Climate, evolution top science standards

  • Article by: Justin Gillis , New York Times
  • Updated: April 10, 2013 - 2:13 PM

The Next Generation guidelines were designed to raise scientific literacy and standardize teaching.

  • 32
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
SammyBoyApr. 9, 1310:42 PM

I think the first step educating the public would be for media outlets to stop trying to be "sensitive" to those who might feel threatened by science. For example, rather than referring to intelligent design as an "alternative notion", describe it factually: A faith-based belief system that attempts to shoehorn the Judeo-Christian creation story into the public school curriculum. If parents want their kids to receive a religious education, send them to Sunday school.

26
5
canoeistApr. 9, 1311:29 PM

Intelligent Design is not science. It is a ploy to teach creationism in public schools. Kitzmiller v. Dover settled this fact in 2005.

31
5
jkountApr. 10, 1312:06 AM

The evidence supporting evolution is so strong that any person that actually takes the time to learn about the subject cannot deny evolution is real. People are just upset that evolution doesn't fit into the holy texts so they made up some fictional ways of explaining evolution without having to change their beliefs.

20
4
minn12Apr. 10, 1312:51 AM

Well, there's only one big problem. "Climate change" is NOT scientific fact. Scientists disagree,so there is no consensus. So this is just another attempt to brainwash our youth through the liberal education system. To attempt to teach a theory as scientific "fact" Is a joke.

9
29
pinkiepie85Apr. 10, 13 2:39 AM

Kitzmiller v. Dover? Carl Sagan settled it in 1980. He's worth a thousand lawyers and politicians and worth billions and billions of superstitious creationists.

14
4
datelessnerdApr. 10, 13 4:30 AM

And while we're getting religious propaganda out of our science classes, let's tell kids the truth about America's founding fathers. They were Deists, not Fundamentalist Christians. Thomas Jefferson went to the point of re-editing the New Testament to take out all the supernatural nonsense, and completely tossed out the Old Testament. The "God" they spoke of was nature, not some 5,000 year old guy in a robe.

19
4
borisbadenovApr. 10, 13 5:59 AM

Either scientifically explain the creation of the earth and existence of man or allow the teaching of intelligent design as a possibility.

3
24
redkayakApr. 10, 13 6:23 AM

Maybe they should focus on teaching science that's useful in day to day life rather forcing indoctrination down their throats. Does it really hurt anyone to have fundamentalist Christians believe the first few pages of Genesis? Can't we have some tolerance? It seems that parents don't have any say anymore in raising their children. I believe in evolution, but I know people who don't. Why mess with them?

4
23
groover6Apr. 10, 13 6:33 AM

Why not teach evolution and also teach why certain groups have scientific problems with the intolerance of the evolutionary elites.

5
17
cstoney48Apr. 10, 13 6:51 AM

Absolutely outraged!!! The standards contain no mention of alchemy, astrology, phrenology and conjuring spirits. How will our students ever compete in a global economy without that vital information and the mind numbing conformity it entails. Isn’t scientific theory/evidence whatever our misinformation tells us it should be? And of course also missing is the age old conundrum of spiritual investigation: how many angels can really dance on the head of a pin? Will our students ever know how many??? For shame...

11
5

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT