would choose something else to be the main curriculum and use Quark as a hook to keep the dc engaged in the subject and to reinforce their learning. With this perspective I do not have an issue with Quark omitting topics. Not including evolution does not make the novel incomplete; it simply does not enter into the storyline.

 

As for the writing quality, it is not perfect. I did not buy Sassafras due to the writing issues (and the focus on non-adventure science being boring). The first third of Quark was quite well done. Then there were four or so chapters with a few grammatical errors. The last couple of chapters have been ok again. I am willing to overlook the errors because ds loves the book so much and I think the author has done a great job of making a story out of science topics. I don't want to dissuade anyone from buying it, but I have not seen this mentioned before (maybe no one else noticed?) and I don't want anyone to feel mislead after hearing about it being well written. I still plan to buy all of the other Quark books because they are so engaging and ds has learned so much from the first one. When we encounter a scientific term with which ds is unfamiliar, he asks if we can add it to a vocab list so he can learn and remember it (he has never done this with any other book). He wants to read it every day, including weekends. He has already requested to read it again when we are finished.

 

For us, it has been a very valuable component to our science this term.

[My4arrows]

I haven't. But biologists call evolution the unifying theory of biology. In other words, it's the basic underpinnings of the whole shebang. Every single thing in biology has a connection with evolution. I'm sure that a neutral source would be written to the details and not to the big picture. It would have to be to seem at all comprehensive. Which, okay, fine. Details have value. So, okay, maybe Quark and other "neutral" science sources could be supporting a secular biology? But certainly not the other way around because there's too much missing there just off the bat.

 

I also just wonder how good any "neutral" source can really be. Most of them, when I read that people trained in real science have turned a critical eye to them, tend to have wording that's deeply misleading. That's why I'd love to see a secular reader better versed in the science turn their eye to it. Because I *love* the concept. I'd love for someone to sway me that we should read them and say, yes, I'm a scientist, I'm secular, I think even though there's a lot missing, it could be a component, it's not actively misleading. I was greatly disappointed by Sassafras's attempt at the same concept and I've heard that these are at least well-written and imagined, which is great.

 

It's also just really a question of whether there can be such a thing as a "neutral" science. Can you leave out the unifying theory of a subject and really have it be "neutral" - because that doesn't sound very neutral to me. It sounds pretty opinionated.

I see and understand where you are coming from. The books themselves are well written, keep children's attention and have science in them. I can't comment on whether there's in formation you'd find misleading since I'm neither a scientist nor secular, but at the same time, I haven't seen anything pointing against it. There is more fact based ideas describing photosynthesis, talking about moss, etc.

 

I personally feel that quark doesn't get in depth enough for it to be brought up and perhaps that's how they are saying its neutral without speaking of evolution, intelligent design or creationism. They cover more of the broad ideas vs getting more specific...which is why I suppose I consider it more of a supplement vs a complete curriculum. If you wanted it to cover the entirety of the subject, then quark definitely isn't for you, especially as a higher level subject. It would probably be a fun read for an older child if you were learning the subject. I've planned out our zoology for next year using quark, but also pulling in other texts which teach the subjects at a deeper level. we have really enjoyed it and I will say at times I feel there is more story in there than actual science content- which is not bad for my younger children- but I'm going to guess it is definitely not a comprehensive science that you're looking for. I'm not sure if any of that helps at all. I'd definitely read the sample chapters online since they give a good view of what to expect. I think that would best help you see if it's a good fit or not.

 

And I do want to add, I have enjoyed hearing your perspective on this...definitely not something I have personally thought in depth about before and something to think about. Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts 😀

[fairy4tmama]

I have a science background, but not in any of the fields relevant to evolution. We are halfway through Quark Botany, and I have no objections whatsoever to the content up to this point. I have not noticed any subtle phrasing that could indicate a religious bias, and that is usually something that jumps out at me.

 

I think you have to look at Quark for what it is: a set of novels. It is not a science curriculum. Rather than look at Quark as the spine, I would choose something else to be the main curriculum and use Quark as a hook to keep the dc engaged in the subject and to reinforce their learning. With this perspective I do not have an issue with Quark omitting topics. Not including evolution does not make the novel incomplete; it simply does not enter into the storyline.

