13% of H.S. Biology Teachers Advocate Creationism in Class

http://www.livescience.com/cultur...10127.html

Quote : The majority of high-school biology teachers don't take a solid stance on evolution with their students, mostly to avoid conflicts, and fewer than 30 percent of teachers take an adamant pro-evolutionary stance on the topic, a new study finds. Also, 13 percent of these teachers advocate creationism in their classrooms. "The survey left space for [the teachers] to share their experiences. That's where we picked up a lot of a sense about how they play to the test and tell students they can figure it out for themselves," Michael Berkman, co-author of the study with Penn State University colleague Eric Plutzer, told Livescience. "Our general sense is they lack the knowledge and confidence to go in there and teach evolution, which makes them risk-averse."

How sad is this? The article goes on to state that about 60% of the teachers surveyed basically gave neutral answers because they were afraid of conflict. The article also reveals that people can get degrees in biology without even studying evolution at all, since apparently colleges also take a knock-kneed approach as well, wishing to avoid conflict.

Here's a really pathetic statement from a "teacher":

Quote : Others rejected the scientific method as valid for shedding light on the origin of species, with an Illinois teacher responding, "I am always amazed at how evolution and creationism are treated as if they are right or wrong. They are both belief systems that can never be truly or fully proved or discredited."

Wow. I have no formal science education and yet I at least understand what the basic tenets of science consist of; while this person clearly does not... yet somewhere in Illinois, this person is considered qualified to teach it.

So how about it everyone... care to tangle with this wonderful topic yet again?

Quote from Phreaker47 : care to tangle with this wonderful topic yet again?

Not really, except to say that I don't see anything alarming in here. I think we make too big a deal out of this whole creationism vs evolution topic. We've made it into a litmus test of fidelity to scientific thought and faithfulness to Christ's teachings, when it's really neither.

Many of the greatest scientists have believed in utter bullshit ... and not just believed but acted on the basis of that, despite plenty of evidence. By the same token, I doubt the Almighty cares if you believe in creationism or not. I may be wrong but I've not seen any scripture calling that a sin or something.

Well they hit the nail on the head "They are both belief systems" I'm glad people are starting to think for themselves and weighing the evidences for truth. Why does this surprise you that there are some people don't and won't agree with you?

Quote from Neo Tocqueville : Not really, except to say that I don't see anything alarming in here. I think we make too big a deal out of this whole creationism vs evolution topic. We've made it into a litmus test of fidelity to scientific thought and faithfulness to Christ's teachings, when it's really neither. Many of the greatest scientists have believed in utter bullshit ... and not just believed but acted on the basis of that, despite plenty of evidence. By the same token, I doubt the Almighty cares if you believe in creationism or not. I may be wrong but I've not seen any scripture calling that a sin or something.

It's not really a matter of what one believes to be true, but a matter of what belongs in a science classroom... and creationism clearly is not science. It is rather alarming, when you consider how poor our overall science education is in this country... and no surprise either, when we apparently have people teaching it who don't even grasp the most basic concepts of what science is.

I'm not too happy about kids essentially being taught that a "scientific theory" can include pure hearsay handed down over dozens of generations, without a shred of evidence. It's like saying the theory of gravity and the "theory of what Bob might have been up to last week" are on equal footing.

Quote from martib : Well they hit the nail on the head "They are both belief systems" I'm glad people are starting to think for themselves and weighing the evidences for truth. Why does this surprise you that there are some people don't and won't agree with you?

Sure, if "thinking for themselves" means "ignore evidence and be ignorant of what science is."

Science requires testable, falsifiable evidence. Evolutionary science has volumes of it. Creationism has only hearsay. Hearsay which also doesn't happen to hold up to other evidence.

You can believe in hearsay all day long. You can teach it all you want. But it doesn't belong in a science classroom.

Maybe neither should be taught in public schools...

"Given an infinite amount of time, anything that can happen will already have happened, for if a physical process is likely to occur with a certain nonzero probability-however small-then given an infinite amount of time the process must occur, with probability one."

In the end you either believe there was a source that created time or you rely on quantum physics and say that human logic can't explain the beginning of time...

Believe what you want, but perhaps public schools should teach both and let the students decide, or perhaps teach neither.

You are unfairly bashing the teacher as she is technically correct.

Quote : Others rejected the scientific method as valid for shedding light on the origin of species, with an Illinois teacher responding, "I am always amazed at how evolution and creationism are treated as if they are right or wrong. They are both belief systems that can never be truly or fully proved or discredited."

