Page 4 of 7

Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 5:36 pm
by Theodore
One final post.

I notice you are limiting yourself to complex arguments involving biology, which is admittedly not my strongest area, while ignoring the obvious in other areas of science. There are plenty of excellent scientists who cover biology in publications such as CRS Quarterly and so on, and I'm not going to bother trying to duplicate their work. You can look it up if you want. ... resist.htm

If evolution of complex organisms is supposedly possible in billions of years, you need proof for those billions of years to support evolution. Anything which points to a young earth also blocks evolutionary theory.

Yes or no:

If a fossilized tree is standing upright through dozens of feet of rock, the rock has to have been laid down quite quickly.

Yes or no:

If dozens of feet of rock can be laid down quite quickly, then thousands of feet of rock do not automatically equate to millions of years.

Yes or no:

If thousands of feet of rock do not automatically equate to millions of years, then choosing dating methods based off rock strata and/or index fossils is useless.

Yes or no:

If you choose the wrong dating method, your measurements may be off by at least several orders of magnitude.

If you picked "no" for any of the above, you're not being scientific. If you evade any of the questions, you're not being scientific. If you picked "yes" for all of the above, then you agree that it's impossible to scientifically date anything using radiometric dating methods, therefore the primary "proof" for an old earth is useless.

This, unlike biology, is simple enough so anyone can understand it.

Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 10:26 pm
by knobren
One of the reasons that it is pointless to debate you is that you never read or believe the resources that I send as rebuttals to your arguments. Usually, you just fail to comment on it at all, but sometimes you even take quotes out of context to support your beliefs.

Read the sentences before and after the quote you sent about this resource:

What you quoted and then argued about:
If you examine the extensive research in the field of geochronology, you will see that one of the most important criteria in dating a sample lies in choosing an appropriate dating method for the sample.

Full paragraph:
Creationists want the world to think that geologists just grab a rock and throw any old radiometric test at it and poof - there's the age of the rock. Reality is far more complex. If you examine the extensive research in the field of geochronology, you will see that one of the most important criteria in dating a sample lies in choosing an appropriate dating method for the sample. From G. Brent Dalrymple (see below):

One of the principal tasks of the geochronologist is to select the type of the material used for a dating analysis. A great deal of effort goes into the sample selection, and the choices are made before the analysis, not on the basis of the results. Mistakes are sometimes made but are usually caught by the various checks employed in the well-designed experiment.

Furthermore, the paragraph and table immediately following this paragraph show the argreement reached in aging rocks using various techniques!

Another excerpt from a resource I have sent you previously:

Dr. Hovind (G5): The assumed age of a sample will dictate which radiometric dating method is used. One method will only give results for a young age; another will only give results for a very old age. Thus, the assumed age of a sample dictates the method which, in turn, gives the assumed age!

G5. That seems to be Dr. Hovind's complaint, one that has been made by other creationists. Are we to believe that the world's leading geologists cannot recognize an elementary case of circular reasoning? Is that the real explanation behind their choice of isotopes in radiometric dating? Of course not! Those creationists arguing thus have been grievously blinded by their religious prejudice, against which even a Ph.D. is no defense.

The problem lies with Dr. Hovind and many other creationists who haven't the foggiest idea how radiometric dating works! They are the last people who should be criticizing it. The explanation is so easy that quotations from specialists won't even be necessary.

If you test an old sample with a radiometric method geared to young samples, you would find that all the "parent" radioactive atoms have decayed. Your conclusion would be that the sample has a minimum age which corresponds to the smallest amount of the "parent" nuclide you can detect. You would not conclude that the sample was "young."

If you test a young sample with a radiometric method geared to old samples, you would find that none of the "parent" radioactive atoms have decayed. Your conclusion would be that the sample has a maximum age which corresponds to the smallest amount of the "daughter" nuclide which you can detect. You would not conclude that the sample was "old."

The realities of the laboratory, of course, mean that there are no sharp cut-off points. Instead, there will be ranges, and at the extremes the results can only give a rough maximum or minimum age. Dates landing in that zone would be considered unreliable.

It's a little like weighing a flea on a truck scales or weighing a brick on a scales designed to weigh envelopes. If the brick depresses the envelope scales all the way to the highest mark, you conclude that the brick weighs at least that much. If the flea doesn't depress the scales at the truck stop, you conclude that it weighs less than a weight which barely moves those scales.