 

As for the writing quality, it is not perfect. I did not buy Sassafras due to the writing issues (and the focus on non-adventure science being boring). The first third of Quark was quite well done. Then there were four or so chapters with a few grammatical errors. The last couple of chapters have been ok again. I am willing to overlook the errors because ds loves the book so much and I think the author has done a great job of making a story out of science topics. I don't want to dissuade anyone from buying it, but I have not seen this mentioned before (maybe no one else noticed?) and I don't want anyone to feel mislead after hearing about it being well written. I still plan to buy all of the other Quark books because they are so engaging and ds has learned so much from the first one. When we encounter a scientific term with which ds is unfamiliar, he asks if we can add it to a vocab list so he can learn and remember it (he has never done this with any other book). He wants to read it every day, including weekends. He has already requested to read it again when we are finished.

 

For us, it has been a very valuable component to our science this term.

Thank you, this is a really helpful review!

[Chrysalis Academy]

There's a statement on the website that says it's neutral.

 

I wish that some really science literate person would read it and give their take. Evolution is the underpinning of so many concepts in biology. You can do an elementary unit study without touching on it, sure, but I have the sense that the science in these is supposed to be more like middle school level. I can't decide how I feel about leaving out one of the foundational concepts of biology. Of course, one could always add it in, but it seems so awkward. It's like studying history without integrating any geography or without being able to mention dates or something. Like, okay, you could, but... 

 

Anyway, I'm no biologist, which is why I'd love to see someone better informed give their take. I've been really on the fence about using it.

 

Well, there's neutral, and then there is neutral.  I just got a Layers of Learning Unit in the mail today, and while it claims to be "neither Christian or secular" it is far from secular, and it wouldn't know neutral if it bumped into it in a bar. I'm totally disappointed with it, it's one of the more biased things I've seen that isn't from an explicitly religious provider.  With Quark, it's different, because as somebody says, it's really a story, not a science textbook or even a science living book, really.  So not talking about how the different plants or aliens or animals got the way they are (i.e. evolution or not) isn't really a relevant omission, the way it would be in a science textbook. It's just not part of the story.  It leaves out lots of scientific concepts, not just evolution. You have to fill those in by choosing appropriate nonfiction books as read-alongs.

 

So while I agree with Farrar that neutral is usually anything but neutral when it comes to science, I think this book works because it isn't a factual, nonfiction coverage of a full scientific concept. It's a story to hook and interest kids in learning more about science.  But, of course, I'll be keeping my eye out for anything problematic as I go along. I'm only one chapter in, so I shouldn't even be talking about it, really. What I can say so far is that it's much better writing than in Sassafras, although my dd finds the story weird so far.

[fairy4tmama]

Well, there's neutral, and then there is neutral.  I just got a Layers of Learning Unit in the mail today, and while it claims to be "neither Christian or secular" it is far from secular, and it wouldn't know neutral if it bumped into it in a bar. I'm totally disappointed with it, it's one of the more biased things I've seen that isn't from an explicitly religious provider. 

Yes. this is what I was trying to get at! Sorry to hear you got burned although your description made me chuckle. 

 

The term neutral always bothers me, because from a secular point of view it seems to me that neutral would me presenting the science factually as it is and leaving it up to folks to then add in their world view but in fact it means the opposite. 

[ktgrok]

Well, there's neutral, and then there is neutral.  I just got a Layers of Learning Unit in the mail today, and while it claims to be "neither Christian or secular" it is far from secular, and it wouldn't know neutral if it bumped into it in a bar.

 

Sorry to hijack the thread, but could you give a bit more detail about this? I'd looked at it as a possible option and am curious what you mean. Any examples? We are Christian, but the "wrong kind" for most Christian homeschool materials, so I am wondering now. 

[SparklyUnicorn]

I haven't. But biologists call evolution the unifying theory of biology. In other words, it's the basic underpinnings of the whole shebang. Every single thing in biology has a connection with evolution. I'm sure that a neutral source would be written to the details and not to the big picture. It would have to be to seem at all comprehensive. Which, okay, fine. Details have value. So, okay, maybe Quark and other "neutral" science sources could be supporting a secular biology? But certainly not the other way around because there's too much missing there just off the bat.

