Listen to this Podcast
More 60-Second Science
High school students flunking biology might take some consolation in knowing that most of their teachers would be, too. So suggests a commentary in the January 28th issue of the journal Science by Michael B. Berkman and Eric Plutzer of Pennsylvania State University, who surveyed more than 900 U.S. high school teachers about how they taught evolution. ["Defeating Creationism in the Courtroom, But Not in the Classroom"]
Shockingly, they found that only 28 percent of teachers taught evolution effectively, and 13 percent actually advocated for creationism. The roughly 60 percent in the mushy middle steered around conflicts between evolution and creationism or taught both and let students draw their own conclusions. (Always such a good idea….)
The survey’s crucial insight was that how teachers taught depended far more on than their personal beliefs than on the community curriculum standards that have been the focus of battleground court cases, such as Kitzmiller v. Dover from five years ago.
Berkman and Plutzer recommend requiring all biology teachers to take a prep course in evolution as part of their training: A little extra homework might help timid teachers feel more confident about an idea that’s been a cornerstone of science for more than 150 years.
—John Rennie
[The above text is an exact transcript of this podcast.]
See what we're tweeting about
73 Comments
Add CommentDidn't these teachers read their Evolution Catechism? You don't deviate from the teachings of the Church of Science!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI like this comment "...taught both and let students draw their own conclusions. (Always such a good idea….)" Yes, the Church of Science frowns on young people drawing their own conclusions, that can lead to scientific Relativism.
There is no Church of Science, there is no belief of any kind, only evidence. The difference between science and religion is evidence. Science is an arduous process of gathering data, testing that data, drawing conclusions and building theories. It does not rely on the blindness of faith which permeates religion to its core. If in fact a theory is constructed which better explains any given phenomenon, the old theory is reworked or discarded after careful deliberation and debate. This is the opposite of dogma which again, permeates religion. Dogma is unchanging and infallible, which needless to say is impossible. If there were a better explanation for life on Earth that rested on firm ground , it would be subject to vigorous debate wherein the evidence would be weighed and all options considered. This never happens in religion. In religion there is scripture and that's all, any deviation is heresy no matter how much evidence. Consider what happened to Galileo for making a simple observation. His pleas for common sense were met with ignorance and fear to prevent the spread of knowledge. He was tortured for having an open mind and thinking critically. This would not happen in a secular society which is protected from the wrath of the faithful (Or at least it should be). Science is a democratic process and also subsequently allowed us to have a democracy. Religion on the other hand is a slave system which if allowed to run rampant will plunge humanity into the depths of tyranny and authoritarianism. Lest we forget, the Church ran Europe for over 1,000 years. During those years there was virtually no progress, life expectancy was atrocious, freedom was unheard of, and in the immortal words of Thomas Hobbes, life was "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." Thanks to scientific progress and the waning of religious control, this hell has been reversed and life has never been better. Teaching creationism is akin to throwing all our hard earned knowledge into the fire, spitting in the faces of our brave ancestors who fought for such progress and plunging humanity back into the absurdities of Dark Age superstition.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScience is not a religon, it does not require faith, it requires proof. Start religous classes if you want to teach faith based descriptions of the universe. Religon does not belong in public schools, unless you plan to teach all religons? Creationism is not a scientific theory, it is primarily a Christian based article of faith for some fundamentalsit sects of Christianity. Would you want your children to be taught the creation stories of the Hindu or Moslem religons?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt isn't only teacher's fault. First, most education degrees focus on too much class administration, and not enough course work in their own field. Next, the textbooks for high schools tend to be wishy-washy on the issue in fear of offending someone. Finally, the average layman confuses the terms theory and hypothesis and assumes that there is not enough evidence to support Evolution. Creationism, by whatever name you choose to call it, is not science--it is faith; therefore, it belongs in church. Now my eight year old daughter can quote chapter and verse on evolution because that is an obsession of hers. She has been asked to leave Sunday school a couple of times over the issue ("The stories of the Garden of Eden, and Adam and eve are just stories, not real" I was very proud.)As Kitzmiller demonstrated--creationism is not science, and should not be taught at all in the classroom.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think there is a challenge here that goes beyond the teachers. It isn't really fair to expect a frazzled, massively underpaid group that are paying for school supplies out of their own pockets to have the ability to fight an ideological war with what in some cases amounts to the majority view of parents who send their children to public school. Even if the teachers are against creationism, they are likely doing their best to prevent a rash of "home schooling" which would no doubt be subject to worse abuses. It is clear that evolution is the only view that should be taught in school as science, but "teaching" the teachers about evolution doesn't address the actual problem, which is mobs of creationist (and angry) parents. Since there really aren't many people these days that didn't go to public school, I can only conclude that teaching evolution in school didn't work a generation ago. It's a vicious cycle. I've started to feel that the only way to understand evolution in a way that makes it something other than religion requires a collegiate level of understanding about biology, genetics, mutation, DNA, the effects of radiation and other disruptive forces on that DNA, natural selection, plate tectonics, carbon dating (laws of radioactive decay), zoological anatomy and an ample exposure to exotic animals. So basically college science plus lots of the discovery/science channel. Only about 25% of people get to college, and how many of those get the science background necessary? My feeling is we need more of this fundamental science explained better in earlier grades. We don't just need teachers to teach evolution (taken on faith) we need them to teach the science that allows people to understand why it isn't faith before the end of highschool, so at the very least they become slightly less angry parents for the next generation, even if they can't fully understand evolution. At least they could get a sense that it is based on facts, and not just some additional dogma.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe have a huge problem with people not understanding the science of evolution -- that part of the problem is much bigger than the "problem" of people not "believing" it. We need to solve the problem of people who are willing to consider science a legitimate authority on how to view the physical world but who don't actually understand the science! This needs to be addressed before we can hope to convince that last 13% of religious fundamentalists that evolution is a vital part of the biology curriculum.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvolution is topic can seem trivial at a glance. It's easy for someone who understands it to make it sound straightforward to a listener. But then, you hear that listener shortly thereafter attempt to paraphrase the ideas in an equally straightforward manner and get it totally wrong. This is why we still have creationists asking things like "How could random chance possibly create something this complex?" or "if we evolved from chimps, why are there still chimps?" and other such nonsense that some of these teachers don't even know how to answer!
