curious educator

[WishboneDawn]

I'm just an echo here but again, it's the secular stuff that's hard to find. Some curriculum tries to walk the fence by excluding mention of evolution but I almost find that more objectionable then the creationist stuff.

[Theodore]

Why? A knowledge of evolution is not necessary for understanding basic science. Given, I think evolution is something you need to learn about, since creation vs evolution is a major issue, but it's a whole separate topic and shouldn't (in my opinion) just be mixed in helter-skelter. It just confuses things if you have to go off on a tangent every time you're trying to study chemistry, biology, anatomy, etc.

[knobren]

[Theodore]

I prevented you from posting what amounted to an ad for a commercial product. It had nothing to do with the fact that I also disagreed with the book's content. You are perfectly free to post a short description and link for the book in reply to an existing thread asking for info on secular science materials.

Gravity can be easily observed and is an integral tool for describing how things work in the universe. Macroevolution, on the other hand, can not be observed, reproduced, or have a science experiment designed to test it. I'm perfectly happy to see microevolution (more properly named variation / natural selection) included in science books, but microevolution does not equate to macroevolution, and macroevolution is what people mean when they say evolution.

All in all, I still think that it would make things much simpler if science textbooks stuck to what can be observed, reproduced, or tested. You don't need to know where the first bacteria came from to understand what bacteria look and act like now. Origins should be a whole separate topic.

[knobren]

[knobren]

[Theodore]

[WishboneDawn]

[WishboneDawn]

[4given]

[knobren]

[bobbinsx5]

[knobren]

[knobren]

[Theodore]