Over the past few months, many parents have contacted us, asking if we plan to make a DIVE CD to teach the new Saxon Algebra 1, 4th edition textbook.  The short answer is “no”, and the short reason is that we believe the newer Saxon textbooks have strayed too far from John Saxon’s (1923-1996) original, tried and tested vision for teaching mathematics.  This new textbook was not published by John Saxon, but by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt (HMH). If you would like to know more about our reasons, please read on.

Physical Differences

Saxon Algebra 1 4th ed. (left), Saxon Algebra 1 3rd ed. (center), and Leonhard Euler's Elements of Algebra (right), a text that most modern algebra books are based upon.

The 4th edition cover is noticeably different from earlier Saxon editions. For comparison, I have included a copy of Leonhard Euler’s Elements of Algebra, a textbook whose subject matter is the foundation of most modern algebra courses. Euler lived from 1707-1783, and is considered by most scholars to be one of the best, if not the best, mathematician ever. While I am in awe of his ability to write original research at the rate of 800 pages per year for most of his adult life, I am more impressed by his understanding of God. One of my favorite quotes is from his book, Letters to a German Princess:

“It is God, therefore, who places men, every instant, in circumstances the most favourable, and from which, they may derive motives the most powerful, to produce their conversion.”

Euler was a genius, but he was also a humble, Christian family man, and I think his biblical understanding of the world helped him excel at mathematics. Helping students understand the importance of a biblical foundation to their education is one way our DIVE Math lectures differ from instruction found in either new or traditional Saxon textbooks.

When I titled this post “Weighing the Differences”, I meant it, literally! I put the books on a scale, and the 4th edition is quite a monster at 4.75 lbs, a 58.3% increase over the 3rd edition.

The 4th edition weighs 58.3% more than the 3rd edition.

Content differences

You might be scratching your head right now, wondering “what does book weight have to do with anything?” Well, it matters to students! A bigger book means more weight to lug around in the backpack, but even more dreadful, it means more content! Sure enough, the 4th edition sports a whopping 66.3% increase in the number of pages.

The 4th edition has 374 more pages than the 3rd edition.

Some of that increase is because the 4th edition often has more practice problems for each lesson, which may be helpful to some students, but most of the increase is from new content. Both textbooks have 120 “Lessons”, but in the 4th edition, there are an additional 59 lessons the student must learn.

The 4th edition has an almost 50% increase in the number of individual lessons a student must learn.

To understand why there is such an increase in content, understand that in order to sell textbooks to all government schools, publishers must include content that satisfies the educational standards of every state in the nation. The increase in the 4th edition’s content is partly because states don’t all agree on what should and shouldn’t be taught in algebra class. Like any business, textbook publishers must be profitable. If their main goal is to sell to government schools, they will make more money if they can satisfy every state’s requirements. Selling to government schools is clearly the priority for HMH, which results in really large books! Something else to keep in mind is that the goal of publishers is to satisfy state standards; whether or not their books produce good results is often overlooked. Surprised? John Saxon wasn’t.

Differences in methodology

One cool math teacher. John Saxon was a test pilot for the U.S. Air Force in the 1950s. Photo courtesy of Niki Hayes, author of John Saxon's Story, A Genius of Common Sense in Math Education.

John Saxon was known for his “Saxonisms”, one of which was

“Results, not methodology, should be the basis of curriculum decisions. Results matter.”

A methodology, or way of doing something, does make a difference, but what John Saxon meant is that when it comes to educating a child, the methodology should never trump the results. An Air Force test pilot with three engineering degrees, after retirement Saxon started teaching algebra at the local junior college. Appalled at the results he was seeing, Saxon wrote and published his first algebra book in 1981. His methodology produced good results, so he stuck with it, and when he died in 1996, Saxon Publishers annual sales were at $27 million. You can read more about John Saxon in Niki Hayes’ book, John Saxon’s Story, A Genius of Common Sense in Math Education.

You will hear many people say mathematics is the “language of science”, but to my knowledge, math books published by John Saxon and the original Saxon Publishers are about the only books that actually teach math this way. Just like learning a language, the original Saxon methodology begins with the fundamentals and provides students ample time to practice these before gently introducing more advanced material.

Original Saxon textbooks are also the best I’ve seen at teaching mathematics as one subject. Traditional American government math courses teach algebra and geometry separately. Many home educators follow the lead of government schools, without realizing that most European and Asian countries teach algebra and geometry together. You know, the same countries that consistently outperform the United States on international math exams (click here, see p. 7).  It makes sense that a student who is learning algebra and geometry together will probably understand all math better and be more ready to apply it in science and engineering fields. High school students will probably be able to outperform other students on college admissions tests, because these tests present algebra and geometry together.