There are many things in our universe that can be measured, observed, contemplated, tested, etc. That is the definition of science and it has brought us very far in a short time as a species.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut, science is still flawed and will continue to be. Yes, anyone can look up the atomic weight of any element on the periodic table in a matter of seconds these days, which is amazing.
If you pay attention to quantum mechanics you will see that the universe and all of the matter in it seems to be fickle at best. Look up "the measurement problem' with regard to quantum mechanics and you will see.
To quote Stephen Hawkings: Talking about the fundamental building blocks of everything that exists as matter, "at this level, nothing is for certain, not even existence."
So, the biggest theories in science today can't even begin to explain existence and reality, let alone all of the inner dynamics of an infinitely diverse universe.
Remember, one day it was science that said the earth was flat; it was science that said that the earth was the center of the universe. We could go on and on with examples.
Let us not be too quick to say that we know what is going on. We should be honest with our children and give them all of the information we can and let them form their own conclusions. We close the door to their wonderful imaginations when we boast that science or religion has all of the definite answers.
Having faith that God has a divine, unknowable plan for you should not prevent you from looking both ways before crossing the street. Teaching evolution simply teaches you more about the world around you. He-man and Terry Pratchett Discworld/Hindu references aside.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisP.S. Please don't forget the four elephants.
The notion of teaching both Evolution and Creationism is inherently flawed because one is based on scientific observation by thousands of scientists over the centuries and the other is based on religious dogma. And the religious dogma isn't even one shared by all religions, it's unique to Western religions while Eastern sects believe something completely different.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet science take care of science. Schools are where science is taught, churches and synagogues are where religion is taught. Let's keep them separate. So long as religion does not get tightly intertwined with government and education people will be free to practice their own religions whether they're Christianity, Judaism, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhism, Shinto or Baha'ai.
Why do religious adherents not see that by trying to impose their own religious creation doctrine on all children they risk losing the freedom to worship as they wish, what they wish. What if their religion doesn't "win"?
Let's keep teaching science in school. Mom and Dad can take care of religious training at home and at church. That's what families are for.
Don't hamstring Americans in the race to lead the world in scientific innovation. You can't build a microchip from directions included in the New or Old Testaments.
You can't cure diseases with parables, you cure them with what is learned in a class that teaches biology and the natural sciences as it has been perceived since Darwin.
JoeL
Atlanta
A-men!!!!!!! This comment makes a great deal of sense to me. I am a retired Physical Science teacher, with 37 years of experience. Evolution is a science, proven with facts and theories. Isn't that enough??
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy god man! They've showed the evolution of the beaks of birds in response to different foods on nearby islands -- with real live visual aids - and it occurred in a year or so.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat is it about TV that makes it difficult for you to understand?
How do you teach creationism? What is there to learn? Do they simply say "god created everything and made it just the way you see it" and consider the lesson over? Do they teach scripture or about famous people who believe in creationism?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow do they test this "knowledge"? Are science students in some schools expected to be able to quote Genesis in order to get a good grade?
As an Australian, it is all a bit unbelievable to me. I am an atheist but went to a Catholic school where I was taught evolution in science. Even the Christian Brother teaching us religion taught us that evolution was true but God had set up the universe in just the right way so that it would happen. I truly don't understand how people can insist on taking the bible so literally.
I find it hard to believe this is still going on in a supposedly educated country like the USA.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisyycubed,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are correct. It's actually kind of sad the way most people who think of themselves as "educated" and "knowledgeable" are blinded by their own sense of comprehension into literally treating anything that seems to be well understood science just as if it were religion.
Any curious and open minded person could not be offended by the prospect of presenting students with both evidence of evolution and any number of the multitude of creation stories that can be told, and letting students draw conclusions. Any other approach is simply offensive to the whole notion of scientific discovery.
From the article:
"...let students draw their own conclusions. (Always such a good idea….)"
Letting students draw conclusions from experiments they conduct themselves using the scientific method is probably the most important reason for them to participate in (what used to be) one of the most important parts of quality science programs for 6-12 students, lab work. Of course these days such a notion is as the author snarks: "downright ridiculous."
Thanks so much to all of you brilliant minds here, with your comprehensive understanding of our universe, for your complete lack of faith in your own evidence and your disdain for our children's intelligence.
You are truly helping us to move on to bigger and better problems. For instance, how can we better subvert evolution through our sustained support for failure in every facet and level of human existence?
Please discuss.
The study gives all the appearance of science, but the political agenda behind it is all too apparent. The problem here is a science writer who can't find real science stories, so he resorts to rabble rousing rants to stir up science-religion fights. As SA editor, John Rennie lost many subscribers with this "fight-promotion" style, which polarized readers and distracted them from the amazing science that is going on all around us. Since Rennie was replaced as editor, it's truly refreshing to read a lot more real science in SA. Stop harping against creationists and move on!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere won't be so much "amazing science ... going on all around us" if our children are taught that religion has anything to offer in science class.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Having faith that God has a divine, unknowable plan for you should not prevent you from looking both ways before crossing the street."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGod who? Seriously.
