Is Quark Chronicles secular friendly?

[hornblower]

 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.

 

I was thinking about this later. Would you agree that it isn't necessary to delve into whether God exists or not until much later - like in college? 

[mamamoose]

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.

Nope.

Sorry.

[mamamoose]

 

I was thinking about this later. Would you agree that it isn't necessary to delve into whether God exists or not until much later - like in college?

I guess it depends on whether you consider evolution to be your religion, or not.

[mamamoose]

I didn't think the point was whether the book actually taught evolution--I thought the question was whether or not the book was "neutral." I have not finished, but certainly it's not Christian based because the book is based on aliens, and fundamental Christianity is based upon the premise that life only exists on this planet. It also talks about life millions of years ago, which would be a perfect lead-in to evolution! I prefer not to provide too much opinion on either theory with my children, because it's left up to interpretation to some degree anyway. We discuss all the variables. In my opinion, Bible study is separate from science anyway. But if evolution is your religion, by all means, buy a book on evolution and worship it to your heart's content. The Quark Chronicles appear to have as much lead in to evolution as it might to creation and if you want to squabble about a plant's "design" it's not the book for you! It seems a little silly in the end. It's not meant to be the end all be all science manual, and the author explicitly states that.

Edited May 15, 2016 by mamamoose

[Farrar]

I guess it depends on whether you consider evolution to be your religion, or not.

So, the only reason to be sure you teach something earlier is because it's related to religion? It can't justbebecause it's the cornerstone of a major area of study?

[Haiku]

There is so much evidence that evolution is just as much a theory as 7 day creation.

Do you know what a scientific theory actually is? Your statement is not only false, it also betrays a lack of understanding of scientific terminology.

[mamamoose]

So, the only reason to be sure you teach something earlier is because it's related to religion? It can't justbebecause it's the cornerstone of a major area of study?

By that same logic, then, the original question becomes completely invalid. Do I think it's important to teach God to my children? Well what does that have to do with whether or not it's important to teach evolution at an early age? Teach whatever you want. The book attempts to be neutral. That's the topic here. Does it make it less scientific because it doesn't teach evolution? I don't think so! Evolution doesn't need to be taught in some living science story! Good grief.

[fairy4tmama]

Ok, I really have to point out that neutral is not the same as secular-friendly, if it was I wouldn't have needed to ask. To be honest I hated that title but couldn't come up with something better. This is a rare instance in which I am considering a Neutral book for part of or science education and I am doing so because it is a STORY, however, I still want the science presented to be accurate.

 

In many ways, this thread is the perfect illustration of why I felt compelled to ask about it in the first place. The reality is a curriculum(not QC in specific but curricula in general) is not being "Neutral" when it leaves out The Therory Of Evolution, it is clearly censoring facts to support a world view. What's more, many curricula claim neutrality because they only leave out evolution but then make dozens of subtle references to support a BELIEF in Creationism. 

 

The Theory of Evolution is not the same as a Belief in creationism there is to my knowledge no credible scientific evidence to support creationism.

 

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

 

 

 

That being said in this particular book it seems that this statement about flowers is more a slip of the tongue when put in the larger context of other quotes presenting adaptation. This thread has been really useful to me and continues to me. 

 

I'll be honest, mamamoose, I found your comment about humans coming from monkeys as well as some of your others snarky and sarcastic not ironic. 

Edited May 15, 2016 by fairy4tmama

[hornblower]

 Does it make it less scientific because it doesn't teach evolution? I don't think so! Evolution doesn't need to be taught in some living science story! Good grief.

 

See, many of us disagree. 

 

We've had this conversation on this board before. For some, avoiding a topic that is central to the understanding of biology makes it 'neutral'. For others, it makes it inherently biased because only some people choose to avoid it. 

 

The use of the word 'designed' in some contexts is also troublesome to me. 

 

And yes, I think it definitely make it less scientific. 

[OlgaLA]

I thought the purpose of this thread was to gather information about what exactly makes this particular book neutral/secular-friendly (or not). Why people want their materials to be that way is a different story, and honestly, absolutely not my business. BTW, in my case the last thing I am afraid of is my kids learning about creationism.  They went to Catholic school. They also both know about evolution, and if anything, they will declare a book supporting creationism "stupid". It is not something I need to be said about a science book, because the next step would be doubting or rejecting everything else the book contains. Having said that, I don't think Quark Chronicles will trigger this response, so I will use it. Other parents may have different goals, and it may or may not suit them.