 

I also just wonder how good any "neutral" source can really be. Most of them, when I read that people trained in real science have turned a critical eye to them, tend to have wording that's deeply misleading. That's why I'd love to see a secular reader better versed in the science turn their eye to it. Because I *love* the concept. I'd love for someone to sway me that we should read them and say, yes, I'm a scientist, I'm secular, I think even though there's a lot missing, it could be a component, it's not actively misleading. I was greatly disappointed by Sassafras's attempt at the same concept and I've heard that these are at least well-written and imagined, which is great.

 

It's also just really a question of whether there can be such a thing as a "neutral" science. Can you leave out the unifying theory of a subject and really have it be "neutral" - because that doesn't sound very neutral to me. It sounds pretty opinionated.

 

I have yet to encounter an elementary or middle school level biology book that says much about evolution.  They may mention it, but they don't go into any sort of detailed explanation.  I suspect it is a fairly advanced topic.  So that they leave it out at that level seems "ok" to me. 

 

We read some separate books on evolution.  Probably the best one I encountered was The Magic of Reality by Richard Dawkins.  I think it did an amazing job of explaining it without getting too technical.  I imagine certain religious groups would be highly offended by it though. 

 

But I admit what leaves me wondering when they omit it is what else they may have omitted or I wonder if all of the contents are accurate.  If this is such an important aspect of biology, are they changing other "facts" to suit their POVs?  I don't know the answer to that because I'm not a biologist and haven't studied a ton of biology.  So I have to rely on what is in books.  I hope they are accurate.  But when they start picking and choosing based on religious views I worry a bit. 

[Verity]

We finished Quark: Botany last month and started Quark:Zoology this week. We use it as scheduled in Wayfarers (read one chapter a week). Our spine has been the Ellen McHenry books - so previously it was Botany in 8 and now we are using her Cells: an Introduction to Anatomy and Physiology of Animal Cells. 

We are a Christian family but I have a science background and want my children to have a solid understanding of science as the "world" knows it. In the areas that some groups vary we tend to have discussions about what is absolutely known and what is being interpreted. I very much desire my children to seek knowledge and wisdom on their own from a variety of resources.

 

So...the Quark books are what I would call Science Fantasy. Alot of the stuff like space travel is pretty much glossed over, their "ship" is actually a giant space "fish" they call Auntie and along the way in the first novel they take on board a telepathic moss named Mab who is thousands of years old. The story is a light weight adventure chapter book and the science material is presented in a way to interest the kids from a variety of ages in the general concepts of the selected topic. We get our "science" from the other things we use like Usborne/DK books on specific topics and the McHenry spines that we use 2/3 days per week.

 

The main characters are written in a fairly realistic way (the squabble but are mostly nice to eachother and they care about eachother). They never mention church, god, evolution or the beginnings of life. They do encounter a good many aliens and ruins of all different types. Alot of them are a bit cartoonish but it keeps the reading light and appropriate for younger kids. My kids both enjoy Quark and I plan to continue using the book as part of our family read alouds as long as we can.  I really can't imagine anything in these books causing a religion/anti-religion problem for someone who is homeschooling unless they are very conservative and don't even want to imagine that there might be other life in the universe...?

 

HTH!

Edited April 13, 2016 by Verity

[Bluegoat]

From their website:

 

Quark Chronicles is worldview neutral, meaning that you can use it regardless of how you feel about creationism, intelligent design, and evolution. Some science facts are just…facts. We don’t believe that science always has to be a divisive subject.

 

Honestly this drives me crazy.

 

I understand what they are trying to do and say, but there is no such thing as a neutral worldview, and facts are never just facts. 

 

This idea that there are facts and opinions and that is it, and the distinction is straightforward, is just pernicious.

[Bluegoat]

I would not say that evolution needs to be much of a feature in elementary school biology.  It does tie much of biology together, but at that level, many kids are still learning about the bits that need to be tied together.  I think there is something to be said for having a developed knowledge of the things in the biological world (different organisms, ecosystems, etc) and then going into more depth on how they are tied together genetically or from an evolutionary perspective.  Then the student can say "ah, yes, I really see how that concept explains the things I've seen and experienced."

