Apologia Science?

[macimom]

For those who have used it, what are your impressions? I know it's a Christian curriculum, which I'm fine with, as long as the facts are presented in a straightforward way. From what I've seen of it so far, I like it but wanted to hear from someone who has used it.

Thank you so much!!!!
Kim

[elizawill]

we have exploring creation with astronomy. we haven't used it yet, but i plan too. i'm not sure what you mean by straight forward? imho, it is very easy to understand and thorough though, if that's what you're asking. it is definitely christian and based on creation, so if that is an issue, you will not like it at all. i can't answer about their other books, but the astronomy book is awesome. hth.

[caefi]

From older students who have taken Apologia and then gone on to University, "Apologia was tougher/better/more in depth than my college biology/chemistry/physics class." I cannot tell you how many times i have heard this. Yes, it is very good, very thorough and challenging. BUT, if your child is not a good reader, it will not be a good choice for them.

[mom2ponygirl]

I just could never use it as it doesn't teach the fundamental premise of science. Science explains observed natural phenomena with natural causes - it does not include the supernatural. It is setting students up from the beginning to believe that the explanation of the creator did it is science. Beliefs should be kept separate from science. If at any point you ascribe a natural phenomena to God, you stop any scientific inquiry. God did it is not a testable hypothesis.

However, if it is your intent to teach religious belief instead of science, it is a good choice. Personally, I think they should be taught separately, but I fully defend people's right to teach what they wish. I just think you should be clear that you are not teaching science as 99% of scientists view the field.

[Lisa1970]

I am using Botany this year. I have used it before, but I am a Christian. My dh is not a Christian and a big time evolutionist, but when he glances at the books or sees our projects, nothing seems to bother him. He is adament against religion so he would comment if it did bother him. But if you let the children read the books themselves, there is plenty of religion in it and it is creationist. Not sure it matters though. I teach my children all points of view as I am a creationist. My dh is an evolutionist. Don't know if I have helped.

You might like Real Science 4 Kids. We have done that too. We like it. And it is completely secular. But you won't get things like Botany and Astronomy with it. I want to add that it definitely teaches science. But if you feel religion is just a study of the supernatural, then it might not work for you. It is definitely a very strong science curriculum though, far more meatier than you will see in public school books.

[WhaleinGaloshes]

It is full-steam-ahead young earth creation science. I think it is a very well organized, designed program if you are looking to teach science that uses religious text as scientific fact (for example "all bears descended from the two taken abroad Noah's ark" as a straightforward presentation of fact.) Some of what is presented is not well supported outside of the Bible.

[luv2homeschool]

The high school level sciences are not too bad when it comes to christian beliefs. It presents the christian views but then goes on to the current science views. There are some things my dd disagreed with but she still has received a great science education. We will be starting physics this year. She has done Biology, Marine Biology and Chemistry.

I didn't care for the young series. It was too much for me.

[macimom]

Thanks for the responses...I am so impressed with the type of material Apologia offers, but I have been worried it would be overly religious. I basically just want the facts, but if this isn't too over the top, then maybe it would work for us. I certainly don't have a problem talking about God, but we also want our kids to be taught evolution as well as creation so they can decide for themselves.

[nov05mama]

I have been wondering this as well. I worried that this would be too over the top, but from what I am reading, I may have to take a closer look at it after all!

[zjande]

Ok guys, do you mind if I ask a totally silly off topic question that's been bugging me forever? How do you pronounce "Apologia"?? I see it as "apple-OH-gee-uh". I have no idea if that's correct.

Thanks.

[CariOfOz]

Originally Posted by mom2ponygirl

I just could never use it as it doesn't teach the fundamental premise of science. Science explains observed natural phenomena with natural causes - it does not include the supernatural. It is setting students up from the beginning to believe that the explanation of the creator did it is science. Beliefs should be kept separate from science. If at any point you ascribe a natural phenomena to God, you stop any scientific inquiry. God did it is not a testable hypothesis.
However, if it is your intent to teach religious belief instead of science, it is a good choice. Personally, I think they should be taught separately, but I fully defend people's right to teach what they wish. I just think you should be clear that you are not teaching science as 99% of scientists view the field.

that's pretty much it for me as well.

Originally Posted by macimom

Thanks for the responses...I am so impressed with the type of material Apologia offers, but I have been worried it would be overly religious. I basically just want the facts, but if this isn't too over the top, then maybe it would work for us. I certainly don't have a problem talking about God, but we also want our kids to be taught evolution as well as creation so they can decide for themselves.

IMO, you *don't* get 'just the facts though. You get a religious slant on the facts, which surely leaves out ANY reference to evolution, the big bang theory etc. To me that's just not teaching science. You can't leave out that HUGE of a portion of the subject and still claim it's a rigorous science program.

