"Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer," wrote Kansas State University biologist Scott Todd in 1999, "such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic".
Middle-skill careers have largely been excluded from science education research, which has tended to focus on broadening participation in the high-skill STEMM workforce to women and traditionally underrepresented minority populations.
Todd", who refuted any possibility of considering supernatural explanations in the "scientific paper Nature" ("Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic", cited by, e.g., Morris [2001] and Puolimatka [2009], see the actual text in Todd [1999]).
Then there was Michael Reiss, director of education at the Royal Society, taking a leaf out of Rowan Williams' book How to Cause a Shit Storm Without Really Trying by suggesting that creationism should not necessarily be excluded from discussion in science classrooms.
In his 1791 Memoirs on Public Instruction, he demands that public education be open to women and men, and that women not be excluded from any curriculum, including science (see Condorcet 1791 web resource; Kintzler 1984).
In philosophy of science Elliott Sober has argued that creationism should be excluded from the schools not because it is not science but because it is 'less likely' than evolution according to fairly standard confirmation theory.
Because teachers' decisions are often influenced by a students' academic performance in math and science, students who may perform poorly on exams, but who have an aptitude for science and mathematics could be excluded from the screening process.
We are not suggesting that industry-funded science should a priori be excluded from the evidence informing chemical policy.
Creationists definitely need to be opposed, and if science education is to remain actual authentic science education, creationist policies need to be excluded from that sphere.
Pert wrote that she was "angry and upset to be excluded from this year's Award," reported J. L. Marx in Science in January 1979.
