Most high school biology teachers don’t endorse evolution

[KnightOwl]

When Ken Miller heard a school board was considering adding a statement to his text (label on inside cover IIRC) saying that the book contained information about evolution and that evolution was a theory and that as such, should be viewed skeptically while considering other possibilities, he heard it from a reporter. She asked for his comment and after thinking about it briefly, he told her he didn't think the warning label went far enough. He elaborated by saying it should read, and I paraphrase, "This book contains science. Science is composed of theories and as such should be viewed skeptically while considering other possibilities."

Ken Miller is a brilliant man IMHO.

 

[Copernicus]

The job of a biology teacher is to teach biology, not philosophical or religious speculation. Creationism and religious conservatism are political issues, and it is not beyond reason that schools should address those issues somewhere in the curriculum--most likely in a Current Events class. After all, the whole purpose of the education system is to prepare young people for adulthood.

Schools need to have a clear policy on how to deal with the subject of evolution in biology classes, because many students will want to engage in political debate, which is much easier than learning biology. This is not a trivial or easy exercise for school administrations. Schools need to address the biases and prejudices of parents, who instill their children with the idea that evolution is "just a theory". I do not think that it is reasonable to tell students that they must learn evolution theory to "pass tests". That is just teaching them cynicism and hypocrisy. What they need to tell students is that evolution theory is the foundation of modern biology, because that is the truth. Most sophisticated adults do not question that. It would be great if teachers could simply present the scientific evidence in favor of evolution by natural selection, but the sad truth is that there are not a lot of high school teachers out there who even know how to do that.

 

[Skwim]

When Ken Miller heard a school board was considering adding a statement to his text (label on inside cover IIRC) saying that the book contained information about evolution and that evolution was a theory and that as such, should be viewed skeptically while considering other possibilities, he heard it from a reporter. She asked for his comment and after thinking about it briefly, he told her he didn't think the warning label went far enough. He elaborated by saying it should read, and I paraphrase, "This book contains science. Science is composed of theories and as such should be viewed skeptically while considering other possibilities."

Ken Miller is a brilliant man IMHO.

And Mama always said life was like a box of chocolates.

 

[PennyKay]

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.

 

[David M]

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

That's a good argument against creationism, but not evolution which is wholly based on observed reality.

 

[Revoltingest]

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.

Teaching religion? Waste of time.
They need other things: more math, Constitutional law, contract law, bacon cooking, rent paying

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Teaching religion? Waste of time.
They need other things: more math, Constitutional law, contract law, bacon cooking, rent paying

Religion effects our way of life and inter personal relations, Perhaps more directly and in day to day situations, far more than any science. The more we know about other peoples religions the better prepared we are. It is certainly not something that should be left out of our education.

interestingly I found the sciences and Maths "easy" subjects at school. However much of what I was taught in the 1940's is now superceded... But I always knew it would be so. Perhaps the greatest change is in organic chemistry, which was still evolving then, this meant is was "very difficult" to learn, as much of the backing theory was nether known nor fully understood, as it is to day.

In the same way, evolution as a science has itself evolved, and today has established many interlinking "Facts" That take is many Miles from the more primitive 19'th century ideas. This is the way science works.

 

[ninerbuff]

Religious "biology" stays the same while in true scientific biology discoveries happen all the time.
And if people want to learn how to deal with other people, that's what social science is for.
I can't believe that people of religion find mythology fiction, yet on the same level their religion (which rivals mythology) is real.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

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

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.

 

[Revoltingest]

Religion effects our way of life and inter personal relations, Perhaps more directly and in day to day situations, far more than any science.

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.

 

[fantome profane]

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

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.

 

[fantome profane]

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.

Now it is only Creationists like yourself who believe in the spontaneous appearance of complex fully grown life-forms.

Science could be wrong again, and will admit and learn from mistakes. Science learns, creationism holds on to dogma.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

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.

[/quote]

I am not suggesting we teach religion in schools as a practical faith, we do not.
We teach about all religions that a pupil will come up against in life, so that they can respond effectively in a social way and understand their special nature.

I even understand, to some extent, the strange flavours of Christianity found in the USA. Though I would not endorse them.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

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.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

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.

WHS :clap

 

[Bismillah]

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.

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.

 

[Copernicus]

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.

I agree more with Penguin. There are too many teachers out there who are more concerned about their students' grades on standardized tests than teaching people to understand what they are studying. It is easy to tell students why they have to learn evolution, even if they disagree with it. They are supposed to be able to think critically. That means that they need to understand a different point of view in order to prove that their own is better. Tiptoeing around the subject of evolution, which is the current status quo in many schools, is simply confirming the argument of evolution-deniers that scientists are unsure about it.

As for teaching religion in schools, I think that it is a wonderful idea, especially in college. However, making comparative religion mandatory in a public school curriculum is criminal. Religion is a matter of personal conscience, and government should not be in the business of trying to influence the religious beliefs of their captive audience. To become a functional adult, you need to have a basic grasp of math, science, social studies, language skills, etc. Religion should only come up in connection with social studies.

 

[Bismillah]

I agree more with Penguin. There are too many teachers out there who are more concerned about their students' grades on standardized tests than teaching people to understand what they are studying.

This is a subject that is not only isolated to the teaching of evolution, no?

Tiptoeing around the subject of evolution, which is the current status quo in many schools, is simply confirming the argument of evolution-deniers that scientists are unsure about it.

The statement goes against this hypothetical and indeed forces students to learn about evolution. There is no tiptoeing, simply if a student doesn't agree with the subject they are not excused from learning it.

 

[YmirGF]

The statement goes against this hypothetical and indeed forces students to learn about evolution. There is no tiptoeing, simply if a student doesn't agree with the subject they are not excused from learning it.

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.

 

[Copernicus]

The statement goes against this hypothetical and indeed forces students to learn about evolution. There is no tiptoeing, simply if a student doesn't agree with the subject they are not excused from learning it.

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.

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.