Sentences with phrase «teaching science as»

Teaching science as emphasized in the reform documents, however, is not easy.

We need to get parents to understand this because I've talked to outstanding teachers who've said, «Well I'm teaching science as inquiry but the parents in my [suburban] districts are coming back at me.

Well, from kindergarten on we often teach science as a body of information not relevant to anything going on in the world.

Instead, Lisa teaches science as a subject that is connected to everything.

Not exact matches

Gates dubs Mukherjee a «a quadruple threat,» as he not only takes care of patients, teaches medical students, and conducts research, but also pens Pulitzer Prize - winning science books.

The science suggests biology, as women are far more interested in nurturing activities, such as teaching.

As much as your marketing guys want to learn data science, it's much, much easier to teach a data scientist the basics of marketinAs much as your marketing guys want to learn data science, it's much, much easier to teach a data scientist the basics of marketinas your marketing guys want to learn data science, it's much, much easier to teach a data scientist the basics of marketing.

The Liberals have put their future bets on programs to promote science, technology, engineering and mathematics fields for students, and a program known as CanCode aimed at teaching coding and digital skills to one million students.

Entrepreneur Jen Medberry parlayed her experiences from Teach for America as well as her computer science background from Columbia University into an education startup dubbed Kickboard.

«I have long thought that what the Buddha taught can be seen as a highly developed science of mind which, if made more accessible to a lay audience, could benefit many people.

Otherwise you have to call greek mythology historical science and teach that in a science class as well.

Science has a ton of assumptions and we need to make sure we are also teaching our kids that aspect, evolution (as it pertains to we came from apes) has many flaws and unanswered questions and shouldn't be taught as scientific fact!

When you ask certain Christians not to teach their religion as science you are asking them to give up an important part of their religion.

«Me» - The problem isn't with teaching about Creationism, but with teaching it AS SCIENCE, which it is not.

Nye wasn't there to debate whether or not people should be allowed to believe in Creationism... he was simply there to challenge, as has always had to be done, the idea that beliefs should be taught right alongside science as though the two were not mutually exclusive.

american redneck teach fairy tale as science..

The government, the Supreme Court actually, you know, the one made up of christians and jews but no atheists, said one religion could not be taught to the exclusion of others, and they said ID is not science, just religious creationism in disguise, so can not be taught as science.

I hope that Creationism will continue to be taught, as was suggested, in a historical context — in philosophy courses and in the history of religion and science.

If he had asked the question you're posing, then yes, I would agree that «creationism» should be taught under Religious Education or Religious Studies as it obviously does not fall under Science.

Teaching Creationism as an alternative to science damages science, damages trust in science and in truth.

but not taught as fact and right after science class where they learn Darwin's theory of evolution, watch videos on the big bang theory, have a field trip where they meet up with an archeologist to uncover one of our ancestors remains that weren't as evolved, learn how old the earth truely is etc.....

As many disagreements as I have with the Catholic church, I applaud them for teaching both religion and science and not trying to reconcile theAs many disagreements as I have with the Catholic church, I applaud them for teaching both religion and science and not trying to reconcile theas I have with the Catholic church, I applaud them for teaching both religion and science and not trying to reconcile them.

southerneyes44, you wrote «Germany doesn't teach about him» in regards to Hitler That's a ludicrous assertion as is «Theories in science change with the newspaper.»

This is a group of religious extremest screaming that their creation myth should be taught as science.

You're trying to have creationism taught as a science.

Whether it is changing text books to teach religion as a «science,» making laws that prohibit stem - cell research which would without question help those in need, to stopping of any kind of gay rights, trying to put religion (christianity) into schools, a woman's right to choose, etc, etc...

Math and science, he said, are taught in the spirit of the humanities even if their questions seem not to be as existentially pressing.

The prime proponents of ID are the fine folk at the Discovery Inst / itute who openly admit that they purpose is NOT to teach what they think is true, but rather to use ID as a «wedge to defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies» and to separate science from it's allegiance to «atheistic naturalism».