I am a teacher. The reason teachers are not teaching evolution "properly" is because the evidence for Macro evolution is so poor that it does not stand up to scientific rigor. Embryology, palentology, Genetics etc - the classic "proofs" of Macro evolution; crumble under scientific scrutiny.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCheck out some debate between creationists and evolutionists to see how ludicrous it is to teach Macro evolution as a scientific "fact".
Macro evolution is poor science; hence many teacher refuse to teach it in the ideological way that many evolutionists would like. You cannot blame them. They are meant to be teaching science after all. Observable, measureable, repeatable science. Macro evolution is none of these.
For Macro evolution to work; you must first believe that it happened, then torture the evidence to make it fit your preconceived idea.
I say - TEACH THE CONTRAVERSY.
Now first of all, your wording kinda throws me off a bit. You use rhetoric like "scientific fact" and "evolutionists", and you speak like a lot of the creationists I've heard. You also advocate teaching the controversy between creationism and evolution... but why would you suggest that unless you had atleast a tickle of intention to see that creationism is represented fairly? Where as we may not know the ins and outs of evolution completely, creationism is, as anyone who looks at it impartially, obviously a load of bullshit. You say that one must torture the evidence for macroevolution to fit, but the levels of contorsion you have to pull off to make creationism seem like a viable theory are quite honestly a few orders of magnitude greater.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow, my research skills are not perticularly good, but given fifteen minutes with the wonderful tool I have at my fingertips (the internet), I was able to find quite a bit of proof for macroevolution that doesn't seem to "crumble under scientific scrutiny". And not much against it that didn't end up as a load of bull. A quick peruse of talkorigins provided me with more than enough evidence to see why it's a widely accepted theory.
I'm a pretty damn good liar. I sorta take pride in it. And I know my own kind. No intention to offend, but what you wrote sounds like something I would have said a few years back if I wanted to cast doubt on this. Your statements are a bit thin and you talk alot without saying much; undermine without providing sources for your claims.
It seems the only thing here that crumbles under scientific scrutiny, is your post.
If you are human, and reading this, I hope you will seriously look at the above comments. Talk to your friends. find a communication outlet that cannot be spoiled. good luck, and hope for our future. We are being interfered with on a massive scale. Don't beleive? simply look up space shuttle, go to the images, and tell us all what is missing. Stay sleek.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour elusive comments confuse me. I think you are inferring that I am a liar of some kind. I have no idea what I would be lying about. I am simply stating my view that I am really annoyed by ambit claims that there are "mountains of evidence" supporting macro evolution - yet all the times that I have followed the links and examined the actual evidence - I found it significantly deficient.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour statement "why would you suggest that unless you had atleast a tickle of intention to see that creationism is represented fairly?" is very troubling. You are inferring that we should NOT be fair in exploring the claims and assertions of creationists. I hope I am wrong in my understanding, because that assertion is totally unacceptable, unAmerican and unscientific. The evidence should be carefully and fairly examined to reach correct conclusions. Applying religious or philosphical pressure on the evidence to arrive at pre-conceived ideas is totally unacceptable.
I say again - teach evolution in its totality; its strengths and weaknesses - this after all is the scientific method.
Theo,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere's the thing. "Weaknesses" in evolutionary theory as you call them are not evidence the theory is wrong. In point of fact, in 150 or so years of people actively trying to identify and exploit "Flaws" (people far better educated than you or I on both sides theological and scientific) in this theory there have been refinements to the theory but no refutations.
I'm intrigued by biblical literalists feeling somehow threatened. Science doesn't seek to undermine religion. It just seeks a better understanding of the world through observation and testing. No one in the United states is persecuting fundamental christians. You are allowed to vote, you are allowed to persue whatever beliefs you want. What you are not allowed to do is bring religions teachings into a public school. Science and evolution are not opposition teachings. They are not a belief system. They have every right to be taught in schools. If you are threatened by them or do not wish your kids to learn them you do not have to send them to public school. Trying to force public institutions to cherry pick what they teach based on trying to avoid threatening deeply held beliefs on your part is asking for special treatment. With all due respect to your beliefs, they are no more important under the law than any other. You will note we don't routinely teach any other active religious belief in public schools. You don't get to be an exception. Here's where I re-iterate that science is not a belief system. Extroadinary claims require extroadinary proof. Evolution, by these standards, is arguably one of the most successful scientific theories ever created, because it's core has survived 150 years of active skepticism. Remember that next time you jump in a car. A car that depends on what we have learned about physics and implemented through engineering to work. That's the kind of practical reality science deals with. Humans were practically harnessing the principals of natural selection long before they understood them. Domestic plants and animals being a prime example. Selective pressure whether a consequence of environmental change or artificial selective pressures applied by early farmers result in extraodinary physical and genetic changes. Try taking a look at the wild ancestors of our crop plants. Many of them are unrecognizable. Those changes were wrought in a scant ten thousand years.
Schools teach subjects at grade appropriate levels. We don't teach calculus in grade school.
Coming from someone who clearly supports a group with extroadinarily unflexible opinions your plea for equal time is humorous.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTeaching basic science is well within the scope of public education. Religious views, by law, are not. You don't get a free ticket to proslytize. It's bad enough I can't escape that in the work place, the military, the grocery store parking lot and, on one occasion, my own driveway.
I will defend your right to believe what you like with my last breath, but I will not tolerate constant claims of persecution where none exists. I won't tolerate any group of people trying to force the schools my children go to to teach religion (it's my job as a parent to address issues of faith to my children).
