| Author | |
DianaC
Forum Pro
Joined: March 27 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 404
|
| Posted: June 18 2010 at 4:58pm | IP Logged
|
 |
|
guitarnan wrote:
| (Behold and See 3 is fantastic!). I sure wish some Catholic science writers would develop similarly wonderful curricula for older students. |
|
|
We very much enjoyed using Behold and See 3 as well. I loved how scripture and Catechism references were included with each section.
CHC has recently announced that they are adding additional grade levels:
"Continuing the popular “Behold and See series” for 3rd-8th grades!
Behold and See 5 is an up-to-date, Catholic science program written by Dr. David Beresford, a college professor, working scientist, and homeschooling father. This text combines a stunning, full-color interior with hands-on experiments and engaging scientific content from a Catholic perspective."
I'm looking forward to this!
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
jillian
Forum Pro
Joined: June 06 2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 233
|
| Posted: June 18 2010 at 5:20pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I think I might use the overview science 1, 2, 3 science from CHC as a guide for me. From what I hear it's a little easier pace and not as rigorous as some other science courses.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Natalia
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 07 2005
Location: Louisiana
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1343
|
| Posted: June 18 2010 at 8:06pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Quote:
| My experience has been that more of the Protestant material is anti-Catholic than the secular material, though as my kids enter middle school and I look ahead to high school I find the secular indoctrination gets turned way up. I pray for more Catholic high school material like Faith, Science, and Reason and the new Catholic biology book and online course due out in August. |
|
|
Kris, What would you look for in both secular and protestant material that can be anti Catholic?
__________________
Natalia
http://pannuestrodecadadia.blogspot.com
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
AtHomeScience
Forum Pro
Joined: Oct 29 2009
Location: Massachusetts
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 154
|
| Posted: June 19 2010 at 10:13am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Protestant science books, Apologia in particular and many others, are presented from a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis--young earth, 6 days, Evolution as utterly false, perspective. This flies in the face of what has been Catholic teaching for centuries and still is today.
NOEO recommends Starry Messenger by Peter Sis, a book about Galileo that received a Caldecott award. It is a secular book that is blatantly anti-Catholic; the story and the images are also inappropriate for the recommended age group.
I am finding a strong anti-religious trend in modern children's awards. I just finished the highly awarded, Charles and Emma: Darwin's Leap of Faith that perpetuates the science/religion myth of contention between them:
"For his part, Charles admitted that Emma had been right when she said that his looking at the world in a scientific way precluded him from looking at it in a religious way. Perhaps to do the great science he did, he had to focus entirely that way--to let religion in would have diluted his effort. That did not mean he would deny Emma--or anyone--their beliefs. But for him, science was the way to get answers." (p. 213)
Religion is not the way to get answers, I suppose, despite the vast number of Catholic scholars before and after Darwin, including his contemporary, Gregor Mendel (whom the author erroneously refers to as a monk instead of a friar.)
__________________
Kris, Mom to 3 rambunctious boys 
At Home Science
A Private Eye Nature
Science Of Relations
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
lapazfarm
Forum All-Star
Joined: July 21 2005
Location: Alaska
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6082
|
| Posted: June 19 2010 at 12:13pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
AtHomeScience wrote:
"For his part, Charles admitted that Emma had been right when she said that his looking at the world in a scientific way precluded him from looking at it in a religious way. Perhaps to do the great science he did, he had to focus entirely that way--to let religion in would have diluted his effort. That did not mean he would deny Emma--or anyone--their beliefs. But for him, science was the way to get answers." (p. 213)
|
|
|
Oh, how utterly ridiculous and such a grave injustice to both science and religion to imply one cannot exist without the other. What tripe. And a real disservice to Darwin himself.
Like you, I think it is important to distinguish between "secular" materials and anti-religious ones. They are not one and the same. There are many fine secular science texts where the authors feel no need to bash religion. In fact, science texts should take no position on religion one way or the other. They should be about science. And for the most part they are.
But I have noticed this anti-religion trend lately as well, Kris, that the more recent secular texts are gravitating toward. I honestly think it is a knee-jerk response to books like Apologia bashing real science in the name of faith.
Just a reflection of this polarized, contentious society in which we currently find ourselves, I'm afraid.
