16 Percent Of US Science Teachers Are Creationists

Forums: Spirituality And Religion
Email this Topic • Print this Page

This is very scary! ---BBB

Creationism In US High Schools: 16 Percent Of US Science Teachers Are Creationists
Huffington Post
May 21, 2008

ABC News reports on the findings of a study that concluded 16% of U.S. science teachers are Creationists, and that, disturbingly, one in eight are teaching creationism as a valid science:

Despite a court-ordered ban on the teaching of creationism in U.S. schools, about one in eight high-school biology teachers still teach it as valid science, a survey reveals. And, although almost all teachers also taught evolution, those with less training in science, and especially evolutionary biology, tend to devote less class time to Darwinian principles.

The researchers polled a random sample of nearly 2,000 high-school science teachers across the U.S. in 2007. Of the 939 who responded, 2 percent said they did not cover evolution at all, with the majority spending between 3 and 10 classroom hours on the subject.

However, a quarter of the teachers also reported spending at least some time teaching about creationism or intelligent design. Of these, 48 percent, about 12.5 percent of the total survey, said they taught it as a "valid, scientific alternative to Darwinian explanations for the origin of species".

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 5,321 • Replies: 97

No top replies

Yes, it's very scary to have an opinion that goes against Darwin. It might cost you your job.

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

Yes, it's very scary to have an opinion that goes against Darwin. It might cost you your job.

0 Replies

If they cant get a rise out of "its only a theory", next they are going to roll out the story about academic freedom.
Why is it that real science doesnt have to come up with scams? Confused

0 Replies

It doesn't matter, they still have to teach the curriculum the district provides and requires.

10% or more of teachers are gay and lots of pedophiles work in Catholic schools.

You don't have a problem with that?

0 Replies

Surely, some teachers smoke. The question is whether they teach it.

0 Replies

The researchers who carried out the study have recommended stronger certification standards for science teachers. Their full report can be found online:

Public Library of Science Journal

0 Replies

wandeljw

wandeljw wrote:

The researchers who carried out the study have recommended stronger certification standards for science teachers. Their full report can be found online:

Public Library of Science Journal

Thanks for the additional site information.

BBB

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

If they cant get a rise out of "its only a theory", next they are going to roll out the story about academic freedom.
Why is it that real science doesnt have to come up with scams?

Real science should be able to trump speculation with reason. When those carrying the banner resort to the same tactics they condemn in their opponents, the distant observer begins to wonder. . .

0 Replies

prhaps the distant observer is too dumb to distinguish the difference. Ive seen on these threads the over and over presenting of things like scientific evidence that is strongly peer reviewed and able to be used for experiments and discovery. Then the Ctreationists begin to try to cast doubt on the word evidence. It gets frustrating trying to convince the ineducable of facts that they just dont wish to buy. Theyd rther wallow in their ignorance and claim that its science that is being unreasonably obtuse. Well, Im beginning to calous up and I often send posts of guys like Real Life to my colleagues who think that theres hope for America. Im not so sure that were even gonna make it into the first quarter of this century without becoming a blasted theocracy , then we can kiss any techno leadership goodbye. A buddy of mine teaches genetics at a prestigious med research University and hes stated that there are an increasing number of theocratically based "science students" who argue the statistical impossibility of evolution without a guiding hand .
My friend is certain that were doomed.

Its because the scientific intrudes into the domain of religious people that , many of them attempt to belittle science .However, their scorn is empty and based upon ignorance . In the many threads herein, weve attemprted to be patient and avuncular in approach. Ive been very patient for many years herein and all I get is responses many months later wherein the "true believers" havent lerned anything except to add another non scientifc argument to their bag-o-tricks. Thats not science, thats sophism.
Ive decided to be a turn for turn individual from herein and not exercise any patience anymore. If the "casual observers' Are truly interested , there are valuable resources out there att many levels of presentation. If the casual observer merely wishes to test out their debate skills in support of the non scientific , then they should be scorned as the luddited they are. No sense dragging our kids into the cesspool of creationist mythology and IDjicy.

