Secular vs. Neutral vs. Religious Science

[tmstranger]

I don't want to get in trouble, so this isn't a question about religion itself, but I have a question about science at the high school level. 

 

I just read something on facebook that I've seen many times before and I wonder about it's validity.  The poster was commenting that using neutral or religious science curricula in the high school years will not count as appropriate science in the eyes of college admissions.  She was stating that purely secular was the only acceptable "college-bound" science path.

 

Is this true?  Do you have experience with this? 

[EKS]

I suspect that it would depend on the college.

[OneStepAtATime]

Nope.  Not true across the board for all colleges.  I have seen many posters on here use Religious based texts for High School and their kids went on to colleges.  

 

But yes, as EKS said it would probably depend on the college.  Of course, it would probably also depend on the Religious based texts and what scientific theories were supported/taught within that text.  Certainly if a student were only exposed to YEC as a scientific fact, even if they were accepted into a secular school they might hit some issues in their science classes.

 

 

[SparklyUnicorn]

Most people never tell colleges what they used and are never asked.  if you are concerned and it ever comes up, list topics rather than books.

 

 

[regentrude]

Most colleges have no idea what materials were used in a course, since they do not require course descriptions and book lists.

 

 

[Guest]

No. Not true at all.

[EndOfOrdinary]

Thia might stem from the lawsuit(s) which happened a few years back in California. Some might still be going on, I do not know the exact particulars. They sent some significant worry into the hearts of many homeschool parents who used religious texts.

 

http://www.sfgate.com/science/article/Judge-says-UC-can-deny-religious-course-credit-3273646.php

 

Now with a-g requirements the whole thing has died down a little. Though, I could see the being a personal issue or two if a STEM student was highly Young Earth or highly Creationist having potential problems if they are not only well versed in the Evolution perspective, but also just being beaten down by the amount their beliefs were openly denigrated.

[Reefgazer]

If a college that actually looks at materials, I think competitive colleges would look at a rigorous and complete text with most favor, because "neutral" or "religious" probably leaves out evolution, which is the unifying theme of biology.  A non-competitive college might not care so much.

Edited February 24, 2017 by reefgazer

[Reefgazer]

Serious question here, not intended to be a "jerk-like question".  Why is it so important for homeschoolers to construct course descriptions and reading lists is this is not looked at.  A friend of mine has a son who just got in a very competitive school, and she told me that textbooks were a major factor for him.  This school, however, is known for scrutinizing everything.

Most colleges have no idea what materials were used in a course, since they do not require course descriptions and book lists.

 

[justasque]

Serious question here, not intended to be a "jerk-like question".  Why is it so important for homeschoolers to construct course descriptions and reading lists is this is not looked at.  A friend of mine has a son who just got in a very competitive school, and she told me that textbooks were a major factor for him.  This school, however, is known for scrutinizing everything.

 

Generally speaking, you can't predict in 9th grade what a potential college might want to see during the application process in 12th.  It is much easier to document this information when it is still current, than having to reconstruct it three or four years later.  For students who aren't going to college immediately after high school, this goes double, as this will be the primary documentation of their education.  And the more "parent-issued" the diploma (as opposed to using a diploma program of some sort), the more important it may be to document.  In addition, students sometimes transition to public or private high school after 9th grade, so the documentation may be needed to transfer credits.

[BusyMom5]

Truely secular science is the only option for our family, and I feel that as more homeschoolers are going to colleges, colleges will in turn look at what books were used and what was taught.   I am sure there will always be colleges- particularly community colleges- that will overlook creation science, but if you want your student to be competitive with scholarships and really college bound, I would suggest you use secular science textbooks.  

[Sebastian (a lady)]

We used Apologia for intro to chemistry and intro to physics.

 

Biology was Miller and Levine (which is secular and used in many schools.)

 

Senior year my kids to college level chemistry at our community college.

