A Child's History of the World begins with the author speculating on an evolutionary view of how the world began. Some creationists may wonder whether this invalidates the credibility of the book - if the author begins with an error, can he be relied on to give accurate and trustworthy information in the rest of the book? _______________________ Hillyer never strikes me, as I read his work, as a stark evolutionist, but rather someone who has tried to mesh evolution with his religion. There are a number of committed christians who believe in evolution, but they believe that evolution was the means of God's creation of the world, not an independant, accidental process. Billy Graham has stated these views. You can believe in a soveriegn God who created the world by means of evolutionary process. The truth is that no one was there at creation but the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. We only have the testimony of Genesis, which has been interpreted in a number of ways. The point of the Genesis account is to demonstrate the vast and awesome power and sovereignty of Almighty God. I'm sure we are not meant to puzzle over how He did it. What is a day? The NT says that to God a day is as a thousand years. Does this apply to the Genesis account? I don't know. I happen to believe in a young earth because I have studied the issue and all the arguments pretty carefully, but if another believes the day age theory, as long as he acknowledges the soveriegn God as creator, then we have no meaningful disagreement. I prefer to say with the Psalmist "Such things are too wonderful for me" God as creator is the key issue, along with accepting the Genesis account however you picture it happening. Most of the events in the Hillyer book are a matter of historical record, and so we can assume that he is at least as accurate as the next guy in telling the story of history. We can't be sure that any of them are 100% accurate. Hillyer at least acknowledges God in his presentation of history, and even if you differ in views, it is better than an account that is void of God altogether. Please don't judge him to be untrustworthy because you differ in views on how creation was effected, just enjoy his engaging narrative. It really is a wonderfully written and entertaining volume. In Him, who through his vast power created the world by His spoken word, Kim W. _______________________ I too struggled with this thought. But the truth is, you will not find a 100% accurate text besides the Scriptures. If I am not mistaken--and I'm sure I'll be enlightened if so--CM believed in evolution. Now, it was a new theory in her time, and I guess made sense to her. Or maybe, as Kim earlier implied, she believed, as some do, that God had a hand in evolution. I don't know. I say this only to say that NO ONE can present any idea or history in 100% accuracy. That doesn't necessarily mean we throw out "the baby with the bath water," but of course you have to use your own discernment. Kim G. _______________________ The trustworthiness of a historian can be tested by going back to original sources. Hillyer's history has pretty much stood the test. A man may be a very trustworthy historian, but untrustworthy in the area of pre-history. They are 2 different realms. Unfortunately, in most history books pre-history is lumped together with history. I wish historians would stick to history. Terri J. _______________________ I would like to add that is doesn't hurt to let even young children understand that no book is 100% "trustworthy" except God's own written word! Maybe not so much at the first grade level, but later CM specifically included books in her curriculum which presented opposing viewpoints, or at least differing accounts of an event. She wanted her students to be sharply aware of the fallibility of books! I suspect that a book that is 100% percent accurate, readable and entertaining, and interesting to children of all ages *does not exist*. So we make our choices and deal with their shortcomings as best we can. I have seen other history books that present a creationist viewpoint, but are not necessarily "trustworthy" in their presentation of other aspects of history. It doesn't make a good litmus test. ~Karen Glass _______________________ Hillyer's book is not explicitly Christian, by any means, but it is respectful of Christianity, and Hillyer appears to believe in God. Various Bible characters are discussed in a historical context--but you will probably want to read the Biblical accounts, because Hillyer takes a naturalistic view (David became King of Israel because he married Saul's daughter...right, let's see what the Bible says). But, in a Charlotte Mason education, there is no distinction made between "sacred" and "secular." Only one book is perfect and infallible--but knowledge, wherever it is found, belongs to God. All truth is his truth, no matter where you find it. Among other things, CM calls this "The Great Recognition." There are various ways of defining "Christian education," and HIllyer's book, like any other, should