''Due to the age of these standards, some required content is
scientifically outdated and irrelevant and the research supporting these
standards is also outdated (over 30 years old)," a State School Board
document said.'' Outdated, irrelevant? Ouch. Gasp. Been
teaching Junk science for 30 years? Time to move to home schooling? If
evolution were true, I'd have eyes in the back of my head. By the way has
the number for 'pi' changed in these past 30 years? Have the co-sins,
derivatives changed? SHouldn't the changes have had a headline or two?
"Intelligent design" is not science; global warming is.
@ sjgf: Science is knowledge - not a belief system. The idea that
life is too complicated to have just happened and therefore must have had a
creator is a belief system and does not belong in a science class. There is much more proof for life just happening than there is for an
intelligent designer or other creator.
On the other hand, the very understanding that life could not have started
without help makes the 'theory' that there was intelligent design a
much more plausible theory. There is little physical evidence of what form that
intelligent design took, but it is certain that we as a species owe our
existence to an intelligent being. That much, at least, should be taught in
schools as part of the curriculum.
I'm certainly all for teaching the most accurate information on science or
any other discipline to our students.That said, some of the
"science" being described in this article concerns me.The
U.S. Constitution forbids the federal government from establishing a religion.
And yet, that is exactly what the schools have done.The whole
concept of life starting spontaneously in the deeps of time, then evolving to
the whole variety of plant and animal life we have today, is not science, but
simply a belief system. Some would call any belief system a religion. Others
would say that in order to be a religion, the belief system must include the
notion of worshiping a deity.In any case, the teaching of life
starting on its own, without the help of intelligent design, is simply a belief
system. It has become the national religion -- taught in our public schools, and
funded by tax dollars. And while some may believe with all their being that this
'theory' is actual science, it has 0% chance of ever being proven
correct by science. It is a theory without the possibility of ever being
substantiated.On the other hand, [to be continued ...]
@GDForester "Climate change is just a fact."And
has been ever since the planet existed, before man existed and before recorded
climate data (which is only about 130 years ago, beginning in the late
1800's which was a cool period of earths history, long after a warm period
where the vikings were practicing farming in Greenland and long before millions
of people moved to environmentally risky areas like south Florida or Texas,
which now makes the exact same level of hurricane more damaging simply because
of the amount of investment to be damaged even without any climate change)Climate hysteria is also a fact - as evidenced by the amount of blatant
lies told to promote disaster scenarios and the efforts to vilify those who do
not accept hysteria.Which is too bad. Questioning IS the scientific
method. But many pseudo-purveyors of "science" simply want to use it as
a tool to "silence"
Yes, evolution is a theory - in exactly the same way that gravity and general
relativity are theories. (Yes, there is also a law of gravity - but the law of
gravity and gravitational theory are two different things; the law describes the
“what” the theory describes the “how/why”.)The theory of evolution is supported by evidence - lots and lots of evidence
that explains the entire process. (There is no “missing link.”)Intelligent design has no supporting evidence. The lack of supporting
evidence makes this inappropriate to discuss in science class, just as the idea
of turtles all the way down is not appropriate for science class. Science is based on evidence and only science should be taught in science
@NoNamesAccepted -- perfectly stated: "We were taught all the latest
science (and sex ed with birth control) decades ago in our rural Utah school. No
mention of "intelligent design". And no controversy because teachers
were trusted not to spin, not to attack any parental, religious, or community
values. But when anyone hijacks education to advance a socio
political agenda, trust is lost and curriculum must be tightly controlled."
Steven's thoughts are pretty limited when it comes to things beyond time...
and that surprises me. He speaks assuredly about what he teaches and should
remember the educational agenda he strongly influences. They need freedom to
have faith in their own research beyond the books and theories he knows.
Personally I believe most of what I'm taught in school except that
it's all from a random accident. But that's faith. If he is wise he
should remember that and speak as if he uses faith in his huge theory and is
open to others. He is bound to be surprised in the end as am I.
