Q re: Why do people use religious curricula

[coffeefreak]

I don't think one has to believe in evolution, but the argument "it's not true!" would inevitably lead to public ridicule and academic failure in any non-religious university lecture hall. Since we all want our children to succeed, it stands to reason that more people developing curriculum and/or publishing companies should be presenting both sides of this issue if they wish what is best for these young adults in the vast majority of university settings.

 

 

asta

 

You're right on this point asta. I wanted to point out that parents who think sending their kids to Christian Colleges is the answer are going to be shocked after the first semester. I went to a Christian college for my Freshman and Sophomore years and the Religion 101 classes I had to take were aimed at tearing down my faith and proving that I had been "lied to" by my parents.

 

The best thing we can do is to prepare our children. Train them up in the faith by teaching them the world view and what the Bible teaches. Beyond that, while it will break my heart if they deny Christ, I will know I did what the Lord asked of me, and I have no control over them, or desire to control them when they reach adulthood. That's why I choose Christian Curriculum for our homeschool. I love it when an author credits the Creator for His creation, I love it when we read about history and there are no gaps because of religion being pulled out (we teach about all religions - they are ALL part of history). I just love the Lord and I want to honor Him in everything we do. For our family, that means choosing curriculum that includes Him.

 

One last point when talking about Curriculum choices, I find it surprising when non-Christians don't want to use Christian curriculum. I know there's some that are "over the top" to non-Christians (like Rod and Staff), but I look at it like a non-Catholic sending their kids to Parochial school. You do what gets the job done. I knew plenty of kids who were sent to the local Catholic schools who weren't Catholic, but they were the best schools in town. A Beka and Bob Jones prove year after year that they are academically sound curriculum, with lots of options available to Homeschoolers. For secular homeschoolers that are homeschooling for academic reasons, I guess I would think they would over look or use the Biblical references as a way to explain why they are NOT followers of Christ. Like those of us who use the evolution readings to teach it as a theory we don't adhere to.

 

Respectfully,

Dorinda

[KidsHappen]

I'm curious, what religious math curriculum were your friends using?

 

I've seen one where they had proverbs or Bible verses printed on occasional pages, but never one like you described. Which program was it?

 

Thanks.

 

Mastering Mathematics is like this. It is an elementary level program. I am not a Christian but I have used this program because it is so good. It does lead to complications for non-Christians though. For some reason, my children must ask about the Bible stories when using this program. I am not opposed to teaching Bible stories and do so seperately but it slows down math incredibly when I have to stop and tell a Bible stories every few pages. We also use Singapore and when we come across problems that have unfamiliar names or items they of course ask what that is. I explain that it is a person's name or a fruit or what have you and we move on. But that explaination never suffices in Mastering Mathematics. I have no idea why. :confused: I personally think that in our case it is just a good excuse to take a break from math and hear a story instead. :glare:

[KidsHappen]

I do have a huge list of secular materials in every subject if you are interested.

[Impish]

I use whatever curriculum I think is best for my children, period. Frankly, the curriculum that seems to be superior tends to be Christian, so that's what we use. The fact that we are of the Christian faith makes it a bonus, but even before we were firmly on the path of Christianity (its only been in the last year or so that we've started truly walking this path, so I do know what its like to view it from the secular perspective) I was still using Christian based curric for Diva, because it was what worked for her, what engaged her, etc.

 

 

That aside, I'd like to point out that its the Theory of Evolution. Not Law of Evolution. Its still a Theory, still unproven. In fact, since one of the basic LAWS of science is that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, its a bit of a problem, the whole Big Bang theory, for scientists to come up with where the first bit came from. ;)

[chiguirre]

While the content isn't Bible stories, it does all teach character qualities that would be in line with biblical teaching. I remember dd reading one in the first grade reader last week about helping Mother with chores. Ds had ones in his second grade reader last year about telling the truth.

 

That's true, but the character qualities are also in line with Koranic teaching and the Eightfold Way. They're generic "how to be a good person" lessons, not specifically Christian at all.

[Laura K (NC)]

The world is working hard to separate these; Christians have to counter this. For every theory that suggests that God does not have a hand in history or science, we have to show our kids that the opposite is true. For every literature, art, or music class that tries to whitewash 1500 years of Christian influence, we have to correct our children by showing them how very important Christianity was in society. The current situation, where the separation of Church and State is distorted into a perverse segregation of Christianity into a ghetto, has to be stopped. We don't serve our children by compartmentalizing their religion, and the morality that is formed by a Judeo-Christian value system. Christianity, then, absolutely enters into every single subject except maybe math. But I'm using a Christian math textbook because it's better than any secular one I've found for the same level, and I won't apologize for it.

 

But meanwhile, Christians can't abandon a good education in favor of their faith. My oldest went to a (Baptist) private school for kindergarten, and the principal said flat-out that his priority was not education, but to promote Christian values in his students. I think he was wrong. A Christian parent's duty is to arm his students with the tools he needs to evangelize and support and educate his/her future family. To do this a child must have a firm foundation in both faith AND reason and to see how they can't be separated. A good Christian education involves understanding the views of one's adversaries, too; which is why Christian parents should fully expose their kids to contrasting worldviews, from the perspective of their opponents themselves, so they can better refute them.