 

 

[deerforest]

I think, by far, the best story-based science book that address evolution full-on and clearly incorporates scientific discoveries, facts, and theories at a level appropriate for elementary is Children of Time by Anne Weaver. We read it in 3rd or 4th grade, and it unleashed a passion for paleoanthropology that led us to meet several times with one of the key researchers of Homo naledi. I highly recommend this.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Children-Time-Evolution-Human-Story/dp/0826344429/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1460571397&sr=8-3&keywords=children+of+time

 

(I just realized now that the ages say grades 5-8 but I found it very accessible especially as a read-aloud at younger ages. We are REALLY into science here so your mileage may vary.)

[camino]

 

We read some separate books on evolution.  Probably the best one I encountered was The Magic of Reality by Richard Dawkins.  I think it did an amazing job of explaining it without getting too technical.  I imagine certain religious groups would be highly offended by it though. 

 

 

 

Following discussion and learning a lot! What age would you say for this book?

[Chrysalis Academy]

Following discussion and learning a lot! What age would you say for this book?

 

My younger dd listened to the audiobook in 2nd or 3rd grade along older dd and I, and she loved it but didn't understand it all.  I think you could use it seriously with a 6th grader and up?  We went through it a couple of times, once in 5th and once in 7th if I'm recalling correctly.  It's a great book.

Edited April 13, 2016 by Chrysalis Academy

[deerforest]

My younger dd listened to the audiobook in 2nd or 3rd grade along older dd and I, and she loved it but didn't understand it all. I think you could use it seriously with a 6th grader and up? We went through it a couple of times, once in 5th and once in 7th if I'm recalling correctly. It's a great book.

Agree with this. We used the iPad version around 2nd or so when it first came out, but then we did a far more in-depth independent read/discussion this year in 6th.

[fairy4tmama]

We finished Quark: Botany last month and started Quark:Zoology this week. We use it as scheduled in Wayfarers (read one chapter a week). Our spine has been the Ellen McHenry books - so previously it was Botany in 8 and now we are using her Cells: an Introduction to Anatomy and Physiology of Animal Cells. 

We are a Christian family but I have a science background and want my children to have a solid understanding of science as the "world" knows it. In the areas that some groups vary we tend to have discussions about what is absolutely known and what is being interpreted. I very much desire my children to seek knowledge and wisdom on their own from a variety of resources.

 

So...the Quark books are what I would call Science Fantasy. Alot of the stuff like space travel is pretty much glossed over, their "ship" is actually a giant space "fish" they call Auntie and along the way in the first novel they take on board a telepathic moss named Mab who is thousands of years old. The story is a light weight adventure chapter book and the science material is presented in a way to interest the kids from a variety of ages in the general concepts of the selected topic. We get our "science" from the other things we use like Usborne/DK books on specific topics and the McHenry spines that we use 2/3 days per week.

 

The main characters are written in a fairly realistic way (the squabble but are mostly nice to eachother and they care about eachother). They never mention church, god, evolution or the beginnings of life. They do encounter a good many aliens and ruins of all different types. Alot of them are a bit cartoonish but it keeps the reading light and appropriate for younger kids. My kids both enjoy Quark and I plan to continue using the book as part of our family read alouds as long as we can.  I really can't imagine anything in these books causing a religion/anti-religion problem for someone who is homeschooling unless they are very conservative and don't even want to imagine that there might be other life in the universe...?

 

HTH!

Thank you so much for taking the time to share your review it is incredibly helpful!

 

I think, by far, the best story-based science book that address evolution full-on and clearly incorporates scientific discoveries, facts, and theories at a level appropriate for elementary is Children of Time by Anne Weaver. We read it in 3rd or 4th grade, and it unleashed a passion for paleoanthropology that led us to meet several times with one of the key researchers of Homo naledi. I highly recommend this.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Children-Time-Evolution-Human-Story/dp/0826344429/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1460571397&sr=8-3&keywords=children+of+time

 

(I just realized now that the ages say grades 5-8 but I found it very accessible especially as a read-aloud at younger ages. We are REALLY into science here so your mileage may vary.)

OOOOH thanks for sharing!

[KaceeM]

I planned on using Quark Chronicles Zoology with the Darwin and Evolution unit from Build Your Library

[Haiku]

Evolution is the underpinning of so many concepts in biology. You can do an elementary unit study without touching on it, sure, but I have the sense that the science in these is supposed to be more like middle school level. I can't decide how I feel about leaving out one of the foundational concepts of biology. Of course, one could always add it in, but it seems so awkward. It's like studying history without integrating any geography or without being able to mention dates or something. Like, okay, you could, but... 