0 Replies

Did I just say something?

0 Replies

Farmerman
Farmerman SALUDE!

APPLAUSE!

BBB

0 Replies

What is really scary is that people are getting away from the "it's ok to have differing views, etc." It seems if one believes they are correct they have the right to demean the views of those they believe are wrong. I disagree.

Science has it's distinguished place most definitely, but there will always be things, in my opinion at least, that not even science can explain.

0 Replies

Arella Mae wrote:

Science has it's distinguished place most definitely, but there will always be things, in my opinion at least, that not even science can explain.

In fact, the realm of things that can be scientifically proven is rather small.

Science is very good (normally) at dealing with present phenomena, not so good at dealing with one-time events of the past.

0 Replies

Quote:

In fact, the realm of things that can be scientifically proven is rather small.

A theory is proven by two conditions

1The items within a theory are usable in order to make predictions

2 The building blocks of the theory, and the theory itself, have not been disproven by any evidence

Try to do that with Creationism and youll fll flat on your face. Imagine a Creationist based oil exploration program, or development of flu vaccines for successive years.

I dont know about the goobers of Creationist "Science", Ill bet theyre trying to come up with something of use and they havent succeeded yet.

OH, maybe the art of quote mining is a uniquely Creationist technology

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

prhaps the distant observer is too dumb to distinguish the difference. Ive seen on these threads the over and over presenting of things like scientific evidence that is strongly peer reviewed and able to be used for experiments and discovery. Then the Ctreationists begin to try to cast doubt on the word evidence. It gets frustrating trying to convince the ineducable of facts that they just dont wish to buy. Theyd rther wallow in their ignorance and claim that its science that is being unreasonably obtuse. Well, Im beginning to calous up and I often send posts of guys like Real Life to my colleagues who think that theres hope for America. Im not so sure that were even gonna make it into the first quarter of this century without becoming a blasted theocracy , then we can kiss any techno leadership goodbye. A buddy of mine teaches genetics at a prestigious med research University and hes stated that there are an increasing number of theocratically based "science students" who argue the statistical impossibility of evolution without a guiding hand .
My friend is certain that were doomed.

Its because the scientific intrudes into the domain of religious people that , many of them attempt to belittle science .However, their scorn is empty and based upon ignorance . In the many threads herein, weve attemprted to be patient and avuncular in approach. Ive been very patient for many years herein and all I get is responses many months later wherein the "true believers" havent lerned anything except to add another non scientifc argument to their bag-o-tricks. Thats not science, thats sophism.
Ive decided to be a turn for turn individual from herein and not exercise any patience anymore. If the "casual observers' Are truly interested , there are valuable resources out there att many levels of presentation. If the casual observer merely wishes to test out their debate skills in support of the non scientific , then they should be scorned as the luddited they are. No sense dragging our kids into the cesspool of creationist mythology and IDjicy.

Very well stated.

0 Replies

wandeljw wrote:

The researchers who carried out the study have recommended stronger certification standards for science teachers. Their full report can be found online:

Public Library of Science Journal

The report showed that 16% of biology teachers classify themselves at creationists (their personal beliefs). Not coincidentally, 16% of biology teachers include creationism in their classes (they teach what they personally believe), and approximately 16% of biology teachers have not completed college level courses in evolutionary biology (so they don't teach what they don't understand).

The numbers are also skewed strongly on a state by state basis.

The report closed with this paragraph:

Quote:

These findings strongly suggest that victory in the courts is not enough for the scientific community to ensure that evolution is included in high school science courses. Nor is success in persuading states to adopt rigorous content standards consistent with recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences and other scientific organizations. Scientists concerned about the quality of evolution instruction might have a bigger impact in the classroom by focusing on the certification standards for high school biology teachers. Our study suggests that requiring all teachers to complete a course in evolutionary biology would have a substantial impact on the emphasis on evolution and its centrality in high school biology courses. In the long run, the impact of such a change could have a more far reaching effect than the victories in courts and in state governments.

