Most high school biology teachers don’t endorse evolution

[David M]

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

There is no constiutiuonal law, but they do teach bacon cooking and rent paying now.

And to be accurate its teaching about religion as all major religions are part of the curriculum.

yet we are told that our common ancestor was a chimp.

Yep, the only people who deny evolution are the ones who don't understand it.

 

[Skwim]

Psst! It ain't worth it 9-10ths_Penguin.

 

[Pegg]

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.

the bible was not written for the purpose of teaching people about how the natural world functions...it was to teach us how WE function and why.

Would you expect an explanation about animal migration from a book that teaches how ants build nests?

First of all, creationists do not cite the "same examples as evidence of an intelligent creator".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.
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.

no one claims that belief in God, and in his creative works, is a scientific theory...its not, nor does it try to be. It also is certainly not a political issue as someone said earlier...it has nothing to do with politics.

 

[Revoltingest]

There is no constiutiuonal law, but they do teach bacon cooking and rent paying now.

And to be accurate its teaching about religion as all major religions are part of the curriculum.

I'll bet they skip Revoltifarianism......although cooking bacon & paying rent are half of our dogma.

 

[McBell]

no one claims that belief in God, and in his creative works, is a scientific theory...

Bull.
Kent Hovind comes to mind rather quickly.
As does Texxe Marres.
As does Peter Ruckman.

its not, nor does it try to be.

I agree.
However there are in fact some people who not only think it does, but argue that it does.

It also is certainly not a political issue as someone said earlier...it has nothing to do with politics.

The hell it isn't.
Prop 8.
Ban on stem cell research.
The continuing efforts to get creation taught as science...

 

[McBell]

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

I have heard this claim numerous times, but not once has it been shown to be anything more than wishful thinking.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

Who ever told you that was either lying to you or unknowingly passing along a lie.

DNA and genetics is providing evidence to this fact, but evolutionists still rant on about being descended from animals.

Human beings are animals.

Tell you what - because it seems you've been misinformed, as a starting point and just to save everyone some time, when you have an objection to evolution, it would be really helpful if you look it up here first:

An Index to Creationist Claims

... and see what they have to say. Their Index of Creationist Claims is pretty comprehensive, so odds are that whatever your objection is, they address it there.

That way, you would only need to bring forward objections where either:

- Talk Origins doesn't address them, or
- You disagree with something in their explanation

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.

Exactly which facts do you think evolutionary biologists ignore?

The evidence tells us that life MUST have been magically poofed into existence because the chances of it happening without some direction is nil.

How do you know?

And you're getting into a false dichotomy. As I mentioned before, science is silent on whether God "got the ball rolling" in some way. Are you saying that your God would have been incapable of setting evolution in motion?

Its is statistically impossible that a chance combination of chemicals could have produced living organisms...

It is? How do you figure?

Also, do you understand the difference between abiogenesis and evolution? They're separate concepts.

scientists cannot reproduce the phenomenon in a lab yet they continue on and say that it must have happened because life is here.

As opposed to magic poofing, which has been replicated in the lab too many times to count, right?

this i can agree with. Evolution is showing us how God created life.

I'm confused. You just finished arguing that evolution didn't happen. Now it did happen, but God did it?

tAnd i guess if they acknowledged that, then biology teachers might not have such a problem with teaching it.

Why do biology teachers need to acknowledge it? It's not science.

Physics teachers don't need to talk about how the rainbow is supposed to be a promise from God that he won't flood the earth again when they talk about refraction; why should biology teachers have to talk about their opinions of God's role in evolution?

 

[Jeremy Mason]

Even the previous Pope said Evolution was more than theory.
POPE JOHN PAUL II EMBRACES EVOLUTION!! - Christian Updates - New World Order. .

 

[KnightOwl]

Even the previous Pope said Evolution was more than theory.
POPE JOHN PAUL II EMBRACES EVOLUTION!! - Christian Updates - New World Order. .

More than a theory? That makes it what? An uber-theory?

 

[Jeremy Mason]

More than a theory? That makes it what? An uber-theory?

lol!I think the article speaks for itself.

 

[KnightOwl]

the bible was not written for the purpose of teaching people about how the natural world functions...it was to teach us how WE function and why.