 

My oldest applied to computer science programs and was accepted at Purdue, Virginia Tech, Worcester, and Miami University. He also earned a Navy ROTC scholarship as a stem major.

 

My next kid had been accepted to several liberal arts colleges including Georgetown, Boston College and University of Virginia.

 

Only two data points. I did make a point of using a secular choice for biology. I didn't want to use a book that stressed a young earth perspective or that dispute evolution, so some books were not going to work for us.

 

Fwiw, I really liked the Kolbe Academy science offerings. I may shift to using more of those for my youngest. Their biology syllabus was well done.

[Laura Corin]

Is getting into university the only goal though? Wouldn't one want the child to have a background that best prepared for courses as taught when s/he gets there?

[SparklyUnicorn]

Is getting into university the only goal though? Wouldn't one want the child to have a background that best prepared for courses as taught when s/he gets there?

 

Well, I think you know my views on religious science (which is a complete oxymoron), but I don't know that on the high school level this is a massive problem.  In the three bio textbooks I have (high school level) there is maybe one chapter on evolution, but they still don't get that deep into it.  So not a ton would be left out I don't think. 

[regentrude]

Serious question here, not intended to be a "jerk-like question".  Why is it so important for homeschoolers to construct course descriptions and reading lists is this is not looked at.  A friend of mine has a son who just got in a very competitive school, and she told me that textbooks were a major factor for him.  This school, however, is known for scrutinizing everything.

 

Some colleges do look. Some colleges appreciate any additional information they can receive about the homeschool. Admissions officials may be unfamiliar with homeschooling and may tend to err on the side of not accepting an applicant whose background they do not understand. You don't know.

 

So, I am submitting course descriptions in case anybody cares, even if not required - I am happy to show that my kids received a rigorous education.

Another purpose I see in course descriptions and a well designed documentation: I show that my homeschool is organized and I schooled with a plan. The mere fact that a homeschooler manages to compile a coherent systematic overview over the student's education speaks for itself, especially to people who are not well informed about homeschooling.

Edited February 24, 2017 by regentrude

[tmstranger]

Thanks for the responses.  Honestly, I have struggled with how to teach science for the whole 3 years we've been homeschooling. 

 

I'm a Christian and my kids are Christians.  My hubby is not.  So, we try to teach all viewpoints, but I certainly wouldn't want to ever put my kids at a disadvantage when it comes to college admissions, and that is why I asked.  (You can see from my signature that I use a lot of religious curriculum, but hubby is ok with that...science is a different animal)

 

I appreciate you sharing your experiences. 

 

 

[OneStepAtATime]

Thanks for the responses.  Honestly, I have struggled with how to teach science for the whole 3 years we've been homeschooling. 

 

I'm a Christian and my kids are Christians.  My hubby is not.  So, we try to teach all viewpoints, but I certainly wouldn't want to ever put my kids at a disadvantage when it comes to college admissions, and that is why I asked.  (You can see from my signature that I use a lot of religious curriculum, but hubby is ok with that...science is a different animal)

 

I appreciate you sharing your experiences. 

Well, just because something comes from a Christian perspective doesn't automatically rule it out as useless or a bad idea.  There are some great resources out there from Christian based publishers.  

 

There are two different things to think about here.  Material published by a Christian publisher that mentions God but still supports current main stream scientific theories is not going to be an issue since current main stream scientific theories are included and at least clearly presented.  The there are those resources that ignore main stream scientific theories or go out of their way to debunk those theories.  Depending on what the child's major and the school they intend to go to, THAT type of resource might become an issue, although many have used them successfully, even those that were science majors.  In other words, though, just because it comes from a Christian publisher does not mean the materials do not support current main stream scientific theories.

 

FWIW, I was raised in a Christian household but my parents absolutely believed in current scientific theories.  They did not see an issue with incorporating both.  YEC was not a thing, though, so that was never an issue.  I actually had never heard of YEC in particular until I started seeing that theory pop up on WTM.  