Consequently, the choice of scales will not dictate the result. Of course, if the truck scales isn't perfectly calibrated, you might get a 50-pound flea! Similarly, the envelope scales would indicate that the brick only weighs a few ounces. However, no one who is familiar with such scales would take those readings too seriously. A similar situation holds for radiometric dating. Readings falling in the minimum or maximum zones are not taken too seriously. Thus, there is no problem.

Was that so difficult?

Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 10:51 pm
by knobren
Theodore wrote:One final post.

I notice you are limiting yourself to complex arguments involving biology, which is admittedly not my strongest area, while ignoring the obvious in other areas of science. There are plenty of excellent scientists who cover biology in publications such as CRS Quarterly and so on, and I'm not going to bother trying to duplicate their work. You can look it up if you want. ... resist.htm


This, unlike biology, is simple enough so anyone can understand it.

I am using biological arguments because evolution is about living things and biology is the science of living things! Like I said before, most of your young earth arguments aren't even used by most modern creationists; you are using arguments that are akin to saying the earth is flat. You seem primarily concerned with the age of the earth, which is only relevant to evolution in that 4.6 billion years gives a lot of time for evolution to occur.

The age of the earth is not part of the evidence for evolution. Earth's strata is relevant in the broad sense that older layers contain less complex fossils, while newer layers also contain fossils of organisms that are increasing in complexity. Also, the fossil record shows intermediate forms between those found in older and newer layers. These observations are important because this is what one would expect to see if organisms evolved instead of suddenly being created in their present forms.

However, there is a great deal of evidence for evolution from many different fields of study, not just from palentology or geology.

Here is an excerpt from another source that I sent you that discusses some of the other types of evidence for evolution:

Evidence for Common Descent and Macroevolution
Microevolution can be studied directly. Macroevolution cannot. Macroevolution is studied by examining patterns in biological populations and groups of related organisms and inferring process from pattern. Given the observation of microevolution and the knowledge that the earth is billions of years old -- macroevolution could be postulated. But this extrapolation, in and of itself, does not provide a compelling explanation of the patterns of biological diversity we see today. Evidence for macroevolution, or common ancestry and modification with descent, comes from several other fields of study. These include: comparative biochemical and genetic studies, comparative developmental biology, patterns of biogeography, comparative morphology and anatomy and the fossil record.

Closely related species (as determined by morphologists) have similar gene sequences. Overall sequence similarity is not the whole story, however. The pattern of differences we see in closely related genomes is worth examining.

All living organisms use DNA as their genetic material, although some viruses use RNA. DNA is composed of strings of nucleotides. There are four different kinds of nucleotides: adenine (A), guanine (G), cytosine (C) and thymine (T). Genes are sequences of nucleotides that code for proteins. Within a gene, each block of three nucleotides is called a codon. Each codon designates an amino acid (the subunits of proteins).

The three letter code is the same for all organisms (with a few exceptions). There are 64 codons, but only 20 amino acids to code for; so, most amino acids are coded for by several codons. In many cases the first two nucleotides in the codon designate the amino acid. The third position can have any of the four nucleotides and not effect how the code is translated.

A gene, when in use, is transcribed into RNA -- a nucleic acid similar to DNA. (RNA, like DNA, is made up of nucleotides although t he nucleotide uracil (U) is used in place of thymine (T).) The RNA transcribed from a gene is called messenger RNA. Messenger RNA is then translated via cellular machinery called ribosomes into a string of amino acids -- a protein. Some proteins function as enzymes, catalysts that speed the chemical reactions in cells. Others are structural or involved in regulating development.

Gene sequences in closely related species are very similar. Often, the same codon specifies a given amino acid in two related species, even though alternate codons could serve functionally as well. But, some differences do exist in gene sequences. Most often, differences are in third codon positions, where changes in the DNA sequence would not disrupt the sequence of the protein.

There are other sites in the genome where nucleotide differences do not effect protein sequences. The genome of eukaryotes is loaded with 'dead genes' called pseudogenes. Pseudogenes are copies of working genes that have been inactivated by mutation. Most pseudogenes do not produce full proteins. They may be transcribed, but not translated. Or, they may be translated, but only a truncated protein is produced. Pseudogenes evolve much faster than their working counterparts. Mutations in them do not get incorporated into proteins, so they have no effect on the fitness of an organism.