 

To me it would be like studying western civ and leaving out church history because you're not Christian. Again, you could, but ...

 

ETA: My oldest is home from college. I just asked her (she's a biology major who considers herself Christian) whether she would agree or disagree with this statement: Evolution is the unifying theory of biology. She looked perplexed for minute and said, "Is this a trick question?" When I said no, she said, "That's absolutely true. Biology is evolution. You can't have biology without it."

Edited May 7, 2016 by TaraTheLiberator

[Farrar]

To me it would be like studying western civ and leaving out church history because you're not Christian. Again, you could, but ...

 

This is something that a few secular homeschoolers seem keen to try and it drives me just as bonkers, I must say.

[73349]

Even at the elementary level, I feel like evolution just naturally comes up all the time:

"Why do I have to get a flu shot again this year?"

"Why don't [prey] just run faster and faster so [predators] will never catch them?"

"Why is there more than one kind of antibiotics?"

"What if my Venus Flytrap closes when rain falls on it?"

etc.

 

I avoid science resources that claim to be "neutral" on any facts or processes.

[Jackie]

Even at the elementary level, I feel like evolution just naturally comes up all the time:

 

"Why do I have to get a flu shot again this year?"

"Why don't [prey] just run faster and faster so [predators] will never catch them?"

"Why is there more than one kind of antibiotics?"

"What if my Venus Flytrap closes when rain falls on it?"

etc.

 

I avoid science resources that claim to be "neutral" on any facts or processes.

This. I don't understand why so many believe evolution to be beyond the capabilities of elementary students. Does my 5yo really grasp the time spans involved or have a thorough understanding of genetics? Certainly not. But she understands the concept of natural selection and we explore that as related to many of our science/nature studies.

 

Thus far, I've managed to find enough great science material that is truly science-based to not have need of so-called "neutral" science.

[Sarah0000]

I also don't know how evolution wouldn't come up in elementary education. Don't all young kids ask "why?" all the time? Why does a bird have feathers but dogs have fur? If we're primates why don't we have fur like other primates? Why don't cats have opposable thumbs?

[maize]

I agree that evolution is core to the discipline of biology, but it is actually possible to study many pieces without delving into macro evolution. 

 

I took years of biology and microbiology classes, and evolution (while assumed) was rarely discussed explicitly. We were busy learning how chloroplasts function, how cells function, how DNA replication happens, viral replication strategies, etc.. Does evolution underlie all of those? Of course. But most of the time it was in the background and not explicitly tied in with the stuff we were doing.

[Bluegoat]

I would say there is a difference between talking about evolution more casually, and the need to study it as a topic in itself.  The latter doesn't need to happen at the elementary level, but the former probably will come up. 

 

And while I do think lower elementary lids can have some understanding of the answers to those questions in terms of evolution, they only "get" it in a limited way.  Later understanding is I think much more complete. 

 

 

[Haiku]

I would say there is a difference between talking about evolution more casually, and the need to study it as a topic in itself.  The latter doesn't need to happen at the elementary level, but the former probably will come up. 

 

We did a unit on evolution when the kids were in 4th and 5th grades (actually, we'd read a children's book on evolution when they were in K and 1st), and it is one of the most fun units we ever did. Not only did we talk about evolution of species over the long haul, we learned about the evolution of bacteria (producing antibiotic resistance), the peppered moth, Lamarck, Mendel and genetics, early hominids and common descent, and more. It really set us up to understand so much more about biology than I think we would have had we not studied it. Evolutions touches every major topic in biology, and as a plus, it's one of the most interesting topics in biology. I would not have wanted to skip it in the elementary grades.

[rimk3]

I planned on using Quark Chronicles Zoology with the Darwin and Evolution unit from Build Your Library

This sounds like an excellent plan. We did the prehistory unit from Build Your Library this year and we are also reading Quark Chronicles. We finished Botany and are a third of the way through Zoology. The unit was a great complement for a year of biology and ancient history.