0 Replies

Thats probably true. In the distant past, as the tide of the law began to change in favor of science, the states and schools were still purchasing biology books that were laced with non evolutionary "thinking".

Ive got a personal collection of old Bio textbooks that I use as resource tools in several classes. I like to place a "timeline" of specific discoveries within their temporal space. Like , in the two decades after Dart was showing the world the Taung BAby, we pictured this fossil in the context of the somewaht Creationist theories of the time and totally revisionist Paleoanthropology books like "In Search of Adam" were still on the horizon a few years.

There could have been no "punctuated equilibrium" for example, unless there was a pre existing "post Darwinian" synthesis.
Bakkers work that made hot blooded dinosaurs a kitchen name was actually a counter-response to the long held views of famous dinosaur hunters like Roy Chapman ANdrews and Owen and even MArsh who all were fitting their fossils into a reconstructed ancient worlds which were mostly swamp infested jungles where all dinosaurs were actually being held up by the bouyancy of this fetid water.
That was an accepted " truth" in Biology and the texts were "sort of" presenting their views in terms of a "Theisticevolution" that still hadnt fully divorced itself from Genesis

0 Replies

Arella Mae wrote:

What is really scary is that people are getting away from the "it's ok to have differing views, etc." It seems if one believes they are correct they have the right to demean the views of those they believe are wrong. I disagree.

Science has it's distinguished place most definitely, but there will always be things, in my opinion at least, that not even science can explain.

Except, we're not talking about the concept of God here, where you might actually have a point.

We're talking about Evolution, which has been explained and proven to be true to the extent that to believe that to believe it is false requires ignorance or complete delusion.

In many cases, people are actively being fed lies by the big name Creationists like Kent Hovind, Ken Ham and that guy who made the ridiculous banana argument whose name I've forgotten. It doesn't matter if the people who are feeding these people lies actually believe in them. They're lies nonetheless or if you don't like the L word, maybe we can use strawmen instead.

Should a Priest not believe in a God? Should an American history teacher deny that the American War of Independence ever happened? Should a PE teacher not believe in the health benefits of physical activity? Should a maths teacher believe that 2 + 2 = 5?

No. So why should a science teacher deny Evolution, one of the most stable and uncontroversial theories in all of science, when the vast majority of evidence for Evolution is scientific, sound and most importantly, for Evolution? What next? Hiring geocentric science teachers? Flat Earth science teachers?

Should science teachers teach young children about a geocentric solar system as if it was valid alternative to heliocentrism? Or flat earth to spherical Earth?

0 Replies

It's scarier than that, guys. Here's the study: http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0060124

It seems that about 13% outright teach that creationism or ID are valid scientific alternatives to mainstream evolutionary theory. It's for a short amount of class time, but still, that's idiotic (not to mention just begging for lawsuits). You would hope that administrators would get a clue and protect their districts from teachers who don't understand the very basics of science from peddling religious beliefs in the science classroom, if only out of fear of getting sued (completely legitimately).

And that 16%? Much scarier than you think. That is 16% of high school biology teachers and they possess Young Earth Creationist viewpoints. This seems a bit weird since science's findings refute their personal beliefs, but really this could be OK, in my opinion, so long as they could handle teaching the curriculum and not violating those pesky little Constitutional protections. And for you creationists out there, I'll note that these protections were put in place to ensure religious freedom from government tampering as well.

It is a little disconcerting for someone to teach a subject they almost certainly do not understand (I've seen very, very, very few creationists who give any indication of retaining 7 days worth of a college biology course). Imagine if 16% of our history teachers were Holocaust deniers. It's a little worrying.

0 Replies

16 Percent Of US Science Teachers Are Creationists

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know