Most high school biology teachers don’t endorse evolution

[Gunfingers]

The same could be said of playing video games & watching TV, but we needn't teach those in school.
People need other things to be productive citizens. Let'm learn religion in their free time at their own
or their parents' expense. I doubt that ignorance of creation myths would hurt anyone's ability to find
a job or enjoy life. It's very very optional.

Total day-to-day impact of religion on my life: effectively nil.

 

[Bismillah]

I think that the point is that if students really learned the facts there is almost no possibility that they would give alternative "theories" the slightest consideration.

People do strange things, give them the fact let them sort it out for themselves.

We both agree that students should be taught evolution, right? It is the foundation of the science of biology and, therefore, a necessary component of a science curriculum.

Yes.

Where we seem to part ways is on the question of how the subject matter should be taught. I may be wrong, but you seem to favor a more authoritarian approach: "Learn this because I say so." My view is slightly different. You tell people to learn a subject matter, because it is necessary to understand the viewpoint of the body of experts who know the subject. If you disagree with their beliefs, you still need to understand what it is you disagree with.

Not really, I agree with your statement. It would be a bit naive to consider the entirety of public school to not be authoritative concerning every subject being taught, after all most students would prefer not to be in school right? That said there is no reason why being forced to learn this material will prohibit a student from understanding the core concepts of what they are being taught.

Hell when I was five I didn't want to learn mathematics, but I sure did understand it. Whether a student truly understands the topic or not has nothing to do with their preconceived notions but everything to do with the quality of education received.

 

[Copernicus]

Not really, I agree with your statement. It would be a bit naive to consider the entirety of public school to not be authoritative concerning every subject being taught, after all most students would prefer not to be in school right? That said there is no reason why being forced to learn this material will prohibit a student from understanding the core concepts of what they are being taught.

I agree with your point that it would be naive to consider the entirety of public school systems not to be authoritative, and it is important that students submit to that authority as far as they reasonably can. However, authoritarianism is counter-productive in the end, because it invites rebellion and contradicts the most important goal of the education system--to produce citizens that can think critically. Frankly, I'm not opposed to making public debate a mandatory subject in the curriculum, although that is no longer as traditional as it once was.

I cannot agree that the majority of students would prefer not to be in school. When I was a child, I looked forward to school, and I felt that most of my classmates did, too. Our goal should be to inspire children to learn. If they are disinclined, then we are doing something wrong.

Hell when I was five I didn't want to learn mathematics, but I sure did understand it. Whether a student truly understands the topic or not has nothing to do with their preconceived notions but everything to do with the quality of education received.

Again, I find myself somewhat disagreeing with you. Discipline is extremely important in character development, and it is not always possible to inspire every child to learn. But most of what we learn is not actually taught to us. The idea is to light fires in the imaginations of students--to get them to think about what they are learning outside of the classroom. They will not do that if we think of education strictly in terms of pouring knowledge into empty vessels.

 

[Skwim]

I think the American school system is completely wrong. I agree with the British system, where you HAVE to have both science and religious education lessons up until the age of 16, after which you pick your own subjects. Evolution is taught in science, creationism is taught in re. It works perfectly well. Nobody at my school had a problem with it.

Curious as to what the religious education consists of. Is it simply an overview of religion and its various forms, or is it geared to a specific faith?

 

[Magic Man]

A teacher might not be able to stop a student deciding this on their own, but IMO, it's unethical for the teacher to actually say it to the class.

A teacher's job is to foster understanding of the curriculum, not to coach students on how to regurgitate test answers. A teacher who, effectively, says "don't bother to understand this; just put the right answer down on the test" has failed in his duty as a teacher.

That is, unless it's a class preparing for a computer certification.

 

[Copernicus]

Curious as to what the religious education consists of. Is it simply an overview of religion and its various forms, or is it geared to a specific faith?

