001. The Guardian's Adam Rutherford reports in "The Evolution of Science Teaching: Keep Creationism Off the Curriculum But Train Teachers To Deal With Questions About Intelligent Design" {2008-11-07}:
"[quoting Obama, likely from the York Daily Record interview of 2008-03-30] 'I believe in evolution, and I believe there's a difference between science and faith [...] they're two different things [...] it's a mistake to try to cloud the teaching of science with theories that frankly don't hold up to scientific inquiry'
[...and, Rutherford writes, as regards some UK science teachers claiming that creationism is a valid scientific theory] we potentially have one fifth of science teachers who don't understand their subject [their 'blatant science illiteracy'...overall] we have two problems
[...#1] a proportion of science teachers are not fit for purpose [i.e., a situation of 'academic malpractice']. [E.g.,] those who think that creationism and evolution should be considered equally in a scientific context do not understand evolution [...moreover,] they do not understand science and need either to be rigorously re-educated, or removed from the science classroom [!!!]. [Obviously,] the process of teacher training has failed these poor deluded souls, and they should not be allowed to pass on their ignorance to pupils
[...#2] creationism [...] despite clearly being unscientific [...] does have a relationship with the only valid rational explanation of life, namely evolution by natural selection. [So,] science teachers should be able to deal with it in the classroom, succinctly and without endorsing it. Creationism should not be part of the national curriculum for science but should be included in science teacher training [...teachers, therein] can be fully tooled-up to explain why [scientifically speaking] evolution is right and creationism is wrong."
[...and, Rutherford writes, as regards some UK science teachers claiming that creationism is a valid scientific theory] we potentially have one fifth of science teachers who don't understand their subject [their 'blatant science illiteracy'...overall] we have two problems
[...#1] a proportion of science teachers are not fit for purpose [i.e., a situation of 'academic malpractice']. [E.g.,] those who think that creationism and evolution should be considered equally in a scientific context do not understand evolution [...moreover,] they do not understand science and need either to be rigorously re-educated, or removed from the science classroom [!!!]. [Obviously,] the process of teacher training has failed these poor deluded souls, and they should not be allowed to pass on their ignorance to pupils
[...#2] creationism [...] despite clearly being unscientific [...] does have a relationship with the only valid rational explanation of life, namely evolution by natural selection. [So,] science teachers should be able to deal with it in the classroom, succinctly and without endorsing it. Creationism should not be part of the national curriculum for science but should be included in science teacher training [...teachers, therein] can be fully tooled-up to explain why [scientifically speaking] evolution is right and creationism is wrong."
Note: so, claiming the nonscientific [belief / articles of faith & kind] as scientific [what survives scientific scrutiny] 'clouds scientific teaching' / 'undermines scientific integrity' -- according to the President-elect. Rutherford additionally points out that within the ranks of UK teachers there's blatant science illiteracy & academic malpractice, as forms of delusion & ignorance that are just plain factually wrong in the context of science are being claimed to survive scientific scrutiny!
002. NCSE states in "Voices For Evolution" (ISBN 0615204619; 3rd. ed., 2008):
"[per the] National Association of Biology Teachers (1995) [NABT]: Scientific Integrity [...] the data, concepts, and theories of science presented to students must meet the accepted standards of the discipline. To this end, NABT will not support efforts to include in the science classroom materials or theories derived outside of the scientific processes.
Nonscientific notions such as geocentricism, flat earth, creationism, young earth, astrology, psychic healing and vitalistic theory, therefore, cannot legitimately be taught, promoted, or condoned as science in the classroom [p.154]."
Note: overall, teaching as science what is profoundly not science is harmful to scientific integrity -- "vitalistic theory" is one of these nonscientific concepts.
Nonscientific notions such as geocentricism, flat earth, creationism, young earth, astrology, psychic healing and vitalistic theory, therefore, cannot legitimately be taught, promoted, or condoned as science in the classroom [p.154]."
Note: overall, teaching as science what is profoundly not science is harmful to scientific integrity -- "vitalistic theory" is one of these nonscientific concepts.
003. naturopathy is an example of harming scientific integrity by posing what's profoundly science-ejected as scientific:
naturopathy is explicitly centered / obligated to "vitalistic theory" woo, yet claims to be science, while science has HUGELY ejected vitalistic theory.
004. the math:
when is something [falsely] labeled what it is not...
the absurdity known as naturopathy.
the absurdity known as naturopathy.