Another distinguishing feature of John Saxon’s methodology was his desire for high school students to learn calculus. Again, Saxon shows its uniqueness in that, to my knowledge, it is one of the only curricula with a high school calculus course.

And finally, John Saxon was proud of his work. He had created something that produced good results, and he wanted to share it with others. Putting his name on the front of every book and naming the company after his family were ways of claiming ownership and responsibility for what he had done.

How true to the Saxon methodology is the new Algebra 1, 4th edition text?

While the 4th edition retains some of the pattern of incremental development with review, there is an obvious lack of understanding of what John Saxon was trying to accomplish. One thing John Saxon was fairly insistent on was teacher training for using his books. To an outside observer, the Saxon format looks fairly random, and if the teacher or student didn’t understand this was part of the incremental process, the format could be confusing. This is one reason our DIVE CDs have been helpful to so many learners, because we help students make the proper connections between lessons. However, many students are able to make the connections on their own, because when a new lesson builds on previous ones, John would normally mention this. For example, Lesson 25 in the 3rd edition begins with “In Lesson 23 and 24, we were introduced to the …” This gives the student a great reminder that what they are learning now is not all new, but is building on previous material, and they know where to find it if they need to review. By contrast, Lesson 23 in the 4th edition builds on Lesson 19 and 21, but no mention of this is made in Lesson 23, making it less likely the student will know where to go to review that concept. The lack of connection to previously learned material should be of particular concern to homeschoolers, as it makes self-directed learning more difficult.

The 4th edition also seems less adept at providing continual review. A good example is unit multipliers (a.k.a unit conversions, conversion factors, etc.). Saxon is the only curriculum I have seen that makes a real effort to teach students how to convert from one unit to another, a necessary skill when analyzing data collected in a science experiment, when building almost anything, in financial transactions, etc. Unfortunately, the 4th edition only has one lesson on unit multipliers (Lesson 8). One thing I liked was that they included an example of converting from one foreign currency to another, a useful skill in our increasingly global economy. What I didn’t like though was that after Lesson 30, I could not find any more homework problems on unit multipliers. Contrast that with the 3rd edition, where unit multipliers are taught in Lesson 4, 10, and 53, and students continue to have homework problems through Lesson 90. For assuring that a student learn a fundamental concept with such important implications, the choice is clear.

Besides the 66.3% increase in pages, the most glaring difference between the editions is that in the 4th edition, geometry was shoved to the “Skills Bank” section in the back of the book. Students are never taught these concepts beforehand, and I couldn’t really find where they ever practice many of the skills banks concepts. There is 1 geometry problem in every homework set, compared to 2 or more geometry problems in the 3rd edition. The geometry/algebra integration is essentially gone, and with their new, 887-page Geometry course, the newer Saxon editions look more like all the other government school textbooks that teach algebra and geometry separately.

A final, perplexing difference between the 3rd and 4th edition texts is that the authors’ names are not listed on the 4th edition (or on the new Geometry for that matter). I have quite a few math textbooks in my office, and all of them display the author’s name on the front or the spine. So who authored the new Saxon books? Is HMH being a little deceptive by not putting the real authors’ names on the book so that people will think John Saxon (dead since 1996) wrote them? Is HMH embarrassed by the new editions? I don’t know what the answer is.

So how different are the 3rd and 4th editions of Saxon Algebra 1? The differences remind me of a scene from a favorite childhood movie, Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. Caractacus Potts has built a “fantasmagorical motor car”, named Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, that can drive, fly, and swim, and the evil King of Vulgaria wants one, too! The king tries to kidnap Caractactus, but mistakenly kidnaps his father instead, who has no knowledge of how to build a Chitty Bang Bang. The king then uses the father to direct a crackpot team of engineers to build his own Chitty Bang Bang, which fails miserably. Like the Vulgarian king’s engineers, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt seems to have built Saxon Algebra 1, 4th edition with a limited understanding of the original designer’s plan and purpose. When it comes to understanding “incremental development with continual review”, a hallmark of the Saxon methodology, HMH doesn’t seem to get it.

When you try to build something without fully understanding what you're doing, disaster usually results.

To conclude, I believe Saxon Algebra “peaked” with its 3rd editions of Algebra 1 and 2, so I won’t be making a DIVE CD for the 4th editions.  Fortunately, HMH is still selling the 3rd editions, and they show no signs of discontinuing them.