If you want "Equal time" for competing theories. Come up with one that A) actually meets the definition of a scientific theory and B) actually makes predictions that are then born out by evidence supporting them. Scientists would beat a path to your door to speak with you if you had such evidence.
Science is not immune from peoples personal preferences or biases any more than any other aspect of human endeavor is. Unlike religion though science has built in safeguards against that. People make careers off of busting other peoples theories to bits. Peer review, widespread public criticism of methodology, attempts to duplicate or refute your results. Evolution has gone through 150 plus years of that. Creationism being an article of faith isn't subjected to that and is NOT science.
As I said, believe what you will and I will defend your right to do so. The minute you take steps to try and force your beliefs down the throats of others though you can expect me to resist. You can expect me to demand evidence for those beliefs. Evidence you and the movement you seem to affiliate with have failed miserably to provide over and over again. If science or the government were actively trying to undermine your beliefs you could also count on me to defend you. That defense isn't needed though because you are not being treated differently than anyone else.
As a group people of your persuasion have gone out of their way to undermine the laws of this country. When you couldn't do it with honest argument you resorted to deception and misinformation. The disdain in which you are held here isn't a consequence of persecution, it's been earned through the actions of many others of similar belief and character being intentionally misleading and refusing actual dialogue in favor of a bag of dirty tricks.
There is no such thing as macro and micro evolution. Those are terms people have made up to draw arbitrary lines in an attempt to confuse the uninformed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"process of gathering data, testing that data, drawing conclusions and building theories"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat is a belief that performing those actions will provide something which you value.
"Dogma is unchanging and infallible, which needless to say is impossible. "
I'm afraid this is nonsense. Dogma may well be considered fallible but they do change. The creation of a dogma is in itself a change in dogma. Consider the infallibility of the church. Prior to that assertion the Pope was considered fallible.
"This never happens in religion".
Again this is complete nonsense. Dogmas have been changed within the RC Church after debate, consider the Council of Trent (1545) which was set up to discuss dogma and other things.
I'm sure you will now agree that you have been very dogmatic in your post and you will now change thus proving that dogmas can change.
So what is a scientific theory which has not been proved?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour assertion that anything which is non-scientific belongs in church is egregious nonsense. You are are conseming and report from the pre-scientific era to only be discussed in a church like setting. So according to you dogma any historical narrative from the Roman era has to be discussed in church.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I've started to feel that the only way to understand evolution in a way that makes it something other than religion requires a collegiate level of understanding about biology, genetics, mutation, DNA, the effects of radiation and other disruptive forces on that DNA, natural selection, plate tectonics, carbon dating (laws of radioactive decay), zoological anatomy and an ample exposure to exotic animals"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDarwin didn't have half of that training. Why do you need it and he didn't?
"The notion of teaching both Evolution and Creationism is inherently flawed because one is based on scientific observation by thousands of scientists over the centuries and the other is based on religious dogma. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy are you saying Creationism is a dogma? Sure some people may read the Bible in a dogmatic way but not all do. You are talking about some people and not the theory of Creationism .
Have you every considered the possibility that the world was created as stated in the Bible albeit requiring a certain amount of interpretation. Also at the time of Creation the world would have been created with all the fossil evidence. I suggest it is impossible to prove which is correct, that the fossil evidence has been there for millions of years or was laid down in 4004 BC (or whenever).
If after reading this you are having difficulties with it I suggest that this might be to do with your dogma.
I suggest you need to go back to school. The scientific method is concerned with empirical research and mapping that into a theory. More importantly that theory is tested to try to find a contradiction and from there new theories are created. There is no irrevocable link between the empirical research and the theory.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDear E-Boy
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWith all due respest - your long winded reply is nothing but giberish.
Specifically:
1) CONFUSING DEFINITIONS
You are confusing the word "evolution" meaning change over time with the specific use of the word in this context, that being of origins or Macro/Darwinian evolution.
2) THE REAL ISSUE:
- Is there sufficient scientific evidence to conclude that all living things had a common ancestor?
-Is there credible evidence to explain by natural process only how all the living things with their observable complexity came into existence?
- We teach Macro Evolution as a "fact" hence we have a moral imperative to support it with credible scientific evidence.
3) SCIENTIFIC ADVANCES HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH MACRO EVOLUTION
- Macro/Darwinian evolution has nothing to do with electricity, computers and other technology
- Tying them together via the use of a word "evolution" is deceptive and deplorable.
- I am really annoyed by the "confusion margeting" tacktics that I see some notable scientists using - this is doing Darwinian Evolution a great dis-service
No wonder teachers are confused about evolution when people like yourself apply such silly tactics. The scientific method demands clarity and attention to detail. Making clear definitions and applying them consistently is a basic science. Switching the defintion of "evolution" from "gradual change" to "the source of origins" is really stupid.
Please consider
I have been looking for a long time for definitive evidence which proves Macro Evolution. However I have not been able to find it. I have read the National Academies of Science document "Science and Creationism" but found it very unsatisfying.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCan you please tell me what evidence you have observed to dogmatically concluded that Macro Evolution is a fact.
I am a teacher and have been struggling with this for a long time. I am sure that I am not the only one
Both evolution and creationism is a bunch of sheer adulterated crap. Neither is proven. You can't take a pile of bones a hundred thousand years old and say this is you before you looked like you do now and you can't tell someone that they were made from a pile of clay and this supreme being breathed life into them and this is what you look like after six thousand years. There is no way 'yet' to prove those pile of bones are human and (just because they look like a human bone doesn't mean they are) there is no way 'yet' that you can prove that pile of clay in your back yard is where you started from.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOnly idiots and morons believe crap like that and we should never instill BS like that into our children and neither should enter a classroom.
