Jump to content

Menu

Is anyone using Real Science 4 Kids? Open to other suggestions too


Janeway
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, EKS said:

Do you remember anything about evolution at all?  My memory of it is that it is simply missing.  This is how a lot of resources get around the evolution issue--including textbooks intended for public schools.  The public school textbook version will simply sweep everything about evolution into a single chapter that can be skipped.  The problem is that evolution is the organizing concept of modern biology.  If you leave it out, it's just a collection of facts.  

Speaking of facts, it is a fact that the author is a signer of "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism."

Evolution is not mentioned at all.  I'm sorry if that wasn't clear way up thread.  I agree with you about biology, EKS.  I don't know anything about the author's intent and signing that document, but it doesn't matter to me.  Here is what matters to me:

This evolution-believing, old-earth-believing family loves the curriculum.  We have a lot of fun with it.  It's sending my kids into their (probable) scientific careers.  I really think it's a great curriculum.  The chemistry and physics sections are especially well done.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Quarter Note said:

This evolution-believing, old-earth-believing family loves the curriculum.  We have a lot of fun with it.  It's sending my kids into their (probable) scientific careers.  I really think it's a great curriculum.  The chemistry and physics sections are especially well done.

I'm glad you're enjoying it!

I couldn't stand it, but not because of the evolution thing.  I just thought it was deadly dull.  My background is in biochemistry, so it's not like I hate science or anything.  In fact, I didn't even know about any of the controversy we're discussing here until after we used it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, EKS said:

I'm glad you're enjoying it!

I couldn't stand it, but not because of the evolution thing.  I just thought it was deadly dull.  My background is in biochemistry, so it's not like I hate science or anything.  In fact, I didn't even know about any of the controversy we're discussing here until after we used it.

That's why there are so many curricula out there - what's good for one family may not be for another.  This world and universe we live in are fascinating.  I'm just glad for any and all kids who end up loving science, whether they choose a career in it or not.  🙂

Edited by Quarter Note
typo
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Janeway said:

Have you seen the speech yourself? If not, it might be just heresay. People do not usually go to the trouble of making huge curriculums with some nefarious intent. And if she attempted this, she failed miserably because there’s nothing in any of these books that points to intelligent design or young Earth.

I listened to it at the time it was shared here, so not heresy.   

I don't know that the idea was nefarious intent.  More that she had an agenda or perspective that she was not transparent about.    The curriculum is presented as secular when it's neutral at best.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, EKS said:

Here's a link to an old thread where the author of RS4K discussed her views: 

 

Thank you!  That looks like it also links to the other threads discussing her actual speech.  I was having trouble finding them.

 

Ack! Editing to say that it looks like those links don't work.   But there are snippets of the speech shared, unfortunately with links that are too old (probably earlier versions of this forum?).

Edited by Wheres Toto
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/2/2021 at 12:06 PM, EKS said:

Where did I say that?

In response to the question about her teaching intelligent design, you said that she teaches kids to question what they are taught. That came off like you were saying that being taught to question things meant teaching intelligent design. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Janeway said:

In response to the question about her teaching intelligent design, you said that she teaches kids to question what they are taught. That came off like you were saying that being taught to question things meant teaching intelligent design. 

No, I was saying that that appears to be the extent of what she is doing.  That and leaving evolution out of her biology materials.  My complaint about RS4K when it comes to all of this is that evolution is left out.  I have never claimed that she is teaching intelligent design.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Lovinglife123 said:

"Science" is forever changing- as far as what scientists believe to be fact.  The very definition of science "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment." leaves macroevolution and the origins of life out.  Macroevolution and the origins of life has never been observed or had successful experiments. 

These books are "science" in my humble opinion. 

Whether you believe in old earth or new earth.. macroevolution or not.. there is measure of faith needed for either one.  Neither were observed anytime recently, and neither one can be recreated through experiments, not one experiment- let alone over and over again.  Leaving all that out of a science textbook is fantastic.

