Sentences with phrase «to teach the controversy»

Educational Opportunities for science based curriculum at all levels can be as simple or complex as teaching the controversy of the science: What are the sociological foundations of accepting climate change science.

Every generation needs to be taught these controversies anew.

Teach the controversy in history class, sure.

According to a 2013 analysis by Kei Kawashima - Ginsberg of Tufts University, teaching the controversies does indeed appear to increase students» civic knowledge; perhaps such discussions allow teachers to raise the energy level in the classroom and thus better capture the attention of students.

But the history summary is too brief to be systematic: it may be important, for instance, that in a 1953 survey, Ohio teachers reported «teaching the controversies over the federal take - over of the Steel Mills, the Firing of General Douglas MacArthur, and the use of the Atomic Bomb,» but the reader can not judge if this instruction was unusual, or geographically limited, or widespread across the nation.

I am in favor of «teaching the controversy» in public schools.

It is only newsworthy because of the faux ID vs. evolution, «teach the controversy» debate that the ID groups are latching onto as some sort of glaring injustice.

We need to teach both sides, we need to teach the controversy.

Yeah but they want to teach the controversy... you know, how the earth might be only 10,000 years old (no it isn't) and that humans and dinosaurs roamed the earth together (no they didn't) and that evolution has no evidence (yes it does) or that there was a global flood (no there wasn't) or that the earth might be flat or the center of the universe or a million other wrong headed theories that fly in the face of the evidence.

Ironically, the biggest supporters Creationists have in the «teach the controversy» argument are the Raelians who say that the Earth was seeded with life by extra-terrestrials.

There is no more reason to «teach the controversy» about evolution than there is to teach the «controversy» surrounding whether or not the earth revolves around the sun, or whether or not the earth is flat.

Many scientists do not accept evolution, evolution is a «theory in crisis» and we should «teach the controversy.»

In referring to creationism in this way, the National Trust appear to have fallen victim to the «teach the controversy» strategy pursued by creationists, in their attempt to disseminate their views via educational institutions.

«Intelligent Design» is being taught in our schools; educators are being asked to «teach the controversy» behind evolutionary theory.

The approach is also strikingly similar to the «teach the controversy» campaign mounted by the Seattle - based think tank the Discovery Institute.

Instead, the institute advocates «teaching the controversy» — a legally safer approach, in which schools present Darwinism as controversial without endorsing intelligent design.

Still, the teachers note that teaching the controversy has made for lively lessons in civics, politics and skeptical thinking — part of the goal of the whole unit.

Teachers must stay on top of this in case there is ever a school board member or community member who tries to institute the «teach the controversy» rhetoric in their classroom.

When you «teach the controversy», whether evolution or climate science, you are avoiding the actual science in favour of presenting an alternative (non-scientific) point of view as equally valid (or more so).

In the same way that creationists urge schools to «teach the controversy,» climate change skeptics aim to sow doubt about scientific consensus, said Mark McCaffrey, the programs and policy director of the National Center for Science Education, a nonprofit that has long supported the teaching of evolution in schools and recently began to defend climate change education.

Many teachers who responded said they «taught the controversy» of climate change, presenting it as a subject to be debated rather than a scientific consensus.

The argument to screen Vaxxed regardless of its relationship to the truth feels similar to that pushed by creationists who cloak their school agendas under the cloak of «teaching the controversy,» when in fact no actual controversy exists.

Teaching the controversies may indeed be one important way in which to engage students with knowledge.

In regard to topics where neither experts nor the public have reached consensus, the authors «agree that it is important for teachers to «teach the controversy» rather than directing students toward a particular conclusion.»

From 2005 to 2007, Kansas science standards promoted Intelligent Design and «Teaching the Controversy» about evolution and creationism.

A proposed law in Tennessee would require science educators to «teach the controversies» regarding evolution and climate change — even though scientists don't think there is much controversy.

Which means that it's very easy to dissuade many teachers from tackling climate change at all, or to hedge their bets by «teaching the controversy».

And any movement to «teach the controversy» that doesn't leave the students clear about the reality — Greg Craven recommends teaching the controversy as a way to teach what is and isn't good science, which is great, but I can envision other science teachers doing it as a he - said - she - said gesture, that bestows credibility where it's not warranted.

I realize they are teaching the controversy, only filling the pages in between the space sold to advertisers, and at least in Florida, not even expected to try to tell the truth if it offends their owners.

Respondents» answers to specific questions reveal that America's schoolteachers, by «teaching the controversy,» may be playing right into the hands of organized and industry - backed climate deniers.

In modern educational parlance, they're asking for nothing more drastic than «teaching the controversy.»

As data accumulate, denialists retreat to the safety of the Wall Street Journal op - ed page or seek social relaxation with old pals from the tobacco lobby from whom they first learned to «teach the controversy.»

allowances to teach the controversy.

Remember, it's better to fund the controversy on all possible sides — that's how you set scientists up to teach the controversy.

But I must say this sounds an awful lot like «teach the controversy».

The problem is that this kind of «teach the controversy» approach is utterly inappropriate for a TV science program.

The routine assumption that the analyses put forward of innumerate bloggers are just as valid as (in fact more valid than) as those of scientists who have devoted their life to the relevant field is one aspect of this, as is the constant demand to «teach the controversy» on evolution, climate science, wind turbine health scares, vaccination and so on.