One might wonder how we got so FAR without the teaching of evolution in our schools ? The 'push' for the actual TEACHING of 'evolution' is just another 'agenda' of atheists. Low moral atheists. Evidently.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis whole argument, discourse, debate, would be settled forever if everyone were allowed to have their own beliefs. An individual philosophy is everyone's right. Attempting to dissuade others from their own belief and corral the strays, is not the purpose of religion, not a pickup football game. Such matters are and individual choice, not something to be thrust upon the "non believers".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHmmm... Gibberish? Well on the one hand you are asking for a burden of proof that would require that every living thing known and unknown be genetically tested. That's more than a little unrealistic considering we are probably losing whole species that have never been scientifically classified daily.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHaving said that, those living thing whose cells work with a DNA recipe (Which is every living thing known to human kind thus far) do heavily support the idea of common ancestry. The reason for this is because useful genes are heavily conserved. You may not be aware of this but you have forty percent or so of yuor DNA in common with a chicken. Vertebrates share a relatively recent common origin and thus share a great deal of genetic material.
Even now as the cost of genetic sequencing comes down more of the sort of evidence you seem to be seeking is coming in to play. Right now it costs about ten thousand dollars to sequence a genome like a humans. Compare that to over a billion just ten years ago. There are also scientists actively looking for critters who don't fit the standard definition of life right here on earth. So it's not as though people aren't looking.
About the definitions... I apologize for going with the broader evolution rather than the macro evolution you were discussing. However, while the time scales involved even in rapid speciation don't lend themselves to easy observation the gentic evidence does. Few would argue that grizzly bears and polar bears are separate species, but polar bears only diverged genetically from them in the range of half a million years ago. They are so close they can and occasionally still do interbreed and produce fertile offspring.
As far as the "Real issue" have you read any of the science conducted in the last fifty years? Do you really even understand the claims evolution makes? I'll give you a hint it says nothing about the origins of life, only of it's great diversity. The origins of life are an entirely different kettle of fish. Although it's probably that evolution in the broader sense employed by disciplines like cosmology would then apply.
Lastly, those other disciplines do bear on this because they too are sciences. Not all disciplines of science lend themselves well to quantification or experimentation. Until relatively recent times biology was primarily a historical science. Modern technology has changed that to a great degree. Those other areas are relevant because they aren't routinely called into doubt on the basis of conflict with religion.
There is no such thing as macro and micro evolution. Those are terms people have made up to draw arbitrary lines in an attempt to confuse the uninformed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvolution is a theory, just like gravity. To my knowledge there are more facts which disagree with our current view of gravity, than there are with evolution.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPaul,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are totally correct, "macro" and "micro" are just terms the Greeks made up to draw arbitrary lines in an attempt to confuse the uninformed.
The area around my high school was a bit of a Canadian Bible belt. Nevertheless, our lessons on evolution were terrific. To this day I still remember the group assignments we did: natural speciation through habitat splitting, morphological phylogeny, comparative embryology, convergent evolution - fantastically seen in the similar shapes of sharks, dolphins and ichthyosaurs... All of this was evidence-based and taught after the unit on genetics. A Jehovah's Witness did his assignment on a pre-cursor of Intelligent Design to show that there are different interpretations of the data. Other students judged for themselves, but you could tell that the religious view was built around predetermined outcomes and was not open inquiry. The teacher only taught us the tentative conclusions that the scientific method had nearly-unanimously yielded to that date, and told us the science was a young field. It literally opened my eyes and I was surprised to see that my first year evolution course in university was not much more advanced.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvolution can easily be taught and should be as the greatest biological explanatory framework yet conceived. It is being taught well in many areas already. Teachers do not have to make the kids believe in it. They just need to teach the material. No different than if someone studied Hinduism in a religion class. Students don't need to believe it, but the material should not be compromised to fit some pre-conceived belief, the way that Scholasticism reinterpreted Greek philosophy to fit Christian ideals. Hinduism should be taught for what it is, Greek philosophy for what it is, and evolution likewise.
Our state requires biology for graduation and evolution is taught in those required classes. Religion is offered as an elective class. Maybe the answer to this educational dilemma is to make evolution classes also an elective? Then those who want to study religion and those who want to study evolution are no longer required to hear either one, but, if interested, can study either or both. Our schools really need to concentrate on teaching the basics and turning out graduates who can compete in the world we are in. Another thing, the majority of people are not cut out for college, but are told that they must go to college to succeed in life. What they really need are trade/vocational schools. When I went to school, back in the middle ages, well over half of my graduating class of 220, went to the vocational center and started careers right after graduation. When I finished college, they mostly had homes and families of their own, while I was out job hunting. There is almost no vocational training where I now live, so those who can't cut it in college end up in dead end jobs at minimum wage because that is all they know. We need to insist on vocational training classes or seperate vocational schools in every district. Our dropout rate and percentage of future criminals would plunge.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAny science teacher who includes creationism as a scientific concept should be removed from their position.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. The world is a much different place now than when you were a student. Do you really think we have that many manufacturing jobs anymore that vocational studies is a realistic career option?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this2. Evolution is not an optional course or concept. Not understanding evolution leads to poorly educated citizens who make very uninformed choices. See the current debate regarding whether to vaccinate or not.