[Nitenites]

Originally Posted by mom2ponygirl

Beliefs should be kept separate from science. If at any point you ascribe a natural phenomena to God, you stop any scientific inquiry. God did it is not a testable hypothesis.

Nonsense. Science exists to explain the wonder of God's Creation. Because we (Christians) understand HOW it works doesn't mean we stop asking WHY it works, or vice versa. Not every Christian sees a huge creation/evolution split. Some of us can see both, and marry the two ideas quite well. (Because IMO, both theories ignore some glaring holes in their arguments.)

Please don't paint all Christians with such a wide brush. Just because we believe in God does not mean we stop thinking.

As for Apologia, it's pronounced like apology, with an "uh" at the end, emphasis on the "gee".
ah - pol - oh - GEE- uh

[zjande]

Thanks nitenites!

[jimblejamble]

If you go onto christianbook.com you can read sample pages.

[elizawill]

Originally Posted by zjande

Ok guys, do you mind if I ask a totally silly off topic question that's been bugging me forever? How do you pronounce "Apologia"?? I see it as "apple-OH-gee-uh". I have no idea if that's correct.

Thanks.

close! it sounds like apology but change the ending to gee-uh.

[elizawill]

Originally Posted by Nitenites

Nonsense. Science exists to explain the wonder of God's Creation. Because we (Christians) understand HOW it works doesn't mean we stop asking WHY it works, or vice versa. Not every Christian sees a huge creation/evolution split. Some of us can see both, and marry the two ideas quite well. (Because IMO, both theories ignore some glaring holes in their arguments.)

Please don't paint all Christians with such a wide brush. Just because we believe in God does not mean we stop thinking.

As for Apologia, it's pronounced like apology, with an "uh" at the end, emphasis on the "gee".
ah - pol - oh - GEE- uh

sorry, i didn't see you had explained the pronunciation already. and i agree with you regarding the rest of your post too.

[2xy]

Originally Posted by Nitenites

Nonsense. Science exists to explain the wonder of God's Creation. Because we (Christians) understand HOW it works doesn't mean we stop asking WHY it works, or vice versa.

Those who don't believe in the existence of gods might argue that science exists to explain the workings of nature. We (metaphysical naturalists) don't stop asking "why" either. We just understand and accept that we might never know "why". I agree thoroughly with Mom2ponygirl.

On a tangent, I really wish people would stop saying "Evolution vs. Creation." Evolutionary theory doesn't attempt to explain how things began; it only offers an explanation for how things got to the way they currently are. The study of the beginnings of life on Earth is called abiogenesis, not evolution.

As for the curricula, I've heard good things from those who wish to teach their children of that belief system. Personally, I have only taught my children that Creationism is a story of the world that some people believe in. I would not use any religion-based curricula. They have learned about religion as part of learning about history and different cultures, and that is all.

[Alvenchrst]

Almost all science will included theories on the origin of our species. Even references to the age of something(i.e. 65 million), is rooted in a theory of how long it took for things to become the way they are. So "strait forward" I don't know if there is much out there giving an unbiased run down of each side (creation vs. evolution) to let the student decide. Most scientific material assumes evolution in it's approach even if it's not being taught directly, Apologia assumes creation, so if that's not what you're looking to teach, I wouldn't recommend it. Perhaps there is something truly neutral someone can suggest??

One poster, said they don't bring up evolution, which I wonder if they've used it, because they bring it up a lot. In every lesson almost. We used Astronomy this past year and at one point in the lesson, they'd teach why a certain element of the universe supported the belief in creation, then give the opposing theory on that element, then often the counter point. This usually takes up a small portion of the lesson and is done so respectfully. This is different in that most material will just give you the evolution side, with no other theories considered, so while this is in support of creation, it may be more well suited to give information on the both sides of the coin and could be a springboard for further discussion and independent thinking.

Hopefully this will help the OP make a more informed decision on whether or not this is the right curriculum for her family.

[caefi]

Originally Posted by Alvenchrst

Perhaps there is something truly neutral someone can suggest??

I think there cannot be anything truly neutral on the subject. OK, it may be possible, but nothing of that nature exists.

... I wonder if they've used it, because they bring it up a lot. In every lesson almost. ... This is different in that most material will just give you the evolution side, with no other theories considered, so while this is in support of creation, it may be more well suited to give information on the both sides of the coin and could be a springboard for further discussion and independent thinking.

Hopefully this will help the OP make a more informed decision on whether or not this is the right curriculum for her family.

This was my exact thought - that they must not have really read the curriculum.

[elizawill]

NM - i believe i know what was being referenced. i missed it before. sorry about that.