Time to DIVE

Since Saxon Publishers was first sold in 2004, I’ve feared that any new editions might lose their original Saxon methodology that strives to teach mathematics like the language of science that it is. The new 4th edition confirms this. And finally, since the sale, I have thought that, Lord willing, if the Saxon curriculum took a turn for the worst, then I would be ready to stand on the shoulders of giants like John Saxon, Leonhard Euler, Isaac Newton, Euclid and others, learn from them, and build a better curriculum. My goal has never been to just be a “Saxon Math Teacher”, but to teach students math and science so they can know their Savior and better serve Him and their fellow man. As providence would have it, John Saxon created a curriculum that I thought was the best, and so that’s what I’ve been teaching with since 1997. But since Saxon Publisher’s sale, I’ve had 8 years to think and pray about what to do, and I believe the time to act has come. Coming soon from DIVE,  look for a new, and I trust better, way to learn math.

Belief in evolutionism requires one to reject the authority of Scripture regarding special creation of humans, along with different created kinds, or baramins, of living organisms. Biblical history must also be rejected, because millions of years are apparently required for nature to perform its evolutionary magic. Belief in evolutionism forces one to cling to a number of 19^th and 20^th Century hypotheses that use artificial constructs like the geologic column and Thomas Malthus’ population data as evidence for bacteria-to-people evolution.

Fortunately, the more we learn about Earth and life in the 21^st Century, the more they proclaim the glory of their Creator and the Truth of the incredible story revealed in Scripture. An example of 21^st Century research is the mounting evidence against the idea of molecular clocks. Natural history researchers look at differences in genes along with fossil evidence to determine when two species diverged from a common ancestor. For the human species, researchers use molecular clocks to predict the date of “Mitochondrial Eve”, our Most Recent Common Ancestor (MRCA) that supposedly originated in Africa.

Molecular clocks came into use in the 1960s. In the 1990 edition of Biology by Neil Campbell, an age between 200,000 and 400,000 years is given for “Eve” (p. 669). Moving ahead to 2004, we find in the 10^th edition of Biology by Starr and Taggart that Eve is now only 100,000 to 200,000 years old (p. 471). The fact that the estimates were cut in half, on top of the huge error involved (50%), would make any reasonable scientist question molecular clocks.

And they do. As we entered the 21^st century, we saw F.J. Ayala’s paper titled “Molecular Clock Mirages”. In 2006, world renowned evolutionary biologist Thomas Cavalier-Smith stated in a paper “Evolution is not evenly-paced and there are no real molecular clocks.” And then there’s F. Chang’s study using genealogy and statistics to predict an MRCA of less than 1,000 years ago. Chang began with an overly-simplified model, so over the next few years he added to it, and in 2003 colleague D. Rohde published research revealing an MRCA of between 2,000 and 5,000 years ago. And molecular clock skeptics Thorne and Wolpoff voiced their opinions in the 2003 Human Evolution Special Issue of Scientific American, flatly stating “putting aside the idea of a molecular clock, one can interpret the genetic data in a much more reasonable way.” (p. 52).

In 2004, Rohde, Chang, and Olson published their latest findings in Nature, and their computations shift the MRCA from Africa to somewhere in Asia. They also calculated that “all modern individuals have identical ancestors by about 3,000 BC.” Mentioning that their computer simulation was “far too conservative”, they used some more realistic numbers to come up with a “mean MRCA date is as recent as AD 55 and the mean IA date is 2,158 BC.”

The identical ancestors (IA) point differs from the MRCA. The MRCA is believed to have had many contemporaries of both sexes, and some of these also left unbroken chains of descendents down to today’s population. The IA differs in that it pushes further back in time to the point where populations can be divided into two groups: a group that left no descendents today, and a group from which all modern humans descended from. Such a scenario could arise from a population bottleneck, and the obvious example that comes to mind is the Flood described in the book of Genesis, which occurred around 2500 BC. The date of the Flood is within the range of IA dates computed by Rohde et al. During the Flood, a human population of 8 survived, and all others perished. While Rohde et al’s research does not “prove” the Genesis Flood, it definitely doesn’t rule it out.

In 2008, a paper by Matsen and Evans tried to tie genetics with the genealogy of Rohde et al, and they simply concluded genetic diversity is related to the number of descendants, confirming the ability of Rohde et al’s model to explain the human diversity we see today as resulting from a very recent ancestor.

21^st Century research using genealogies instead of genetics may be a bit confusing, but the reason for that is not just the complex mathematics involved, but the basic fact that confusion exists over what happened in the past. To add to the confusion, in 2008 fossil collectors discovered a human footprint alongside that of a dinosaur. Fossil evidence like this is no problem for Christians who trust the historical accuracy of Scripture, but it is a huge contradiction to many others’ beliefs about the past. Is this fossil real?