I had the impression that it was more of a general religion class, because the UK has dropped the practice of burning heretics. Catholics and Protestants get along just fine, and they both love Muslims. So what could go wrong with teaching religion in the school system? Cameron is cutting everything in an effort to take the pressure of consumer demand out of the economy. Let's hope that he sees religion as enough of a taxpayer benefit to continue funding it with public money. :sarcastic

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not really, understanding the subject material is always the bottom line for any teacher worth his salt when he creates his tests.

The school is ideally an environment fostering independent thinking and making conclusions based on objective research. It is the teacher's duty to provide the tools and materials for the research to take place, it is not his duty to dictate what the student ultimately decides.
What this statement means is that it is required for students to study the material, their personal beliefs aside, and if at the end they don't agree with it it is OK. It is an effective tool in defusing the stupid little tangents students are prone to make in arguing why they have to study things they don't believe in.

But here's the thing: I sincerely believe that in the case of evolution, if a person disagrees with it, this is a sign that they don't understand it.

 

[Skwim]

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.​

I agree that the first one seems cowardly and dishonest. But the second two I agree with and are exactly what I would do if I were a high school science teacher. In fact this is what I have done in dealing with many creationists on this board. Students do not have to believe in evolution and should be free to make up their own minds. But they should be educated and informed about evolution and should have the tools needed to make an intelligent decision.

I disagree. To tell students that it's alright to dismiss the very thing you were trying to pound into their heads as the truth is to undermine the very reason you're teaching biology: to impart the facts of the matter. Furthermore, students are intellectually not in a position, both knowledge wise and discernment wise, to make good decisions about such a complex subject, which is why teachers don't leave it up to students to decide if adjectives should modify verbs or not, or whether the chemical formula for fructose should be C₆ H₁ ₂ O₆ or C₁ ₂ H₂ ₂ O₁ ₁

 

[Magic Man]

But here's the thing: I sincerely believe that in the case of evolution, if a person disagrees with it, this is a sign that they don't understand it.

:yes:

 

[YmirGF]

But here's the thing: I sincerely believe that in the case of evolution, if a person disagrees with it, this is a sign that they don't understand it.

Exactly.

 

[Skwim]

Exactly.

For the most part I'd say your right on; however, there are those who understand evolution quite well, or well enough, but because of their commitment to their faith they don't dare let themselves accept it as truth. Religious need simply trumps reason.

 

[camanintx]

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.

Their interpretation wasn't wrong based on the meager evidence they had. It was only proven wrong when more evidence was available showing that the maggots didn't come from the meat.

While it is certainly possible that new evidence will be discovered tomorrow which totally invalidates evolution, that is not very likely. Even when detailed measurements of Mercury's orbit exposed flaws in Newton's Theory of Gravity, Relativity didn't replace it, it just refined it.

 

[Pegg]

The chances of something evolving from a less advanced organism might seem very small. But that chance becomes 100% in the many existing factual examples.

just because evolution has used the many living examples as 'evidence' for their theory does not make them right

When creationists cite the same examples as evidence of an intelligent creator, evolutionists do not accept that, but they want us to accept it there way.

im telling you, its a matter of interpretation and nothing more.

 

[Pegg]

The chances of something evolving from a less advanced organism might seem very small. But that chance becomes 100% in the many existing factual examples.

before my comment goes too far out of context, I was speaking about the fact that it was science who once taught that spontaneous generation was proved true by 'evidence' They saw that maggots grew in rotten meat therefore they believed they were right. Sometimes the 'evidence' is misinterpreted.

My argument is against evolutions claim that all the different varieties of life came from a common ancestor... I really think that this idea will come to nothing and when it does there will be a lot of people standing around stunned at the implications.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

just because evolution has used the many living examples as 'evidence' for their theory does not make them right

When creationists cite the same examples as evidence of an intelligent creator, evolutionists do not accept that, but they want us to accept it there way.

im telling you, its a matter of interpretation and nothing more.

You say that as if "interpretation" is a matter of personal taste; it's not. The interpretation of the facts that tells us that all life evolved from a common ancestor through the combined effects of natural selection, inheritance and random mutation is supported by logic and reason. The interpretation of the facts that tells us that all life was magically "poofed" into existence by a deity is supported by nothing more than old myths.