Introns are sequences of DNA that interrupt a gene, but do not code for anything. The coding portions of a gene are called exons. Introns are spliced out of the messenger RNA prior to translation, so they do not contribute information needed to make the protein. They are sometimes, however, involved in regulation of the gene. Like pseudogenes, introns (in general) evolve faster than coding portions of a gene.

Nucleotide positions that can be changed without changing the sequence of a protein are called silent sites. Sites where changes result in an amino acid substitution are called replacement sites. Silent sites are expected to be more polymorphic within a population and show more differences between populations. Although both silent and replacement sites receive the same amount of mutations, natural selection only infrequently allows changes at replacement sites. Silent sites, however, are not as constrained.

Kreitman was the first demonstrate that silent sites were more variable than coding sites. Shortly after the methods of DNA sequencing were discovered, he sequenced 11 alleles of the enzyme alcohol dehydrogenase (AdH). Of the 43 polymorphic nucleotide sites he found, only one resulted in a change in the amino acid sequence of the protein.

Silent sites may not be entirely selectively neutral. Some DNA sequences are involved with regulation of genes, changes in these sites may be deleterious. Likewise, although several codons code for a single amino acid, an organism may have a preferred codon for each amino acid. This is called codon bias.

If two species shared a recent common ancestor one would expect genetic information, even information such as redundant nucleotides and the position of introns or pseudogenes, to be similar. Both species would have inherited this information from their common ancestor.

The degree of similarity in nucleotide sequence is a function of divergence time. If two populations had recently separated, few differences would have built up between them. If they separated long ago, each population would have evolved numerous differences from their common ancestor (and each other). The degree of similarity would also be a function of silent versus replacement sites. Li and Graur, in their molecular evolution text, give the rates of evolution for silent vs. replacement rates. The rates were estimated from sequence comparisons of 30 genes from humans and rodents, which diverged about 80 million years ago. Silent sites evolved at an average rate of 4.61 nucleotide substitution per 109 years. Replacement sites evolved much slower at an average rate of 0.85 nucleotide substitutions per 109 years.

Groups of related organisms are 'variations on a theme' -- the same set of bones are used to construct all vertebrates. The bones of the human hand grow out of the same tissue as the bones of a bat's wing or a whale's flipper; and, they share many identifying features such as muscle insertion points and ridges. The only difference is that they are scaled differently. Evolutionary biologists say this indicates that all mammals are modified descendants of a common ancestor which had the same set of bones.

Closely related organisms share similar developmental pathways. The differences in development are most evident at the end. As organisms evolve, their developmental pathway gets modified. An alteration near the end of a developmental pathway is less likely to be deleterious than changes in early development. Changes early on may have a cascading effect. Thus most evolutionary changes in development are expected to take place at the periphery of development, or in early aspects of development that have no later repercussions. For a change in early development to be propagated, the benefit of the early alteration must outweigh the consequences to later development.

Because they have evolved this way, organisms pass through the early stages of development that their ancestors passed through up to the point of divergence. So, an organism's development mimics its ancestors although it doesn't recreate it exactly. Development of the flatfish, Pleuronectes, illustrates this point. Early on, Pleuronectes develops a tail that comes to a point. In the next developmental stage, the top lobe of the tail is larger than the bottom lobe (as in sharks). When development is complete, the upper and lower lobes are equally sized. This developmental pattern mirrors the evolutionary transitions it has undergone.

Natural selection can modify any stage of a life cycle, so some differences are seen in early development. Thus, evolution does not always recapitulate ancestral forms -- butterflies did not evolve from ancestral caterpillars, for example. There are differences in the appearance of early vertebrate embryos. Amphibians rapidly form a ball of cells in early development. Birds, reptiles and mammals form a disk. The shape of the early embryo is a result of different yolk concentrations in the eggs. Birds' and reptiles' eggs are heavily yolked. Their eggs develop similarly to amphibians except the yolk has deformed the shape of the embryo. The ball is stretched out and lying atop the yolk. Mammals have no yolk, but still form a disk early. This is because they have descended from reptiles. Mammals lost their yolky eggs, but retained the early pattern of development. In all these vertebrates, the pattern of cell movements is similar despite superficial differences in appearance. In addition, all types quickly converge upon a primitive, fish-like stage within a few days. From there, development diverges.