 

If I believe Martin Luther was wrong, I have to read what he wrote, who influenced him, and who followed him in order to fully understand how his views differ from mine and why I believe he's wrong. I can't do that, though, until I have a FIRM foundation in my own faith. Since most homeschoolers here don't seem to educate their children all the way through high school, it's crucial, I think, to use Christian materials in the early years to give a contrasting view to the more popular secular one, and to show that the popular one isn't correct just because it's popular. And it is a dangerous error (for a Christian) to believe that Christian textbooks, because they are Christian, are not rational or reasonable, or somehow unique in their bias. All textbooks have a bias (except maybe math textbooks).

 

It's already been stated in this thread that some Christian textbooks are academically superior. I wish all Christian textbooks were academically superior. There's no reason why they shouldn't be.

[Laura K (NC)]

If they don't get a solid Christian worldview before they go off to college, they may lose what little they have when confronted with the strong secular bias of the liberal arts departments in secular universities.

[Kathy in MD]

........

 

That aside, I'd like to point out that its the Theory of Evolution. Not Law of Evolution. Its still a Theory, still unproven. In fact, since one of the basic LAWS of science is that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, its a bit of a problem, the whole Big Bang theory, for scientists to come up with where the first bit came from. ;)

 

ARRGGGGGG! The term theory in science has a different meaning than the term theory in general usage! A scientific theory is an idea for which a great deal of evidence has been collected over time and generally from several different angles and it can not be disproven to date. (That is not to say that it can't be disproven in the future) I was taught that a theory ranks just below a scientific law in how sure we are that it is a reliable fact.

 

In general usage, a theory often is closer to what a scientist would call a hypothesis. My theory that tall people marry short people (observation) in order to have average size children that can buy clothes off the rack is actually just a hypothesis. I've made an observation and come up with a reason for it, but I've never tested it. But in every day language I refer to it as a theory. However, I do admit that I think that even the scientists are becoming a tad sloppy in their communications using the term "theory". There are a lot of "theories" floating around that I don't think have stood the test of time.

 

BTW, other fields use common terms in ways very different than their common usage. For instance, in common usage "credit" is something good. A child could be said to be a credit to his parents or you could get a credit on your bank statement. But in accounting language, you don't want a credit. It's bad! It means you had to give money to someone else. That money the bank just credited (or gave back) to your account came from the money the bank was planning on keeping for it's self. That's over simplified, but I wanted to point out that it's not just the scientific field where common words have uncommon meanings.

 

ETA Getting off my soapbox now.

Edited April 6, 2009 by Kathy in MD

[Erica in PA]

Well, I have a couple of thought in response. It only makes sense to me that people like to teach in accordance with their worldview, whether they are a religious person or not. As a Christian, I believe that God is deeply involved with every aspect of life-- it's not just on Sundays, or theology class, or the "religious" part of my life, it's ALL of life. So of course that is also going to be a central part of our homeschooling also. When it's possible to use materials that reflect my worldview, I use them, like many others do (i.e. secular humanists' worldview is reflected by using religion-free materials, etc.) For me to homeschool in a way that doesn't acknowledge God would be as wrong as it would feel for an agnostic to use deeply religious materials. So yes, our homeschooling is very much centered around our Lord, Jesus Christ.

 

Now, does that I need to use Christian-oriented materials for every subject? No, and I don't think most Christian homeschoolers do so across the board. Subjects like math, reading, handwriting, art-- I don't always use Christian materials for subjects like that, though it is nice to incorporate Bible verses with the handwriting at times. But science, yes, absolutely I use materials that reflect our worldview. History, from our perspective is God's story, so if I use a secular resource I will have to do a lot of adding and tweaking, and sometimes I do so (i.e. Story of the World). Other times I prefer to have that perspective already present in the material (i.e. BJU history).

 

As far as my dc's educational future goes, I expect that their college professors might not like their viewpoints-- but as we go along, we will be teaching them more and more about why certain things are right, wrong, etc., teaching them to own their beliefs and be able to back them up, and our goal is for them to be able to express their perspective logically and articulately. Being a devout follower of Christ doesn't negate those things. Completely secular students could be equally unable to logically support their viewpoints-- and it seems to me that the fact that some might think those who've used religious materials are more likely to have that problem reveals a bias in their thinking.

 

I can understand being frustrated by not being able to find materials that suit your family. I would feel the same way. And sometimes I do feel that way, too. Sometimes I don't like the available Christian materials, or the available secular materials for a given subject, and it is frustrating, I agree.

 

 

I hope that might clear up a few things, though I know it doesn't address everything on this topic, by a long stretch.

[dhudson]

ARRGGGGGG! The term theory in science has a different meaning than the term theory in general usage! A scientific theory is an idea for which a great deal of evidence has been collected over time and generally from several different angles and it can not be disproven to date. (That is not to say that it can't be disproven in the future) I was taught that a theory ranks just below a scientific law in how sure we are that it is a reliable fact.

 

In general usage, a theory often is closer to what a scientist would call a hypothesis. My theory that tall people marry short people (observation) in order to have average size children that can buy clothes off the rack is actually just a hypothesis. I've made an observation and come up with a reason for it, but I've never tested it. But in every day language I refer to it as a theory. However, I do admit that I think that even the scientists are becoming a tad sloppy in their communications using the term "theory". There are a lot of "theories" floating around that I don't think have stood the test of time.