 

If you find yourself following a YEC viewpoint or something like it, that makes it harder to know what to use.  YEC is definitely not part of the current mainstream scientific theories.  Can you and your husband sit down and make a list of specific concerns each of you have, from both sides of this topic, review the materials you are considering, and come to a consensus together?

Edited February 24, 2017 by OneStepAtATime

[Laura Corin]

Well, I think you know my views on religious science (which is a complete oxymoron), but I don't know that on the high school level this is a massive problem. In the three bio textbooks I have (high school level) there is maybe one chapter on evolution, but they still don't get that deep into it. So not a ton would be left out I don't think.

It's not just biology though. Earth science or physical geography. Astronomy.

[SparklyUnicorn]

It's not just biology though. Earth science or physical geography. Astronomy.

 

Yeah I don't know if this is on purpose, but the typical public school texts and many other texts don't spend a lot of time talking about it.  I've had to go out of my way to add in specific books that talk about it.

[EndOfOrdinary]

I do not think the two have go be mutually exclusive, unless in the extreme. There are many Christians who will tell you they believe in a Creator AND evolution. If you step away from literal translation, the 7 days of Creation do line up with the general timeline listed as how the earth is thought to have evolved to what it is today. Many, many, many if the great minds of science have been religious and believed in a creator. It seems rather silly to polarize such a thing and say that you HAVE to be one or the other. You CAN be, but I don't think it is fair to tell kids they have to be.

[regentrude]

I do not think the two have go be mutually exclusive, unless in the extreme. There are many Christians who will tell you they believe in a Creator AND evolution. If you step away from literal translation, the 7 days of Creation do line up with the general timeline listed as how the earth is thought to have evolved to what it is today. Many, many, many if the great minds of science have been religious and believed in a creator. It seems rather silly to polarize such a thing and say that you HAVE to be one or the other. You CAN be, but I don't think it is fair to tell kids they have to be.

 

Sure, a scientist can be religious and believe in a creator. Many great scientists did indeed. But a real scientist will also be aware that the question of the existence of a creator who is unknowable by humans is outside of the realm of science and not a scientific question. Thus, any creator has no place in a science text. You can call it "nature study and theology", but science is based on the fundamental assumption that humans can know, and scientific questions are questions that can be examined through scientific methods.

 

You can definitely believe in creation as a scientist, but the question of creation has no business inserting itself into a science text because it is by its very nature not scientific. It is a theological question and belongs into that field.

Edited February 25, 2017 by regentrude

[EndOfOrdinary]

Sure, a scientist can be religious and believe in a creator. Many great scientists did indeed. But a real scientist will also be aware that the question of the existence of a creator who is unknowable by humans is outside of the realm of science and not a scientific question. Thus, any creator has no place in a science text. You can call it "nature study and theology", but science is based on the fundamental assumption that humans can know, and scientific questions are questions that can be examined through scientific methods.

 

You can definitely believe in creation as a scientist, but the question of creation has no business inserting itself into a science text because it is by its very nature not scientific. It is a theological question and belongs into that field.

The OP was saying she was at a bit of a cross roads due to her being a Christian and husband not. This made her unsure of what text to use. That implied conflict. I see no conflict in the situation. That was what I was commenting on. No one likes to think if science as faith, but it is literally putting together stacks of assumptions and testing them until something goes wrong. That is faith. Believing bleeding people worked was faith. Looking into a microscope and extrapolating was faith. Telling my child that everything around him is made up of particles he will more than likely never see held together like magnets, is just as ridiculous sounding as many creation stories. This does not make science invalid. You believe science, and that is amazing, and wonderful, and totally valid. However, it doesn't mean you are not using faith. It is a different kind.

 

My comment was just to say that the two do not need to be excluded from one another. They are the same beast.

[Crimson Wife]

It's not just biology though. Earth science or physical geography. Astronomy.