__________________
Theresa
us-schooling in beautiful Fairbanks, Alaska.
LaPaz Home Learning
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
JennGM
Forum Moderator
Joined: Feb 07 2005
Location: Virginia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 17702
|
| Posted: June 19 2010 at 12:38pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Interesting. How can someone write that unless they have the historical basis of the conversation (from a letter between them)? Otherwise that's just putting words in Darwin's mouth. That kind of thing makes me furious.
Since I'm not from a science background, I tend to look at this from a historical viewpoint, changes over time on the struggle of religion and science.
But I'll save those ramblings for another day... 
__________________
Jennifer G. Miller
Wife to  & ds1  '03 & ds2  '07
Family in Feast and Feria
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
AtHomeScience
Forum Pro
Joined: Oct 29 2009
Location: Massachusetts
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 154
|
| Posted: June 19 2010 at 1:33pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
The book is based on letters and diaries, though I felt the author clearly overstepped here.
I highly recommend Science and Religion by Prof. Lawrence Pricipe from The Teaching Company (I was able to borrow this through our library system.) Turns out most of this science in conflict with religion business originates from a couple of Protestant writers putting forth anti-Catholic rantings--pretty funny when you hear what was actually written and Prof. Principe has a great delivery.
The science and religion conflict has always been, and still is, between the Sola Scriptura Protestants and the scientists who, like so many other Protestants, waned away from a theology that spawned 33,000 different varieties. Gregor Mendel owned a copy of On the Origins of Species; he understood the Unity of Truth.
This is why Protestant science materials really bug me, though I fully understand and encourage Protestants to use them if that is their belief. I'm glad they have good material to work with. It's a very sad sign of the confused state of Catholic secondary science that Seton uses Apologia and Abeka science materials; I would expect a good secular text to be a better choice, IMHO.
Personally I'd rather fault on the side of too much evolution that too much young-earth nonsense. I do not want to teach the incomplete and misleading views of evolution and the age of the earth put forth by them.
__________________
Kris, Mom to 3 rambunctious boys
At Home Science
A Private Eye Nature
Science Of Relations
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
lapazfarm
Forum All-Star
Joined: July 21 2005
Location: Alaska
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6082
|
| Posted: June 19 2010 at 4:55pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
AtHomeScience wrote:
It's a very sad sign of the confused state of Catholic secondary science that Seton uses Apologia and Abeka science materials; I would expect a good secular text to be a better choice, IMHO.
|
|
|
Amen to that! 
__________________
Theresa
us-schooling in beautiful Fairbanks, Alaska.
LaPaz Home Learning
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Belle
Forum Rookie
Joined: June 20 2010
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 53
|
| Posted: June 23 2010 at 5:30pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I have found this very enlightening.
I see Apologia references everywhere and wondered if perhaps it was something we *should* be doing, but now....I think I will definitely stick with the text I have. (It's very secular, has no religion bashing though which is fabulous.)
I like to approach the creationism v's evolution as they are both theories. Theories are ideas that have yet to be proved.
I had a Science teacher in high school who had this beautiful interpretation of the creation story that combined science and theology in the most gorgeous manner...if only I could remember it! (And yes obviously he was Catholic!  )
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Teachin'Mine2
Forum Pro
Joined: Jan 22 2010
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 242
|
| Posted: June 23 2010 at 7:48pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Actually, Seton uses A Beka for biology. They sell some of the Apologia books, but don't have the lesson plans for them.
We just started Apologia this year - physical science - and my daughter really likes it! So, it works for us. 
Personally, I'd rather explain that they take the Bible more literally than we do than to use secular texts and have to explain that they've removed God from the equation. Just my opinion.
__________________
mom of one 13yo dd
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Belle
Forum Rookie
Joined: June 20 2010
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 53
|
| Posted: June 23 2010 at 11:57pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Teachin'Mine2 wrote:
Personally, I'd rather explain that they take the Bible more literally than we do than to use secular texts and have to explain that they've removed God from the equation. Just my opinion. |
|
|
Sounds really stupid when I type it out loud like this but that comment was a real D'Uh moment for me. I had never thought of the issue from that perspective before. I'll keep my secular science curriculum but at least now I can look at future texts for any subject from this perspective also. 