@Rifleman You would be hard pressed to find any professional educator that
believes that the No Child Left Behind Act was a good idea - it was the greatest
federal over-reach in education history and every educational organization
fought against it when it was created and signed into law by George W. Bush in
2002.I have never heard an educator refer to it as
'progressive' - no matter what their political persuasion. I know a
lot of conservative educators who long for the days before NCLB ushered in the
era of standardized testing on steroids. In fact, it is an issue that every
educator I know agrees on - NCLB was a terrible law! The thing is...
I'm not sure how it has relevance to this discussion. The states have
complete control of education concept standards. Utah could write a standard
that says that the kids in Utah will be taught that the earth is flat, the sky
is green, and reindeer really do fly...if they want. How about we
let families and churches teach kids about God, and science educators teach kids
Doom Turtle, when you label my views on intelligent design as nonsensical dogma
you obviously have no idea what my views are.Thomas Jefferson,
I’ve also seen religious people dress up their creationism with what they
call ‘intelligent design’ and I agree that there’s nothing
scientific about it.Darwin’s work provides a robust
explanation of how natural selection acting on random mutations generate new
phenotypes. That has led to incredible advances in medicine and public health.
Genetic engineers have also capitalized on these insights to revolutionize the
agricultural industry. That much is obvious. What’s not so obvious is
whether or not these same concepts can truly explain the generation of new body
plans.New body plans require an immense amount of novel genetic
information (DNA). Darwinian concepts have not been shown to be capable of
generating that type of information. The only mechanism that has been shown to
generate novel prescriptive information is an intelligent mind. Does that prove
any theory of Intelligent Design? No, of course not. But it is strong enough
evidence that any scientist that doesn’t at least consider its merits has
an obvious agenda to protect.
Climate change is just a fact. If I took the temperature of the room and it was
71 degrees and measured it the next day at 74 degrees, no one would say that
observation is political. It just is what it is. It is a measurement. In a
similar way, we know the planet is getting warmer, and we even know why. Not
political, just a fact. Also, some of the board members (and some people
commenting) clearly don't understand what the word theory means in science.
With that said, it's also not cool to throw down on spirituality. It just
doesn't belong in a science class. We don't go to science class to
learn about God, just as much as we don't go to church to learn about
oxidative respiration. As a science teacher, I shouldn't have to explain
science all year and then teach things like how penguins walked thousands of
miles from Antarctica to get on a boat, or the chemical process of turning water
No Child Left Behind is a failed concept whereby students who want to learn are
kept back in order to concentrate on students who have no desire to learn.Liberals call it progess and conservatives call it the "Deliberate
Dumbing Down of America".
Utah's children deserve to be taught proven facts and truth as are taught
in other developed literate societies.It is a great disservice to teach
them based on the dogma espoused by a subset of the US republican party, the
only group that believes in nonsense like "intelligent design" and
ignores the overwhelming evidence supporting human caused global warming. The
government today released a report supporting ‘no convincing alternative
explanation’ for climate change other than human activity.Yes
evolutionary theory is a "theory", just like gravitational theory and a
host of mathematical theory. The dictionary defines theory as "a coherent
group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be
used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of
phenomena."Lets help our kids succeed in the 21st century and not
teach them to compete in the bronze age.
@RGYou claim to have a PhD. Would the citations you
provided have been acceptable in your doctoral thesis, based on the credibility,
context and actual support they provided for your claims?I can say
without question they would not suffice as support for even an undergrad paper,
let alone a doctoral thesis.They're not all climate
scientists' statements. Those that are from climate scientists have been
taken out of context and do not remotely reflect the positions of the scientists
that made them.Honestly it looks like you simply scrambled to
capture snippets of statements that might possibly support your initial claims.
