Creation DOES need to be taught with evolution

next question then is to compare the results of English education to American ... and seeing if there might be something to learn from the effort.thanks.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

well in psycology the teacher teaches us to by "critical thinkers" but then when you do she gets mad.but good thing my dad taught me to think ^_^ i'm saved from that... but now i'm crazy... A CRAZY ATHIEST >_<
because in a science class i recall telling the guys next to me that i am an athiest and they looked at me and were like "YOUR CRAZY" O_oso to me, even though it is nice to have another opinion on something, you must be able to prove you opposition wrong... if not then no progress will be made... just like saying everything is done because God wanted it to be done, rather than seeing the errors in what you've done.I'M NOT THE CRAZY ONE >_<but alas i am because i am not... strange... but so are we.

"in a science class i recall telling the guys next to me that i am an athiest and they looked at me and were like 'YOUR CRAZY'"I got the same thing from some of my fellow biology students. One even asked me how I could think about death if I don't believe in a higher power. I told her that she knows as much about death as I do, I just don't try to paint over death with old fairy tales.We sometimes talk about intelligent design in college usually by refuting it. But I have a problem in how they teach evolution in the universities. I'm a senior now and I have yet to hear someone talk about Richard Dawkin's view of evolution that the gene is the unit of selection. I don't think they should talk about evolution or intelligent design in high school because, as in my high school, biology teachers are not always biologists. I had a soccor coach teach my sophmore biology class. They are not trained properly to explain natural selection or evolution.

You bring up an interesting point: How do we get our high school teachers up to speed to teach science the way that science is done if they are not scientists themselves. One thing we do at our university is to provide internships and seminar series for teachers.But regardless, is it possible to teach science effectively by just presenting a litany of "facts"? I think the much of science education is flawed in its focus on "facts" without a focus on method. If science teachers are instructed in method, they can apply it themselves (or better yet, allow students to apply it themselves) to problem-solving. This is how we teach math. We teach students how to read as a tool toward understanding. Why can't we teach students how to use the tools of scientific inquiry?It's good to know that at least intelligent design is discussed in your college. (Dawkins' view about the gene as a unit of selection should certainly also be included in a college evolution course as part of a discussion about units or levels of selection.) But I think such alternative hypotheses need to be covered in any scientific discourse, especially in the earlier grades, when students should be learning about how science works (i.e., by considering how hypotheses can be discriminated by testing their predictions about collectable data). It is not necessary that students always come up with exactly the "right" answer (although that's important too), as long as they UNDERSTAND HOW to set up the algorithm and find the solution.

my science teachers are quite good at what they do; for instance, last year my biology teacher was really good at teaching evolution. (probably because he kept reffering to himself as a scientist) so i lucked out, i gess, in my biology teachers... but psycology is another thing >.>it all depends on luck because taking a course in evolution doesn't mean that they retained that information... hell they probably just remembered it to get passed the tests.