Sentences with phrase «not teaching them science»

«That's why the church continues to try to block science from progressing, trying to block certain sciences in schools, and they don't teach all science in private christian schools» = > Public schools are so anti God it is pathetic you are way off on that one.

That's why the church continues to try to block science from progressing, trying to block certain sciences in schools, and they don't teach all science in private christian schools, stop making crap up and being too lazy to do your homework.

We do our children great harm by not teaching them science and the scientific method.

But today I want to change that and say, «I don't teach science, I teach kids how to learn.»

Yet in a world of rapid technological change, schools that can not teach science may be no more in equilibrium than an upturned house balanced on its peak.

When I am not teaching science, I also run an after school Cooking Club, inspired by the 2012 fellowship I received from Fund for Teachers during which I traveled to Thailand and learned to cook Thai food, a healthy.

(Most public schools in New York don't teach science daily until middle school.)

It was not teaching science, history or geography GCSE, and afternoon games sessions were taught by an unqualified staff member.

On the instructional side of science, it has become evident that elementary teachers were not teaching science because they did not know the content nor feel secure with it as a subject area (Rutherford & Ahlgren, 1989); little instructional time in elementary schools was devoted to science (NAEP, 1988); and where science was taught, basal texts that emphasized reading and canned experiments were preferred and used over active learning (Lockwood, 1992a; 1992b).

I could not teach science without Discovery Education Science.

They don't teach science — they indoctrinate — they «tell» the students they are destroying the planet.

In one, a budding scientist, cocktail in hand, gave an opinion right out of the WWII Army Signal Corps training manual: he opined that one couldn't teach science if one couldn't define it.

Heartland and its funders are not so delusional that they can imagine getting their curriculum adopted on any significant scale (among climate denialist private schools and home schoolers, sure, but such people are already not teaching the science), so its primary purpose is as a tool to make the teaching of climate science seem so controversial that it's best to just drop the subject entirely.

I appreciate your point — but the simple fact is, we can't teach science to nonscientists, such as humanities students, the same way we teach it to science students.

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.

You can't teach a marketing guru the equivalent of years of university data science training in his spare time.

«We aren't just teaching computer science,» she says.

The problem appears not to be teaching science in general, but lecture - based passive instruction.

The oldest technical research university in the US, Rensselaer Polytechnic is grounded by two principles: Help students apply science to everyday life, and use teaching methods not used in a typical classroom.

The fact that English Canada fails to produce them in sufficient numbers is not my problem; if any given territory were to fail in teaching math or science, it wouldn't be my problem either.

RALEIGH, N.C. (AP)-- A small but growing number of science and math teachers aren't spending the summer at the beach or catching up on books, they're toiling at companies, practicing the principles they teach.

Running that first shop taught me that business is not financial science; it's about trading: buying and selling.»

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

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!

Christian science is not the Truth and Christianity is not responsible for the false teachings.

He said that it shouldn't be taught in science class because IT»S NOT Sscience class because IT»S NOT SCIENCESCIENCE.

I also believe that what is taught in science (you can't get something from nothing).

This is typical of the folks that want religious ideas taught in school: theyndon't even know what science is.

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.

Hate to burst your little bubble, but this isn't a debate of the validity of your «ghost God», but whether creationism should be taught in science class.

«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.

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.

Science doesn't teach «scientific fact».

Lawrence, You started by asking a foolish question about why not teach religious origins theories in science class?

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.

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.....

@ I wonder The bible can't be taught in public schools in US science can..

As many disagreements as 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.»

And even if it were related, SCIENCE CLASSROOMS are not where we teach morality.

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

Christians have voted to put their God's name on everyones money, add «Under God» to the flag salute, force schools to teach intelligent design with absolutely no scientific basis along side the sciences, voted to write their moral laws on the fronts of public courthouses and tax funded buildings, voted to ban certain people from living together, being intimate or raising children because their orientation didn't fit with their bible beliefs.

Education... creationism would supplant evolution, all sciences that could possibly come in conflict with creationism would be forbidden, all children would be required to pray and be educated in fundamentalist Christianity, women teachers would not be permitted to teach males, girls only, etc..

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».

I don't want to be the type of person that justifies slavery with something like what Jesus teaches or what science shows us.

@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

The biblical teaching, after all, was not aimed at one or another of the various theories developed in the history of modern science but at the cosmological understandings of origins found among surrounding peoples.

Not only does Scripture teach a young earth, but there's plenty of science to back that up.

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.