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
AtHomeScience
Forum Pro
Joined: Oct 29 2009
Location: Massachusetts
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 154
|
| Posted: June 24 2010 at 8:30am | IP Logged
|
|
|
A theory in scientific terms, as reiterated in JPIIs letter regarding Evolution. A scientific notion start out as a hypothesis and with enough evidence rises to the level of a theory. Creation Science and Intelligent Design in no way rise to the level of a theory; Evolution does.
In the words of St. Augustine of Hippo:
It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.
He also said:
With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation.
I fear we are giving far too much weight to these non-theories of Creation Science and Intelligent Design. And this does have consequences, such as when the Church tries to speak out on the moral issue of Embryonic Stem Cell research. We will be disregarded because we will be discredited by buying into these other pseudo-scientific notions. It is very easy to explain the role of God in addition to a secular textbook but not so easy to undo the seeds planted by these other explanations that leave out so much actual science that refutes them.
Praise God for our Catholic theologians who dedicate as much time to discovering Man's place in the universe as scientists spend discovering the truth of God's creation.
__________________
Kris, Mom to 3 rambunctious boys
At Home Science
A Private Eye Nature
Science Of Relations
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
CrunchyMom
Forum Moderator
Joined: Sept 03 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6385
|
| Posted: June 24 2010 at 9:23am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Perhaps I am ignorant, but how is Intelligent Design in conflict with science? It is my understanding that their position is simply to question the dogmatism surrounding evolution and assertions that everything happens by chance. I don't see how questioning is anti-science.
__________________
Lindsay
Five Boys(6/04) (6/06) (9/08)(3/11),(7/13), and 1 girl (5/16)
My Symphony
[URL=http://mysymphonygarden.blogspot.com/]Lost in the Cosmos[/UR
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Teachin'Mine2
Forum Pro
Joined: Jan 22 2010
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 242
|
| Posted: June 24 2010 at 11:32am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Here's what the Catholic Church has to say about creation:
WHAT CATHOLICS MUST BELIEVE ABOUT CREATION
Magisterium of the Catholic Church has defined what Catholics must believe about the history of creation:
1. The creation by God of all things at the beginning of time
2. The special creation by God of man
3. Formation of woman from man
4. Unity of the human race
5. The original happiness of our first parents in a state of justice
6. The divine command laid upon man by God to prove obedience
7. Transgression of that command at the instigation of the devil in the form of a serpent
8. The fall of our original parents from their primitive state of innocence.
9. The promise of a future redeemer
Humanae Generis, Pope Pius XII [also see: Dr. S. Hahn: Genesis 1-22: The Covenant as a Family Affair; Pope Pius X: Pascendi Dominici Gregis, Sept. 8, 1907].
The Catholic Church rejects the theory that the first chapters of Genesis are pure myth. For what the catechism teaches about creation see the Catechism of the Catholic Church #s 198, 279-327.
Intelligent design is consistent with the teaching of the Church. Jesus' resurrection can not be proven scientifically - even though there is much scientific evidence in support of the truth of that - but we believe it and teach it to our children just the same. I do believe that God created everything.
__________________
mom of one 13yo dd
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
lapazfarm
Forum All-Star
Joined: July 21 2005
Location: Alaska
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6082
|
| Posted: June 24 2010 at 12:36pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Teachin'Mine2 wrote:
Intelligent design is consistent with the teaching of the Church. |
|
|
So is evolution. AND it is consistent with science.
I mean, really, give us all a little credit here. Not one of us is expressing doubt as to the fact that God created everything. That is a given on a Catholic board, I would think.
The devil is in the details, though, isn't it?
Intelligent Design Theory is more than just the belief that God created everything. If it were that simple there would be little debate. Unfortunately the theory carries with it all kinds of additional baggage which many scientists find irreconcilable with the scientific evidence to date.
I'm not going to go into all the details here because this is not the venue for that. Just know that the reason why it is not accepted by scientists is not due to the God factor. It is due to faulty science being used.
And "young earth" creationism? Please. I cannot believe that this utterly preposterous notion even still exists. This is one of the main reasons Christians are made into laughing stocks. So many people reject God because they mistakenly believe they have to swallow this garbage to be a Christian. What a shame. An unnecessary shame! Like Kris said, it makes us look like fools when we try to discuss real science because folks think we believe the world is 5000 years old, dinosaurs were left off the ark (along with unicorns, I suppose) and the Grand Canyon was caused by The Flood. Good Lord.
