Most high school biology teachers don’t endorse evolution

[Skwim]

In another thread it was pointed out that 13% of high school biology teachers explicitly advocate creationism. Pretty bad. However, according to a Penn State study, while "28 percent consistently implement National Research Council recommendations calling for introduction of evidence that evolution occurred, and craft lesson plans with evolution as a unifying theme linking disparate topics in biology . . . about 60 percent, 'fail to explain the nature of scientific inquiry, undermine the authority of established experts, and legitimize creationist arguments.'”

To simplify:

Of high school biology teachers

13% teach creationism

60% legitimize creationist arguments

28% teach evolution
​

To avoid controversy the deplorable 60% use one of several different strategies, which include :

* Teaching evolutionary biology as if it applies only to molecular biology and failing to to explain evidence that one species gives rise to other species.

* Telling students they don't have to "believe" in evolution but they have to know it for tests.

* Telling students to make up their own minds -- even though scientists say that they are as certain of the validity of evolution as they are of other scientific principles taken as fact.
​

source

Is it any wonder kids in the United States are doing so poorly. Out of 41 countries that took part in the Programme for International Student Assessment, the USA ranked

28th in math
18th in reading
29th in problem solving
22nd in science
​

source

This is beyond shameful.

 

[YmirGF]

In my view, any biology teacher that speaks about creationism or "intelligent design", in anything but condescending tones, should immediately be fired.

 

[Pegg]

if they dont believe in evolution they shouldnt be forced to teach it as if they believe it

I dont think there is anything wrong with a biology teacher who expresses doubts about it...at least it shows they have actually thought about it and not simply teach it because they've been told to do so.

 

[Father Heathen]

if they dont believe in evolution they shouldnt be forced to teach it as if they believe it

People who don't believe in science have no business teaching science.

 

[Sunstone]

if they dont believe in evolution they shouldnt be forced to teach it as if they believe it

I dont think there is anything wrong with a biology teacher who expresses doubts about it...at least it shows they have actually thought about it and not simply teach it because they've been told to do so.

They should have to teach the facts.

 

[Pegg]

They should have to teach the facts.

yeah, and they can do that perfectly fine without having to expressly believe in it.

the facts are that evolution states A. B. C. & D. They are the facts about evolution.

see.

 

[YmirGF]

if they dont believe in evolution they shouldnt be forced to teach it as if they believe it

Indeed. They could teach creative writing instead.

I dont think there is anything wrong with a biology teacher who expresses doubts about it...at least it shows they have actually thought about it and not simply teach it because they've been told to do so.

That makes no sense. If they had actually thought about it, they would understand that "intelligent design/creationism" doesn't warrant serious consideration as a theory.

 

[Pegg]

People who don't believe in science have no business teaching science.

So do you believe that all sciences are 100% absolute?

That they should all be taught to be 100% absolute? Surely not!

 

[Pegg]

That makes no sense. If they had actually thought about it, they would understand that "intelligent design/creationism" doesn't warrant serious consideration as a theory.

but the complexity of living things requires something far more advanced then time and chance

I think most people who dont believe in evolution reason this way.

 

[Father Heathen]

So do you believe that all sciences are 100% absolute?

That they should all be taught to be 100% absolute? Surely not!

Science doesn't deal with absolutes. Science is about examining evidence and logical deduction. Therefore, science should be taught as "this is what evidence and logic suggests."

 

[Pegg]

Science doesn't deal with absolutes. Science is about examining evidence and logical deduction. Therefore, science should be taught as "this is what evidence and logic suggests."

thats fair enough if that is what the evidence suggests

however, most of the evidence is 'interpreted' in a way that many do not believe is logical... so perhaps their interpretation of the evidence is wrong

for example, not so long ago, scientists believed in spontaneous generation and said the evidence for it is seen from the 'fact' that a rotten piece of meat produces maggots. Their interpretation of the 'evidence' was obviously wrong. It could be wrong again.

 

[Father Heathen]

thats fair enough if that is what the evidence suggests

however, most of the evidence is 'interpreted' in a way that many do not believe is logical... so perhaps their interpretation of the evidence is wrong

for example, not so long ago, scientists believed in spontaneous generation and said the evidence for it is seen from the 'fact' that a rotten piece of meat produces maggots. Their interpretation of the 'evidence' was obviously wrong. It could be wrong again.

Rejecting something merely because it conflicts with literal interpretations of ancient creation myths is an invalid reason in a scientific context.

 

[Pegg]

Rejecting something merely because it conflicts with literal interpretations of ancient creation myths is an invalid reason in a scientific context.

likewise, accepting something that has a virtually nil chance of occuring naturally is not scientifically valid either.

 

[Skwim]

but the complexity of living things requires something far more advanced then time and chance

Indeed it does; it needs causality, which is why the concept of evolution has prospered so well. So far science has done a marvelous job of explaining both the workings of living things and the diversity of species. Of course science hasn't yet figured it all out, but as it stands the strides it has made have been phenomenal. But I have to ask, just what is it that lies behind your "something" door that science is in need of, and why?

 

[Father Heathen]

likewise, accepting something that has a virtually nil chance of occuring naturally is not scientifically valid either.

Then it's a good thing that science suggests evolution can and does occur naturally.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

It's no wonder that America's students are behind. That, and the fact that they're constantly indoctrinated with Conservative propaganda.

 

[Bismillah]

Can anyone tell me what is wrong with this statement?

"* Telling students they don't have to "believe" in evolution but they have to know it for tests."

I've had numerous teachers tell me so and I didn't really consider much of it, indeed it seemed very sensible.

 

[Sunstone]

but the complexity of living things requires something far more advanced then time and chance

Yes, in addition to time and chance, there must be a mechanism for selection. By coincidence, the theory of evolution posits several such mechanisms.

I think most people who dont believe in evolution reason this way.

If they "reason" that way, it's because they don't know, or perhaps don't care, that the theory of evolution posits more than time and chance.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

I don't think it's wrong for a teacher to encourage students to be doubtful about evolution, because I don't believe education should be programming. However, this is starting to descend into a situation where they may as well be teaching Creationism. That is the issue.

 

[KnightOwl]

I was heartened to read a story in the paper of my new community (still moving) that a teacher at back to school night made mention that he was going to be giving some class time to Intelligent Design and when the school board got wind of this, they stated in no uncertain terms that I.D. was NOT part of the curriculum and the he would NOT be teaching it. No waffling at all on their part. I think the teacher even came out with a public apology, no doubt at the insistence of the school board.

This is in California, but it is the central valley which votes conservative.