So you don't think WE are part of the natural world? Are we supernatural then? That makes sense to me as a way to explain many religious peoples' way of seeing things. It's that whole soul thing wherein our bodies are merely hosts for our supernatural soul.

Is it that scary that our thoughts are but bio-electrical impulses? That we're "just" animals? That we as a species can be traced back to the lowest forms of animals? Conceding all this does not make you less special.

 

[Father Heathen]

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.

Such "evidence" is rejected because it doesn't meet the rigid criteria and standards of the scientific method.

 

[outhouse]

the bible was not written for the purpose of teaching people about how the natural world functions...it was to teach us how WE function and why.

it only does that on a very limited level, it was at a kindergarden level at best pegg

ancient man knew little about himself or the world around him. There has never been any divine intervention in 1 page of the book. Thats why it is full of mistakes and lies

 

[fantome profane]

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

It doesn’t work that way; you can’t expect people to suspend judgment until they get a Phd. What do you say to a high school student that walks into your biology class first day and declares that they don’t believe in evolution? Do you tell them that they must believe to pass your class? Or do you tell them that they are stupid and their opinion is of no value? No you don’t. You tell them that “belief” is not required. What is required is that they understand.


And then when the student gains a basic understanding of the concepts behind the theory of evolution…

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.

I completely agree, but this should happen after a good basic education in science. It is not reasonable to demand that students “believe” in evolution before they are taught about it.

And afterwards have no need to demand it, logic demands it.

 

[Skwim]

It doesn’t work that way;

It certainly does. Do you ever remember a teacher telling you that what (s)he is about to tell you to believe is entirely optional? Of course not. Now some teachers may not give a flying **** if ever learn anything in school, but a decent teacher is not going to tell you that. The presumption of a society is that its teachers are going to teach the truth, and as the truth it is expected to be received as such by the student. Of course students may disregard anything they choose, but this is not the expectation of the teacher, the school, their parents, or their society.

you can’t expect people to suspend judgment until they get a Phd.

And you can't tell students to make up their own minds about the facts you've just laid on them, which is why I said 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

What do you say to a high school student that walks into your biology class first day and declares that they don’t believe in evolution? Do you tell them that they must believe to pass your class? Or do you tell them that they are stupid and their opinion is of no value? No you don’t. You tell them that “belief” is not required. What is required is that they understand.

That they try to understand. Of course everyone will have to deal with whatever doubts or objections they have the best way they can, but what a teacher doesn't tell the class is "Here are the facts and the evidence supporting them. No need to believe them if you don't want to. We know science tells us that the Earth circles the Sun, but go ahead and make up your mind about it."

Good teachers don't tell students they don't have to believe in the facts but they have to know it for tests.

Good teachers don't tell students to make up their own minds about what you've just told them is the truth.

 

[Pegg]

it only does that on a very limited level, it was at a kindergarden level at best pegg

ancient man knew little about himself or the world around him. There has never been any divine intervention in 1 page of the book. Thats why it is full of mistakes and lies

then you havn't given much consideration to the hygiene laws

 

[DarkSun]

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

I agree. It's not science, so don't teach it in a science class room.

 

[stupified]

Good post. I do think that countries (such as China) where there isn't religious chode teachers have a fundamental advantage. Chode doesn't belong in the classroom.

 

[Ubjon]

Its one thing to encourage skepticism but its something else to elevate creation myths above a scientifically verified theory. Within the education system creationism and other religious mythologies should be limited to the RE where its taught in its historic context.

I've also noticed is that evolution is often taught very badly by these creationist teachers so that it does sound implausable which combined with abusing their position of authority they can convince students that creationism is a more plausable explanation, especially if the kids are religious and already inclined to believe in creationism.

Most people can do a job which involves dealing with people and subjects where their personal opinion differs from the organisations stance. There will always be some who can't do this and will allow their personal feelings to affect their work. its those people who shouldn't be allowed to work in such jobs or should be fired on the grounds of being unable to fullfill their duties.

 

[outhouse]

the parants of some of the kids have the children so brainswashed they wont learn no matter how much or well you teach them.

this is a horrible issue in the bible belt states, it will take generations to get this illness wiped out.