The optimization of the appropriate utilization of reason within a society, an educational system, and a body politic comes in a truly republican (equal rights and equal responsibilities for all citizens) form of government. The USA approximated this ideal prior to the "Orwellian Pig" revolution of the late 1960's and early 1970's. Prior to this revolution the US educational system was one of the best in the world. The result of the same revolution is that the USA has increasingly become an Orwellian, authoritarian, and Machiavellian society, educational system, and form of government. Political,religious, and social dogma, political correctness, and "news speak", including the rejection of evolution, are necessarily a part of the aforementioned and the rejection of republicanism, logic, and the principles of "The Age of Reason" which were the foundations of the American Revolution and theory of evolution, itself.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTeacher Tim,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is the whole issue. If you have bothered to read the original article you will see that this top down enforcement of curriculum is not working. And it will not work because as I have said in other posts this country is very divided about the issue of evolution because it isn't taught correctly. Until it is taught correctly there will be problems. The issue is about how evolution has been forced onto the public in a dogmatic way by scientists, AND in a way that would belittle their religious beliefs. Until that stops both on the professional level (towards scientists who happen to be believers) and to the general public education about evolution will always prompt either implicit or outright hostility.
I should add it is not so much about evolution, but how it is taught; the teaching of it has been hijacked by atheists who reject the concept of God. Until that stops the war in the classroom is not going to stop.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is wonderful website now called 'Symphony of Science.' It features quotes taken from videos of famous scientists and educators key corrected and and set to music. It is inspiring. One of my favorite quotes from these songs is by Carl Sagan, "Science is more than a body of knowledge, it's a way of thinking."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScience is a method. When you teach children something in place of evolution in a science class, more significantly than giving them the wrong information, you are teaching them the wrong methods by which our models are derived. If you teach material formulated contrary to the methods by which Evolution is formulated- data, hypothesis, experimentation, prediction,results, and theory - you or throwing away the whole scientific method, you are essential "un-teaching" all of science.
You wold think evidence and proof beat hocus pocus but with people like theo52 above, who claims to be a teacher, there is always going to be a problem.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen US society places so much emphasis and value on 'Faith' and the willingness to accept stories with no proof or evidence then it is inevitable that this spills over into the rest of life.
When children all across America are told every day of their school lives that 'Faith' is so wonderful and admirable and great - then what is the surprise when a percentage of them, when they grow up, cannot distinguish between fantasy and reality ? Is it really surprising therefore that we have thousands of science teachers who cannot distinguish between a faith based idea that 'God' made the world in 7 days, and a hundred years of hard evidence that grinds this story into the ground.
My impression of high school teachers (I graduated in 2005) is that they are afraid to teach evolution, even if they understand the science and want to teach evolution. I think one of the best steps we can take, and perhaps to include in the proposed prep course mentioned in the article, is to reassure teachers that they cannot be sued for teaching evolution, nor do they have to give any time or recognition to creationism. The court cases have already been resolved - there is no reason to give even a nod to creationism in this day and age.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a current student (Biology Major) at the University of Maine, I'm proud to say that all my professors have aggressively taught evolution. They have made it very clear that you cannot possibly understand biology without evolution - that biology without evolution is chemistry without atoms and molecules. There is even a stone engraving in our biology building, quoting Dobzhansky: "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution."
I recommend that anyone with doubts read Dawkins' "The Greatest Show on Earth."
Perhaps high school geography teachers should be sympathetic to those individuals who believe the world is flat. Do we need alternative books or chapters that discuss how it is impossible to circumnavigate the Earth because it is a flat plane supported by a giant turtle? I think the analogy is not that far off base when you consider how fundamentalists must also deny plate tectonics (and countless other evidence of the age of the Earth) in order to affirm their ridiculous belief that the universe is a mere 10,000 years old, let alone denying the entire body of cosmological understanding and much of astronomy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCentaurus,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGod has no place in public schools. This nation is not a theocracy. Also, you are the one failing to understand something. You painted a very nice picture of christians as victims. There's only one problem with that. Christians aren't being descriminated against. Christians aren't being treated any differently than anyone else. Science isn't a belief system. It's simply a set of tools. Several sets to be accurate. There are scientists who are atheists but not all scientists are atheists and many scientists who are not atheists still believe evolution happened. None of them are griping about the way it's taught. Here's another neat one for ya. Remember Pope John Paul? The guy who was pope before Ratzinger? Well he said that the evidence for evolution was so overwhelming that even he couldn't deny it and he officially acknowledged the science. That would be the head of the largest denomination of Christians on earth. A man who is, arguably, an expert in theology still doesn't feel threatened by evolution...
Scientists aren't in the God business. No decent scientist has any interest at all in proving or disproving god's existence. Why? Because God is non-falsifiable. We can't test him/her/it, we can't measure him/her/it, and we can't in any other way quantify him/her/it. Therefore it's outside the scope of science whether god exists or not. Try not to confuse the issue by suggesting scientists are somehow involved in an anti-religion campaign. Scientists come from all religions and all over the world for that matter. I would suggest you are being paranoid, and not very reasonable.
By the way, you also seem to be confused about atheism. Atheism isn't a religion. Your disdain for it is palpable though. Almost like you were stereotyping a whole group of people on the basis of their beliefs right after falsely claiming you were being unfairly treated... Wow that almost sounds hypocritical.
Just to re-emphasize: Science is not an occupation or tool only practiced by atheists. Scientists come from all walks of life and religious beliefs
Failing to teach creationism or any other religious dogma in a public school, no matter how threatened by this you feel, is NOT discrimination. Nor is it in any way pandering to atheists. It's separation of church and state. If you want to live in a theocracy go find one and move. You do have the option of home schooling your children or sending them to private schools.
