I have a PhD in a science field. I could spend some time with a textbook on fluid mechanics or hydrology and give you a pretty good idea of its quality. For introductory physics (as long as it didn’t get too deep into electricity and magnetism) or basic thermodynamics, I could pick out a crackpot text, but probably couldn’t tell an top notch book from a run-of-the mill one. But university-level biology or organic chemistry? Not a chance.
How do you decide the Bob Jones texts are “just as good” as others?
Ridiculously bigoted statement.
Also, what if a physics textbook says F=ma, E=mc^2, S=S0+vt+1/2gt^2, etc., but also adds, “50% of Americans believe in the existence of God?”
A “good” science text couldn’t mention “God” without containing material that is not scientific - is illogical. You could have “God” printed under the heading of Chapter 16 and have the book be accurate.
While you are being technical, you might care to read the whole of my post for comprehension.
If you think physics textbook is “good” when it throws in random statements like"50% of Americans believe in the existence of God?" or for no apparent reason has the word “God” printed under the heading of Chapter 16, then I guess we will just have to agree to differ on what constitutes a “good” science text. I must say that for me, “weirdly edited piece of crap” comes to mind as a more apt description for such a textbook than “good”.
I’m a former HS science teacher myself and I’m going off my sons 6th and 7th grade science texts and how they cover the basics. Biology, geology, ecology, physics, and chemistry. Explanations, diagrams, and summary questions all seem to be well written and cover the topics well. Currently my son is studying cells and cell theory and I challenge you to look at his textbook and any “normal” textbook and tell me his doesnt cover the topic just as well.
BTW, they also get their hands dirty with labs and projects. To me, science cannot be studied any other way.
And why not mention God? We all know religion has played a part in science both good and bad. Also why not examine the possibility of some devine intervention in nature?
If that’s a serious question, the answer is because science and philosophy are different disciplines altogether. I see no reason why a history of science course or a philosophy of science course couldn’t talk about the relationship of God and science (or the gods and science, but nobody who wants to talk about God and science ever considers other religions as serious possibilities). If you’re teaching a straight-up science course, though, it’s best to stick to science. It’s not like they’ll run short of material and need something to fill in the gaps.
If it was a “History [or Philosophy] of Science” textbook, sure. Most of it would have to be about how the basic philosophy of science and religion are diametrically opposed, but sure.
I’m not clear about what text Urbanredneck was using, but I ordered a used copy of BJU’s Science 4 from Amazon marketplace. I’m not sanguine about what I’ll find inside. That said, if “4” means “4th grade”, I might have chosen poorly. That’s a little early for a treatment of natural selection for example.
By way of background, last summer Urbanredneck posted his thoughts on Darwinism in another thread, now active:
I dont mind if you post that. I still stand behind that answer.
Going back to the issue of textbooks: If you work in the public education one of the “selling points” of any major textbook anymore is they sell a complete package with not just the textbook but ready to copy worksheets, labs, teaching materials, classroom discussion notes, and tests. One can even order texts targetting each states standards. Along with buying a text one gets to use the publishers websites for additional material such as videos, learning games, and online quizzes. Often times the textbooks are bought not for the content, but how “complete” the material is and how they target the state exams.
A growing trend particularly from Houghton Mifflin is they are dropping traditional textbooks as we know them and in place more of material is online or smaller student guides.
Personally I’m not crazy about this approach since it leads to less flexibility for the teacher to customize the material to the needs of the students.
Thought I’d use my one bump to see if anyone new has quiverful questions in light of the recent Duggar scandal heating up the airwaves. If you don’t remember the thread, and don’t want to wade through, the short version is that my family was involved on the periphery of the quiverful movement (the Christian big-family ideal) that the Duggars represent from the time I was 6 to when we were pushed out of the group when I was 16. I learned a lot about it then, and afterwards when I was trying to figure my life out.
Any questions you have I’ll do my best to answer from experience or research.