 

In the U.S., these are typically not taken in high school (usually it's biology, chemistry, physics, and perhaps 1-2 Advanced Placement level courses of the same).

[regentrude]

. No one likes to think if science as faith, but it is literally putting together stacks of assumptions and testing them until something goes wrong. That is faith. Believing bleeding people worked was faith. Looking into a microscope and extrapolating was faith. Telling my child that everything around him is made up of particles he will more than likely never see held together like magnets, is just as ridiculous sounding as many creation stories. This does not make science invalid. You believe science, and that is amazing, and wonderful, and totally valid. However, it doesn't mean you are not using faith. It is a different kind.

 

My comment was just to say that the two do not need to be excluded from one another. They are the same beast.

 

Believing that bleeding people worked is not science. Bleeding people is also not science. Systematically bleeding people in order to test whether the assumption that it works is correct would have been science.

It does not matter whether atoms sound like ridiculous stories. The crucial difference between atoms and creation is that there are ways to investigate, and the question of the existence of atoms can be answered by experiments. You do not have to believe in atoms - you can know whether they exist or not. You don't need faith to look through a microscope.

 

I do not "believe" in science. I only believe that humans can in principle find out and know things about nature. The basic premise of science is that things can be known, whereas the basic premise of religion is that God's ways are beyond human understanding. This places any question regarding God outside of the realm of science.

 

Religion and science are by their very nature NOT "the same beast". They deal with completely different things and approach their realms in different ways. Anything that requires belief without evidence and a logical explanation is not science.

Edited February 25, 2017 by regentrude

[Laura Corin]

In the U.S., these are typically not taken in high school (usually it's biology, chemistry, physics, and perhaps 1-2 Advanced Placement level courses of the same).

Ah. Earth science is taken as part of geography in the UK.

[SparklyUnicorn]

  How in the world can you look at how intricate a hand is or how well everything works together and not believe in a creator.

 

Whether or a not a doctor believes this says nothing about his ability to operate on your hand.  Which is the bigger thing I'd care about if I needed hand surgery.

 

Believing this is not a medical skill.  Doesn't mean someone who believes that can't be a great surgeon.  But they can be a great surgeon without believing it.

[Saddlemomma]

We are a conservative Christian family, but we are choosing secular science for high school. Our reason for this is that most religious homeschool science curricula is from the YEC perspective. That presents several problems for us:

• I don't have an issue with anyone who wants to hold a YEC position, but we don't happen to share it.
• Our family doesn't dismiss evolution out of hand.  We just don't believe in the Darwinian model that espouses transitions from one species into a new, different species (macro-evolution) or that it is a process devoid of design & direction.  
• In order to argue intelligently about the merits of our beliefs, while understanding the merits of the arguments for those differing beliefs, our DD needs to understand the foundation of the opposing views, which necessitates secular texts.

It's important for DD to learn everything she can about evolution as it's taught and understood today. To do this, we use secular college texts and integrate them with ID information that demonstrates how macro-evolution ideas fail and why. DD is learning to argue from a position of strength because she is learning and understanding both sides of the equation. When, and if, I list resources on DD's transcript, they'll illustrate we used relevant, current resources from both perspectives, not favoring one over the other.

 

I also continually remind DD that college is NOT a measure of being well-educated, intellectual, or intelligent.  If someone can read, process, and comprehend what they read, then they can learn just about anything and be well-educated without going college. It seems like current society measures a person's knowledge by how many years of college they attend.  This thinking and the practice of awarding employment of upper-level positions based upon the level of college attained is a disservice to our youth.  I've seen plenty of illiterate, ignorant people come out of college after spending 4-6 years getting a degree and still not being prepared for the job they supposedly trained for during those college years.  In my mind, it's an act of discrimination to pad college coffers.