The truth is, there will ALWAYS be confusion about what happened in the past because we cannot go back and verify it. Natural history research is not the same thing as testable, repeatable science, and should be approached as a “mixed question”, requiring inputs not just from science, but mainly history, followed by art, and philosophy. “Belief” in past events though is based on faith, either a God-given faith (Ephesians 2:8-9)in the story revealed in Scripture, or in something else. Everybody believes in something, what do you believe?

No.

A name like the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) gives  the impression of an organization with a vision for improving science education. If NCSE were good for the world, it would be a clearinghouse of information for helping science educators stay updated on the latest advances in science, which they could pass on to students. It would cover all the sciences, and give helpful tips on science fundamentals such as the scientific method and the limitations of this inductive approach to studying our world. And of course it would focus heavily on mathematics, the language of science, with helpful resources to improve mathematics teaching. It would also have a special mission for helping the worst-performing schools, providing hope and encouragement to educators and students to study and apply science in ways that will help them be more productive for the glory of God and the service of others.

Unfortunately, the NCSE is none of these things. In fact, their mission is simply this: defending the teaching of evolution in public schools. Instead of being our national cheerleaders for advancing real science education, the NCSE instead is only about defending a single, faith-based natural history topic known as evolutionism. They confuse natural history with science, which in turn confuses others into thinking that science can answer all questions about the past. The reality is that natural history is a mixed question, and it requires inputs from other areas, such as historical documents like Scripture. Unlike normal scientific research, whose conclusions can be verified, conclusions made from natural history research cannot be verified. Treating origins topics as history instead of science causes people to realize that we all have the same evidence, the differences come in the interpretations, and some interpretations are definitely better than others. It also helps people realize that the creationism vs. evolutionism battle is not primarily a religion vs. science battle, but a battle of one religious belief vs. another. Many individuals, including those at NCSE, confuse the boundary between real science and natural history research.

So, the NCSE is not about promoting science, but evolutionism. Evolutionism is the faith-based idea that somehow, through a very long series of genetic copying errors, bacteria turned into people. And thanks in part to the NCSE’s dogmatic approach to education, this idea is the only major premise used in most biology curricula on the market today. Fortunately, not everyone believes the unverifiable claims of evolutionists.

The more we learn about cells, the more improbable evolutionism sounds. But the NCSE marches on, blind to the advances in 21st Century science, because real science naturally opposes their mission. And if you still don’t believe that the NCSE would choose evolutionism over testable, repeatable science, please, read on.

From June 13-17, 2011, I was able to participate on a Texas review panel for adopting new high school biology curricula in public schools. This process is designed to allow public participation in the review process, and State Board of Education members are allowed to appoint members of the public to a week-long review process. I was nominated by my State Board Representative, Mrs. Barbara Cargill. Texas adopted new high school biology teaching standards in 2009, and the review panels analyzed and evaluated the  new supplemental science curricula to determine if the standards were being met. We also checked for factual errors, but that’s another story.

One of the new standards approved in 2009 is called TEK 7G (TEKS = Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills), which required students to “analyze and evaluate scientific explanations regarding the complexity of the cell.” I thought publishers would jump on this opportunity to teach high school students about 21st Century research involving cell complexity, but I was sadly disappointed. I was also disappointed with the poor quality of some of the curricula, but a curriculum we reviewed by Holt-McDougal was better than most. Unfortunately, the presentation of TEK 7G was extremely weak, and consisted of an evolutionary explanation called endosymbiosis. Endosymbiosis, the turning of a prokaryote into a eukaryote (cell with a nucleus), has never been tested. It is an idea about cells eating other cells, and instead of becoming dinner, the consumed cells turn into highly specialized and purposeful cell organelles. Kind of like if you ate a hamburger, and, instead of being digested, it turned into a dolphin. Or something like that.

The review panels consisted of teams of 3-4 people, and I actually had to go against my other team members and reject Holt’s weak effort to address TEK 7G. One excuse a team member gave for approving it as-is was that what I had proposed would be “too hard” for students to learn! But a mark of a good educator is finding simple ways to explain complex concepts.

Fortunately, the only way for Holt’s weak attempt at addressing TEK 7G to gain approval was if our review panel voted unanimously in favor of it. So I rejected it, and you can read my reasons and suggestions here. I was pleasantly surprised when Holt accepted many of my suggestions. They could have disputed all of my suggestions, as they did with several factual errors our team presented, but they didn’t.