Let me try to shed some light on this issue
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe word “evolution” first appeared in the English language in 1647 in a non biological connection, and it became widely used in English for all sorts of progressions from simpler beginnings. Darwin did not initially use the word "evolution" - it later came to be associated with Biological "evolution".
In science we need to have precise definitions of words otherwise it degenerates into BS.
The term "evolution" simply means change over time. Nobody is arguing about that - the issue arises when we apply that to biology and draw wrong conclusions on the basis of changing the defintion as we proceed.
It is observable that organism change or adapt over time. This is adaptation or some people like to call it micro evolution. However, others have made the assertion that if animals change a little over a small period of time; then if it is extrapolated over big periods of time then the changes would be huge. This is Macro evolution. On this basis evolutionists assert that all living things had a common ancestor - and the basis of those evolutionary trees that are common in biology books
Micro evolution is observable, measureable,repeatable and scientific. Macro evolution is a HUGE extrapolation of micro evolution. Macro evolution is NOT observable, measerable or repeatable. Macro evolution is a faith - it is not science in the strict sense of the word.
What about teachers who teach the scientific problems with Macro Evolution - should they be removed too?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat if they have genuine concerns about the science of Macro evolution - should they not be allowed to share them?
Why should be kill scientific enquiry to protect the sacred cow of "evolution"?
Please explain
I agree with you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBoth evolution and creationism are beyond scientific proof and hence it is dishonest to teach them in the science class as such.
Make them electives and state clearly that they are both based largely based on faith - let the kids that want to come freely choose to do so.
Hello Howard
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou imply that the evidence for macro evolution is just "rock solid". Have you actually examined it or are you just following the pack?
Can you please point me to where this "rock solid" evidence is - after all science is based on evidence - not ambit claims.
Have you read the literature coming out of the National Academy of Sciences or are you relying on other sources?
Please advise
Eboy,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are the one confused here. I never said that science education is about teaching God in the classroom. I never said that evolution did not happen. I have a healthy respect and admiration for science and its method. I practice science as an amateur fossil collector and amateur astronomer. My father is a well known researcher in cancer research. How can you imply that I have disdain for its method?
I disagree with your view that science is neutrally taught. The tables have definitely turned against people who have a belief in God. Look at all the posts here at SA deriding the belief in God as close to being lunatic. It is a disturbing trend in science education and it's not about the science it's about ideology. I wish I were wrong but I think it is quite evident.
Science has become the new dogma, and this was never meant to be. There are many kinds of knowledge and ways of knowing the world, and I'm just saying that the scientific method is only one way, one tool.. But practitioners of it have confused the success of this tool and used it to deny other kinds of knowledge that have equal validity: namely spiritual knowledge, morality and ethics, and historical knowledge. Again, it is the way science is taught that looks down on other forms of knowledge that I am trying my best to get people to understand. My professional training has been in history and so I have studied this extensively.
If we held historical knowledge, for example, to the same standard of empirical testing we do for science we would not be able to write history for obvious reasons. Many types of knowledge are historical in nature including much of paleontology. In the same way the knowledge of the Judeo-Christian God is historical in nature with witnesses that have had encounters with him. If this experience of the spiritual were limited to the distant past then religion and the belief in God would no longer exist today. However, many people still encounter God and experience the spiritual realm in their lives. And we find that people of science try to denounce or deride this kind of knowing because they don't experience it, relegating it to myth or magic. But this realm cannot be denied just because it cannot be measured and tested scientifically. Many things including what you did yesterday cannot be measured scientifically.
Science does not give us the understanding of the meaning to life or the meaning of the universe. It cannot give us any sort of ethic by which to live life.
"I should add it is not so much about evolution, but how it is taught; the teaching of it has been hijacked by atheists who reject the concept of God. Until that stops the war in the classroom is not going to stop."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou make many people smirk at your imposed idea of this (capitalized) god. Theists, when met with agnostics' ambivalence toward their particular set of deities and procedures, always seem to feel the need to call them athiests or fiends.
In any case, religious education does not belong in public school. Final answer.
The job of a high school teacher is not to simply present various arguments and let the child come up with their own conclusions. I'm sure you would feel ashamed of your child if they determined that despite all teachings, 1+1 equals 5. Or if they came to the conclusion that electrons actually follow the Newtonian model of motion. I suppose passing tests is out of the question now? After all, according to your beliefs everything is relative and observed fact is no longer to be of any consequence. Why do you even bother sending your child to school if it's to follow some asinine self-prescribed model of reality?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow sad when a slice of the population revels in the ignorance of their children all in an effort to bolster religious belief.
Teach the controversy? Like the geocentricism controversy? Or the "holocaust never happened" controversy? The "Flood geology" controversy?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat do all of these have in common? They are typically fringe religious and scientifically illiterate groups of people who simply cannot reconcile their own faith with the nature of reality. So what's their solution? Change reality. Simply amazing.
Before you know it we'll be spending more time in the classroom on intellectually bankrupt "religious science" than on anything useful.
Show me a truly honest "christian scientist" who considers all of the facts and I'll show you an atheist.
Your sarcastic comments do not add anything constructive to discussion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour statement:
"Show me a truly honest "christian scientist" who considers all of the facts and I'll show you an atheist." is silly in the extreme as many famous scientits in history were Christian. For example Sir Isaac Newton has been quoted to say:
“I can take my telescope and look millions and millions of miles into space, but I can lay it aside and go into my room, shut the door, get down on my knees in earnest prayer and see more of Heaven and get closer to God than I can assisted by all the telescopes and material agencies on earth”
Also, there is a public document which contains the names of current scientists who are brave enough to publicly express skepticism about evolution and atest agreemen to the following statement:
“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”
Do a google search on "SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM" and you will find it.