Why is it that those who scream about their poor little lovies being taught a
"political agenda" that is solid science are the ones who want their
political agenda taught even if it is not scientific? I have no problem with
those who believe in intelligent design ... bhere is no medical or academic
institution or career where understanding the concept of intelligent design is
going to be helpful. That doesn't mean there aren't scientists who
believe in Darwinism AND intelligent design ... but only one applies in their
labs. Climate change is a major issue these days ... whether you believe it is
valid or not, children will need to understand what the scientific community
position is in order to discuss it intelligently in order to survive school, any
kind of scientific career. You don't have to agree with or believe in
everything you learn in school ... but you at least need to know what the
prevailing issues are.
Lots of posters wanting to teach facts.Fine. Shall we teach the
latest scientific discoveries about fetal pain at 15 to 20 weeks? Or long known
facts about the fetus having its own circulation system, when the nervous system
develops, etc?Or you ok if we include emphasis on latest
archeological discoveries like pre-Columbian horses in America, ancient records
engraved on metal plates and stored in stone boxes, and so on? There is no
agenda here, just teaching facts.Perhaps we should include some
study of near death experiences. Or maybe persecution of early LDS needs more
emphasis in history claases.Anyone who claims the context in which
facts are taught doesn't matter is either grossly ignorant or has
determined the implicit context favors his agenda.We were taught all
the latest science (and sex ed with birth control) decades ago in our rural Utah
school. No mention of "intelligent design". And no controversy because
teachers were trusted not to spin, not to attack any parental, religious, or
community values. But when anyone hijacks education to advance a
socio political agenda, trust is lost and curriculum must be tightly controlled.
GrandpaScott: "There is scientific evidence that favors both naturalistic
and design hypotheses."What scientific evidence favors a design
hypothesis. I've never seen any. I've seen religious people dress up
creationism as 'intelligent design' with no scientific basis.Ignominious: "While I won't say there is no evidence for
"evolution" I will say that there is none for evolving from one species
to another. You'll notice that most defending "evolution"
don't mention this difference."You dont understand the subject.
Lots of evidence exists."Homeschool your children. I assure you
it's easy to do as well as the government schools. And your children are
worth it."Please do. I want my kids to have an educational advantage.
RG, Thanks for those "sources', most of which are not
climate scientists. We know that there are some scientists that disagree with
GCC. There are even a few who who disagree without being shills for by the
energy extraction industries. The fact remains that there are almost no climate
scientists who agree with these outliers. Its possible that 99% of climate
scientists are simply wrong. But it isnt likely. There are
'scientists' who think the earth is flat.
"Faith science" is not about replicating physical observations, true
science is. I want nothing to do with anything trying to tell me I will never
receive results and that I must just believe it is nevertheless true. As long as
science curriculum presents the physical observations, evidence and data and
stays away from unprovable and unreplicable theories I'm all for it. Life
cannot be maintained by Faith Science. How would farmers ever be able to produce
a tree full of fruit if they merely believed a seed will magically change into a
fruit tree without any effort on the part of the farmer to plant the seed, water
and dung it, and other works necessary in the growth and development of the
tree? Faith Science advocates infuriate me.
@ Silo & Utah Girl Chronicles: A couple more: Wish I had room for more; this
is my last allowed comment.•“Rather than seeing models as
describing literal truth, we ought to see them as convenient fictions which try
to provide something useful.” David Frame, climate modeler, Oxford
University.•“To do that we need to get some broadbased support,
to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting
loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make
simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might
have.” Stephen Schneider, Stanford University.•“It is no
secret that a lot of climate-change research is subject to opinion, that climate
models sometimes disagree even on the signs of the future changes (e.g. drier
vs. wetter future climate). The problem is, only sensational exaggeration makes
the kind of story that will get politicians’—and
readers’—attention. So, yes, climate scientists might exaggerate,
but in today’s world, this is the only way to assure any political action
and thus more federal financing to reduce the scientific uncertainty.”
Monika Kopacz, atmospheric scientist, Harvard University.