So now, besides endosymbiosis, students who use the Holt curriculum can also learn about 21st century science concepts like genomes, proteomes, and interactomes. Holt added a beautiful section titled 21st Century Cell Complexity, and presented it simply and clearly. And as I had hoped, they also directed teachers to the National Center for Dynamic Interactome Research, where, if you look, you can find an easy-to-understand laboratory activity that uses cell phones to explain interactomes.

While public school biology curricula have a long way to go, the ones from Texas are definitely better than ever at presenting students with alternatives to evolutionism. After Holt made some, but not all of the changes I had hoped for (I wanted them to include a “tree of life” that had multiple “trunks”), the changes still needed to be approved by the State Board of Education. Thankfully, they were adopted on July 20-21, 2011. Not surprisingly, the NCSE sent someone to promote censorship of the self-evident truth that living organisms were designed. Programs and Policy Director Josh Rosenau testified, and I later had the opportunity to meet him. In our brief but friendly conversation, I asked him what he would do if he had to choose between teaching endosymbiosis or teaching 21st century science on cell complexity. Without hesitation, Josh said he would have to go with the non-scientific idea of endosymbiosis! Oh well, at least Texas public school students will have a choice now on what to believe. Are cells specially created, multi-dimensional super machines and is there evidence to support this, or are they cannibalistic bags of salt? I’ll choose the former, what about you?

And that is just one of many reasons NCSE is not good for the world. Now they have a new documentary out that is the closest thing I have seen to white elitism in a long time. Like, since Hitler. Or Sanger. You have to watch the trailer, and see if you notice a seemingly white elitist message  proclaiming that portly, toothless, dark-skinned people with thick accents are the only ones who would consider teaching about alternatives to evolutionism. Immediately following the non-white man, a white woman explains how people who don’t believe in evolutionism are like people with severe handicaps. It could just be bad filmmaking, but the disrespectful, white-elitist message seems pretty clear to me. But then again I’m not sure if I would expect much different from people who have so much faith in Darwin, who based his ideas on Thomas Malthus’ 1800′s human population myths. And it was Malthus who proposed moving poor people to disease infested swamps so that they would be more likely to die, and this would keep their population in check!

Hopefully, this little blog post will open a few eyes to the censorship, misrepresentation of science, and possible white elitism that are NCSE’s agenda. Pray for their leaders to have a change of heart, and to no longer be deceived by hollow, deceptive and unscientific philosophies about origins that are based on the traditions of men, rather than on Christ(Colossians 2:8). Perhaps someday, instead of their current non-scientific mission, NCSE’s leaders will instead pay more attention to the words of Francis Bacon, founder of the scientific method, who wrote in his book, New Atlantis, of a place

sometimes called Solomon’s House, and sometimes the College of the Six Days’ Works, whereby I am satisfied that our excellent King had learned from the Hebrews that God had created the world and all that therein is within six days: and therefore he instituted that house, for the finding out of the true nature of all things, whereby God might have the more glory in the workmanship of them, and men the more fruit in their use of them, did give it also that second name.

Wow, a National Center for Science Education like that really would be good for the world!

Life does not evolve, it adapts. Watch my YouTube video, Adaptation, and learn more about what 21st Century science is revealing regarding epigenetics, and what God’s word and works have always revealed. The only reason evolutionism exists is because some people think God is a liar. I say let God be true, and every man a liar (Romans 3:4)!

One thing I mention in Adaptation is that genetic mutations have never been observed to create new information. In this article by Dr. Rob Carter, he states that our increased understanding of cell complexity means “We have to make a distinction between mutation and ‘designed variation’.” Dr. Carter understands cell complexity better than most (including me!), and he argues that our genomes contain some ability to generate “new” information via genetic change. In other words, there is some built-in variation via genetic change that may seem to create “new” information to us, but in reality God designed it in. In my book, Exchange of Truth, I use the word “genoversity” to describe the diversity within a genome. When God said He created different kinds of things, he meant it, and now more than ever our understanding of cell complexity is revealing to us the limited flexibility He programmed into each genome for each original created kind. Diversity within a created kind is an attribute of God (Romans 12:4-5), allowing organisms to adapt, within limits, as their environments change.

Below is a .pdf of a presentation I gave at the Greater Houston Creation Association’s September 2011 meeting. Learn about volcanoes, the June 6-8, 1912 eruption of Novarupta and Mount Katmai, and the effects of the eruption on Katmai Valley and Canyon. My son, Ken Cole, myself and several others visited Novarupta in 2009. Ken and Ashley Cole, and I visited the “other side” of Novarupta from July 25-28, 2011 to learn more about the world’s largest volcanic eruption in over 100 years.