 

As far as the books being neutral, I think it does actually work in this case, for reasons other posters have mentioned. It's not a textbook or curriculum (on its own). It could be considered a living science book in the sense that is comes alive to the reader and I do get a sense that the author has a passion for science. But it is still a fiction book. It's not like SOTW, in that I would describe it as a nonfiction book told in narrative form. Quark has a science fiction feel to it. I do appreciate how the author weaves the science into the story. One of the characters, Tom, seems to have a love of science (at least botany/zoology) and talks about things he's read or he has prior knowledge of "back on earth."

 

We are secular and I teach evolution. I'm not a biologist. We are reading some of the non fiction books recommended in the guide. I have also added the book Animalium, which does talk about evolution in a way very accessible to elementary age kids. Plus, we love the illustrations. They compliment each other nicely. When the Quark kids were on a moon with an ocean encountering ocean life, we were reading about life in coastal water and coral reefs in Animalium. We are also reading the Giants of Science, Charles Darwin bio right now as well.

 

But, I could have just as easily presented young earth creationism or anything in between with other books.

 

My kids are 10, 8, and 8 for reference.

Edited May 9, 2016 by rimk3

[OlgaLA]

I am planning to use this for the next year botany class for DS9, so I read the book. Before reading, I also felt that there was no real need to include evolution. However, there was one chapter in the book that is a perfect place to discuss evolution, and it kind of tries to address different way plants adapt to conditions and competition, but instead of going there it says that some flowers are designed this way, and others are designed that way. It did feel a little wrong to me. So, it is not 100% secular-friendly, but I hope it's secular enough for my kids who after 3 years in a Catholic school turned into atheists and catch on every little bit of anything remotely not secular. So, I'll definitely use it, but not as a spine, but as an enticing book to kick-start the class.

[Farrar]

Olga, that's exactly the kind of misleading language that I feel like I see in a lot of "neutral" science - such and such was designed, which is language that implies a creator.

[fairy4tmama]

I am planning to use this for the next year botany class for DS9, so I read the book. Before reading, I also felt that there was no real need to include evolution. However, there was one chapter in the book that is a perfect place to discuss evolution, and it kind of tries to address different way plants adapt to conditions and competition, but instead of going there it says that some flowers are designed this way, and others are designed that way. It did feel a little wrong to me. So, it is not 100% secular-friendly, but I hope it's secular enough for my kids who after 3 years in a Catholic school turned into atheists and catch on every little bit of anything remotely not secular. So, I'll definitely use it, but not as a spine, but as an enticing book to kick-start the class.

 

Thank you, this is what I was wondering and I will admit has kept me from pressing buy. It is these of kind of subtle creationist references that are hard to discern ahead of time.

[mamamoose]

I don't think there is anything to worry about, though I'm not too far in. The premise is that the kids are space travelling aboard a ship with an AI, and they meet all kinds of interesting aliens, one of whom is a sentient moss-creature who has lived for millenia. So there is certainly no fundamentalist perspective here! The recommended books are all secular, with the possible exception of some of the very old-fashioned children's science books that they suggest as read alongs. We aren't reading those, so I can't comment on them.

Where did you find the list of books?

[mamamoose]

There's a statement on the website that says it's neutral.

 

I wish that some really science literate person would read it and give their take. Evolution is the underpinning of so many concepts in biology. You can do an elementary unit study without touching on it, sure, but I have the sense that the science in these is supposed to be more like middle school level. I can't decide how I feel about leaving out one of the foundational concepts of biology. Of course, one could always add it in, but it seems so awkward. It's like studying history without integrating any geography or without being able to mention dates or something. Like, okay, you could, but...

 

Anyway, I'm no biologist, which is why I'd love to see someone better informed give their take. I've been really on the fence about using it.

As a scientist, and a Fundamental Christian, I appreciate that the book doesn't touch on that concept at all. It leaves it open to do so though. There is so much evidence that evolution is just as much a theory as 7 day creation. I'm not saying I believe either one necessarily because it doesn't matter that much to me, but there are gigantic gaps in the fossil record that leave me questioning evolution altogether. So it really isn't necessary from a scientific perspective to delve into whether we came from monkeys or whether we are and always have been human until much later--like in college.

[AspenSong]

I've been following this thread since we are most of the way through Botany and have Zoology coming up next.  I just want to say, please don't nit-pick this book too much!  We use 100% secular materials in our homeschool and we've found the book to be nothing but a fun way to supplement what we are studying in the plant world in an engaging story format.  If you are so inclined I guess you could find something to bother you one way or the way, but really, it's a fun story that imbeds botany into the story line in a way that "texts" can't...in my humble opinion, just read and enjoy!