However, it's not as if it's really a matter of choosing between evolution and God anyhow. Evolution describes the "how"; it doesn't speak to whether it was initiated by an intelligent creator. If you want to believe that, go for it; it's just beyond the scope of science, so it won't be taught (or shouldn't be taught) in a biology class.

 

[Copernicus]

just because evolution has used the many living examples as 'evidence' for their theory does not make them right

It just means that evolution has explanatory power. That is, it makes reliable predictions about how nature behaves. Religion, on the other hand, does not make such reliable predictions. To the extent that it can be tested for accuracy of prediction, it fails the test.

When creationists cite the same examples as evidence of an intelligent creator, evolutionists do not accept that, but they want us to accept it there way.

First of all, creationists do not cite the "same examples as evidence of an intelligent creator". If they did, they would be able to get their findings published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Secondly, many "evolutionists" are religious. They are not all atheists.

im telling you, its a matter of interpretation and nothing more.

What you are telling us is your interpretation and nothing more. If you keep trying, you might be able to get a judge to declare creationism a scientific theory for political purposes. Getting a bona fide biologist to do so is a lot harder.

 

[Pegg]

Their interpretation wasn't wrong based on the meager evidence they had. It was only proven wrong when more evidence was available showing that the maggots didn't come from the meat.

While it is certainly possible that new evidence will be discovered tomorrow which totally invalidates evolution, that is not very likely. Even when detailed measurements of Mercury's orbit exposed flaws in Newton's Theory of Gravity, Relativity didn't replace it, it just refined it.

this is true, and in terms of evolution there already is evidence building that invalidates the 'common ancestor' aspect of evolution.

 

[Skwim]

just because evolution has used the many living examples as 'evidence' for their theory does not make them right

When creationists cite the same examples as evidence of an intelligent creator, evolutionists do not accept that, but they want us to accept it there way.

im telling you, its a matter of interpretation and nothing more.

Nobody supporting evolution gives a hoot what examples creationists use for evidence of an intelligent creator. What evolutionists can't abide are the claims of creationists that fly in the face of evolution. In fact, believe it or not, there evolutionists who believe in the exact same intelligent creator. I think your problem is that you are unable to even conceptualize the disagreement. But assuming you mean what you've said, exactly which "many living examples as 'evidence'" of science has creationism used to prove your intelligent creator?

this is true, and in terms of evolution there already is evidence building that invalidates the 'common ancestor' aspect of evolution.

Care to share this building evidence you speak of?

 

[Sunstone]

Goes to show you how worthless a high school "education" is becoming.

 

[Pegg]

You say that as if "interpretation" is a matter of personal taste; it's not. The interpretation of the facts that tells us that all life evolved from a common ancestor through the combined effects of natural selection, inheritance and random mutation is supported by logic and reason.

the only evidence so far for a human common ancestor is a human common ancestor...yet we are told that our common ancestor was a chimp. DNA and genetics is providing evidence to this fact, but evolutionists still rant on about being descended from animals.

So yes, it is a matter of interpretation and its the interpretation that best fits their theory....rather then doing what scientists should do, that is adjust the theory to fit the facts, they show terrible bias by ignoring those facts.

The interpretation of the facts that tells us that all life was magically "poofed" into existence by a deity is supported by nothing more than old myths.

The evidence tells us that life MUST have been magically poofed into existence because the chances of it happening without some direction is nil. Its is statistically impossible that a chance combination of chemicals could have produced living organisms...scientists cannot reproduce the phenomenon in a lab yet they continue on and say that it must have happened because life is here.

However, it's not as if it's really a matter of choosing between evolution and God anyhow. Evolution describes the "how"; it doesn't speak to whether it was initiated by an intelligent creator. If you want to believe that, go for it; it's just beyond the scope of science, so it won't be taught (or shouldn't be taught) in a biology class.

this i can agree with. Evolution is showing us how God created life. And i guess if they acknowledged that, then biology teachers might not have such a problem with teaching it.