@Silo & Utah Girl OK here are a few: (No space for complete refs but
I’ve got them)• “A lot of environmental messages are
simply not accurate. But that’s the way we sell messages in this society.
We use hype. And we use those pieces of information that sustain our position. I
guess all large organizations do that.” Professor Jerry Franklin, an
ecologist at the University of Washington.•“People come to me
and say: ‘stop talking like this; you’re hurting the cause.”
Dr. Giegengack of University of Pennsylvania, on his admitting of certain
uncertainties in climate science. •From the respected journal
Science: “Many of the researchers behind the dire predictions concede that
the scenarios are speculative. But they say their projections play a useful role
in consciousness raising.”•“What we’ve got to do in
energy conservation is try to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory
of global warming is wrong, to have approached global warming as if it is real
means energy conservation, so we will be doing the right thing anyway in terms
of economic policy and environmental policy.”—Timothy Wirth, former
U.S. Senator at 1992 Earth Summit in Rio.
People like Alisa Ellis and Lisa Cummins should not be deciding on science
curriculum. You want to teach intelligent design? Do it in a
Religion course. It is not science.
This is why school board appointees matter.Some lady who has no
science background deciding science curriculum based on her religion. If we are complacent we will slip right back into the dark ages with this
mentality. Science is for thinking critically. It's a method of approaching
problem solving. If you want to teach creationism, do it in Seminary.
While I won't say there is no evidence for "evolution" I will say
that there is none for evolving from one species to another. You'll notice
that most defending "evolution" don't mention this difference. A
more accurate name would be the theory of adaptation. Anything beyond that is
conjecture."Global warming" outside of normal cycles and
solar activity is junk science. This is simply an effort to control people and
get funding. Despite comments to the contrary there is plenty of evidence to
show this.Changes to what's taught is not an effort to remove
religious beliefs from the classroom but rather to mandate whose get taught. In
this case it's fake science dogma.Homeschool your children. I
assure you it's easy to do as well as the government schools. And your
children are worth it.
The full report of the National Climate Assessment, just released, should be
referenced in all science classes.
@RGIf there's an option for climate like "well what about the
sun" then what the scientists do is they develop instruments and look at the
sun's radiation. What they found is that solar irradiance has been
declining for a couple decades and we just had our weakest sunspot cycle in a
century. We set record warm temperatures in 2014, 2015 and then in 2016.
Attribution studies don't find any natural pattern (the sun, volcanoes,
natural variations like El Nino) that accounts for this.What they
have found though is that CO2 has increased to levels not seen in at least 800k
years by increasing 35% since the industrial revolution. CO2 is the second
largest contributor to the greenhouse effect (about 10% of the 33C warming we
get because of the greenhouse effect). It wouldn't make sense for us to
increase CO2 by 35% and not have it increase temperatures.
Science teachers should teach how to collect, validate and analyze data, and
form and validate hypotheses. Science should avoid emotions, biases and agendas,
not promote them. It should teach critical thinking skills using scientific
tools to help students determine for themselves what is ‘true’. I
consider it a great disservice for a science teacher to promote personal beliefs
even when I hold those same beliefs, because that’s not science.There is scientific evidence that favors both naturalistic and design
hypotheses. Darwin contributed much to our understanding, but knew nothing of
the actual mechanisms of evolution which were discovered long after he died. Now
that we do, we can analyze his discoveries in a new light. Whether or not that
confirms his theories should be determined by the evidence, not a policy or a
teachers persuasive power.Just because new discoveries may have
religious or political implications, doesn’t mean we shouldn't learn
as much as we can through robust scientific inquiry. It worries me when evidence
isn’t presented fairly or when students aren't given the tools that
empower them to discover the veracity of things that you and I only think we
@ RG"And I have many quotes of climate scientists admitting they
often stretch the truth just to get people motivated. "Why not
share a few of those quotes with us then?