Traces of an organism's ancestry sometimes remain even when an organism's development is complete. These are called vestigial structures. Many snakes have rudimentary pelvic bones retained from their walking ancestors. Vestigial does not mean useless, it means the structure is clearly a vestige of an structure inherited from ancestral organisms. Vestigial structures may acquire new functions. In humans, the appendix now houses some immune system cells.

Closely related organisms are usually found in close geographic proximity; this is especially true of organisms with limited dispersal opportunities. The mammalian fauna of Australia is often cited as an example of this; marsupial mammals fill most of the equivalent niches that placentals fill in other ecosystems. If all organisms descended from a common ancestor, species distribution across the planet would be a function of site of origination, potential for dispersal, distribution of suitable habitat, and time since origination. In the case of Australian mammals, their physical separation from sources of placentals means potential niches were filled by a marsupial radiation rather than a placental radiation or invasion.

Natural selection can only mold available genetically based variation. In addition, natural selection provides no mechanism for advance planning. If selection can only tinker with the available genetic variation, we should expect to see examples of jury-rigged design in living species. This is indeed the case. In lizards of the genus Cnemodophorus, females reproduce parthenogenetically. Fertility in these lizards is increased when a female mounts another female and simulates copulation. These lizards evolved from sexual lizards whose hormones were aroused by sexual behavior. Now, although the sexual mode of reproduction has been lost, the means of getting aroused (and hence fertile) has been retained.

Fossils show hard structures of organisms less and less similar to modern organisms in progressively older rocks. In addition, patterns of biogeography apply to fossils as well as extant organisms. When combined with plate tectonics, fossils provide evidence of distributions and dispersals of ancient species. For example, South America had a very distinct marsupial mammalian fauna until the land bridge formed between North and South America. After that marsupials started disappearing and placentals took their place. This is commonly interpreted as the placentals wiping out the marsupials, but this may be an over simplification.

Transitional fossils between groups have been found. One of the most impressive transitional series is the ancient reptile to modern mammal transition. Mammals and reptiles differ in skeletal details, especially in their skulls. Reptilian jaws have four bones. The foremost is called the dentary. In mammals, the dentary bone is the only bone in the lower jaw. The other bones are part of the middle ear. Reptiles have a weak jaw and a mouthful of undifferentiated teeth. Their jaw is closed by three muscles: the external, posterior and internal adductor. Each reptile tooth is single cusped. Mammals have powerful jaws with differentiated teeth. Many of these teeth, such as the molars, are multi-cusped. The temporalis and masseter muscles, derived from the external adductor, close the mammalian jaw. Mammals have a secondary palate, a bony structure separating their nostril passages and throat, so most can swallow and breathe simultaneously. Reptiles lack this.

The evolution of these traits can be seen in a series of fossils. Procynosuchus shows an increase in size of the dentary bone and the beginnings of a palate. Thrinaxodon has a reduced number of incisors, a precursor to tooth differentiation. Cynognathus (a doglike carnivore) shows a further increase in size of the dentary bone. The other three bones are located inside the back portion of the jaw. Some teeth are multicusped and the teeth fit together tightly. Diademodon (a plant eater) shows a more advanced degree of occlusion (teeth fitting tightly). Probelesodon has developed a double joint in the jaw. The jaw could hinge off two points with the upper skull. The front hinge was probably the actual hinge while the rear hinge was an alignment guide. The forward movement of a hinge point allowed for the precursor to the modern masseter muscle to anchor further forward in the jaw. This allowed for a more powerful bite. The first true mammal was Morgonucudon, a rodent-like insectivore from the late Triassic. It had all the traits common to modern mammals. These species were not from a single, unbranched lineage. Each is an example from a group of organisms along the main line of mammalian ancestry.

The strongest evidence for macroevolution comes from the fact that suites of traits in biological entities fall into a nested pattern. For example, plants can be divided into two broad categories, non- vascular (ex. mosses) and vascular. Vascular plants can be divided into seedless (ex. ferns) and seeded. Vascular seeded plants can be divided into gymnosperms (ex. pines) and flowering plants (angiosperms). Angiosperms can be divided into monocots and dicots. Each of these types of plants have several characters that distinguish them from other plants. Traits are not mixed and matched in groups of organisms. For example, flowers are only seen in plants that carry several other characters that distinguish them as angiosperms. This is the expected pattern of common descent. All the species in a group will share traits they inherited from their common ancestor. But, each subgroup will have evolved unique traits of its own. Similarities bind groups together. Differences show how they are subdivided.