Edited May 14, 2016 by AspenSong

[OlgaLA]

You know, in a number of threads religious people said that they don't feel comfortable teaching myths and fairy tales. I don't think an answer to just let the children enjoy a fun supplement would have been acceptable. We, as parents, want to know exactly what a book teaches and in what form before we spend money on it.

[maize]

Thank you, this is what I was wondering and I will admit has kept me from pressing buy. It is these of kind of subtle creationist references that are hard to discern ahead of time.

I wonder though: do you think a child would reject the concept of evolution based on such references? I just can't see that happening in the context of an education that incorporates evolution in other ways.

 

I'm thinking I might tell a child "cows are designed to eat grass, they have this neat stomach set-up that helps them digest it" without that child thinking "Mom used the word designed! That must mean cows didn't evolve! Evolution is wrong!"

[Eagle]

I am planning to use this for the next year botany class for DS9, so I read the book. Before reading, I also felt that there was no real need to include evolution. However, there was one chapter in the book that is a perfect place to discuss evolution, and it kind of tries to address different way plants adapt to conditions and competition, but instead of going there it says that some flowers are designed this way, and others are designed that way. It did feel a little wrong to me. So, it is not 100% secular-friendly, but I hope it's secular enough for my kids who after 3 years in a Catholic school turned into atheists and catch on every little bit of anything remotely not secular. So, I'll definitely use it, but not as a spine, but as an enticing book to kick-start the class.

Can you please provide a page number to this section or a quote so I can read the portion where it references things being designed?

[hornblower]

As a scientist, and a Fundamental Christian, I appreciate that the book doesn't touch on that concept at all. It leaves it open to do so though. There is so much evidence that evolution is just as much a theory as 7 day creation. I'm not saying I believe either one necessarily because it doesn't matter that much to me, but there are gigantic gaps in the fossil record that leave me questioning evolution altogether. So it really isn't necessary from a scientific perspective to delve into whether we came from monkeys or whether we are and always have been human until much later--like in college.

 

 

Humans did not come from monkeys.  This is such a lack of understanding of what the theory of evolution says that it cannot be left to stand unchallenged. 

 

 

[TheAttachedMama]

Can you please provide a page number to this section or a quote so I can read the portion where it references things being designed?

 

 

I looked it up myself because I was also curious.  

 

It is on page 98 of the Botany book.   I will post a very small snippet of the text.    I will let others read it for themselves and see if they feel this single verb choice is a "subtle creationist reference" that will indoctrinate your children.   :)   :)  

 

 

Page 97-98 Quark Chronicles:

“Well, let’s say a pollinator goes from a tomato plant, to a squash plant, to an okra plant, and then back to a tomato plant,†Tom continued. “It’s got three different kinds of pollen on it by the time it hits the same type of flower again, giving it a lot less of a chance for success.â€

 

“Why not just go from flower to flower of the same type?†Mike asked. “That would be better.â€

 

“Some insects do that,†Tom said, “like the honeybee. And other types of flowers are designed to attract only a specific type of pollinator, like a hummingbird or a bumblebee.â€

 

 

 

In my humble opinion (which you are of course free to disagree with) the book is VERY secular-friendly.   I don't think it has any hidden agenda one way or the other.   It is a great book and my family has had a lot of fun with it.   It is NOT a complete science course...rather a living science book.  I think it is possible to nitpick anything apart.   If the sentence above bothers you, it probably isn't a good book for you.  (And that is OK!  We don't all have to like the same books, and it is better you know now before you spend your money on it!)    :) :)  

 

If you want a book that specifically talks about evolution in a storybook format, then this book isn't for you.  

If you want a book that specifically talks about creationist viewpoints in a storybook format, then this book isn't for you.  

If you want a single book that will prepare your children to pass the AP Biology test, then this isn't the book.

If you want a single book that is a complete science course, then this book is not for you.  

(It is perfectly acceptable to want books like any of those things.  This just isn't the book.)

 

It is a fun, living science book.  

It is a science fantasy storybook that happens to teach children about Botany in a pleasant way.  

