Apologia Science? - Page 2

[macimom]

This thread has definitely given me a lot to think about. This curriculum was recommended to me as a neutral option, but I cannot find any reviews or samples of the books.

https://www.mheonline.com/discipline/tags/2/5/

[mom2ponygirl]

Originally Posted by Alvenchrst

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.

I knew that Apologia brought up evolution. However, I've been shown, a few years back, several references to evolution in their textbooks that are incorrect. So they present incorrect information which they show is 'wrong' or controversial so therefore creationism is the better explanation. The quotes taken from scientific journals should be traced back to the actual journals. They are often incorrectly quoted or radically changed in context to make them fit their agenda.

So my argument against Apologia is not only that they teach a belief system rather than science, but they use lies to make their arguments! I'm not sure if I'll have time to dig up my references on the subject, but it is pretty easy these days to do so yourself. Many of the older journal papers can be found online for a nominal cost. Read for yourself.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/ has a pretty decent archive of creationist claims and illuminates the lack of science well - if you are open to exploring such things. They have a good list of references to their claims so you can research back to original journal articles to verify.

[MamaMonica]

Hi all-- as you discuss this curriculum, please be mindful to not have it become a discussion of creationism vs. evolution because that's beyond the scope of this forum Thank you.

[luv2homeschool]

It works for us since we are using it for high school. My dd researches much of what is taught to learn more. She has read many viewpoints on different points in science. Overall, she loves the experiments.

[caefi]

Originally Posted by mom2ponygirl

I knew that Apologia brought up evolution. However, I've been shown, a few years back, several references to evolution in their textbooks that are incorrect.

Their curriculum is updated with newer versions. Since evolution theory is every-changing, you can imagine how often one must update to keep up, right? I mean, we used to come from monkeys and now we both just come from a common ancestor - according to official evolutionary theory.

In addition, secular biology books still continue to use outdated information and illustrations to support evolution, even though they have been debunked.

The thing about Apologia is that it DOES encourage discussion, and opportunity TO research the information to see if it is supported, factual, etc. In secular books they do not broach the subject of creationism, or teach that it's a theory along the lines of aliens from another planet are presenting it as superstition and not worth even investigating. Apologia may tell you "here's what evolution teaches and the holes in that theory" but it doesn't leave you with the impression that only idiot sheeple follow evolution.

Science is science after you get past the, "how did we get here?" and Apologia teaches science.



As a side note, if you want to be fair and honest visit Answers in Genesis.

[2xy]

Originally Posted by caefi

Since evolution theory is every-changing, you can imagine how often one must update to keep up, right? I mean, we used to come from monkeys and now we both just come from a common ancestor - according to official evolutionary theory.

Evolutionary theory has never taught that we came from monkeys. The only people who ever said that were people who did not have an understanding of evolutionary theory. Darwin and Huxley merely said that evolutionary development of apes and men had taken place in much the same way and according to the same laws.

It was this widespread misunderstanding that gave rise to the idea of a missing link (which did not exist).

Evolutionary theory teaches (and has for decades), that men and apes have a "cousin to cousin" relationship rather than a "grandparent to grandchild" relationship. That we share a common ancestor was the assertion even in Darwin's time, nearly 150 years ago.

[elizawill]

as for darwin, i won't even begin to touch on my thoughts regarding his theory. this topic is getting off track completely & i think it's fine to assess some of us will just agree to disagree. i just want to point out that intellegent design isn't just people grasping at the bible & trying to force meaning to it with some scientific slang. many people (outside of christianity) do use science to investigate whether creation actually has a creator. if you want to come to a conclusion, it is good to investigate all scenarios, using more than just websites or literature that are totally biased to one side only. original poster, i think it's wonderful that you want to present information that will help your child be informed. the argument is not as simple as some are making it out to be, as real scientist do believe in intelligent design & there is A LOT of information available to support both sides. best of luck in this endeavor. hugs.