 

BTW, other fields use common terms in ways very different than their common usage. For instance, in common usage "credit" is something good. A child could be said to be a credit to his parents or you could get a credit on your bank statement. But in accounting language, you don't want a credit. It's bad! It means you had to give money to someone else. That money the bank just credited (or gave back) to your account came from the money the bank was planning on keeping for it's self. That's over simplified, but I wanted to point out that it's not just the scientific field where common words have uncommon meanings.

 

So are you debating the word usage of the Theory of Evolution or are you implying that Evolution is a fact that just can't be proven? I'm a little confused.

[Veritaserum]

Yes, I know this is something I have taken on (schooling my child), but it just seems so ludicrous that such a huge portion of the homeschool curriculum market is taken up with very religious materials....but why aren't more people teaching / more companies publishing both sides of issues, secular and religious?

 

 

 

I feel your pain. The good news is that more secular materials are available than have been in the past. We are religious, but we do not homeschool for religious reasons. We homeschool for academic reasons. Therefore, I look for programs and materials that are academic, rather than religious.

 

Also, we are not fundamentalist Christians so many religious-based programs would simply not work since I'd have to edit/work around doctrine we don't believe in. I'm perfectly ok with evolution and still believe God is the Creator. I think evolution is one of the tools he used. I don't hold a legalistic, literal interpretation of the Bible, either. Many of the religious-based programs appear to be legalistic or extreme in nature....

[Jenny in Florida]

One last point when talking about Curriculum choices, I find it surprising when non-Christians don't want to use Christian curriculum. I know there's some that are "over the top" to non-Christians (like Rod and Staff), but I look at it like a non-Catholic sending their kids to Parochial school. You do what gets the job done. I knew plenty of kids who were sent to the local Catholic schools who weren't Catholic, but they were the best schools in town. A Beka and Bob Jones prove year after year that they are academically sound curriculum, with lots of options available to Homeschoolers. For secular homeschoolers that are homeschooling for academic reasons, I guess I would think they would over look or use the Biblical references as a way to explain why they are NOT followers of Christ. Like those of us who use the evolution readings to teach it as a theory we don't adhere to.

 

That approach is workable with some curricula, and we as secular homeschoolers do use some materials from publishers with a religious outlook. However, some curricula are so focused on teaching religious concepts that it gets in the way of the subject. And I would not feel comfortable using a curriculum from a religious publisher for certain subjects (science, mostly), because the anti-evolution bent gets in the way.

[Kate CA]

I can only speak from my own experience, but I use a mix of curricula from various worldviews. I look for texts that are accurate and topically sound and work well with my childrens' learning styles. I will say that I have ruled out many texts that have an "agenda" since I do not consider them accurate in their teaching. This includes anything from an apparently revisionist perspective or anything with a high JPM (JPM = "Jesuses Per Minute" - if I think someone was simply looking to increase the number of times they mention God, I am suspicious that they didn't pay much attention to topical detail).

 

That said, I don't completely agree with your statement that the "it's not true" in regards to evolution doesn't hold up in the secular university science class. That statement unsupported is frowned upon... and should be. However, the statement, "I'm not sure the theory of macro evolution is supported by the current scientific evidence" and backed up with accurate scientific observations and sound logical argument is respected (at least in formal debate - they may still not agree with you ). That student could even be granted a highly coveted position in a lab researching evolutionary genetics and go on to do her thesis in the area and do well. :001_smile: A good science education is rooted firmly in the scientific method, developing good observational skills, analysis, and theory development, and the presentation of a variety of scientific interpretations of the evidence while showing respect for the the minds and opinions of the holders of those theories... keeping your students focused on whether or not various theories were developed using sound scientific practice then arguing the merits of the theories and encouraging them to develop their own analyses of the theories. Science education, imo, would be greatly helped if more teachers followed the trivium when teaching... observation/ memorization first (no need for lots of whys), then explore possible whys, then develop personal theories and analyze other theories based on that perspective. (I'll get off my soapbox now.)

 

This is a great post! When is your curriculum going to be ready? I am looking right now for next year. I would love to know more about it.

[Kathy in MD]

......One last point when talking about Curriculum choices, I find it surprising when non-Christians don't want to use Christian curriculum. I know there's some that are "over the top" to non-Christians (like Rod and Staff), ........

Respectfully,

Dorinda

 

Even as a Christian, I find some Christian material as "over the top". I find it as being over the top not because it discusses religion (though I do like the phrase JPM - Jesus per minute- of another poster) but because it overly pushes dogma I disagree with or even pushes what I consider poor examples of Christianity. For example, a picture book on Luther was so filled with hatred for the Catholics that I couldn't read it to my ds. Now many things that upset Catholics go right over my head, but this was so blatent that even a Protestant like me couldn't miss it. There are other Christian materials that, though not so outrageous, but have enough of a reputation that I don't even bother to look at them.

 

That's not to say I don't use Christian materials. I've used a lot. But I am particular in the ones I use and I generally want to see them before I buy them.

[Jumping In Puddles]

I feel your pain. The good news is that more secular materials are available than have been in the past. We are religious, but we do not homeschool for religious reasons. We homeschool for academic reasons. Therefore, I look for programs and materials that are academic, rather than religious.