It is a book that might possibly help your kids to become interested in plants--- so they willingly go out and learn more about the subject.   :)   (At the start of the year, my 8 and 9 year old could care less about plants.   Now they are really interested in plants!   I thank Quark for lighting that fire.   :)  )   Just my 2 cents.    

 

 

Edited May 14, 2016 by TheAttachedMama

[fairy4tmama]

NM I am grumpy 

Edited May 14, 2016 by fairy4tmama

[Eagle]

I looked it up myself because I was also curious.

Thanks, that's the one instance I found too. It didn't seem like an intentional word choice to me to indicate the flowers were designed by someone, rather that the flower has that design. I thought maybe I had missed something big somewhere because I think it is wholly unfair to categorize the book as "not 100% secular-friendly" based on that. I have read the entire book and found no instance with any subtle (or not subtle) bias against evolution.

 

(At the start of the year, my 8 and 9 year old could care less about plants. Now they are really interested in plants! I thank Quark for lighting that fire. :) ) Just my 2 cents.

My kitchen and deck are littered with seedlings, potted plants, plants in jars, seeds germinating in bags, etc. My ds is so excited about plants that we are planning a fairly major yard project so we can create a garden space for him. This is thanks to Quark and Tops Science. I hate to think we might have passed on this book based on the comments in this thread. It is one of the highlights of our year and we hope to have the same success with Quark Zoology this summer (although I have pointed out to ds that we are not getting a lot of pets to go along with it!)

[Eagle]

It's not that I feel this "single verb choice is a 'subtle creationist reference' that will indoctrinate your children" ,in fact, I have absolutely no worry that my kids reading a book from a creationist point of view will be indoctrinated. However, it's not just "subtle creationist reference" it is an inaccurate portrayal of an important scientific point; flowers are not "designed that way" they have adapted in order to survive. And while I can simply insert this information in instances such as this, it makes me wonder what other misrepresentations might there be.

 

Perhaps this might help. Here is a section from Quark Botany about plant adaptations. I believe the quote is small enough to be ok within the fair use laws, but if someone thinks I should cut it down please let me know. I want to ensure there is context.

 

“How does that help us fight these carnivorous plants?†Tom asked. He was such a collector of facts that he sometimes had difficulty piecing them together into a coherent tapestry of understanding.

 

“Consider all of their facets. Yes, I know you have stated that no such plant exists upon your home planet of Earth, but there are certainly consistencies. Take the bulb for instance. It’s filled with a syrupy liquid, which is the stored water and food of the plant. Many plants have the ability to store food and water for long periods of time. It is an adaptation that assists them in living in lands that have scant resources, or long, alternating periods of plenty and want, such as deserts.â€

 

“Oh, like a cactus,†Joe said. “They can store up water when it rains to use during the long times when it doesn’t rain.â€

 

“And they have a waxy covering that keeps their leaves from drying out and transpiring that moisture,†Sally added. “Otherwise all their ability to store water would be useless.â€

 

“I get it,†Tom said. “So often a plant will have multiple adaptations that work together to aid it in its given environment.â€

 

There are some plants that adapt to catching food and digesting it for nutrients when they grow in poor soil...

“We’ve got this problem back on Earth with invasive species,†Tom interjected. “That’s when you take a species that has adapted to very harsh conditions and put it into an environment with conditions that are much easier. They thrive there and can out-compete the more native species, causing the losers to diminish or even go extinct...

[mamamoose]

 

 

Humans did not come from monkeys. This is such a lack of understanding of what the theory of evolution says that it cannot be left to stand unchallenged.

 

 

Obviously. It was intended to be a gross exaggeration for the purpose of ironic interpretation.

[fairy4tmama]

Perhaps this might help. Here is a section from Quark Botany about plant adaptations. I believe the quote is small enough to be ok within the fair use laws, but if someone thinks I should cut it down please let me know. I want to ensure there is context.

 

 

 

Thanks Eagle, this is incredibly helpful and really gives me a clearer picture of context regarding the statement of flowers being designed that way.

[Farrar]

Obviously. It was intended to be a gross exaggeration for the purpose of ironic interpretation.

 

And that was supposed to be obvious from your anti-evolution post because...? I'm pretty sure the irony here is creationists assuring the secular readers that they've read it and there's nothing to worry about.

 

Sigh.