Allow me, as a scientist, to describe what a scientific theory is:A
scientific theory is a set of principles and axioms that are used to interpret a
particular part of nature, such as general relativity and gravity, kinetic
molecular theory and chemical reactions, and evolution and the origin of
different forms of life. It is well-supported by current evidence and known
facts and accurately predicts a behavior at the level we are currently capable
of understanding it.What a scientific theory is not:An opinion that
may or may not be right but currently has no evidence to support it. We call
these "conjectures."An observed principle that accurately models
behavior in certain circumstances but makes no attempt to interpret the
behavior. We call these "laws."A set of ideas that cannot be
proven or disproven through the scientific method. We call these
"philosophies."Personal assertions of reality that openly ignore
observed facts or have been clearly disproven yet continue to be propagated out
of stubbornness. We call these "pseudosciences."Do
yourselves all a favor and get the bureaucrats out of science education before
our nation completely forgets what reality looks like.
How can teach intelligent design when nobody knows what it is?
Funny we still can't get middle school science teachers even though the
article claims it has been a boon. Not.Most every potential science
teacher I talk to says our Utah standards are a ridiculous mess. They try to
make connections and call it "integrated science" when in reality it is
just a far reaching mess.Most science teachers will tell you they
would like to teach either Biology, Earth Science, or Physical Science at the
middle school level. The integrated stuff is a complete joke and puts a
Biologist teaching physics or a physicist teaching Biology. It makes no sense.
"I am not in favor of furthering an agenda, but maybe just teaching theory
and letting both sides of the argument come out, whether it's intelligent
design or the Darwin origin" Cummins said.I agree with
Cummins... we should definitely be teaching intelligent design to our children.
You know, just as one possible explanation. After all, there is clear and
convincing evidence that Brahma created the universe after emerging from a lotus
connected to the navel of Lord Vishnu.
It seems there are some State School Board members who are adopting a flat-earth
philosophy based on religious faith not science in attempting to make state-wide
education policy. The arguments being raised here aren't about a political
agenda but more about a religious agenda. The State Board is re-arguing the
Scopes-Monkey trial of 1925 about evolution in the school curriculum.
Definition of a theory: An explanation for all the evidence; it has been
thoroughly tested and evaluated, and has not been falsified.That is
the status of the "theory" of evolution. Don't confuse theory with
hypothesis (a proposition undergoing testing), as most people seem to do.And get this: at its basic level, evolution is demonstrated fact -- life
forms change through time.Wouldn't it be remarkable to have a
school board who actually knew these definitions (knew what they're talking
If I have the standards change on me again, I will go crazy. I am going through
the new sEED core standards this year, in the 7th grade. They are actually
pretty good. They are focused on teaching students how to apply science in a
real world , not just memorizing facts and telling me what you know (Google Home
can do that too). We have always taught science by evidence. Whether it is
natural selection and evolution, or climate change. It is about evidence, take
it or leave it. I don't teach about God, Prajapati, or Allah- I just
don't have the evidence for it. Even if I have some faith in it. Whether
they change the standards or not, that won't change how I teach (now 2017
sEED standards, or 2010 standards).
"We need to be cognizant of what our children are being taught contrary to
beliefs" Cummins said.Stupid facts... always getting in the way
of our beliefs.
As the CJCLDS church's official position states: Leave science to the
scientists, and let us magnify our callings in the realm of the church. In
other words, science classes are for science. Religion classes are for religion.
As a scientist and Christian, I've spent my entire adult life
studying and fully enveloped in both. And like nearly all scientists, I can
tell you this with no reservations: Creationism in any of its guises is not
science in any way, shape, or form. It has no place outside of religion
"Newmeyer said the office of the State School Board issued a recommended
lesson plan on the life and science of Stephen Hawking. Students were supposed
to view a video on Hawking and write a report...."'This is
a problem of adopting Next Generation Science Standards or things very close to
it,' Newmeyer said."I just searched the Next Generation
Science Standards and Hawking's name doesn't appear in them. What
does this anecdote have to do with the standards?