 

Also, we are not fundamentalist Christians so many religious-based programs would simply not work since I'd have to edit/work around doctrine we don't believe in. I'm perfectly ok with evolution and still believe God is the Creator. I think evolution is one of the tools he used. I don't hold a legalistic, literal interpretation of the Bible, either. Many of the religious-based programs appear to be legalistic or extreme in nature....

 

:iagree: I feel exactly the same way. I would use a non-science Christian curriculum though if it was the best available academically. I am not offended by any Christian materials (I am a Christian :) ) but I do homeschool for academic reasons.

 

 

 

That approach is workable with some curricula, and we as secular homeschoolers do use some materials from publishers with a religious outlook. However, some curricula are so focused on teaching religious concepts that it gets in the way of the subject. And I would not feel comfortable using a curriculum from a religious publisher for certain subjects (science, mostly), because the anti-evolution bent gets in the way.

 

:iagree:

[mamakven]

What a great question! and i'm sorry that you might not even notice my response due to the HUGE amount of replies, mine might even mirror others, but i'll post anyway :tongue_smilie:

 

I personally am not into the "religious" curriculum that has like a bible verse at the bottom of each math page that you'd probably ignore anyway, and the like, however, as a Christian, i believe that God has called me to raise my children and teach them BIBLICAL truth, which I believe to form the basis for all knowledge.

 

for example, while much of our curricula is secular, spelling, phonics, math, etc. When it comes to history and science its is critical to me that our children are well versed in a Biblical world view.

 

You see, one of the BIGGEST problems in schools, imo, is how they step by step discredit the Bible and substitute their own secular religion's views in its stead. What that effectively does is teach children that the Bible is absolutely not true. Why? because the genetics are NOT true, who needs a man and a woman? a MAN and a MAN can have a family! the Bible's Geology is false, the world isn't 6,000 appx. years its billions and billions of years old. The Bible's Astronomy isn't true, there was a big BANG that created the whole world out of nothing... And this is all just science topics, and there are many more. how about philosophy, ethics, history, etc. These are all critical issues that i don't want my children learning from a secular humanist worldview.

 

So perhaps that answers your question?

Rebecca

[Tami]

I haven't read the other posts, but I'm not sure I "get" your question. It seems rather obvious to me that many religious parents would prefer a religious curriculum. Wouldn't it seem strange for me to ask, "Why do parents use a secular curriculum?" There seems to be a tad of judgement to a question like that.

 

I'm not sure that you can "get" it (religious education), if you are on a secular path, so excuse this answer if it sound nonsensical. When I was an atheist, religion was merely philosophy and worldview, and much of it seemed like nonsense. It is kind of like somebody trying to explain radio waves if you've never heard or seen a radio - absurd! Anyway, Christian education is so much more than theology, philosophy, or a set of do's and don'ts. It's about a relationship with Christ, and how all academic disciplines relate to God.

 

If you made a mind map showing 5 circles within a circle, you get the idea. Put "God" in the center circle, and the academic subjects in the outer circles. There is no artificial separation between the created and the Creator. All subjects are simply a way to know God better, and to know His attributes (order, reason, love, linguistics, artistry, etc). Theology and doctrine are small potatoes, but I know God better through a thorough study of science, math, logic, art, and literature. The fingerprint of God is left on every man and woman, and consequently, God can be more fully understood through a study of the Humanities. That is how I see it, as a born-again Christian.

 

Clear as mud?

[momof165]

I homeschool for academic reasons - not for Christian reasons. I believe in evolution and I teach evolution. I buy lots of my material overseas - but that is my personal choice. We as hs parents should use what we think is best for our children regardless of what others might or might not think. Christian, secular, pagan, astheists homeschoolers ...... we are all in the same boat. Wanting the BEST for our children. What does not work for me can be a lifesaver for someone else. That's why I love to homeschool - the freedom to choose what fits best for our family. In our case secular homeschool material, for other families Christian material.

 

Sonja

[Kathy in MD]

So are you debating the word usage of the Theory of Evolution or are you implying that Evolution is a fact that just can't be proven? I'm a little confused.

 

Both.

 

When people give defend their anti-evolution stance by stating, "It's just a theory!", I get the feeling that they are confusing the term "theory" with "hypothesis", which is an idea that needs to be tested. I get the feeling they just aren't aware of the amount of evidence that is required to give an idea the status of "the Theory of.........". And, yes, there are other theories out there.

 

As far as the Theory of Evolution is concerned, in my semi-educated opinion, I don't believe the Theory of Evolution will ever be "proven" without a time machine. And I think?? that the possibility of a time machine is ruled out by the Theory of Relativity. So I believe that evolution will always be a theory, at least for several thousand years. But it is possible new discoveries will be able to disprove it. One piece piece of evidence that would throw a major spanner in the works would be a verified discovery of mammalian skeletons in undisturbed pre-cambrian rock.

 

Now the details of how evolution works are under debate. Darwin thought evolution worked gradually, while Stephen Jay Gould supported punctuated evolution. So I believe that the details of the Theory of Evolution will be revised and modified with new discoveries, but I don't believe we will find scientific evidence to throw it out entirely.

 

Is my post still as clear as mud?

[dhudson]

I do understand the difference between a hypothesis and a scientific theory but since it can't be either proved or disproved it can not be taken as fact either. I think that many take Evolution as fact or a Law which it isn't. Whether or not you believe in Evolution, it still can not be credited as truth since it can not be proved or disproved which still puts back to worldview. How you view the world will still color on which side you fall on the evolutionary debate.