The first, no. I was a child, and I was a massive innocent, even by fundamentalist christian standards. It would have had to be flamingly obvious for me to have realized something specifically sexually ntoward happened, and that just never got talked about, even whispered about.
That said, there were several times when individuals were closeted with the church elders for a while, were kept away from everyone at social events, and eventually hauled up in front of everyone during a fire-and-brimstone service, tearfully confessing to some terrible (but always vague) spiritual transgressions, and we all had a big “forgive and forget” love-fest. I would not be at all shocked if some (most?) of those transgressions were sexual in nature - the basic attitudes we were expected to hold dear and follow scrupulously were pretty screwy, and probably caused a lot of people to be troubled.
The second, I’m certain of it. You have to understand that as a child, I didn’t think of any of what I’m about to talk about as illegal or immoral. Certainly it wasn’t desirable, but our ideas of what was right and allowable were not based on secular mores. Regardless of the legality,certainly there were things that authority figures would have liked to know about.
I know one man in the church beat his wife and his children regularly - we avoided them as much as possible. He was looked down on for not being able to control them in a more Christ-like manner, but no one (to my knowledge as a child) ever even thought about calling in an outsider to address his abuse of them, and he remained part of the church as long as we were there. He regularly appeared in the ‘cry and repent and be forgiven’ services, and his wife and children were obligated to forgive him and accept him back as their spiritual authority figure. I am wincing as I write this, but at the time, it was simply how things were done.
My own brother had a severe personality disorder as a toddler, and the ‘treatment’ that was employed (prolonged isolation and physical restraint, eventually an exorcism that involved a multi-day fast) was abusive (and furthermore didn’t work) but that also was handled entirely in-church. If the police were called, they’d be suspicious of the group as a whole, which would be seen as a traitorous failing on the part of the family who contacted them. On a spiritual level, we couldn’t acknowledge that we had a problem that needed outside (secular, aka Satanic) help, because then we’d be screwing up in two distinct ways: failing to claim our victory in Christ through word and deed, and allowing the devil to gain a foothold in our house via the police or social workers.
I am utterly certain that similar activities and perhaps even worse situations were likewise either ignored, covered up, or ‘dealt with’ inside the group with no outside knowledge or attention.
He’s doing ok, actually. He’s still an oppositionally-defiant narcissist (and that particular personality spectrum should make it crystal clear why he had such difficulties in a patriarchical fundamentalist movement) but he has matured, learned coping strategies, and largely made his peace with his childhood. He very much blames the church for his ill-treatment instead of us, for which I’m profoundly grateful.
I have one. Would it be possible in your opinion that a boy’s education could be so so warped that he wouldn’t realize that checking his 5 yo sister’s genitals is perceived as an extremely untoward behaviour, as opposed to just another sinful and evil behaviour no better nor worse, than, say, looking at the picture of a naked woman, masturbating, or even checking his own genitals?
With Gothardite flavored quiverful training from earliest childhood? Absolutely possible.
Now, that said - ALL of those things are considered as the outward manifestations of the sin of lust, and none of them are considered any better or worse than the others - spiritually speaking.
The reason for that is a verse that’s taken out of context to imply that Jesus and God see into your heart and judge you for your thoughts and impulses, which you should have totally under control.
For lust, it’s pretty much defined as ANY sexual thoughts or curiousity before you’re married. So, if you want to touch your junk, even if you don’t do it, Jesus knows, and you’re a bad sinful lusting evildoer who is a slave to his body. In fact, spiritually speaking, even if you just have a passing thought about it, you have committed THE WORST SIN in relation to lust. ALL of the sins are the worst sin. So, all the hypothetical kid did is to THINK about touching his junk - he hasn’t even done anything yet, but he’s already condemned in the worst possible way.
So I personally don’t see it as that far-fetched to think at least some kids are gonna think “well, I’m already guilty of the sin of lust, I can’t be any guiltier (because you’re either all pure or all guilty - no degrees here) so may as well actually do something, I’m getting condemned for it anyway.”
)