Novarupta is a great testimony to ONE massive, worldwide flood, followed by ONE giant Ice Age, tapering off to present day conditions. There are many interpretations of Earth history, none of which can be verified without a time machine. Which one do you think is best? Open the link below and take a look at the presentation, and leave a comment if you want to discuss it further:

The Other Side of Novarupta

Crying Wolf is an excellent documentary by a homeschool graduate, Jeffrey King, about properly understanding man’s role in nature. It is available to watch free online until December 2011. It does contain some pretty graphic images of animals destroyed by wolves and left to die, but he warns you before the images appear. As one man says in the movie, environmentalism is nature worship, and as Christians, we are supposed to worship the Creator, not the creature (Romans 1:24-25). We are supposed to take what God has given us and make it fluorish. We are supposed to be a part of nature, not just wimpy spectators who feel bad about our “carbon footprint”. Watch the movie and add a comment below if you want to discuss it. Then, get outside and grow something, shoot something, catch something, cut down a tree, etc., but do it responsibly and make good use out of it.

Crying Wolf Movie (HD) from JD King on Vimeo.

One of America's finest, Ben "Frodo" Broussard, next to a Navy T-45 Trainer.

Since I was a child I have dreamed about flying. And not daydreams about flying airplanes (although I’ve had plenty of those), but deep dreams where I was actually flying! Just me zipping through the air, or running along the ground and “gliding” down a flight of stairs instead of walking. Fortunately, because of the major safety hazards involved, I have never attempted to turn my flying dreams into reality. However, a former student of mine and U.S. Naval Academy Graduate, Ben “Frodo” Broussard, recently had his dreams of flying (airplanes) come true, along with his dream of landing on an aircraft carrier.

Now, not to make light of the multitude of accomplishments that so many of my former students have had and continue to achieve, but as a former aerospace engineer and lover of all winged things, I hope you can understand my particular excitement about Ben’s recent achievements. And as you will see, it is not just Ben’s flying achievements that I am excited about.

Jump back in time with me to the late 1990′s when Ben was just 10 years old and totally absorbed with a book on airplanes. As his mother, Lisa, told me recently, Ben read the book with a “gleam in his eye,” and it was then that he realized he wanted to land a plane on an aircraft carrier someday. But then, at 13, Ben received the hard news that he needed glasses, which at the time meant you were not eligible to fly Navy planes. Devastated by the news, it did not deter Ben from pursuing the dream.

And this is where it is important to realize that the Broussards are no ordinary family, not because they have roots in Louisiana, but because of their unwavering faith in God’s plan. It is unfortunate that I have to call them “unordinary,” but it’s true. There are a lot of families that simply do not know, or do not care about, trusting God with their lives. But the Broussards are a great example of what it means to walk with Christ, rejoicing in the good times, accepting the trials, working hard and having fun along the way. As the answer to Question 1 of the Westminster Catechism says, the chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever, and I would say the Broussard family knows how to do that!

Fast-forward now to 2003, when Ben was a student in my homeschool coop AP physics class. In these classes, students do their homework and video lectures at home, at their own pace. We meet once a week for discussion, but mainly to do a hands-on lab activity. One of our lab activities is to build and launch a model rocket. It is actually a competition, where all students get the same Estes Alpha rocket kit, but are allowed to make modifications in an attempt to maximize its speed and minimize its weight. Ben took the modification a little too far though, and forgot to add the onboard computer guidance system that his rocket obviously needed. Upon launch, this future aeronautical engineer’s rocket cartwheeled out of control, and sent more than a few students ducking for cover! Now, there are some students who would have cowered and been extremely embarrassed by such a massive failure, but Ben had the right attitude and took it in stride. And that is part of what Scripture teaches when we read in Hebrews 12:1 about running with perseverance the race marked out for us. And if you are a student, remember this the next time you start whining about having too much schoolwork, or you get mad at God and your parents because you think things are too hard. Instead, honor your parents by doing the things they have asked you to do with a smile on your face and a 100% effort. And don’t beat yourself up when the inevitable failures come, but instead pick yourself up, humble yourself before the Lord, let Him lead you, and try again.