 

This ties in nicely with the OP's original question as to why we pick what curriculum we do, worldview. My Biblical Worldview colors what curriculum I choose, naturally ones that agree with my view but still provides the strong academics that we require in our school. The Secular Humanist Worldview will obviously not choose the same the curriculum that I do and rightly so. Isn't it great that we have the freedom to disagree and educate our children in the way we believe is the right way to go?

[Elaine]

I have to say that first, I really don't understand what this has to do with math problems that say "Brother John had four Bibles and Sister Ann had three. How many did they have together?" What sorts of deep theological issues are imbedded in a math problem like this?

 

Second, you say you have a genuine query, yet then you continue to stress how others using religious curricula makes you antsy. It sounds more like you are challenging those who do rather than asking why they do.

 

Third, why do you get antsy? I personally couldn't care less what curricula you choose to teach YOUR children. Why would you care what I use to teach mine, and why are you concerned about how other people's children handle secular college?

 

 

 

Since I just got un-banned :D I am just going to agree with Dawn. She said, what I wanted to say, a lot nicer.

[Tutor]

This is a great post! When is your curriculum going to be ready? I am looking right now for next year. I would love to know more about it.

 

Thanks for asking, Kate. :001_smile:

 

I have been told by the publisher that they are aiming to have it available by July (book 1 only; book 2 should be ready by Spring 2010... although I just checked the website and don't see either listed under "Coming in 2009" or "In Production", hmmm....). I am in the process of scrambling to get (what I hope are) the final edits done by the end of this month so that the designers can finally nail-down the necessary illustrations and work on finalizing the layout. Book One focuses on the kingdom Animalia; Book Two focuses on Plantae. They have a naturalist/ discovery perspective and integrate with Latin and Greek and include Literature suggestions for each chapter. Last I heard, the designers were planning on giving the student books the feel of the DK Eyewitness books. We have only discussed casually books 3-5 (in which I plan to cover Earth Science, Chemistry/ Physics, and Human Anatomy/ Intro. to Microbiology, respectively). If the first one does well, I guess we'll talk about the last 3 more seriously :D ... although I have started roughing out book 3 already (power of positive thinking and all that).

 

Again, thanks for asking. I'll let you know more when I know more.

Edited April 6, 2009 by Tutor

[Greta]

I'm not debating evolution versus creation, because experience has shown me that it's very difficult for me to remain cool and calm in those debates. :) My B.S. is in Zoology, so it's something I'm very passionate about.

 

But, I did want to *attempt* to clarify some terms, and point out a couple of things, just for the sake of both "sides" understanding what the other one is talking about.

 

First of all, I've noticed here and other places that many creationists seem to use Big Bang Theory and Evolutionary Theory almost interchangeably, like they're different parts of the same theory or something. They are not. One is a theory of physics and cosmology, the other of biology. They are non-overlapping: the validity of one is not dependent upon the validity of the other.

 

Secondly, there is evolution, which is a fact, and then there is Evolution, which is a theory. This is *part* of the reason that you may hear people speak of it as if it were a fact. Biological evolution simply means a change in gene frequency in a population over time. This is a directly observable, measurable, quantifiable fact. Evolutionary Theory, in a nutshell, says that biological evolution can account for the biodiversity of life on Earth. This part is the theory. But as with many other scientific theories, such as Atomic Theory, once you have sufficient supporting evidence, it generally gets accepted as truth, even though it is not fact. So that's the second reason you will hear scientists speak of it as if it is simply a given.

 

I hope that made things clearer, and not more muddled! :D

[Kathy in MD]

......Secondly, there is evolution, which is a fact, and then there is Evolution, which is a theory. This is *part* of the reason that you may hear people speak of it as if it were a fact. Biological evolution simply means a change in gene frequency in a population over time. This is a directly observable, measurable, quantifiable fact. Evolutionary Theory, in a nutshell, says that biological evolution can account for the biodiversity of life on Earth. This part is the theory. But as with many other scientific theories, such as Atomic Theory, once you have sufficient supporting evidence, it generally gets accepted as truth, even though it is not fact. So that's the second reason you will hear scientists speak of it as if it is simply a given.

 

I hope that made things clearer, and not more muddled! :D

 

 

Thanks for straightening up my, as usual, muddled explanation.

[Greta]

Thanks for straightening up my, as usual, muddled explanation.

 

No, your explanation wasn't muddled at all! Just couldn't help myself I guess. I have to jump in. :001_smile:

[mamakven]

If you made a mind map showing 5 circles within a circle, you get the idea. Put "God" in the center circle, and the academic subjects in the outer circles. There is no artificial separation between the created and the Creator. All subjects are simply a way to know God better, and to know His attributes (order, reason, love, linguistics, artistry, etc). Theology and doctrine are small potatoes, but I know God better through a thorough study of science, math, logic, art, and literature. The fingerprint of God is left on every man and woman, and consequently, God can be more fully understood through a study of the Humanities. That is how I see it, as a born-again Christian.

 

Clear as mud?

 

That is an AWESOME description!

[SherryTX]

I appreciate you talking about this issue. I have run into this phrase a lot lately. (And in a discussion of software development models, of all things!)

