Science Teaching In Schools
We have all had questions on Science Teaching In Schools before. Below are the top questions posed by visitors just like you to our. We hope our answers located below will help you solve your teaching problems today. Feel free to ask another question, or even comment on what has been written.
There has been a lot of debate recently regarding Science Teaching In Schools, and it is therefore critical for you, the reader, to grab all of the information that is out there on the vast topic of teaching. Your teaching can have a huge impact on your future, so don’t procrastinate any longer. Read up on Science Teaching In Schools today!
Reginald Said:
do you think teaching science in schools is making kids lose their religious thoughts and beliefs?We Answered:
I don't think so.More likely it is increased education in general and a cultural emphasis on questioning everything.
.
Amy Said:
What is the use of teaching moral science in school?We Answered:
Yes, it is taught - although in a more child friendly and practical manner as opposed to the rote based in the previous generation..Although you cannot expect children to follow blindly - it does give them somethng to think about in the context or "right" and "wrong" ... what path they tread..is dependent on many factors..
Brandon Said:
Do you find it disturbing that some faiths are teaching a Gods version of Science in schools?We Answered:
Not in public school. That notion of inteligent design was taken down by the courts. I'm sorry to say it Oh!! what the hell I'm really not sorry. The thing is that inteligent design is really pseudo science. That is it takes a bit of science and then mix in some unsuported belief as evidence. It is a very bad thing. This is because it limits a person. What it does is say, well, untill this point we understand how X or Y thing works. After that it must be Gods work. Well, maybe it is Gods work but the thing is that by thinking this way the person will not discover anything further because they limit themselve to only one possibility. It does not encourage discovery. At the same time some other country teaches things as they are. That country then develops new technology and therefore become wealthy and more powerfull. Our country falls down the drain based on old unsuported technology. Our economy crumbles. Thats not a good thing.Science and religion have their place. Religion deals with the spiritual needs of human being. Science deal with trying to understand how our world around us works. I don't see why religion is so adamant about overtaking science. Religion should not be threaten by science because science does not deal with what religion does. Science does not meet the human need.
The thing is that science have a different view of the world than religion. The main discrepancy is evolution and the age of the earth. The thing is that science is self correcting. That is at some point in time there is an accepted understanding of how things work. If later in time evidence show that the original understanding is wrong then science changes to fit the new evidence. Religion doesn't do this. Take the age of the world example. The age of the world was determine by some guy who pretty much added up the times described in the bible and came up with about 6,000 years. I mean this guy is just a guy like you and me. So, maybe he had a stronger belief. Still it doesn't mean that the guy cannot be wrong. The view of religion is that they fear for some of their belief to be proven wrong so they won't accep it. I think thats a bad way of thinking. Instead they should embrace the new evidence. This way they can better understand the work of God as opposed of the limited view that a human being who was ill equip at the time they made their statement.
Ian Said:
Will the US supreme court allow the teaching of intelligent design in public schools in science classes?We Answered:
The only way the supreme court will allow the teaching of intelligent design in public schools, is by declaring that the First Amendment doesn't mean anything.The Dover trial established *conclusively* that the effort to bring Intelligent Design into public schools is an effort driven entirely by religious groups for religious reasons.
There are even many advocates of Intelligent Design who were dismayed that the religious groups did this! They were trying so hard to make the case that Intelligent Design is *not* religion ... but they could not stop religiously motivated groups (like the board members on the Dover Pennsylvannia school board, who unfortunately kept memos of their religious motivations, and the publishers of the schoolbook 'Of Pandas and People' who unfortunately kept records showing that their goal was simply to replace the word "Creationism" with "Intelligent Design") from pushing Intelligent Design into a school curriculum.
They made it *easy* to show that Intelligent Design is little more that the religious doctrine of Creationism redressed in sheep's clothing.
Once they had done this, Intelligent Design is exposed as religion.
So the only way the Supreme Court can overturn the Dover court case, is by declaring that the First Amendment is null and void, and that public schools *should* be in the business of pitting religious concepts next to science, *IN SCIENCE CLASSROOMS*.
Ain't gonna happen.
---- { response to blue-eyed soccer player) ------
First, kudos for the first sentence in your post ... probably the longest single sentence I've read in Yahoo Answers. :)
>"No chance of teaching "intelligent design" however that does not rule out another approach such as "guided evolution" because the biologists have not come up with how nature so effectively and in such a statistically short time can overcome the thermodynamic law that states that entropy tends to a maximum yet for progressively more advance organisms come from a primordial soup of amino and nucleic acids that were relatively randomly formed and that they organized along with fatty acids in such a way to self-replicate and then continue on that way to develop very advance creatures in less than say 4.5 billion years may not be statistically significant."
Biologists have indeed come up with how nature did this ... namely "natural selection."
To understand this, we first have to unravel bits of your long sentence that refer to such things as "the thermodynamic law that states that entropy tends to a maximum" ... by recognizing that the law you are referring to recognizes that entropy can *decrease* in a system if it has an external energy source (as in a biosphere in the presence of a massive ball of burning hydrogen).
But the main point is that *natural selection* (which you conveniently never mention) explains how life, once started, can increase dramatically in complexity in a statistically short amount of time (if you consider 4.5 billion years "short"). Namely, natural selection keeps past improvements, adds new improvements, and rejects any new detriments. It is a relentless filter for new additions to the genome.