Ben graduated in 2004 in his homeschool class of 1, where he received top honors. A man of many talents, Ben the actor made quite a production out of his graduation, which included, of all things, a rap song he made about my DIVE math and science lessons and my use of the phrase “think about it.” Of course, I had to ruin the fun of the evening with my overly serious graduation charge to Ben, which you can read here: Ben Broussard Graduation Charge, 2004

After high school graduation, the improbability of Ben reaching his dreams seemed more real than ever. You see, Ben did not get into the Naval Academy on his first try. Miraculously though, in the Summer of 2004, he was accepted after Induction Day, which is something that hadn’t happened in 30 years, and hasn’t happened since. Some might say Ben was “lucky”. His mother believes it was Providence, that the “Lord moved a very established institution to accomplish His plans.” I agree with Ben’s mother!

So Ben goes to the Naval Academy, where he is asked by officers how many were in his graduating class, and shocks them when he responds with “ONE, Sir!” Fortunately, U.S. military academies are not so surprised by homeschoolers anymore, and in fact they seem to like them quite a bit.

Ben still had the vision issues though, and was content to settle for a position as a navigator if necessary. But thanks to God allowing the achievements of modern medicine, Ben had PRK (photorefractive keratectomy) surgery his junior year, and now has 20-20 vision. The successful PRK surgery would allow Ben to pass his flight medical his senior year.

Of course, Ben still needed to graduate, which he did, and he still needed to be accepted to flight school, which he was. Somewhere along the way during The Basic School for Marine Officers (TBS), he aquired the nickname of the “Warrior Hobbit.” And then, in July 2011, Ben “Frodo” Broussard’s 15-year dream of landing on an aircraft carrier came true. The video below was produced by Ben, and the footage from the cockpit is what he saw. The other footage was shot by Ben as well. Watch as Ben and other USMC pilots make one of the world’s most awesome, and most difficult jobs look easy:

In Ephesians 2 we are reminded that we are saved by the gift of faith God gives us, not by works. But if you keep reading, you see that as Christians we are also called in Christ Jesus to do the works He has prepared beforehand for us to do. Ben did not achieve his personal dream because he focused only on it at the expense of everything else. Quite the contrary, Ben was blessed with this incredible accomplishment while walking humbly with his God, enjoying life, loving others and making them laugh along the way. It is good and important for us to dream and plan and let our children do the same, but it is more important to commit to His plan and seek His will every second of the day. Thank you Broussards for setting a great example of what a Christian homeschooling family should look like!

For 60 hours on June 6-8, 1912, Novarupta volcano in Katmai National Park spewed a massive amount (3 cubic miles) of magma out its vent, causing the biggest eruption of the 20th and 21st (so far) centuries. In 2009, myself and some other adventurers traveled to the site of the Novarupta lava dome and surrounding Valley of Ten Thousand Smokes. You can watch a YouTube video of our adventure here:

What most visitors to Katmai National Park see is what we saw in 2009, although only a few dozen adventurers hike out to Novarupta. However, there is another side to Novarupta, that few have ever seen, and in 2011 we set out to explore this mysterious place.

The explosion of Novarupta was heard over 750 miles away in Juneau, AK! When Novarupta blew, a magma chamber under Mount Katmai drained, leaving a void that caused the top of Mt. Katmai to collapse. This was about 1 cubic mile of material that fell over 1,000 feet into the void. With cataclysms of such incredible magnitude occurring in such a short period, it is not hard to understand that entire mountains were shaking and falling apart. And that is what is in the image below, the jagged leftovers of a huge piece of Noisy Mountain that came sliding down into the valley, and was later cut through by the Katmai River.  Click on the image to enlarge, and note the conical piles which are characteristic of landslide debris.

Katmai River cuts through a landslide from Noisy Mountain. Copyright 2011, David E. Shormann, PhD

That’s all for now, more will be coming soon of this amazing part of God’s creation!

Unlike our lineup of High School Science products, DIVE Earth Science is a standalone curriculum. No extra book(s) are required, although a list is provided for those who want to go above and beyond the basic curriculum.

Here’s a sample pdf file of the laboratory manual, which includes the yearly schedule:

Sample Earth Science Workbook 1st qtr

Here’s a pdf file containing a list of all laboratory supplies. Many items can be purchased locally, Internet links are provided for other supplies. There is also a list of optional reading materials, both Internet links/videos, and books/DVDs to purchase:

DIVE Earth Science Lab Supplies and Optional Materials List

Here’s a demo of the Getting Started lesson, plus the video lectures and lab activities for Week 3:

DIVE Earth Science Demo

DIVE Earth Science will change the way science is taught. It will give your child a 21st Century Earth Science education, while strengthening their faith in the absolute truth of Scripture as a God-inspired work that is a true account of the history of Earth and the Universe.

To purchase, please email us at sales@diveintomath.com.