 

When you hear it so much, it is easy to pick it up and lose sight of the seriousness of the original event. Sort of like using "Soup Nazi" and not really thinking of the Holocaust.

 

Anyway, this is a phrase I've been trying to watch in my own language, so thanks for the reminder.

 

Okay - sorry, not trying to be anal retentive here -but it should be "drink the Flavor-Aid" not "cool-aid" or Kool-Aid". The fools in Jonestown drank poisoned Flavor-Aid. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonestown...

 

But back to the subject - I stay away from most religious curricula for the same reasons that some have mentioned. However, if I found one that just mentioned things here and there, but were really in line with what I wanted to teach my daughter, I would buy it.

 

Supply and demand - as others had said. More religious parents wanted something more structured, and a lot of the secular parents for many years (not all of course) were more into the unschooling. It makes sense to me there are far more curricula on the market that have Christian content/influence/reference whatever.

 

Regarding evolution as a theory - there is proof of evolution - the theory point lies in the specific details. So evolution is not theory - but scientists are still learning about the process as a whole. THAT is the only area, technically, where one could use the word "theory". In fact, THAT should even be acceptable(that evolution is FACT, but we are still learning about the process) to those that support "intelligent design".

Edited April 6, 2009 by SherryTX
Edited to add point

[LisaNY]

 

That said, I am definitely someone who teaches my children evolution because I believe the record is strong for evolution, and while I have used some religious materials, I understand your frustration what when you want to find a decent biology book that meets your needs, it can be irritating to find some that aren't filled with religious references that are contrary to your own view. I agree with you that a solid science education would need to include a basic familiarity with the evidence for evolution, even if one does not believe that evidence is convincing.

 

Really? I always found that there were lots of secular science texts...

Pearson, Mcdougall-Littell, Holt, Amsco, Prentice-Hall, Singapore, Glencoe, to name a few. Are these not considered viable secular texts?

[Carrie12345]

Really? I always found that there were lots of secular science texts...

Pearson, Mcdougall-Littell, Holt, Amsco, Prentice-Hall, Singapore, Glencoe, to name a few. Are these not considered viable secular texts?

 

This is where we're headed, but my impression is that the TMs are written toward classroom use, no? We'll work around that in our house, but I wouldn't consider them *homeschool curricula.

[SherryTX]

This is where we're headed, but my impression is that the TMs are written toward classroom use, no? We'll work around that in our house, but I wouldn't consider them *homeschool curricula.

 

I find Singapore math very easy to use in a hs setting. There is a Home Educator's instruction book you can get. Great math program.

[Greta]

This is where we're headed, but my impression is that the TMs are written toward classroom use, no? We'll work around that in our house, but I wouldn't consider them *homeschool curricula.

 

If you have younger ones, you might also look at Building Foundations of Scientific Understanding. It was written to be usable by both classrooms and homeschoolers. It is entirely secular, but doesn't teach anything about origins. I *think* there may be information about evolution in the volume that Dr. Nebel is writing for older children, but don't quote me on that.

[KidsHappen]

Since I just got un-banned :D I am just going to agree with Dawn. She said, what I wanted to say, a lot nicer.

 

I was just wondering where you were today. I was going to check my friends list. Glad your back and mind your avatar (which I must say I really like.) :)

[Kathy in MD]

If you have younger ones, you might also look at Building Foundations of Scientific Understanding. It was written to be usable by both classrooms and homeschoolers. It is entirely secular, but doesn't teach anything about origins. I *think* there may be information about evolution in the volume that Dr. Nebel is writing for older children, but don't quote me on that.

 

Is Dr. Nebel writing a program for Jr high/HS??????? I loved his first book and would love to see a program for a non-science major HS student from him.

[Carrie12345]

If you have younger ones, you might also look at Building Foundations of Scientific Understanding. It was written to be usable by both classrooms and homeschoolers. It is entirely secular, but doesn't teach anything about origins. I *think* there may be information about evolution in the volume that Dr. Nebel is writing for older children, but don't quote me on that.

 

I actually do have that one for my younger kids! :D

We haven't done much with it yet (we've been slacking), but I've been thumbing through it for months and I really like it.

[OnTheBrink]

Okay - sorry, not trying to be anal retentive here -but it should be "drink the Flavor-Aid" not "cool-aid" or Kool-Aid". The fools in Jonestown drank poisoned Flavor-Aid. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonestown...

 

 

 

Gosh, that changes everything!

[LisaNY]

This is where we're headed, but my impression is that the TMs are written toward classroom use, no? We'll work around that in our house, but I wouldn't consider them *homeschool curricula.

 

I have the Holt Biology text, and I think it would be fine for home use. I planned to use it w/my older dd, but we ended up sending her to school.

 

Actually, Abeka and BJU texts were designed for use in private Christian schools, no?

[Danestress]

Gosh, that changes everything!

 

Yes, it does. But it still leaves me wondering what the innocent murdered children drank. Or were the 294 children included in the figure as "fools."

 

I realize you guys are joking, but it's just so hard for me to see it as a joke. Go ahead, call me PC, I can take it:)

[Greta]

Is Dr. Nebel writing a program for Jr high/HS??????? I loved his first book and would love to see a program for a non-science major HS student from him.

