Science Curriculum

[cheriede]

For those that homeschool, what kind of science curriculum are you using? I really haven't found anything that I like, so I've been pulling it together with things off the internet and checking books out from the library. I'm not necessarily looking for a creation-based science program only and would be fine with secular. Thanks!!

[Greebo]

Please understand that there is no such thing as a "creation based" science program. If it is creation based, it isn't science, it's religion.

Science - true science - requires the ability to observe and verify. Creationism simply cannot be observed and verified - belief in creationism is a matter of faith - believing in that which cannot be scientifically supported.

You will do your children a huge disservice if you try to teach them that religion is science and science is religion. Please - teach only real science as science, and only teach religion as religion.

[monkeywrangler71]

Is what you are doing not working for you? There are so many wonderful individual resources for science on the Internet & in books. Personally, I think a curriculum would just be limiting.

For me, science is like history or literature - there is too much to do everything, so it doesn't matter what topics you choose. You learn method, then you follow interest.

[MaryCarney]

Apologia has some great elementary science which can be a read-aloud for all various age levels.

[joyofsix]

We've been all over the place with this one. My kids are 3rd and K so we've dabbled. We've done astronomy, electricity, earth science and biodiversity (lots of food chain, photosynthesis and other topics in here) with the aid of Usborne books, the internet and Bill Nye. I need to get more serious next year as my ds will be 9 and ready for more structure I think. I'm looking at
http://www.noeoscience.com/index.html
http://www.gravitaspublications.com/
http://www.pandiapress.com/real_science.htm

[MaryCarney]

Please understand that there is no such thing as a "creation based" science program. If it is creation based, it isn't science, it's religion.

Science - true science - requires the ability to observe and verify. Creationism simply cannot be observed and verified - belief in creationism is a matter of faith - believing in that which cannot be scientifically supported.

You will do your children a huge disservice if you try to teach them that religion is science and science is religion. Please - teach only real science as science, and only teach religion as religion.

Greebo, I think you misunderstand a 'creation-based' science curriculum. (I understand you are an atheist and respect your right to your opinion on such things)

Creation based science reasons from a perspective that assumes intelligent design - period. Secular science reasons from the perspective of undesigned coincidence-period.

As none of us were there when the universe began, we can safely assume that BOTH SIDES require 'faith' (a belief in something which cannot be substantially verified) to accept a theory of origin.

These two viewpoints color the interpretation of data. Eventually, we will know whose viewpoint is correct. In the meantime, let the lady get answers to her homeschooling question, which was the purpose of the original post.

[YankeeMom]

Here are some free sources we use:
http://msnucleus.org/curriculum/curriculum.html - Free k-12 Science curriculum

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/programs/ - Watch free full length NOVA videos from PBS

http://www.homefires.com/clickschool...p?d=2008/01/15 - soda bottle science

http://www.newtonsapple.tv/TeacherGuides_alphabet.php - Science lessons/activities

http://www.secretlifeofmachines.com/index.shtml - machine science

http://www.sdnhm.org/kids/index.html - great science website for kids to explore

http://www.exploratorium.edu/science_explorer/ - science activities/experiments for at home

http://www.sciencespot.net/Pages/classroom.html - science activities covering just about everything there is!

[cheriede]

Is what you are doing not working for you? There are so many wonderful individual resources for science on the Internet & in books. Personally, I think a curriculum would just be limiting.

Science isn't necessarily my strong area and I'm always second guessing whether I'm doing enough in this area. I'm just trying to decide if I would be better suited with a more science traditional textbook or if I should just keep with what I'm doing.

The internet and library books are the preferred method for my children when it comes to history. I had actually used a more traditional history book and my children just keep asking for more. We abandoned the textbook and haven't really looked back. I'm just not at that level with science.

[Lady_V]

DD is 3rd grade, we're using msnucleus.org and bubble and squeek

[MaryCarney]

DD is 3rd grade, we're using msnucleus.org and bubble and squeek

Bubble and squeak is the name of some kind of food in England, isn't it?

[Lady_V]

Bubble and squeak is the name of some kind of food in England, isn't it?

I think it is... I picked this unit to be first because it's food related, easy transition from being in a 'school' to being home... and introducing science in a home-friendly way

[zakity]

Most of our science was from PBS. My guys are PBS junkies. There are tons of science programs on there.

[Greebo]

Greebo, I think you misunderstand a 'creation-based' science curriculum. (I understand you are an atheist and respect your right to your opinion on such things)

I think you'll find I do not.

Understand please that I was not always an atheist. I was raised Lutheran. I was an agnostic for many years as well. In NONE of that time, as a believer or as someone on the fence, did I ever give credit to the idea that the big bang or evolution threatened anyone's faith.

Assuming for a moment that I'm wrong and God exists, then he created the universe according to certain rules and science helps us determine those rules and understand his universe better.

My father, an ordained Lutheran minister, even he scoffs at Intelligent Design. He also genuinely feels sorry for people who believe things like the Dinosaur bones were made by God to test his children, and such. He favors the quote - Gallileo I think - that says basically that he cannot believe that God would give men intelligence so that they would then not use it.

I.D. ignores the rules that lead us to truth. I.D. is based on wishing for reality to be as one imagines it rather than judging what reality is based on what can be verified as consistent with the known rules of existence. ID insists that the Universe works in some way other than it can be demonstrated to work. *IF* God actually made the Universe, insisting upon ID as science contradicts the very creation God made.

If someone is going to teach a science curriculum, then make it a genuine science curriculum. Teach religion all you want - but keep it religion.

[nuisance26]

~G, as a moderator you know that debating is not allowed here at FV. Please hold yourself to the same rules required of others.
"This discussion is better suited for our sister site, IQuarrel."~

[MaryCarney]

My apologies. I neglected to hold myself to that standard. I should have kept myself to the first four words of the original posters request.