Give me a science text that sticks to the science, please, and we will learn our religion in Church. The True Church.The Catholic Church. Where science and religion exist in harmony.
__________________
Theresa
us-schooling in beautiful Fairbanks, Alaska.
LaPaz Home Learning
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Teachin'Mine2
Forum Pro
Joined: Jan 22 2010
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 242
|
| Posted: June 24 2010 at 12:41pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
God's creation is also part of both the Nicene and Apostle's Creed.
We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in being with the Father. Through Him all things were made.
I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
Creator of heaven and earth ...
I remember being in junior high and learning about evolution and how no one tied it in with my faith in God as the Creator. It was really confusing to reconcile the two ways of thinking as they seemed so distinctly different. For my daughter, her faith will be supported in what she reads in her science book, and I add to that with what the Catholic Church teaches and how there are allowances for scientific discoveries. For me science and religion are not at odds, but so closely related and inseparable. We talk about evolution a lot when we go to science museums and encounter it in the media.
This is just how I've chosen to do it. It's equally as good to go with a secular text and teach the Catholic Church's beliefs as it pertains. I also wish there were great Catholic science texts available!!!
__________________
mom of one 13yo dd
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Teachin'Mine2
Forum Pro
Joined: Jan 22 2010
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 242
|
| Posted: June 24 2010 at 12:51pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Theresa I hadn't read your above post before I posted mine. I'm sorry if you've taken my post to be condescending - it wasn't meant to be. As a matter of fact, I just this past year learned that this is what the Catholic Church believes through a Catholic Bible study. I really didn't know what parts of Genesis we needed to believe and which parts were "optional". I was just passing this info along as I thought others might find it interesting as well.
The tone of this thread has stepped outside of my comfort zone. Life is stressful enough - this is supposed to be fun and supportive.
__________________
mom of one 13yo dd
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
lapazfarm
Forum All-Star
Joined: July 21 2005
Location: Alaska
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6082
|
| Posted: June 24 2010 at 1:10pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I apologize if my tone was harsh. I certainly was not directed at you. I feel very strongly about these matters and sometimes my passion gets the better of me.
You are quite right. Life is stressful enough.
__________________
Theresa
us-schooling in beautiful Fairbanks, Alaska.
LaPaz Home Learning
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
AtHomeScience
Forum Pro
Joined: Oct 29 2009
Location: Massachusetts
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 154
|
| Posted: June 24 2010 at 1:53pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Perhaps we have a different notion of what Intelligent Design is, and if we start out with different ideas then it would be hard for us to have a good discussion.
Intelligent Design as proposed first (I think) by Behe, who, by the way, fully embraces Evolution through natural selection, yet states that some structures are just too complex to have come about through Evolution. These complex structures proves God exists and had a direct hand (primary cause) in Creation. We can get into a whole discussion about primary and secondary causes, which relates, but maybe for another discussion.
Anyway, one structure he suggests falls into this is the flagellum. Shortly after the publication of his book, scientists proved--as in demonstrated--that microorganism, when placed in a stressful environment, will re-assemble proteins it already makes for other things into a new structure that will help it survive the new environment, including a flagellum.
This amounts to a God-of-the-Gaps philosophy. ID proponents will say that something is too complex and must have been a direct result of God, and then science will advance and show that to be incorrect, so then they will pick something else, and so on.
I believe God created everything ex nihilo and so I am a Creationist--of a certain stripe. I also fuly believe and affirm everything Teachin'Mine2 listed, none of which is excluded by Evolution. I have to get back to you (don't have the source on hand) to list the "shades" of Creationists out there and maybe this can bring some more understanding to this important discussion.
__________________
Kris, Mom to 3 rambunctious boys
At Home Science
A Private Eye Nature
Science Of Relations
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Sarah M
Forum All-Star
Joined: Jan 06 2008
Location: Washington
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1423
|
| Posted: June 24 2010 at 2:14pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Is there a resource that explains what parts of Genesis the Catholic Church embraces literally and which parts we do not?
I would be very interested in such a resource...
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
4Real Forums : Exploring God's Creation in Nature and Science
Topic: No Flames - Young Earth/Creationist
