Scary shit

Despite a court-ordered ban on the teaching of creationism in US 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.

US courts have repeatedly decreed that creationism and intelligent design are religion, not science, and have no place in school science classrooms. But no matter what courts and school boards decree, it is up to teachers to put the curriculum into practice.

" Ultimately, they are the ones who carry it out," says Michael Berkman, a political scientist at Pennsylvania State University in University Park.

But what teachers actually teach about evolution and creationism in their classrooms is a bit of a grey area, so Berkman and his colleagues decided to conduct the first-ever national survey on the subject.

' Not shocking'
The researchers polled a random sample of nearly 2000 high-school science teachers across the US in 2007. Of the 939 who responded, 2% 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% – about 12.5% of the total survey – said they taught it as a " valid, scientific alternative to Darwinian explanations for the origin of species" .

Science teaching experts say they are not surprised to find such a large number of science teachers advocating creationism.

" It seems a bit high, but I am not shocked by it," says Linda Froschauer, past president of the National Science Teachers Association based in Arlington, Virginia. " We do know there' s a problem out there, and this gives more credibility to the issue."

Better training
When Berkman' s team asked about the teachers' personal beliefs, about the same number, 16% of the total, said they believed human beings had been created by God within the last 10,000 years.

Teachers who subscribed to these young-Earth creationist views, perhaps not surprisingly, spent 35% fewer hours teaching evolution than other teachers, the survey revealed.

The survey also showed that teachers who had taken more science courses themselves – and especially those who had taken a course in evolutionary biology – devoted more class time to evolution than teachers with weaker science backgrounds.

This may be because better-prepared teachers are more confident in dealing with students' questions about a sensitive subject, says Berkman, who notes that requiring all science teachers to take a course in evolutionary biology could have a big impact on the teaching of evolution in the schools.

Why not have a clear cut religion class and a clear cut science class. If you teach science you should know how things are put together. Its like teaching math without being able to count to 10.

Indeed. I went to a Catholic high school myself, and even our science teachers didn' t teach creationism (this is in Australia). We had separate (compulsory) religion classes but that' s about as far as it went. We didn' t mix the two, and we certainly didn' t take the Bible as fact.

I remember someone asking my year 10 science teacher whether he believed in creationism. He said flat out " No, because it defies logic" .

Reminds me of a story my friend told me. He said he was talking to his very religious aunt about the " fishes and loaves" story from the Bible... which basically tells the story of how Jesus managed to feed a crowd of thousands on just a few fish and loaves of bread. My friend said to his aunt, " Oh, I get it... it' s a metaphor for people' s generosity, and because everyone contributed a little food and shared it all they were all able to eat." And his aunt was like, " No! It was a miracle." Very condescending and completely illogical.

16% isn' t a lot.

It' s a lot more than 0%, which is what it ought to be. Especially considering lots of students are zoned to schools and don' t get to select from the science teachers who teach science and the science teachers who teach religion.

In the US, religious zealots invaded the school boards. The average person doesn' t care about the curriculum and when you have a group of people with an agenda it becomes easy for them to have a majority in a closed democratic system.

The severity of the problem depends on where you live. The southern states are much worse.

I can' t read the article because of a stupid pop-up ad that won' t let me close it, but I assume they meant to say 16% of ALL US science teachers, including those that teach at religious schools (I personally went to a Catholic school). If this is the case, the results are not surprising or alarming.

You could also say it this way: 84% of all US science teachers believe in evolution! OMG 84%!!!!!!!! SCARY! Seriously, 16% is nothing. If 16% of people voted for George W Bush, you' d point at him and laugh at his pathetically low numbers. You' ll never be able to stamp religion out 100% because people like having nonsense to believe in. It makes them feel comfortable.

In most states, school boards don' t decide curriculum. State requirements are state requirements, and nowhere does it state that creationism has to be taught as a legitimate science. In fact, I have never had a class that explained creationism, no less taught it. I don' t know where you all get your rhetoric on our educational system, but it' s got some real holes.

As a relatively general standard, students don' t get into advanced science in the US until High School, and are never required to take a religion class, and quite frankly, your mind' s already made up one way or the other by that point. 45 minutes a day for a single semester isn' t going to change a person' s lifelong views, whether that course be religion, or science.

The policy is that you don' t need to believe in evolution, but you need to learn it. It seems fair enough to me. Being a product of the US educational system, and one of the few still in it here, I think I' d have a better grasp than most.

If there' s any problem in the US educational system, it' s health class, not science class.

In most states, school boards don' t decide curriculum. State requirements are state requirements, and nowhere does it state that creationism has to be taught as a legitimate science. In fact, I have never had a class that explained creationism, no less taught it. I don' t know where you all get your rhetoric on our educational system, but it' s got some real holes.

As a relatively general standard, students don' t get into advanced science in the US until High School, and are never required to take a religion class, and quite frankly, your mind' s already made up one way or the other by that point. 45 minutes a day for a single semester isn' t going to change a person' s lifelong views, whether that course be religion, or science.

The policy is that you don' t need to believe in evolution, but you need to learn it. It seems fair enough to me. Being a product of the US educational system, and one of the few still in it here, I think I' d have a better grasp than most.

If there' s any problem in the US educational system, it' s health class, not science class.

There are problems in all aspects of every education system, nothing is perfect.

I' m not talking about the majority, I' m talking about 12.5% of science teachers teaching creationism as a viable option over evolution.
It' s not about religion class, it' s about the people with the most control allowing this to happen and even fighting for it. Who do you think fought in favor of having creationism in schools?