He was saying that if people do that it would be just as insane as people trying to get creationism taught in science class.

Then they brand atheism as a religion, and claim the history and science taught in schools is atheistic.

@KatMat: your analogy would begin approaching realism if: — during the pledge of allegiance kids were forced to say «one nation under The Orioles» — our nation's currency said «In Dallas Cowboys We Trust» — if millions were slaughtered, tortured and burned to death because they weren't fans of The Pittsburgh Penguins — if NASCAR fans endlessly attempted to have Intelligent Car Driving taught beside Evolution in science class as a possible explanation for how mankind developed — if «the 5 D's» of Dodgeball (Dodge, Duck, Dip, Dive, Dodge) were constantly attempted to be made into law so everyone would live by the same ridiculous notions, even if those notions knowingly discriminate — if nutters constantly claimed America was founded on the principles of Darts, even though our country SPECIFICALLY calls for a separation between Darts and State because the founders knew the inherent dangers of Darts becoming government instead of staying in the realm of sport where it belongs

(9) The researching and teaching of evolution has had a secular bias as well, since science has been carried on largely in a secular context as a secular enterprise, in relation to which religious affirmations (such as creation) are seen as quaint and superfluous.

But his solution is not «more science and better science» as the Head of Physics at a school where I once taught averred during a staff meeting.

Second, that what is taught must not conflict with the accepted facts of science, or the pupil is bound to be in trouble as he senses the disparity.

It is off - topic but there is a well - funded campaign to teach creationism as science — loading school boards, voucher systems, etc..

You get relgious îdiots demanding to teach mythology as science.

But the fact of the matter is that as powerful as science is, it has a long way to go before it can offer anything nearly as complete and practical and useful to the subjective lives of human beings as the teachings of the various world religions.

The chapter headed «Where psychiatry and Catholicism agree» is similarly enlightening, as the Church can find confirmation in secular science for her teachings on marriage and family life, and the negative impact of parental separation and divorce.

Moreover, in our Catholic schools, every Catholic teacher, even though their teaching qualification may be in maths, science, geography or PE, must see themselves as an RE teacher too.

«all teaching of evolution must go as there is no proof» First, science doesn't deal in «proof», except mathematics and logic.

This we may readily concede, and many neurologists, psychologists, biochemists etc., would willingly agree; but no understanding of man can be any longer satisfactory, which is content to ignore what these sciences have taught us about the nature of man as a psychosomatic organism.

Attempting to be loyal to the Bible by turning the creation accounts into a kind of science or history is like trying to be loyal to the teachings of Jesus by arguing that the parables are actual historical events, and only reliable and trustworthy when taken literally as such.

The more you know about science today and the religions of the ancient world, the less it is possible to believe what you were taught as a child, even if you wanted to.

As a medical professional, one would think you'd understand that biological evolution, much like general relativity, quantum mechanics, the germ theory of disease, cell theory, plate tectonic theory, etc is a scientific theory and should be taught in science class based on the preponderance of evidence that backs it.

Another cause for concern is the way the christian agenda is pushed right here: christian religious beliefs to be taught as science, christian religious texts on public buildings, christian prayers at public meetings, christian beliefs as law, etc..

All these parents who insist on teaching «creationism» to their kids as «science», while downplaying (or completely / hiding denying) the tangible bona fide evidence of evolution... I sometimes have to wonder why they don't simply feed lead paint to their kids and get it over with.

mama - Today public schools teach evolution as a means to species as fact, even though science knows from the Global geological record and Dr. Gould's work that species occur rapidly followin a mass extinction; in violation of the same seperation claus.

After attending the Institute for Creation Research in San Diego and Dallas Theological Seminary, he served as youth minister at a large Baptist church in San Diego and taught science at the affiliated Christian high school.

No I do not (and it's a fair point), but I do insult idiots who try to «sell» myth as science — it's truly insulting... and damaging to the youth of this country who are taught this absolute distortion of the truth

Then again, for the average American, I guess it's easier to think of it as a fact rather than trying to correct the years of awful teaching that left this thorough understanding of science unaddressed.