[WildTurkey]

It takes rather a stretch of the imagination to find "no mention of atoms until college" I have, in another post, specifically stated that scientific _data_ may be taught, as opposed to science. I do not like to be misrepresented and am done for the evening.

I think your "No science" would rule out the teaching of the atom. I see no qualifiers that would take exception to this. You NEW qualifier is not applicable. The "atom" is not scientific data but a scientific concept. You know, a model, science.

[Dimensio]

I don't see what's so hard about the concept of teaching science in at least high school. I learned about the scientific method in freshman (HS Freshman) Biology -- it was the first thing drilled into our skulls, and we were tested on it.

I think that some people fear high schoolers actually being taught real science, because it makes them less suceptable to the claim that non-falsifiable nonsense such as ID qualify as "science".

[e p1uribus unum]

Wrong again.

It was not a new qualifier, it was an explainer.

The data acquired by scientists is not science.

Science is a discipline, a way of approaching truth despite human fallibility. One of the problems in properly teaching the sciences is the conflation of data with procedures used to get the data and confirm its validity.

I'm offline until late tonight or tomorrow.