AKAIK evolution in regards to the origion of species has not been proven so it is in the realm of a belief system. Scientists have not discovered the first organism to first come into being and how it did so. Most all other aspects of evolution have been proven and stand as a valid scientific theory.

Quote from martib : Well they hit the nail on the head "They are both belief systems" I'm glad people are starting to think for themselves and weighing the evidences for truth. Why does this surprise you that there are some people don't and won't agree with you?

Evolution has the misfortune of being interpreted as counter-factual to some religions. Other than that it's little different from other scientific theories with generations of evidence behind them like the idea that microscopic organisms can cause diseases. The lines of reasoning used to attack evolution could easily be mounted against germ theory.

Regardless of your belief in germ theory or evolution, you've stood to benefit from them along with the many millions of other people that were spared death from disease.

Quote from 808Lurker : You are unfairly bashing the teacher as she is technically correct.

She isn't technically or even partially correct

Quote : AKAIK evolution in regards to the origion of species has not been proven so it is in the realm of a belief system. Scientists have not discovered the first organism to first come into being and how it did so. Most all other aspects of evolution have been proven and stand as a valid scientific theory.

The origin of species is not the origin of life. The fact that more complex things evolved from simpler things is an observable phenomena and should not be in dispute. The theory of evolution attempts to explain these observations by proposing a mechanism called natural selection.

Quote from Kregisen : Maybe neither should be taught in public schools... "Given an infinite amount of time, anything that can happen will already have happened, for if a physical process is likely to occur with a certain nonzero probability-however small-then given an infinite amount of time the process must occur, with probability one." In the end you either believe there was a source that created time or you rely on quantum physics and say that human logic can't explain the beginning of time... Believe what you want, but perhaps public schools should teach both and let the students decide, or perhaps teach neither.

I guess we should teach astrology alongside astronomy and alchemy alongside chemistry as well. We don't say that logic explains the beginning of time, we can say that time began when the universe began. There is no logical problem.

Quote : Evolution has the misfortune of being interpreted as counter-factual to some religions.

Indeed. And the main perpetrators of this interpretation are Atheists...who are intolerant of alternative theories, because they weaken their faith in no God....and their psycopathy which drives them to continuously intellectually attack religions and the religous.

What's wrong with dissent and varying opinion? I think the sad thing is how many are afraid to speak their point of view, not that there are people who disagree with me and think creationism is not evolution. Should our children not be exposed to opposing arguments? Are we to teach them to be nothing but parrots, thinking they are incapable of true learning and analysis?

If you think you can call it "science" when in fact it could just as easily be fiction or fallacy under a popular banner disguised as science then I invoke a list I posted in another thread:

Quote from SiliconJon : Theories that were once fringe, but no longer: Heliocentrism Evolution Impact Crater Fission Plate Tectonics Alpha Constant Former mainstream theories now considered fringe or dead: Planet Vulcan (lasted about 40 years!) Spontaneous Generation Phlogiston Caloric theory Martian Canals Luminiferous Aether (aka Ether) Phrenology Einstein’s Static Universe Alchemy Expanding Earth Alpha Constant (well, maybe, and many theories actually take a path through both categories) ... I understand frustration with assertions that should be more inquisitive but history has shown that fringe does not equal wrong, nor does popular equal right. See also: 1949 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine

How can we seek the truth if we an unable to view all that is before us, including that which may later be determined to be untrue?

Quote from darkfrog : I guess we should teach astrology alongside astronomy and alchemy alongside chemistry as well. We don't say that logic explains the beginning of time, we can say that time began when the universe began. There is no logical problem.

Yes. As always, I find am stunned by the number of people who think that all explanations are equally deserving of consideration and propagation.

Quote from EscapeVelo : Indeed. And the main perpetrators of this interpretation are Atheists...who are intolerant of alternative theories, because they weaken their faith in no God....and their psycopathy which drives them to continuously intellectually attack religions and the religous.

Hardly. Evolution makes no statement on how life on Earth initially began. There's plenty of room for God to intervene there and plenty of room for God to start the Universe. Some might call this pigeonholing God's role, but I'd hardly call starting the Universe and creating the very laws that lead to it functioning in the way it does as much of a diminished role. (What role could possibly be greater?)

This is what happens when evolutionists start from the middle and work their way out which is why their species tree is always in flux. How many times has this tree changed to meet their ever changing theory? When evolutionists can show the beginning of self replicating life until present their barking up the wrong tree See I made a funny