[SparklyUnicorn]

My only point is if a book leaves out something important in the realm of science in the name of religion that could be problematic.  Is leaving out evolution or the age of the earth problematic?  If you want to be a scientist probably.  Otherwise, meh...whatever.  They barely cover it in most text books I've come across.  I've read probably 6 books on the topic and I still don't claim to understand all the details.  So no high school text is going to make anyone well versed in it.

 

I guess I'd want something that will not stunt my kid's future opportunities.  I don't actually think picking a text from a religious based publisher for high school will do that. Most of them seem to still cover almost all the same typical topics. 

 

 

[Laura Corin]

He prays with all of his patients before surgery.  

 

All his patients?

[SparklyUnicorn]

All his patients?

 

Yeah honestly I'd be finding another doctor.  This would be offensive to me.

 

I don't mind if he wants to pray on his own before surgery.  But I don't want to pray before surgery and to me that's highly personal.

[Dmmetler]

I've heard more to be careful about accredited online classes and DE, because those will be on the transcript, and if the person evaluating believes X school and people who choose X school don't learn evolution, that may work against the student in being accepted as a STEM major, even if you (or the school!) actually chose secular textbooks for Earth Science and Biology, or supplemented to make sure it was present.

 

It also works the other way. If kids who have a specific school on their transcripts are usually very mature and capable, it comes in handy. For example, I met a college professor recently, way removed from PA geographically, who recommended I check out PA homeschoolers for DD because he has never had a student who had their science background from PA Homeschoolers who struggled in his class.

Edited February 25, 2017 by dmmetler

[Crimson Wife]

Ah. Earth science is taken as part of geography in the UK.

 

I took World Geography in high school but it was mostly cultural geography with some mapwork thrown in. Definitely nothing that touched upon the age of the Earth.

 

[J-rap]

I think for most colleges it isn't a big deal, because generally you don't need to list the actual books used or if you do, you don't need to explain them beyond the title.  

 

That being said, I wouldn't assume that this was the case with every college.  But if your child has very rigid views about this, then maybe it's not a big deal that certain colleges wouldn't accept those textbooks.  She will then know it's not the right college for her, perhaps.

 

We're Christians too, though don't believe the Bible was meant to be a science book.  We always used secular science texts.  Science is pretty black and white, even though what we learn about it changes over time.  I don't consider it deceptive.  I think if we stick with true science it will eventually guide us to the truth.  

 

As a side note, I wouldn't mind if a surgeon prayed over my child before surgery, or recited a pagan chat.  If it's something that calmed him and gave him the confidence to do a good job, more power to him!  (I will still be praying my own Christian prayer, of course!   :))

[Laura Corin]

I took World Geography in high school but it was mostly cultural geography with some mapwork thrown in. Definitely nothing that touched upon the age of the Earth.

 

This is a revision/review site for the geography that is taken age 14 to 16 in England and Wales

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/geography/rock_landscapes/geological_time_rev1.shtml

Edited February 25, 2017 by Laura Corin

[regentrude]

 He's operated on every single preacher in our town, I think and most of the church members and/or their families.   

 

That seems to be a medically fragile church if every single preacher and most church families required surgery.  ;)

Edited February 25, 2017 by regentrude

[Roadrunner]

look at Novare Science. They are a religious publisher with solid high school materials. We are considering a class that uses those books for Chem and we are an atheist family. Textbooks are rigorous and very well done. I wouldn't touch Apologia.

I think there are no two perspectives on science. There is science and then there is religion. Teach science in a science class and religion in a religion class. I really don't understand this problem.

 

 

http://www.novarescienceandmath.com/extras/faq/#seven

This is from Novare Q&A

8. How will your biology books handle evolution?

 

Our mission is to provide premier science instruction methods and materials for Christian students grade 7-12th, to the glory of God. Excellence in Christian education cannot exist where passions and alarms have colored the study before it has even begun. A good education involves bringing students into the ongoing conversation of ideas, insisting on their mature engagement with them.