be viewed through the lens of God's Word. Is it perfect in every respect? No, (there aren't any history books like that). Can we learn something from it? Yes. There are different ways of handling those early, evolutionistic chapters--and any of them are legitimate. You can skip them, read them in conjunction with the early chapters of Genesis, or just discuss them. We are using CHOW a little differently in our home, and we ended up skipping them for now--mostly because we are focusing on a different era of history. ~Karen ______________________________________ How to explain "cave-dweller?" Here's one quick and simple explanation: After the flood, it would have been a long time before there was plenty of wood for building, or numbers of people necessary to build with stone. We can see that they were building elaborately by the time of the Tower of Babel--but immediately *after* that incident is another time when you might have seen groups of people living in caves, as they were scattered across the world. I know that the "search for the lost Ark of Noah" is sometimes a hot topic, even in the secular world, but I always think... If I landed on a post-flood mountain, I'd dismantle the thing for building material and firewood. <g> You can handle the first few chapters of CHOW in different ways--skip them, read them concurrently with the Biblical account, or just discuss them thoroughly with your children. ~Karen _______________________________________ I hesitate to enter into the discussion about Young Earth/Old Earth/Theistic Evolution, etc., because I think we may need to try to stay a little closer to discussions about how to implement the AO curriculum. This is an important topic, but we all have a variety of views and each family will need to determine how to use the books best for their own doctrinal and scientific position. But I feel a need to clarify something here. Theistic Evolution is a broad category into which we can put *anyone* who believes both in the theory of evolution as it is taught, *and* that there is a God or Designer who is behind it all, whether very directly, or indirectly (Charlotte Mason believed this - that He "started" it all). Young Earth/creationists believe that God created a *young* earth, and that there are *errors* in the dating systems, etc., of modern scientists. Ken Ham and Institute for Creation Research and others teach this in great detail. Old Earth adherents (and Billy Graham has been named here as one) do *not* believe in evolution in *any* form. They believe that the earth was *created* at a certain advanced age - in the same manner as God created Adam as an adult (and not as an infant). They believe that the earth has *been* here for a similar length of time as Young Earth/creationists, but that when God created it, He created it to be a certain age. That is how they account for the fossil record, etc. In general, those who believe in the Gap Theory have put themselves into this camp, although creationists would disagree and say that the Gap Theory reflects a type of theistic evolution. (Gap-ists vehemently disagree with this assessment.) (FWIW, I am a young earth/creationist, but I am sympathetic to the views of an old earth, and I know *many* older godly people who hold to it. They do not in any way accept evolution.) We need to be careful that we not continue with too detailed a discussion of the different views that thoughtful Christians hold on this matter. (Hmmm...even though I just did?? :-) I'm sure each of us is passionate in the view we hold, but we want to be sure we keep our discussion on the topic of how to use a book like Hillyer's Child's History of the World, given a divergence of views. The question of whether or not a book is reliable when it is considered incorrect in its opening pages is a good one. (Of course, not everyone using AO believes the opening chapters of A Child's History of the World are incorrect.) However, every book we read - especially history books - will contain subjective material and yes, even inaccurate material. The only exception to that is the Bible. Even a history book written by a Christian, or a Christian who holds to our particular viewpoint, can be challenged by someone, or by new discoveries. We had discussion in the past about some of the problems with Hillyer's book. The conclusion seemed to be that there is not, at present, an equivalent alternative - yet! ;-) (I'm counting on the graduates of CM-styled educations to write a whole new crop of great books! :-) I think our goal in teaching history is to excite our children's moral imagination, to inspire them to do great things, and to challenge them to think through the mistakes of the past. CHOW is still a good choice, but for sections of that book, parents may want to supplement, substitute, or discuss what is included there. I think that, too, is a good lesson - to remind our children that there is *one* infallible Book - and that they need to develop a discerning mind for all others. I hope this has been a little bit helpful. Someone already