The real test of any scientific theory is its ability to generate testable predictions and, of course, have the predictions borne out. Evolution easily meets this criterion. In several of the above examples I stated, closely related organisms share X. If I define closely related as sharing X, this is an empty statement. It does however, provide a prediction. If two organisms share a similar anatomy, one would then predict that their gene sequences would be more similar than a morphologically distinct organism. This has been spectacularly borne out by the recent flood of gene sequences -- the correspondence to trees drawn by morphological data is very high. The discrepancies are never too great and usually confined to cases where the pattern of relationship was debated.

Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 11:28 pm
by knobren
An additional assignment idea:

Research the relationships between evolution and malaria. Discuss how malaria parasites and parasite-carrying mosquitos are evolving resistance to drugs and pesticides, respectively. Discuss how natural selection has acted upon hemoglobin genes in human populations living in areas with and without malaria. What are the social and economic impacts of living in areas where malaria is common? Discuss how combining two drugs makes it less lkely for the parasites to evolve resistance. What aren't people getting those drugs? What are the difficulties in getting pesticide-treated bed netting to those who need it? How was malaria eradicated from the U.S.? Would the same strategy work for developing nations today? The pesticide DDT, as it was used in the U.S. and other countries, caused the decline in bird populations, especially in birds of prey. (side note: Why were top predators affected more strongly? How does biomagnification work?) How is DDT used in areas affected by malaria?

some resources: ... 12_02.html

Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 11:45 pm
by knobren
Ramona wrote:
knobren wrote:1. Discuss the nature of science. Be sure to include the scientific method, the types of questions that can be adressed by science, limitations, assumptions, etc.

I'm probably not going to take this in the direction you're looking for, but the question is so broad it reminds me of several things.

When I was around high-school and college age, I was talking to my parents one day and mentioned what I felt was a commonly-known fact, that those disciplines in which Bachelor of Arts degrees are offered are looked down on in general as serious studies when contrasted with those disciplines in which Bachelor of Science degrees are offered. My parents, from a considerably older generation, immediately expressed great surprise that I (and maybe even my generation) would look at it that way. They both said that they (and their whole generation?) had always seen Arts disciplines as "science-plus."

Some years later I read something--I wish I could remember where or by whom--that said the conventional wisdom is that art is more fluid and left open to the individual artist's interpretation, whereas science is very strictly defined. This author's point was that the reverse is actually true: art has specific guidelines and science is open to wherever experimentation takes us.

I think one thing that happened to art in the 20th century is that it stepped outside its box a little bit.

I guess my "discussion" on the nature of science starts with the ways in which it's different from art.

I haven't gotten as far as the specifics you say to "be sure" to include yet.



You're right; it isn't what I was expecting. :)

The resources I provided explain that science can only seek answers for natural processes. It cannot address supernatural processes, because those would not be expected to follow natural laws and could not be tested (disproved). It also can't provide values or ethics. Other disciplines have to provide answers to questions other than those about natural processes, e.g. religion, philosophy, art, etc.

I like to give a flower for example. Science can tell me its structure and function and its role in the ecosystem. Art can tell me it is asthetically pleasing. Poetry can "compare thee to a summer's rose". (I know that isn't the correct quote. How about "O my Luve's like the red, red rose..."?) Economics (and culture) can tell me its monetary value (Is it a weed, a rarity, a precursor to a tasty fruit?) ETC.

Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2007 1:08 am
by Theodore
You are correct, dating old rock using Carbon-14, for instance, should result in there being none to measure, since it will all have decayed. That, assumes, of course, that you bother measuring with Carbon-14, and means nothing in any case because you could have started with less than expected and then had most of it leached out through various processes. There are numerous cases of freshly laid rock being dated at thousands or tens of thousands of years old, and while there's no way to verify from known history that the same is true with older rocks, it's fairly obvious that you would get inaccurate results if you tried to date young earth rock with old earth dating methods. It's easy to get middle of the range measurements with any dating method by having your constants shifted through a variety of natural processes.

Again, the way it's done is to pick a "correct" time range, then test using the dating method corresponding to that range. If and only if results consistently fall outside the expected range, are the samples tested using earlier or later dating methods - hardly a scientific way of doing things, given the problems inherent in radiometric dating. Even two pieces of the same sample can give widely different dates, and the sample as a whole can easily be off by orders of magnitude.

