I was probably not the person who found their heart sinking a little when they read the comment from a government adviser with regards the removal of climate change from the national curriculum.
Rather than for the sake of the topic itself, I thought it important enough for inclusion because of how well it illustrates a couple of important issues: science doesn’t always deliver nice pat answers and scientists don’t always agree. Some non-scientists have been known to express complete disappointment in science/scientists when this happens. Including subjects where there is still debate would seem to be a suitable way of countering this naive view of science as something that does your thinking for you, and scientists as people without opinions.
Further along in the same article, it is suggested that we need to teach content that doesn’t “…date”. So no content based on theories then which, by definition, could be disproved? I know this wasn’t what was intended but again it seems to suggest a lack of understanding of what science is, something changing and developing.
Madd Science 