 

Well I don't know about high school. But on his yahoo group, he recently said:

 

I will add for general information that I am still aiming and on

track to have the second volume of BFSU, which will go up to grade 8

I think, out by this time next year.

[Kathy in MD]

Well I don't know about high school. But on his yahoo group, he recently said:

 

I will add for general information that I am still aiming and on

track to have the second volume of BFSU, which will go up to grade 8

I think, out by this time next year.

 

Oh, bummer! My ds is in 8th grade this year. but I did see a college text on environmental science if I can convince him to take that as a one of his science courses.

[LUV2EDU]

Okay - sorry, not trying to be anal retentive here -but it should be "drink the Flavor-Aid" not "cool-aid" or Kool-Aid". The fools in Jonestown drank poisoned Flavor-Aid. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonestown...

 

But back to the subject - I stay away from most religious curricula for the same reasons that some have mentioned. However, if I found one that just mentioned things here and there, but were really in line with what I wanted to teach my daughter, I would buy it.

 

Supply and demand - as others had said. More religious parents wanted something more structured, and a lot of the secular parents for many years (not all of course) were more into the unschooling. It makes sense to me there are far more curricula on the market that have Christian content/influence/reference whatever.

 

Regarding evolution as a theory - there is proof of evolution - the theory point lies in the specific details. So evolution is not theory - but scientists are still learning about the process as a whole. THAT is the only area, technically, where one could use the word "theory". In fact, THAT should even be acceptable(that evolution is FACT, but we are still learning about the process) to those that support "intelligent design".

 

For those who don't know...

 

Quote:

 

Flavor Aid is a non-carbonated soft drink beverage made by Jel Sert in West Chicago, Illinois, introduced in 1929. It is sold throughout the United States as a unsweetened powdered concentrate drink mix, similar to Kool-Aid drink mix.

 

Jonestown suicide

 

Main article: Jonestown

Around 914 followers of Jim Jones committed suicide or were murdered by drinking or allegedly being forced to drink cyanide-laced grape Flavor Aid in 1978.[2] Erroneous references to the mass suicide, in combination with existing references to The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test of the Merry Pranksters, gave rise to the saying "Don't drink the Kool-Aid" as a reference to those who blindly follow an authority even if it leads to serious harm or death. A camera from inside the compound shows a large chest being opened showing boxes of both drinks.[3] There is also testimony from criminal investigators at the Jonestown inquest stating that there were "cool aid" (sic) packets there.[4] It is unknown whether these are a reference to the Kool-aid brand packets from the trunk, or simply a generic use of the more popular brand for the product.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flavor_Aid

Edited April 7, 2009 by LUV2EDU

[kalanamak]

 

I've seen one where they had proverbs or Bible verses printed on occasional pages, but never one like you described. Which program was it?

 

Thanks.

 

I found one that had, in the intro, a claim that only a Christian can fully understand math because only a Christian could see how it fit into God's plan. I shut the book and moved on and don't remember the name, and while that might be a selling point for some, it is a turn-off to others.

 

One of the other books, ??a workbook for MUS?? had the assumption the child would know the numbers on the commandments. Not that big a deal, but not the moment I would want to introduce kiddo to the commandments.

 

As to the OP "motive" for asking, I think that to a secular humanist who is generally curious about the world, feeding a child a constant message is a little alarming. It is sort of a part of being a SH. I would bet there is a concern that the child would get fed up with it and rebel (and indeed I have seen this, and in my "going into the medical field so I went to AA meetings to see what being an alcoholic is like" days, I heard over and over and over that people's lives didn't fit their parent's teaching on religion, and they abandoned ALL religion for a long time and felt very bereft and lost, and then often went to onto a different religion after they were sober and in AA).

 

Another concern is it is over-molding. I want my child to be honest, decent, and true. I'd like smart, curious, creative and a blessing in his parent's old age, as well :). But, if he is a scientist or a musician, if he is a non-believer, or a Catholic, or a Hindu, etc. is, to me, NOT my business. A child is but a visitor in the house.

 

Same with political parties. The closest thing my folks had to religion was "as much as possible, go with nature". Right after that was "religion and politics are extremely personal things, and not to be foisted on others". Having every homeschool resource mention religion, even if I believed it, would seem like foisting, to me. Just by example (no textbooks), I have those same beliefs as my folks!

 

However, I only say this so that the humanist viewpoint might be illuminated a bit. I would never be so concerned about it as to be an OP in a topic such as this, because my job is to have my house in order, not yours (and the answer seems kinda obvious to me anyway).

 

(insert two fingered peace sign here).

[Janet in WA]

 

If they don't get a solid Christian worldview before they go off to college, they may lose what little they have when confronted with the strong secular bias of the liberal arts departments in secular universities.

Absolutely true. I've watched my own sons' Christian foundations be eroded by the secular college environment. I'm glad I made that foundation as solid as possible before sending them into that world.

[Elaine]

I was just wondering where you were today. I was going to check my friends list. Glad your back and mind your avatar (which I must say I really like.) :)

 

I would never de-friend you!:001_smile:

 

Thanks for thinking of me.

[OnTheBrink]

Yes, it does. But it still leaves me wondering what the innocent murdered children drank. Or were the 294 children included in the figure as "fools."

 

I realize you guys are joking, but it's just so hard for me to see it as a joke. Go ahead, call me PC, I can take it:)

 

 

I wasn't joking. I was being sarcastic.