Do you have a question or comment about the new DIVE Earth Science? Post it below:

Virtually all oil and natural gas reservoirs are associated with salt domes or similar “piercement structures”, such as mud volcanoes and shale diapirs (not diaper, diapir!). A salt dome occurs when unbelievably thick layers of sea salts like sodium chloride (halite) and calcium sulfate (gypsum) are rapidly smothered by unbelievably thick layers of more dense sediments. Add a little shaking from tectonic activity, and the salt finds a gap and oozes its way to the surface. Below is a U. S. Geological Survey seismic image of a mud diapir off the California coast:

Seismic image of a mud diapir. Notice how the mud has pushed through layers above it.

In 2005, deep sea researchers Martin Hovland, Ian Macdonald, and others discovered what they described as an asphalt volcano in the Gulf of Mexico:

Diagram of an asphalt volcano from martinhovland.com 1) the channel formed through the salt dome (2). 3-6 are various hydrocarbon products

Since the discovery of the Chapopte asphalt volcanoes, other asphalt volcanoes have been discovered, and while actual samples have not been collected, it sure looks like there is an asphalt volcano on Mars!

Possible asphalt volcanism on Mars. If you have Google Earth on your computer, select "Mars", then "fly to" Hebes Chasma, and you can see it.

Just like the majority of petroleum discoveries man has made, the asphalt volcanoes are associated with salt domes. But why is that? Is there a relationship between the formation of all that salt and all that oil and gas? Well, a theory being proposed by Martin Hovland suggests that both the salt and the oil are being generated next to magmatic heat engines:

Heat from the magma chamber generates warm water, which rises. Cold water rushes in through cracks in the sediments to replace this water. In the process, it reacts with hot rocks, forming petroleum products. It also turns into a supercritical fluid, which causes the sea salts to precipitate out (turn to solid).

Yes, you read the caption above correctly, water + rock + heat = oil! Actually, NOAA has studied it quite a bit at a place called Lost City in the Atlantic:

NOAA image of Lost City, where researchers found clues about serpentinization.

The reaction is usually between a rock called olivine, water, and carbon dioxide. Here is one of many complex reactions referred to as serpentinization:

one of many possible reactions

Below is a graph showing the relationship of trace metals from Brazilian crude oil compared to trace metals in serpentinized rock from the mantle. The research by Peter Szatmari and others was published in 2010 in an online textbook (click here):

Trace metals in Brazilian oil compared to their amounts in serpentinized mantle. Research by Peter Szatmari and others (see above for link to their research)

One conclusion from the graph above is that most of the crude oil in Brazil, and everywhere else (including Mars!) was formed by serpentinization that is still going on today. Oil is not a “fossil fuel”. It was probably not formed by dead dinosaurs, flamingoes, and algae dying and slowly decomposing on the ocean floor over millions of years. And even if dead plants and animals were the source, they would have to be buried rapidly, all over the world, since oil is found all over the world.

Think about what this means. If we can develop drilling techniques that can handle even more high temperature, high pressure (HTHP) situations than they do right now, we just may find more oil and gas than we could ever use! Also, notice that in the reaction shown above, carbon dioxide (CO₂) is a reactant, which means that for those who believe excess carbon dioxide is heating the earth, all you need to do is find a way to pump it down to one of these undersea heat engines, and carbon dioxide will be consumed (sequestered). Researchers are already trying to figure out how to do this. And while we are on the subject of greenhouse gases, did you know that water is a much worse greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide? Think about that while you are thinking about how oil and gas may not be as “evil” as some people try to make them seem.

We should be VERY glad that the formation of oil-trapping piercement structures has slowed down today from a more rapid rate in the past. The tectonic activity (earthquakes) involved as lower density salts, gases, and oils pushed through sediments all over the world must have been tremendous. I would speculate that most of this was formed rapidly during the global cataclysm described in Genesis, and most of the piercement structures moved upward during this time, before sediments had a chance to do much compacting and lithifying (turning to rock). Most of these heat engines have cooled considerably, but they do still carry out the process of serpentinization, and with the right tools, it is something we could manipulate.

If there is really a whole lot more oil and gas than we are led to believe by major media outlets and many government leaders, this also means that gasoline prices should drop once we learn how to get to more of this oil. It also means that America’s current desires to make ethanol from corn could be a waste of time. If you are a person who thinks we should halt all oil drilling to “save the planet”, I encourage you to think again. Think instead about encouraging better and safer technology to extract oil and gas from deeper, hotter sections of salt domes in places like the Gulf of Mexico. We don’t need to “save the planet”, we need to manage the planet wisely, and we all need to think harder about how to do that.