[caefi]

Originally Posted by 2xy

Evolutionary theory has never taught that we came from monkeys. The only people who ever said that were people who did not have an understanding of evolutionary theory.

And "those people" were the ones who wrote the textbooks when I was in school, apparently!

Point you're ignoring is, Apologia is teaching science. It is teaching science well enough that those who have taken it think their university courses are easy in comparison - secular universities teaching from the evolutionary perspective, btw.

Science is far more than how we got here. Yes, Apologia teaches from a creation view, how does that change chemical formulas? or the law of physics?

[mom2ponygirl]

Originally Posted by caefi

Science is far more than how we got here. Yes, Apologia teaches from a creation view, how does that change chemical formulas? or the law of physics?

It changes the definition of science to include the divine as explanation. It teaches that altering references to fit your viewpoint is good science. It teaches that promoting a political/ideological belief is worth deception and changing the very definition of what science is.

Does apologia contain basically correct formulas for chemistry and physics? No doubt. But it fails to teach what science is. It distorts the meaning of scientific theory and what it takes to replace a theory which is by definition supported by millions of pieces of data and thousands of experiments.

Science does not answer all questions. It doesn't answer how life began. It doesn't claim to address the presence or absence of God. It doesn't tell you what beautiful means or what things are fulfilling and spiritually satisfying. It is a powerful tool, a useful philosophy for how to investigate the natural world. How do you design a testable hypothesis for some intelligent supernatural being must of done this? Does science say that couldn't have happened? No, it just looks for information that is testable and falsifiable.

[2xy]

Originally Posted by caefi

And "those people" were the ones who wrote the textbooks when I was in school, apparently!

Possibly. It's also possible that you didn't understand what was being taught. There are people now in the 21st century who still think that evolutionary theory teaches that we come from monkeys. It's because misinformation, like old wives' tales, gets passed from generation to generation.

[2xy]

Originally Posted by mom2ponygirl

Science does not answer all questions. It doesn't answer how life began. It doesn't claim to address the presence or absence of God. It doesn't tell you what beautiful means or what things are fulfilling and spiritually satisfying. It is a powerful tool, a useful philosophy for how to investigate the natural world. How do you design a testable hypothesis for some intelligent supernatural being must of done this? Does science say that couldn't have happened? No, it just looks for information that is testable and falsifiable.

Science deals with the natural world, not the supernatural world.

[Jennifer3141]

You are AMAZING, M2P!

Originally Posted by mom2ponygirl

It changes the definition of science to include the divine as explanation. It teaches that altering references to fit your viewpoint is good science. It teaches that promoting a political/ideological belief is worth deception and changing the very definition of what science is.

Does apologia contain basically correct formulas for chemistry and physics? No doubt. But it fails to teach what science is. It distorts the meaning of scientific theory and what it takes to replace a theory which is by definition supported by millions of pieces of data and thousands of experiments.

Science does not answer all questions. It doesn't answer how life began. It doesn't claim to address the presence or absence of God. It doesn't tell you what beautiful means or what things are fulfilling and spiritually satisfying. It is a powerful tool, a useful philosophy for how to investigate the natural world. How do you design a testable hypothesis for some intelligent supernatural being must of done this? Does science say that couldn't have happened? No, it just looks for information that is testable and falsifiable.

[PGTlatte]

Originally Posted by macimom

This thread has definitely given me a lot to think about. This curriculum was recommended to me as a neutral option, but I cannot find any reviews or samples of the books.

https://www.mheonline.com/discipline/tags/2/5/

OP(macimom),

I think first it is important to decide what you really want and feel okay with, so you can find what is a good fit for your family.

Do you want a curriculum that has a religious basis...one that presents ideas that have their origin in religion as the "truth", and then makes arguments to defend that "truth", and makes arguments against ideas that are seen as being opposed to this "truth" ?