mentioned what I had done with A Child's History of the World with my son. We read from some ICR books I had on Creation, the Flood, Life in the Great Ice Age, and Adam and His Kin (remembering that that last one by Ruth Beechick employs the use of a sanctified imagination, and is how "it *might* have been" in parts) - then we took up the A Child's History of the World on around chapter 5 or 6, I can't recall exactly. I did, however, discuss evolutionary ideas with my ds, and I've been heartened to hear him lately pick up on evolutionary ideas when he is confronted with them. Because I read A Child's History of the World *aloud* to him, he was not really aware of my skipping any chapters. If your child is reading it themselves, it will be more obvious to them *if* you choose to skip chapters. I think you'd have to deal with that differently in that instance. The idea that "if there's one thing we disagree with in this book, it's unreliable in all things" is an easy one to cling to, but I think it can be very dangerous. I think it's much more desirable to use the best books available (staying open to hearing about new and better books, as Charlotte Mason did) - and teaching our children (and ourselves) discernment in using them. The same thing is true with our appreciation of art, music, poets, writers, scientists, and so on. I thrill to see Rembrandt's "Raising of the Cross" - but I'm not thrilled to know that he lived with a woman and got her pregnant. That fact, however, doesn't rob my joy in seeing that painting. It reminds me that truth is truth, wherever I find it. Love in Him, Donna-Jean Breckenridge ________________________________ The Sea Around Us by Rachel Carson (used in year 6) is well worth reading, I think. Year 4 of Ambleside suggests _It Couldn't Just Happen_ as a science text, which is creationist in its point of view. It offers good information that helped my child to think about the whole evolution/creation debate. I have no concerns about her reading The Sea Around Us when she reaches Year 6.But my children see evolution as silly, anyway. If your child hasn't had a lot of exposure to creation science yet, perhaps It Couldn't Just Happen is a better place to start. ~Karen ____________________________ Does Van Loon's "The Stroy of Mankind" have an anti-Christian bias? Unfortunely, I have not read the entire book, so I can't give as complete an answer as I'd like. Those who originally put together the curriculum considered a lot of history books. There were several things to consider--readability, literary quality, and not least--availability. But our over-arching principle was always to keep our program as close as possible to what we thought the PNEU would have done. Van Loon does have an anti-Christian bias that is not easy to ignore, so far as I can see. The only two choices are to deal with it as you go, or not use the book. There are not many choices for a comprehensive world history book at this reading level--which may explain why Van Loon won the Newberry Award for this book. We had to choose from among those few that were available, and we chose this. That doesn't mean it is ideal, and it doesn't mean you have to use it. Not every chapter is offensive, and most of what I've used/read so far with my kids (we skipped the first few chapters) has been okay. To better answer your question, I read several chapters dealing with religion/Christianity, and to be honest, I didn't like them. I could let my child read them, though, with discussion afterward. It's not a bad thing, and very much in character with a CM-style education, to allow a child to read a book and find it *wrong*. I daresay that if a fabulous world-history book with a Christian perspective, or at least a better respect came on the market, we would take a look at it, but in the meantime, this is a choice that will give your children a broad look at the scope of world history, plus it is well-written and thoughful. ~Karen ______________________________ These websites were submitted to the email list as resources for parents wishing to use additional materials side by side with A Child's History of the World. The Advisory has not perused these sites and cannot vouch for their suitablity. This explains creation vs evolution: http://www.drdino.com/ http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/ http://jaizem.www2.50megs.com/ http://lordibelieve.org/ http://www.trustthebible.com/ http://www.rollanet.org/~arthis/ These two articles explain my viewpoint rather well: http://www.drdino.com/Articles/Article2.jsp http://www.rae.org/oldyoung.html young earth: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home.asp http://www.creationscience.com/ http://www.creationresearch.org/ http://www.icr.org/ http://www.projectcreation.org/children.htm http://www.creationevidence.org http://christiananswers.net/dinosaurs/home.html http://www.angelfire.com/ak/hotone/earth.html old earth: http://lordibelieve.org/page15.html www.reasons.org http://www.kjvbible.org/ |
|||||
This page was last updated on: February 23, 2003 |
|||||