As a seperate argument I would say that religion classes as they are taught don' t belong in school at all. I never said it was only the US either. I myself went to a catholic school, I took religion classes when I was younger, I know what theyteach, a few times a year the school brought us to church. You can argue that I had the option of replacing religion class with Moral which I did after one year of being introduced to christianity. I would counter argue that Moral class was equally void of any merit. In my case, it was especially bad because that class was taught by the same guy teaching religion. He wasn' t supposed to teach god but he certainly did not teach a secular view on morality. He had no understanding on the importance of measuring consequence, he only looked at the actions. On a few occassions he even slipped in some insight on the benefit of being a good christian. With another teacher she spent all class reading " chicken soup for the soul" , I' m not joking. I realize this is a drop in the bucket, but my point is that both religion and and substitute is a useless, a waste of time.

More importantly school should never teach opinion, schools should be like the news, neutral and purely objective backed up with proven facts. The argument of what harm can teaching religion do is ridiculous. The answer is probably nothing to an individual, but school is expensive cost for the country, it' s not a resource you waste.

Well it' s also important for the teachers to note that evolution is a theory and not 100% proven. I think creationism should be mentioned when teaching the theory of evolution. It would just be bad teaching not to show all major sides to an argument. I believe in evolution btw.

I just think teachers should leave their belief' s inside their desk' s drawer when teaching a class. Students are there to learn the theories the way they should be learned, in an objective manner, not some sort or pseudo way thanks to a teacher' s subjective views and feelings towards a particular theory. If you believe in creationism, fine, just leave it out of evolution, and only bring it out when both theories must be compared, and vice-versa.

Teachers are there to teach theories relevant to the subject, wether proven or not. They are not being paid to teach their opinions on a subject. The exposition and discussion are two separate processes.

Well it' s also important for the teachers to note that evolution is a theory and not 100% proven. I think creationism should be mentioned when teaching the theory of evolution. It would just be bad teaching not to show all major sides to an argument. I believe in evolution btw.

Evolution is supported in the same way as the theory of gravity or the theory of elecromagnatism. A scientific theory is not a guess. I would say a theory is not 100% final, but what is included is generally proven. Mostly what is added is the " how" and not the what. We know evolution works and we know how it works too.

Evolution is a developed theory, creationism is not a real theory. It' s barely a hypothesis.

Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

But when you teach Creationism, which religion' s story do you teach? They can' t ALL be right. You go to Hell and burn forever if you believe in the wrong one, so be careful!

I have never been in a school where creationism is taught in science classes.

I' m pretty sure the class would riot if a teacher/professor even brought it up.

But yes there are always the southern states, they are intellectually 200 years behind the rest of the country. What do you expect from people who practice incest, polygamy, etc?

From many scientist interviews I have seen, many scientists have religious ideas regarding the matter, but they know it is simply their belief and they don' t teach things that can' t be experimented on.

More importantly school should never teach opinion, schools should be like the news, neutral and purely objective backed up with proven facts. The argument of what harm can teaching religion do is ridiculous. The answer is probably nothing to an individual, but school is expensive cost for the country, it' s not a resource you waste.

Why not? So long as you' re not required to believe what is being taught, who cares what they' re presenting?

The most I ever learned about American World History (US in it' s relation to the world) was from a teacher who had ideas quite contrary to mine. She would teach what we needed to learn for the exams, and then it would be an unofficial open forum, where we all expressed our opinions on the subject at hand. I didn' t agree with everybody' s views, but I consider myself a more intelligent person for hearing them.

The only time Creationism is brought up in Science courses is to explain what the beielif is, and that it is held by people. There is no validation of the theory, nor is there any judgement passed on it. It' s simply presented as a belief.

There' s nothing wrong with providing an open dialogue in the school system. It' s when you start restricting what stutents can be informed of that you begin to have issues.

The only time Creationism is brought up in Science courses is to explain what the beielif is, and that it is held by people. There is no validation of the theory, nor is there any judgement passed on it. It' s simply presented as a belief.

Yeah obviously, but that' s not contrary to what I meant. There' s a difference between identifying different ideas and perhaps teaching the history of the ideas/opinions. It' s another thing entirely to give a bias/emic perspective on these ideas. Just as you wouldn' t want a Nazis teaching the class about nazism, a feminist teach about feminism, or a liberal in your class teaching liberalism.

ORIGINAL: Agent Ghost

...or a liberal in your class teaching liberalism.

Welcome to college. I find in college nothing is taught from an unbias perspective. Every one of my classes that dealt with history or government was horribly slanted. My English classes were literally writing papers about how conservatives were horrible people. My teacher hated me in that class.

Also, Agent, you contradicted your own argument...

Just as you wouldn' t want a Nazis teaching the class about nazism, a feminist teach about feminism, or a liberal in your class teaching liberalism.

If that were the case then you wouldn' t want a scientist teaching science because of a bias. I know what you meant though...

There are a couple of common types of people and how they relate to their jobs.

1)There are people who believe that they have a responsibility in their job and an ethical code in their job to do their job to the best of their ability without having their job-related actions dictated by their personal beliefs, opinions and biases.

2)There are people who are motivated to get a job so they can exert their personal beliefs, opinions and biases through the position of influence that that job provides.

The first kind of person is more intelligent and ethical. The second kind of person is a big fvcking problem. Even in a job that is all about beliefs, faith, prescribed codes of behavior (a priest for example), the first type of person is the better person for the job because they are supposed to be guided by their holy texts' scriptures or what have you, not solely by their own arrogant opinions and judgments of other people.

It seems like I' m having a flashback of a thread like this....

If that were the case then you wouldn' t want a scientist teaching science because of a bias.

you cant be bias science.