 

It really doesn't matter if it was Kook-Aid , Flavor-Aid or Wylers , the sentiment is the same: Religious people are brainwashed fools, thus, they all "drink the (non carbonated beverage of your choice)-Aid."

[mom4him]

I have been following this thread off and on and finally had to way in.

I have had to come to the realization that each families reasons and even commitment for/to homeschooling is as individual as we are as families.

Personally, I look for material that brings in and teaches a strong relationship with our Heavenly Father. I want my children submersed in who He is and how they fit into the plan. I do teach Creationism. I also have taught evolution as to what it is and what the basic belief is. I feel that they need to know what the different theories are.

I do believe that my children will be able to stand as adults for that the Bibles says because they have been given all theories.

One other thing is my children are not 'religiously homeschooled nor homeschooled with religion. They are homeschooled with a focus on relationship with their Heavenly Father and family. There is a big difference.

[mcconnellboys]

I have felt frustrated by lots of curriculum that dubs itself as "religious", seemingly in order just to cater to a certain market. It makes me feel sort of like watching the proverbial money changers in the Temple forecourt, if you know what I mean?

 

Now, folks like Rod and Staff, who clearly have a separate lifestyle and who have printed their materials for their own schools for years don't bother me nearly so much as a curriculum that seems to just want to cater to a market niche.

 

I don't think that I need to attempt to glorify God through a math set or a grammar exercise or particular spelling words, etc. That said, I've always used Abeka grammar because it's very sound programming and doesn't drive me nuts with tons of religious references thrown in on every single page.

 

I'm a Christian. I certainly don't mind seeing religious references in a book. I just don't think that completing worksheets that include references to Jesus will necessarily make my child more of a Christian or even a better person. And I don't feel the need to tell others that I use XYZ Christian Curriculum in order to feel special or part of some privileged, Christian set. Likewise, I don't condone nor join "Christian-only (which is really code for Protestant preferential) Coops" in my area. I just can't. It's not right. It's not kind. It's not fair. And, it's not what Jesus would do, in my opinion. Not that I'm any kind of moral compass, LOL, but I have a few principles I try to stick to....

 

All in all, I believe that the Bible is the best evidence of what it says. Studying the Protestant Bible, and other Holy texts of other religions; studying world religions; studying our own faith, seem to me to be the best ways to teach theology to my child. Random verses and references on worksheets just don't do it for me.....

 

Now, some programming, especially for older children, deals much more in-depth with topics of religion as they relate to current events, politics, etc. I'm thinking of history and lit programming, for instance. I can see conservative, Christian parents choosing to use such materials to help reinforce their world-view. I still prefer to read widely from opposing viewpoints, but that's not everyone's preference. The sorts of things I'm talking about are grammar, spelling, math and such, where I think random references are quite pointless.

[KidsHappen]

I would never de-friend you!:001_smile:

 

Thanks for thinking of me.

 

Oh, I didn't think that, though I am glad to hear it. If you look at your friends list it will tell you if someone is currently banned. For some strange reason my friends list is a veritable who's who of banned people. Obviously there was a fracus that I missed recently. :001_huh:

 

Anyhow, if I haven't heard from someone in awhile, I will check my friends list to see if they are currently banned and if not I will check their posts to see if they just haven't posted in awhile. Some people on my friends list just disappeared never to be heard from again. :(

[Tree House Academy]

As a Christian, I actually struggle with teaching a religious curriculum. Not so much so that I won't do it (we are using HOD this fall with both kids), but I definitely tend to modify. I was looking at CLE math (which we are considering switching to for the fall) and by goodness if it didn't start out with something like "God made everything in a certain order...and that is why numbers are in a certain order." I mean...come on! Numbers are in a certain order because a mathematician figured it best - not because that is what God did! And I am a Christian, but I have to say...sometimes too much is...well...too much.

[secular_mom]

I am stunned by the number of people who don't teach evolution based science, literature other than biblical, etc. I don't think one has to drink the kool-aid (eg: many people don't believe in evolution - fine - but the argument "it's not true!" doesn't hold water in a university science lecture), but why aren't more people teaching / more companies publishing both sides of issues, secular and religious?

 

I'm rambling, I don't know if this was at all clear. Hopefully, someone will understand what I'm asking.

 

 

asta

 

First, I'll admit I haven't read ALL of the replies. Second, I have seen several posts that seem to imply that Asta is saying that all religious people are drinking poisoned Kool-aid. :confused: Am I just totally off base?

See, when *I* read this, I heard her saying that religious people don't have to drink the "evolution kool-aid" and buy into a theory they don't believe in, but that it needs to be taught to their children.

[Hillary in KS]

First, I'll admit I haven't read ALL of the replies. Second, I have seen several posts that seem to imply that Asta is saying that all religious people are drinking poisoned Kool-aid. :confused: Am I just totally off base?

See, when *I* read this, I heard her saying that religious people don't have to drink the "evolution kool-aid" and buy into a theory they don't believe in, but that it needs to be taught to their children.

 

I might be misinterpreting this, but I think it's two-fold:

 

1. Some are upset at the OP's cavalier reference to the deaths of Jim Jones' followers.

 

2. Others wonder about the sincerity of the OP's original question, given the kool-aid comment and her later comment about how curriculum that preaches a certain religion makes her antsy.