I would like to say ,"Evolution is Gods potters wheel" how simple is that, many who say they speak on Gods behalf, should try working with politicians because they too have no understanding of the truth,

"Whether Tasmania, the Northern Territory, Queensland or South Australia, science as a subject disappears in favour of so-called essential learnings such as: personal futures, social responsibility, world futures and the inner, the creative and the collaborative learner."

Perhaps Dr Donnelly mistakes for substantive content? The SSABSA curriculum for Biology has the following list of things students must demonstrate to pass the subject:

"1. participate in practical activities;
2. design and undertake investigations;
3. obtain information from a variety of sources;
4. critically analyse and evaluate information, procedures, and materials;
5. demonstrate knowledge and understanding of biological concepts;
6. solve a variety of biological problems;
7. understand how knowledge of biology can be used to make informed decisions at the personal, social, and global levels;
8. use biological terms and conventions correctly;
9. communicate effectively in a variety of forms."

The substantive content of Stage 1 and Stage 2 Biology is very *definately* repleate with 'Science'.

"teachers are urged to make science more girl-friendly, environmentally sensitive, contemporary and activity-based."

Meaning not being boring, engaging students in projects they can relate to, and using topics of interest to them as vehicles for doing and explaining science? OMG!

"a dumbed down curriculum."

What dumbed down curriculum? criticising from afar is fun, but I've actually *taught* Biology in a high school. As a Biology double-major, there was nothing 'dumbed-down' about it.

The real issue is why are teachers not provided with better resources? Why do they have to manage classes of as many as 30 students *and* try to teach them as well? The average teacher completes four years (often more) of university before entering the classroom. They are expected to keep up with their professional discipline/s, with developments in education practices, curriculum changes, behaviour management issues, administrative matters, and tell little Tammy's parents how wonderful their child is - even if the parents have left the parenting to the teacher. The latter being an increasing problem.

I found lawyering less stressful.

"The combination of ignoring the central importance of Western science, by arguing that it is culturally relative and simply one view of science among many, and defining science by what is politically correct"

Reading a curriculum statement is not the same as implementing it.

Western science *is* culturally relative, and it *is* one view among many. Science *is* defined politically. What sandhill is the good Doctor hiding behind? Scientists are not the only people who have an opinion about what science is, nor are they the only people who discuss science.

In the current political climate, 'Western' science is not particularly centrally important to anything - unless it feeds directly into some engineering or industrial process. That's not the fault of teachers or curriculums. That's socio-political reality.

As for teachers 'defining' science by what is 'politically correct' ... perhaps the author ought to direct us to reputable source of practicing science teacher's opinions - not mention some PhD student's work in passing.

As a trained SOSE and Science educator, I've taught both curricula - and addressed student's questions from all four perspectives. Students *should* be explosed to relevant questions about science. [Incompetent Design Theology being neither.]