Do you want a curriculum that includes evolution, and sticks to ideas that are based on scientific evidence instead of religious belief, but also leaves logical openings for the possibility of intelligent design being part of that ?

Do you want a totally secular curriculum that is based only on scientific evidence, that does not spend time discussing religious ideas of why we are here, does not bring ideas from any specific religious beliefs into the material, and does not argue the point one way or another ?

Do your personal beliefs include ideas of creation that are taken literally from the Bible, and do you feel that the ideas people have arrived by considering only scientific evidence and nothing from religion, are opposed to your religious beliefs ? (You don't need to answer me of course; I am only recommending you examine this question privately for yourself.) If you don't find the "all science" approach to be in opposition to your beliefs, then you may be happy with secular materials. If you don't want to teach literal biblical creation ideas, but feel really uncomfortable with the completely secular viewpoints, you would probably be happier with a series that incorporates intelligent design ideas. If you do want to teach biblical creation ideas, then you definitely want a series with a religious basis.

I have gathered quite a few books for my children that are for teaching evolution. These are not what I consider curriculum materials - they are just nice non-fiction books. I have not seen a single statement against any religious belief in any of these books. I have not found any part of them that argues against the existence of a supernatural creator. My experience so far with 100% secular materials has been that for someone who has beliefs of intelligent design, and who does not find the scientific evidence-based theories of natural occurrences to oppose those beliefs, using secular materials would not introduce any conflicts. I have not found them to be "anti-religion" in any way.

The table in this link may help you find some things to look at:
http://www.hsfreethinkers.com/curricula/sciences

Regarding materials that are not in this table, materials that are produced by companies that write textbooks and curricula for public schools (like McGraw Hill, the link you posted) are most likely secular....they are not likely to contain any religious ideas, or make arguments against any religious ideas. Religious ideas, faith, and spiritual matters will not be addressed. The physical-evidence-based information is presented as what most scientists believe based on the evidence that has been discovered and examined. I have not seen it presented in a way that says "therefore xyz cannot be true" regarding religious beliefs.

If you are not sure whether or not a particular series is religious or secular, you can just do a Google search on the name of the series and the term "secular", or perhaps the term "intelligent design" or "creation". Usually when I do this, quite a few threads on the series in various discussion forums will come up. If that doesn't work, you can always contact the publisher and ask if the material is secular or includes religious ideas. You may also be able to ask for access to sample pages.

HTH !

[elizawill]

well, i went back and forth about whether i should involve myself further in this ever straying conversation from the original poster's question. so, this genuinely is me just thinking outloud here, keeping in mind that we are on different ends of the spectrum. i genuinely type this with kindness. this is my POV. intelligent design primarily interprets data (rather than accumulating it), but that doesn’t make it unscientific. it seems people complain that ID is not science because it is not based on observation and experiment, but imo, this charge is false because intelligent design scientists rely on research already done by others (and some writers like behe have indepently done & published significant research). but the main contribution of ID is very logical... which is to evaluate what is necessary to verify evolutionary theory, to judge whether the evidence establishes it, and if not, what changes must be made to evolutionary theory to make it credible. anyway - that's my 2 cents.

[caefi]

Originally Posted by mom2ponygirl

It teaches that promoting a political/ideological belief is worth deception and changing the very definition of what science is..

and hence the crux of the issue right here.
because you cannot take out political and ideological belief from being taught - period. For in teaching that there is not a creator, you are teaching that there is not and that is a belief just as much as believing there is.

You hold many false assumptions about what Apologia is, how it teaches, what it teaches. Obviously you should never use it for your child, but the things you are accusing and going on and on about are either irrelevant, erroneous or is true of any science program.

Yes, it teaches from a Creation view. No, it does not affect it's scientific validity. I have tried to keep my replies on topic, even with you directly attacking my personal beliefs. I have not attacked yours and somehow expected the same respect. I believe this conversation has eroded into debate and we were already warned about such.