"Standards for students in grades three through five and for high school
were adopted in 2002"This is pure nonsense. I teach 6th grade
science and we are in the process of implementing the new SEEd standards that
were approved two years ago (for grades 6-8). The state has offered training and
workshops. Our District has been getting 6-8 grade science teachers together
over the last eighteen months to help us prepare.
This is all reminiscent of the trouble Galileo ran into with the Catholic church
in the 1600s. Bronze Age explanations for the origin of life should never be
presented as science.
@RG"having read the climate gate emails, I can say that they present
how not to do science"And yet 8 different scientific bodies
investigated 'climate gate' and every single investigation found no
wrongdoing. Perhaps you should share your observations of the email with them
so they can reconsider their investigation results."Some climate
scientists have been caught saying if the real world data doesn't match the
models, the data must be wrong"So cite even one of those climate
scientists that was caught saying the data must be wrong."I have
many quotes of climate scientists admitting they often stretch the truth"So cite one of those climate scientists you claim admits to stretching
the truth. "and why they were so adamant that it was caused by
increasing CO2 levels instead of other natural phenomena like solar activity
cycles"So you're claiming that climate scientists have not
considered solar activity cycles or other natural phenomena in their research?
For someone claiming to have a science background, you proceeded to
make a number of unsubstantiated claims in support of your opinion.
Where's the data that backs up those opinions?
Go ahead, make the changes. Homeschooling and religious based schools will
flourish. I can hardly wait until we can get our tax money back in the form of a
voucher and support the institutions that do not have an agenda that is in
complete defiance for what I believe to be the truth. Progressives and liberals
are on their way to ruining the education system just like they did the Boy
Scouts of America. RIP
Looks to me as if some people confuse the scientific method, with political
ideologies and religious/philosophical debates.A proper science
class teaches science and does not dwell in the land of political debate.
Science is self correcting and if the evidence of climate change is incorrect,
then science will come up with new hypotheses, theorums and settled fact. Like
gravity, science knows what it is, but does not always know all the
implication.But religion does not allow for such a self correcting
process. It properly belongs in the home, the church or some other avenue. We
are a multicultural country with competing religions after all. Who is to say
which one is the right one?
I am not a climate scientist but I am a PhD scientist, and having read the
climate gate emails, I can say that they present how not to do science.
Bullying, scheming to hide data, cherry picking data, losing data, and doing it
for a "cause" (their words) instead of just to find the truth permeate
those emails. Real science does not seek "consensus" and is not so
heavily politicized. Some climate scientists have been caught saying if the real
world data doesn't match the models, the data must be wrong (instead of the
models being wrong.) And I have many quotes of climate scientists admitting they
often stretch the truth just to get people motivated. Someday people will look
back and wonder how so many people got bamboozled over this scare, and why they
were so adamant that it was caused by increasing CO2 levels instead of other
natural phenomena like solar activity cycles.
""The Next Generation Science Standards take a very dogmatic approach to
certain key issues in science, Darwinian evolution and global warming. If you
come up with a system that's so closely tied to the Next Generation Science
Standards, those attitudes will come back in into the classroom and indeed they
did," said Newmeyer."Right. Because evolution and global
warming are two areas of science. They belong in the classroom. "Newmeyer said the office of the State School Board issued a recommended
lesson plan on the life and science of Stephen Hawking. Students were supposed
to view a video on Hawking and write a report.The question Hawking
addressed was "whether there indeed needed to be a God for the Big Bang to
happen or could it could have happened all on its own," Newmeyer said."The answer stated by Stephen Hawking in the video was, 'No, no time
in which there could have been a God because time came after the Big Bang. There
was no time there could have been a God. It happened all on its own,'"
he said."Right. So? Seems his problem is that science wont
line up the way he wants with his religion. Sorry but science is evidence based,
not magic based.