 

And no, I don't think the design part was a slip. The book very carefully dances around this topic, and I feel like every word is deliberate. It tries to court both sides, and mostly succeeds, except for a few places where it just doesn't take that last step that seems logical from a secular point of view. Honestly, if I haven't read this thread before I started reading it, it might have slipped my attention altogether, but I was reading it very critically, so it stood out. 

[fairy4tmama]

 They also both know about evolution, and if anything, they will declare a book supporting creationism "stupid". It is not something I need to be said about a science book, because the next step would be doubting or rejecting everything else the book contains. Having said that, I don't think Quark Chronicles will trigger this response, so I will use it. 

Thanks, this was actually one of my concerns.

[Farrar]

By that same logic, then, the original question becomes completely invalid. Do I think it's important to teach God to my children? Well what does that have to do with whether or not it's important to teach evolution at an early age? Teach whatever you want. The book attempts to be neutral. That's the topic here. Does it make it less scientific because it doesn't teach evolution? I don't think so! Evolution doesn't need to be taught in some living science story! Good grief.

 

If it uses subtle language that implies a creationist perspective, then it's absolutely less scientific. If something claims to cover a subject, as one would expect a curriculum about that subject to do, and it leaves out the cornerstone of the subject it covers, then it's absolutely less scientific.

 

I don't even really understand why you're in this thread, Mamamoose. The question was about whether it's secular-friendly. You don't seem to have any real appreciation of what secular readers might want. It seems as trolly as if I went into a thread asking for creationist resources and critiqued them, something I would have no idea how to do and can't think of a motivation for other than stirring the pot.

[Mergath]

As far as I'm concerned, whether or not it's secular is a moot point because man, is that writing awful. I'm surprised anyone has even made it through the entire book. We as homeschoolers really need to raise the bar and demand better materials.

[Guest]

As far as I'm concerned, whether or not it's secular is a moot point because man, is that writing awful. I'm surprised anyone has even made it through the entire book.

 

Yes! It's just terrible!

 

I handed it to my son who was, at the time, obsessed with botany. He read two chapters and peaced out. He has never in his life put down a science or science-adjacent book before, so I started to read it. I admire that he made it two chapters in, honestly.

 

I can see if you have a kid who isn't into science at all, and you want to just get ANYTHING sciency stuffed into their brains, maybeeee. But for anyone else? --I don't understand why these books have gotten any traction. The story part is sub-Magic Treehouse (!) and the science is like this: [.......]

[Epicurean]

So Sassafras and Quark are terribly written and light on science.

 

Is there really nothing similar out there that is up to par?

[maize]

As far as I'm concerned, whether or not it's secular is a moot point because man, is that writing awful. I'm surprised anyone has even made it through the entire book. We as homeschoolers really need to raise the bar and demand better materials.

Demand? From whom?

 

I nominate Mergath to write the next living science series. There's that old saying: "if you want something done right, do it yourself." ;)

[mamamoose]

So Sassafras and Quark are terribly written and light on science.

 

Is there really nothing similar out there that is up to par?

It's not a science curriculum. It's a living science book. They are two separate entities. He author suggests the book be used as a spine. It's not terribly written and it's not Jack and Annie. It is no where near that.

[Guest]

So Sassafras and Quark are terribly written and light on science.

 

Is there really nothing similar out there that is up to par?

 

No, but I mean why would there be?

 

This idea that students need science in the form of fictional stories...a format in which the topic at hand is NECESSARILY presented through dialogue (between children no less!) is weird.

[Guest]

It's not a science curriculum. It's a living science book. They are two separate entities. He author suggests the book be used as a spine. It's not terribly written and it's not Jack and Annie. It is no where near that.

 

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

 

K

[Mergath]

Demand? From whom?

 

I nominate Mergath to write the next living science series. There's that old saying: "if you want something done right, do it yourself." ;)

 

Heh. They'd be fantastically written but half the science would be wrong. I don't think anyone wants a SF/Fantasy writer doing a science series for kids. ;) 

 

I did see a new science series on Amazon today. There's actually one free right now. I haven't read it yet and have no idea if it's a steaming pile, but here you go: https://www.amazon.com/Fluid-Mechanics-Science-Stories-Guides-ebook/dp/B00DZ3TIF2

[Mergath]

It's not a science curriculum. It's a living science book. They are two separate entities. He author suggests the book be used as a spine. It's not terribly written and it's not Jack and Annie. It is no where near that.

