In what way is this related to teaching creationism in science classrooms?
implied, i think. i got the connection immediately. we have an administration that's creationist, actual science education (especially with regards to evolution, ie: kansas) is declining, and they LIKE that.
bad science = promotion of creationism = happy government.
My assumption is that "quality" in this article doesn't mean "what we teach" but rather "how well are we teaching it?" or "what percentage of our kids are learning what we do teach?"
not familiar with politicspeak?
and frankly, if students were taught the scientific method with any degree of quality, or made familiar with basic areas of science like biology, geology, or chemistry, there would be no creationism-education debate. the decline in actual quality of science education is a contributing factor to creationism.
Maybe I'm really dense today. Wouldn't the government want to put a NEGATIVE spin on the state of today's science education if the issue was whether or not to teach creationism? That way, they could say the content is bad because we're not teaching creationism. Why in the world would the government want to put a positive spin on the state of science education if the government wants to add creationism to the curriculum?
because they ARE. they're getting the foot in the door, getting disclaimers read that defeat the whole idea of science. science education is bad, and they like it that way
This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 10-02-2005 06:38 PM
אָרַח
™ Version 4.2