"But others, like board member Alisa Ellis, said she is opposed to the
national science standards because they are more about advancing political
agenda than improving science instruction."It's a political
thing. Really, these national science standards they have little to do with
science and a lot to do with what is politically expedient.
a heavy emphasis on global warming. There's a heavy emphasis as evolution
as a fact and not as a theory," Ellis said."Now that is some
amazing projection. Little hint Alisa, evolution is a fact. The theory of
evolution by natural selection is a theory which describes the highest level of
scientific understanding. Theory in science is not the same as the colloquial
use. "I am not in favor of furthering an agenda, but maybe just
teaching theory and letting both sides of the argument come out, whether
it's intelligent design or the Darwin origin." -Lisa Cummins (who went
to college for one whole year!)Furthering an agenda is exactly what
you are doing with this statement. 'Intelligent design' is the
definition of pseudo science. There are not 'two sides' here. There is
science and religion repackaged as science to fool people.
It's not a political agenda. It's science. This nation never
used to be afraid of or belittle knowledge and intelligence. Now we demand it be
relegated to the level of superstition. Students would be well served if
high schools instead gave them an opportunity to explore the existence of god
from a perspective of philosophy. They could consider the writings of Aquinas
and Hume and Darwin. Good, thought provoking ideas. In the end, even if
one comes to the conclusion that god exists, it speaks absolutely nothing to the
nature of god. Nothing whatsoever about whether she minds that I enjoy a beer.
From the article:"board member Alisa Ellis, said she is opposed
to the national science standards because they are more about advancing
political agenda than improving science instruction"Based on
this one statement, Alisa Ellis has no business making ANY decisions on science
curriculum in our schools, unless she's prepared to back up her opinions
While I don't disagree that national standards are littered with political
agendas, are we saying we have to modify ours to match our political agenda? In
the end science instruction should match scientific findings. It should teach
proven facts. It should teach the many theories that are presented to explain
what we don't know or yet understand and discuss the evidence, studies,
etc. that support those theories. It should provide the maximum amount of good
information, and draw conclusions only where conclusive evidence exists.I
think it's ridiculous for someone to believe the Big Bang Theory and look
down on religious people who believe God created the universe. There is at least
as much evidence supporting the latter as the former. However, that doesn't
mean I don't want my children taught the Big Bang Theory - they should
understand scientific theories. Being religious, I don't doubt that God may
have created the universe with a "Big Bang." Same with evolution. I find
it hard to believe a bunch of monkeys turned into humans and the rest
didn't. But, perhaps that is a process God used to create man. My kids
should understand the scientific theories - presented as theories.
A lot of good would come if science classes clearly distinguished between facts
and theories; unfortunately, even some established scientists fail to see this
distinction. More good would come if students were encouraged to pursue
questions, developing creative, but useful ways of investigating. How can you
measure this quantity ? what unit of measure is appropriate ? I remember a
chemistry class where we were given a shoe box with an arrangement of
'things' inside and were asked to formulate a hypothesis of the
structure inside the box. In PSSC Physics we experimented with viewing different
kinds of motion through a simple, inexpensive stroboscopic device. A lot of
similar activities should be done at more elementary levels. Young children are
much brighter and creative than most adults think. Speaking of creativity,
especially very young children should have opportunity to learn to develop
creative processes through visual art, music and writing. Eliminating art
I find it interesting that those who oppose teaching science do not feel that
they have an agenda. By not teaching science and curriculum associated with
science--evolution, climate change ect. the agenda of those who oppose science
are meeting their agenda. I worry that that agenda is if you don't teach
what I believe you are wrong. I guess you only have to look to the middle east
to find that when you only teach what you believe things can go in a direction I
am not sure we want to go. We need to teach science to Utah k-12 students in
the science classrooms. If you want to debate, discuss, defend non scientific
ideas it should be done but not in the science classroom.
These changes are long overdue. There is no place for superstition in