That is exactly what the Science Framework for California Public Schools Kindergarten Through Grade Twelve (1990) stated on page 206 in the Anti-Dogmatism Statement:
quote:State Board of Education Policy on the Teaching of Natural Sciences, adopted 13 Jan 1989 [emphasized in original]:
quote:Nothing in science or in any other field of knowledge shall be taught dogmatically. A dogma is a system of beliefs that is not subject to scientific test and refutation. Compelling belief is inconsistent with the goal of education; the goal is to encourage understanding.
Later, the Framework makes this statement:
quote:We repeat here the fundamental conviction of this framework: Education does not compel belief; it seeks to encourage understanding. Nothing in science, or in any other field, should be taught dogmatically. But teaching about something does not constitute advancing it as truth. In science, there is no truth. There is only knowledge that tests itself and builds on itself constantly. This is the message that students should take away with them.
In stark contrast, when "creation science" with its "balanced treatment" approach has been used, it instead does try to compel belief. After having misinformed the student, it repeatedly urges the student to choose, based on that misinformation, between the Creator and "godless evolution". Not only is that inconsistent with the goals of education, but it also works against those goals. All that "balanced treatment" is trying to do is to proselytize. Furthermore, the principal tools in that proselytizing is the use of false claims and deception. And one of the effects of "balanced treatment" has been to turn some of those students into atheists (eg, Ray Baird's elementary grade classes, Livermore, CA, 1981).
According to Wikipedia, HaShem ("the Name") appears in Leviticus 24:11. It's supposed to be a substitution for "Adonai" which itself is a substitution for YHWH. According to that article, because "Adonai" is only meant to be used in prayer, "HaShem" is used in conversation. It's supposed to be an Orthodox thing. To hear examples of it being used, watch the Coen Brothers' movie, A Serious Man (2009) -- that was the first time I had ever heard it used.
ABE: And, yes, I also find his using it to be contrived.