You are peddling the same old mindless line which lacks scientific rigor and examination.
Please consider
Theo, you misunderstood my point - not a christian who is a (real) scientist, but rather a practitioner of "christian science". In fact, one of my favorite scientists happens to also be a papist (Ken Miller).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn any event, Isaac newton also believed in alchemy / the philosophers stone. I don't see how quoting him is supporting your case. Only when he deviated from the "religious" side and focused purely on natural explanations for reality did he yield useful writings, such as his Principia Mathematica.
Get on your knees all you want, and pray to your bearded sky god. As soon as he starts answering you with a reformed nature of reality and leading you down a destructive path of denial vs. science I'll laugh at you as well.
How many of these scientists you speak of have no religious bias infecting their beliefs? I suspect something very telling will show up in such an investigation. Most scientists, on the otherhand would gladly accept a belief in God or some religion should it show itself to actually be present. Sadly, this doesn't appear to be the case.
Your "Scientific Rigor" I assume is demonstrated by your willingness to get on your knees and speak to a magical being you have only been told must exist.
THIS is the joke you were talking about? This isn't credible or worthwhile in the least! hahaha.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://ncseweb.net/creationism/general/doubting-darwinism-creative-license
Please show me ANY scientific evidence that any real information can come bubbling out of a mud puddle. Maybe then, I would consider believing the absurd superstition that such is possible.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDNA consists of a base 4 mathematical CODE and most people know that ALL codes are languages AND as such, they require an intelligent author.
But, evolution claims intelligent code bubbled out of an ancient warm mud puddle. Is that crazy or what?
AMEN ! ! !
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisquizzical...Thank you for a rational argument in your theory that DNA is a base 4 code. However, U.S. currency is a base 100 code, and I would bet that the person who told you to argue this point has gotten some of your currency. IRRELEVANT!!!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCentaurus...You speak of the jew/christian/muslim god, yet you have the name of a greek myth. Thus, proving that your god is a myth. Duh....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisnotslic... Thanks for the affirmation on the rationality of my argument. However, you are mistaken. US currency is based on "Base 10" code, NOT "base 100"!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd, NO, this is NOT an irrelevant issue, because it is no more likely for the specific instructions for life processes to come bubbling out of an ancient warm mud puddle than it is likely that the old alchemists could come up with a recipe for stewing gold out of cheaper materials.
WHY? Because it just isn't done that way!
Dear John Rennie, I am informed by the data you present here. My belief is similar to yours, and many commentors whom interpret your reported data: we all understand the suboptimal sciene teaching situation as described.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever, please consider how I heard in your important message, a righteous 'tone', and some derisive terms which sounded to me like condescending attacks during your 60-second recording. I agree that religion is a different study, and is not science. I study genetics and evolution, and have practiced medicine for many years. I agree with your approaches, and your points.
And yes, I too wish that everyone, especially our teachers could more often stick to a scientific approach. I especially encourage all to clearly delineate the testable from the non-testable hypothesis. (We of course do not 'prove', we only cite supporting, and consider refuting: evidences.)
But civility has an important place, I believe, even in strong disagreements. How we get our core messages out, especially to these critical 'swing-vote' science teachers is very important, I believe. We all benefit from your finest, persuasive oration, which includes 'the facts', among other considerations. Thank you.
What an excellent post. I'm glad I wasn't the only one disgusted by the author's sarcastic comments about giving the students the tools to think for themselves. God forbid that they learn the scientific method rather than to passively accept the lies of the official mandate from a judge in Pennsylvania.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOpen your minds, people. We are a long way from finding the answers behind life and evolution.
Why is it wrong for a student to ask a teacher how random accident can consistently cause something complex and functional? Is it so disturbing to you because you know you can't answer it?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeither can teachers answer it, because random accident CAN'T cause anything in life, let alone its origins.
As a Biology major in college, I asked this very question and was thoroughly disgusted by my Physiology professor's inability to answer it factually. If he had admitted that he doesn't know or pointed to some evidence it would have been a nice step, but he just kept claiming the official random luck for everything, without any hint of math to show the infinitessimal probabilities. I'm pretty certain that you have no answer to your own question. Brave enough to admit it?
The reason over 70% of science teachers refuse to teach random accident Darwinism is because it is total BS and they are smart enough to know it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust what we do NOT need is yet more "education" for teachers to be rehashed more unscientific crap about vapid "selection" uselessness or more of the bizarre illogical claim that chaos causes functional order.
What might help is any attempt at backing up the claims of randomness where there consistently appears to be none. Would it be too much to ask for some math to substantiate claims that life evolves and functions by luck or some logic to the claim that random accident causes intelligence? Any evidence at all would be novel.
Teachers won't teach it because it is factually wrong.
Any well-trained Biologist who teaches Biology knows that Evolution is the core around which all of Biology revolves. Evolution is the basis of my public high school class, and everything else is taught in relation to it: Natural Selection, speciation, germ and cell theory, etc.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnfortunately, there are far too many teachers who are not well trained (we'd have to redefine college program requirements and then pay teachers more if we expected them to be better trained) teaching outside of their specialty area.
The point of standards is to define what should be taught. The point of administrators is to ensure standards are taught. The point of teaching (life) science is teaching how life works using the best explanation for the evidence. Evolution is the only scientific explanation that does that.
It's a shame tax payers aren't getting what they paid for.
"Science does not aim at establishing immutable truths and eternal dogmas; its aim is to approach the truth by successive approximations, without claiming that at any stage final and complete accuracy has been achieved." - Bertrand Russel
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this