We’ve all been through some kind of science class in our life. I am assuming most readers of this blog have traversed some part of the great education divide and within that journey there was at least a little bit of biology, chemistry, physics, and math. At one point in my life I was so singularly obsessed with the blend of science and education I wanted to be a teacher myself. Now I just settle for ranting about it on a blog. The problem is that we’re all — most of us are — through that “stage” in our lives. We’ve passed science. We’ve move beyond it, and into the “real” world. Yes, some of us have found professions that continue to delve into science-related activities — research, writing, engineering — but I often wonder if this has more to do with the influence of things that were not related to science education. And, more importantly, I wonder if there is something wrong with the way we look at science education in general.

Now, this is where I dive into pure opinion and conjecture, so feel free to comment as I describe the five peeves I have with how I was taught science…

1. Science has too much “nerd” stigma. And yes, society, I blame all of you. You! You and your television shows with evil nerds who want to take over the world. You and your movies full of awkward teens fumbling social conventions but excelling in calculus. Science doesn’t need to be anything more than it deserves, but it deserves so much more. But it’s not about making science “cool” nor about pulling it into some sort of unflattering limelight. Rather, it’s about stepping back and accepting that we live in a world that would not function — period, dead-stop — without the science that we have created and nurtured to this maturity. It’s helping people understand that making use of math and science principals in their everyday lives isn’t for “brainiacs” but instead is as vital a part of living in the modern world as knowing how to drive a car, cook a meal, or use a keyboard. That knowing how to apply science and it’s principles is an asset, not a social curse.

2. We’re always trying “make it fun.” This is something of an offshoot of my previous peeve, stemming as a direct result of those who are bothered by the same thing and try and counter that in some foolish way. Science doesn’t need to be fun. Science needs to inspire. Science needs to broaden the mind, unleash the creative spirit, and make clear the critical mind. Does it need to be a game? No. Because when we make it “fun” we usually just make it more of what I complained about it point one.

3. Better science doesn’t equal more facts. But that said, facts are the bridge to a critically thinking mind. We need to stop worrying about the trees and focus on the forest — so to speak. Facts are facts are facts. And today’s facts are tomorrows reference data, yes. But brains are not for storing facts. Brains are for sorting information, and while ultimately both need to be used, my own experience was too much on memorizing facts and data, and not enough on parsing and calculating it’s significance. Facts, after all, can be found in a book.

4. And those facts are often too optional. You know where this is going. Evolution versus creationism, and if you’ve seen the darwin-fish stuck to the back of my car you’ll have a pretty good idea where I stand on the topic. If you want to refute the value of facts over beliefs — or vice-versa — then find another blog to flash your ID badges. Why, a hundred and fifty years later, we’re still even having this conversation, this debate about equal teaching time, is for no other reason than this: fear. So many people are perfectly willing to break the speed limits on our highways, pirate music from the internet, or break from the norms of basic human decency in countless other ways. But question someone’s two-thousand year old belief system? No, we can’t do that. If you want to talk about it at church, go nuts. But it shouldn’t be part of a science curriculum.

5. And finally, science and art are not mutually exclusive. It was funny how easily I bought into this mentality in University. For some reason there was a line in the sand: you were either a science major or an arts major. And it just seemed so natural. Now, granted there are different skill sets at work there, but the insignificant handful of arts credits I was required to take as a science major was laughable, particularly considering my ultimate use for that science degree I was busy earning. Perhaps this is just my own abstract, idealist position on the topic, but science could really benefit from art — and art could really benefit from a little bit of science. And not just in that they should work together, but in that they should blend and see what colour emerges.