We’ve definitely observed evolution.

Also, it’s a little presumptuous to define science to someone with a science background.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Lovinglife123 said:

Its a little presumptuous to think that just because you have a science background that you have the end all be all in anything science related.  I have never heard of Macroevolution being observed, which is why it is a theory, not a law.  

Well, there's a talking point for you. Pretty much all of science is theories. 

Being a scientist doesn't mean you know everything, but it does mean you know a lot more science than the average person. 

I think we all ought to listen to people with actual expertise whenever we can. EKS has more expertise in biology than I do, so I listen to her. I have more expertise in teaching math than she does, so she listens to me. Listening to people who have devoted time to studying subjects is a good way to save time and gain wisdom. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Lovinglife123 said:

That's all I am saying.  You can not observe the Big Bang Theory or Apes evolving into humans.  Its a theory, and in my opinion there isn't much evidence to back it up.  I did study science in college, biology to be exact, but I do not feel like I know everything.  There are still lots of holes in those particular theories, and calling a curriculum "not science" because it leaves it out, to me is a bit extreme.  I have a lot of experience with medical professionals, and multiple neurologists and neurosurgeons- none of those professionals whom I have met and spoken with can fully support Macroevolution based on their experience with the complexity of the human body. 

And does this curriculum go into microevolution? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Lovinglife123 said:

I would assume so, even Apologia touches on "microevolution".  Macroevolution and Big Bang Theory are really the only hang ups of creation/ intelligent design beliefs.  I don't think anyone debates microevolution (unless they misunderstand what that term means).

Hmmmm. I'd be interested to hear from people using this curriculum about that. 

I'm also totally not an expert, but what would be considered macro- as opposed to micro- evolution? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

I'm also totally not an expert, but what would be considered macro- as opposed to micro- evolution? 

Evolution at different scales: micro to macro (berkeley.edu)

From this article:

Microevolution is simply a change in gene frequency within a population. 

Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level. So instead of focusing on an individual beetle species, a macroevolutionary lens might require that we zoom out on the tree of life, to assess the diversity of the entire beetle clade and its position on the tree.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Lovinglife123 said:

Dogs for example.  Think of all the different KINDS of dogs, but they are still dogs.  No one has ever bred a dog and accidentally got a whole different species. 

So, I won't be able to cite details for you here, but I thought there was good evidence dogs evolved from wolves. 

In terms of "observing" macro-evolution -- what counts as "observing"? No one person will get to watch it happen. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

In terms of "observing" macro-evolution -- what counts as "observing"? No one person will get to watch it happen.

The textbooks cite goatsbeard genus as an example of speciation happening on a human timescale, Tragopogon miscellus.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Lovinglife123 said:

I would say that's not a good representation of macro evolution that many people have an issue with, I'm not even sure it IS macro evolution.

Here's a fun article:

https://evolutionnews.org/2017/06/no-your-dog-is-not-a-barking-exemplar-of-macroevolution/

This makes no sense. It makes it sound like there's a single thing that we call "fitness," and that's absurd. I don't know much about this source, but I can tell it's not mainstream science from just that one article. 

The reason dogs are more "fit" is because their environment is with humans, and for that you need different traits than you would in the wild. That's just... obvious. 

Edited by Not_a_Number
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Lovinglife123 said:

My dad likes to play mind games where he catches you in what you are saying and twists it around to be something its not.  That's what a lot of these debates end up like.

I genuinely never try to twist anything, although I also don't think that online debates convince people with any high frequency 😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Micro- and Macro-evolution are basically the same thing.  It's the difference between walking from NYC to Hoboken NJ or walking from NYC to San Diego California.  It's a difference in scale but the process is essentially the same.   When those micro changes accumulate to the extent that the changed organism is no longer able to breed with the original organism, you essentially have a new species.   (this is a very simple explanation, there is a whole lot more to it).  

Evolution doesn't address the origin of life, just how it has changed over time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...