 

For this reason, Novare’s future biology texts (Life Science for middle school, and General Biology and Microbiology for high school) will include a complete presentation of evolutionary theory in a manner appropriate to the grade level of each text. Our texts will not cast aspersions or malign the intelligence or character of evolutionary theorists. Neither will they advocate in favor of the acceptance or rejection of evolution. They will present the current state of the scientific consensus as best it can be done at each level.

Edited February 25, 2017 by Roadrunner

[tmstranger]

look at Novare Science. They are a religious publisher with solid high school materials. We are considering a class that uses those books for Chem and we are an atheist family. Textbooks are rigorous and very well done. I wouldn't touch Apologia.

I think there are no two perspectives on science. There is science and then there is religion. Teach science in a science class and religion in a religion class. I really don't understand this problem.

 

 

http://www.novarescienceandmath.com/extras/faq/#seven

This is from Novare Q&A

8. How will your biology books handle evolution?

 

Our mission is to provide premier science instruction methods and materials for Christian students grade 7-12th, to the glory of God. Excellence in Christian education cannot exist where passions and alarms have colored the study before it has even begun. A good education involves bringing students into the ongoing conversation of ideas, insisting on their mature engagement with them.

 

For this reason, Novare’s future biology texts (Life Science for middle school, and General Biology and Microbiology for high school) will include a complete presentation of evolutionary theory in a manner appropriate to the grade level of each text. Our texts will not cast aspersions or malign the intelligence or character of evolutionary theorists. Neither will they advocate in favor of the acceptance or rejection of evolution. They will present the current state of the scientific consensus as best it can be done at each level.

 

 

I have been leaning heavily towards their physical science text for my son for next year (8th grade).  Overall, I've been impressed with what I've seen, and I emailed them with some questions and they were very responsive. 

[Roadrunner]

I have been leaning heavily towards their physical science text for my son for next year (8th grade). Overall, I've been impressed with what I've seen, and I emailed them with some questions and they were very responsive.

And just in case secular people are on the fence, they have some secular alternatives of some books.

 

https://www.centripetalpress.com

[Farrar]

My only point is if a book leaves out something important in the realm of science in the name of religion that could be problematic.  Is leaving out evolution or the age of the earth problematic?  If you want to be a scientist probably.  Otherwise, meh...whatever.  They barely cover it in most text books I've come across.  I've read probably 6 books on the topic and I still don't claim to understand all the details.  So no high school text is going to make anyone well versed in it.

 

I guess I'd want something that will not stunt my kid's future opportunities.  I don't actually think picking a text from a religious based publisher for high school will do that. Most of them seem to still cover almost all the same typical topics. 

 

I think you're dramatically underestimating the extent to which religion pervades most YEC materials. It's not "just" that a few topics are left out. The whole point is that the "biblical" perspective is integrated into the wording and information at every level.

[Peaceful Isle]

We are conservative christians. This year, my two daughters (7th and 9th grade) are using an online secular science curriculum. In k-6th, they used mostly christian curriculum. 

 

Next year my daughter will be using a secular Biology course. We have talked about it. She and I both agree that it is good to know all sides of science. I will also be having her listen to the Biology 101 dvds that are Christian. 

 

My personal and our family beliefs are young earth creationism. 

 

Just my thoughts this morning :)

 

 

Edited February 26, 2017 by Peacefulisle

[Liza Q]

tmstranger - I wanted to give my son a solid Biology class and also have him think about evolution/creation, YE/OE, etc. So we used DIVE Biology with a regular textbook - Holt McDougal Biology (Nowicki). The text was just-the-science and the lectures went into depth about creation, so he got a pretty thorough introduction. Since we're in NY, we have to list our curricula/texts for the Dept of Ed. So if some college wanted to look, they would see that he used the Holt book.

 

Fwiw, I am a fairly conservative Christian and my belief about creation lines up pretty well with saddlemomma's.