The Sandwalk Adventures

Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2007 1:24 pm
by knobren
I recently read a quirky comic book/graphic novel called "The Sandwalk Adventures" by Jay Hosler. The story line is about Darwin discovering that he has a talking mite in his left eyebrow who thinks he is a deity. While trying to disuade the mite of this idea, he ends up explaining evolution and natural selection to her.

Here is are some examples of what the book is like:

Re: The Sandwalk Adventures

Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2007 2:11 pm
by WishboneDawn
knobren wrote:I recently read a quirky comic book/graphic novel called "The Sandwalk Adventures" by Jay Hostler. The story line is about Darwin discovering that he has a talking mite in his left eyebrow who thinks he is a deity. While trying to disuade the mite of this idea, he ends up explaining evolution and natural selection to her.

Here is are some examples of what the book is like:

Thank you! I appreciate more then you know...I'm an aspiring comic book penciler myself and I'm working on a historical graphic novel with a fellow in Philidelphia at the moment.

Re: The Sandwalk Adventures

Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2007 2:24 pm
by knobren
WishboneDawn wrote:
knobren wrote:I recently read a quirky comic book/graphic novel called "The Sandwalk Adventures" by Jay Hosler. The story line is about Darwin discovering that he has a talking mite in his left eyebrow who thinks he is a deity. While trying to disuade the mite of this idea, he ends up explaining evolution and natural selection to her.

Here is are some examples of what the book is like:

Thank you! I appreciate more then you know...I'm an aspiring comic book penciler myself and I'm working on a historical graphic novel with a fellow in Philidelphia at the moment.

That's cool! You will probably appreciate Hosler's appendix (?) where he discusses his resources for the elements shown in Darwin's house, comments about Darwin's relationship with his family, how devistated he was after his daughter died, etc.

Good luck!


Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:19 pm
by Theodore
I split the posts entirely about Christianity / atheism / etc. off to a separate thread in Just for Chat.

Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2007 12:27 am
by keptwoman
WishboneDawn wrote:
Theodore wrote: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.

Why? Because I agree with knobren. To study chemistry, biology and anatomy without understanding evolution is like contructing a house with no foundation.

Count me in with those who think it's important. Not much interested in arguing the whys and wherefores though.

Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2007 1:15 pm
by knobren
There are some lesson plans and exercises about evolution on the following websites: ... ndex.shtml ... enchmark=5

Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 1:44 pm
by phiferan
I have no scientific background. And, I think there should be homeschool books available for both secular and Christian worldviews. I think as homeschooling grows it provides us with strength and we need to welcome all with different worldviews to our ranks, as we share the same goal to create more acceptance and freedom for homeschooling families. However, Knobren, it just seems strange to me why someone who wants suggestions from homeschoolers (majority Christian) would argue on and on about evolution on a message board with a large Christian audience. God has given all of us free choice to believe as we wish and it seems to me with all the cites and resources you listed, you could get on a message board with one of those cites and discuss evolution, where you would not have to argue and could be preaching to the choir.

As for the original topic, I am not that great in science, although, I received "A's" and "B's" in science courses during college. Also, my child is more of a visual learner. I am a Christian; however, I have found secular books more useful for teaching my son science, as they explain the required subject matter in depth, in a way that is easier for us to understand and with many color photos and color diagrams on every page (even for the high school level). I use the Holt, Rinehart and Winston text, which you can purchase at their web site. Evolution was only talked about for one small unit in a book with hundreds of pages. However, because the book is really written for public schools, homeschool teachers cannot get the answer keys without being a certified teacher and you have to buy science lab kits and lab equipment separately, as it does not come in one inclusive package together. God bless you, Knobren, if you are trying to help homeschoolers.

If some curriculum providers could provide high school level science curriculum for homeschoolers, with answer keys, many visually appealing color photographs and diagrams, with through yet, understandable explanations, and inclusive science lab kits, I would be grateful because I have to do a lot to put together a science program for my child each year.
Any suggestions for High School level Biology or Environmental Science curriculum would also be helpful. Thanks.

Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 4:45 pm
by StellarStory
Have you looked at Apologia? That's supposed to be the best home school science program but since it is Christian, I've not looked at it. You might like it. It's won in polls as the best, just as mathusee has won as the best math programs.

Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 4:56 pm
by phiferan
Thank you so very much, when I go to my next homeschool curriculum fair, I will flip through it again before I make my final science curriculum purchase for next year. Thanks again and God bless.