 

I was an English major and I wrote my first novel when I was twelve. I know my craft and believe me, it's terribly written. Just the snippets I read here make me long for Jack and Annie.

[Epicurean]

No, but I mean why would there be?

 

This idea that students need science in the form of fictional stories...a format in which the topic at hand is NECESSARILY presented through dialogue (between children no less!) is weird.

Well, they don't NEED it per se, but isn't it a cool idea to read adventure stories about kids who love science? I mean, the appeal is kind of like Indiana Jones. As flawed as those movies are, I think they inspired a whole generation of geeky kids to hone in on the fields of archeology and anthropology.

[Mergath]

Well, they don't NEED it per se, but isn't it a cool idea to read adventure stories about kids who love science? I mean, the appeal is kind of like Indiana Jones. As flawed as those movies are, I think they inspired a whole generation of geeky kids to hone in on the fields of archeology and anthropology.

 

And National Treasure made American History seem really cool.

 

Hmm. Maybe we're going for the wrong format here. I think what we need is for someone to produce a series of action movies that also teach science. Doctor Who meets Discovery. 

[Farrar]

On the Barefoot Ragamuffin page, they refer to each book as a "semester long study" and have accompanying notebook pages. It's clearly meant to be something that could be curricular.

[Farrar]

By the way, I think you could make an excellent astronomy and astrophysics for middle school curriculum to accompany the George's Secret Key series. The story isn't amazing or anything - some of the writing is pretty so so, but the science is detailed and well integrated and I wouldn't say the writing is bad. The science writing sections are great, which is no surprise considering the high powered contributors.

 

And I think you could make a great unit study around Darwin and evolution using the Calpurnia books and maybe some other good nature focused books. BYL has the first Calpurnia book as part of their evolution unit study.

[mamamoose]

I was an English major and I wrote my first novel when I was twelve. I know my craft and believe me, it's terribly written. Just the snippets I read here make me long for Jack and Annie.

Thank you for sharing your credentials. I now agree wholeheartedly with you. Or not.

 

By the way, I am a science writer/editor. Who's got who beat in the department? Now that I know you are adequately qualified to tell me what good entertainment is, I will go cry in my Quark Chronicle.

[deerforest]

I learned the hard way to give up on curricula designed for homeschoolers. We did basically what Farrar described with the George books and the first Calpurnia book.

 

I'll also reiterate what I said earlier in the thread. This is an excellent book about hominid evolution that is a nice balance between engaging narrative and factual science. Written by a paleoanthropologist: http://www.amazon.com/Children-Time-Evolution-Human-Story/dp/0826344429/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8

[Mergath]

Thank you for sharing your credentials. I now agree wholeheartedly with you. Or not.

 

By the way, I am a science writer/editor. Who's got who beat in the department? Now that I know you are adequately qualified to tell me what good entertainment is, I will go cry in my Quark Chronicle.

 

You may be under the mistaken impression that none of us read your previous posts in this thread. I would assume you'd need at least a passing familiarity with basic scientific principles to be a science writer, though you did claim to be a "Fundamental Christian" who doesn't accept evolution, so I think what you're really trying to say is that you're a "science" writer.

 

And btw, science writing and juvenile/YA fiction writing require completely different skill sets. 

 

ETA: You know, the more I think about what you've posted in this thread, the more I think you're probably an anti-homeschooling troll hanging around because you're bored. And I'm doing my best not to feed the trolls as of late. So I'll wish you a good evening and end my comments to you here.

Edited May 17, 2016 by Mergath

[OlgaLA]

I would say that the writing in the botany book is not terrible. Yes, it could be much better, but then I haven't read a recently written MG/YA book that couldn't use improvement in this area. My 13 yo read it in one evening and asked for the next books, so to me it is a plus. Now, calling it a whole curriculum would be a stretch, IMO. Since the kids in the book have to plant a garden, I offered my son to plant our own garden, paying attention to nutritional needs of humans, nutritional values of various vegetables, their life cycles, their needs, etc and reading actual science books as needed. I think it will make a great year of botany. BTW, I also mentioned to him that we should write a book about it, and he agreed. Now, I am pretty sure the writing will be worse than Quarks, so we won't be publishing it :)

[maize]

My twelve year old asked for more books like the botany book; that's good enough for me. She can experience quality literature elsewhere.