Most high school biology teachers don’t endorse evolution

[rusra02]

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

The theory of macro evolution is not science, but baseless speculation falsely called science.

 

[rusra02]

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.

So the problem with US test rankings in math, science, and reading is we don't believe enough in evolution? Who knew?

 

[Revoltingest]

Uh oh....the new guy evaporated.
The refusal to stop plagiarizing is a reliable death knell.

And he never did address my posts about cheese!

 

[McBell]

Otherwise, they might learn the truth...

Your use of the word "truth" in this context indicates you do not know what the word means.

 

[McBell]

The theory of macro evolution is not science, but baseless speculation falsely called science.

Until such time as you can demonstrate and or explain why macro-evolution is not possible, you are merely making unsubstantiated claims.
But then, that is all creationism is anyway, unsubstantiated claims supported by wishful thinking.

Creationism/ID is not science.
Period.

Therefore it has absolutely no place in a science class.

Yet you have the gull to say macro-evolution is baseless speculation but not whine about how creationism actually is baseless speculation nor how creationists through blatant dishonesty do not mention the fact that creationism is nothing but baseless speculation supported by nothing but wishful thinking.

 

[McBell]

The theory of macro evolution is not science, but baseless speculation falsely called science.

Interesting how a mule proves you flat out wrong.

 

[Revoltingest]

The fact that these 2 bowsers' ancestor was a wolf just a few thousand years
ago points towards there being no barrier between micro & macro evolution.

Of course, selective breeding isn't the same as natural selection. (Had to get that one out of the way quickly.)
But it shows that there is no biological or genetic reason that critters cannot assume greatly different forms
over generations.

 

[McBell]

If rusra02 follows his established pattern, he will completely ignore the mule.
Can't say I blame him.
*edit*

 

[Revoltingest]

If rusra02 follows his established pattern, he will completely ignore the mule.
Can't say I blame him.
*edit*

Now, now...they aren't lies if he believes what he says.
Similarly, I believe my own "lies" too.

 

[Revoltingest]

*edit*

It's certainly possible that a poster will dishonestly & continuously push an agenda.
But I know from experience that despite regular accusations of my dishonesty, I really do mean the objectionable things I post.
So some slack is in order.

 

[rusra02]

Until such time as you can demonstrate and or explain why macro-evolution is not possible, you are merely making unsubstantiated claims.
But then, that is all creationism is anyway, unsubstantiated claims supported by wishful thinking.

Creationism/ID is not science.
Period.

Therefore it has absolutely no place in a science class.

Yet you have the gull to say macro-evolution is baseless speculation but not whine about how creationism actually is baseless speculation nor how creationists through blatant dishonesty do not mention the fact that creationism is nothing but baseless speculation supported by nothing but wishful thinking.

One of the evolutionists ploys is to lump all who believe in creation versus evolution as "creationists" or "YEC". Many persons, including scientists believe in some fashion that an intelligent Designer is responsible for all life on earth. Many have little or nothing in common with Young earth creationists. Many base their belief on the scientific evidence, not unproven speculations.

 

[Revoltingest]

One of the evolutionists ploys is to lump all who believe in creation versus evolution as "creationists" or "YEC". Many persons, including scientists believe in some fashion that an intelligent Designer is responsible for all life on earth. Many have little or nothing in common with Young earth creationists. Many base their belief on the scientific evidence, not unproven speculations.

I've heard scientists talk about their faith being rooted in awe or some other feeling, but I've not yet seen them present any
argument using the scientific method. It appears that their religious views are quite separate from their practice of science.
This is perfectly acceptable, but it mere feelings about gods & science don't confer any authority upon them.

 

[jmn]

The theory of macro evolution is not science, but baseless speculation falsely called science.

Patterns that people are interested in when discussing macroevolution tend to involve very many species, either as a single large group or individually. This is why many use the term "macroevolution" to mean "large-scale evolution".This is an arbitrary and often subjective term, and the objective meaning of macroevolution is evolution at or above the level of species.

No alternate explanations can compete scientifically with common descent. Many of the predictions of common descent have been confirmed from independent areas of science, and no significant contradictory evidence has yet been found. Any competing possibilities have been contradicted by enormous amounts of scientific data.

 

[rusra02]

The fact that these 2 bowsers' ancestor was a wolf just a few thousand years
ago points towards there being no barrier between micro & macro evolution.

Of course, selective breeding isn't the same as natural selection. (Had to get that one out of the way quickly.)
But it shows that there is no biological or genetic reason that critters cannot assume greatly different forms
over generations.

People are quite varied as well. But a dog is always a dog, a human always a human. And if there were no biological or genetic reason such boundaries could not be transgressed, it would have been so demonstrated long ago. But it hasn't, and attempts to do so have one and all failed. Why? Because Genesis is right after all. God created animals according to their kinds, and one kind cannot change into another. In short, macro-evolution is false.

 

[rusra02]

Patterns that people are interested in when discussing macroevolution tend to involve very many species, either as a single large group or individually. This is why many use the term "macroevolution" to mean "large-scale evolution".This is an arbitrary and often subjective term, and the objective meaning of macroevolution is evolution at or above the level of species.

No alternate explanations can compete scientifically with common descent. Many of the predictions of common descent have been confirmed from independent areas of science, and no significant contradictory evidence has yet been found. Any competing possibilities have been contradicted by enormous amounts of scientific data.

I agree the terms evolutionists use, including "species", and "evolution" itself, are subjective and often misused. Of course, I disagree that no alternate explanation can compete scientifically, as do scientists who reject evolution on scientific grounds. The competing possibility of direct creation has not been contradicted by enormous amounts of scientific data. Direct creation is not even considered by "objective" scientists who base their interpretations of data on the presupposition that evolution is true.

 

[rusra02]

Interesting how a mule proves you flat out wrong.

OK, I'll bite. How does the mule prove evolution?

 

[jmn]

The competing possibility of direct creation has not been contradicted by enormous amounts of scientific data. Direct creation is not even considered by "objective" scientists who base their interpretations of data on the presupposition that evolution is true.

Pseudoscience or creation science ise not science. Science itself negates those ideas.
You are what i call a denier of science.

 

[Me Myself]

I agree the terms evolutionists use, including "species", and "evolution" itself, are subjective and often misused. Of course, I disagree that no alternate explanation can compete scientifically, as do scientists who reject evolution on scientific grounds.

Can you name one single non religious biologist alive today that rejects evolution?

Just one.

The competing possibility of direct creation has not been contradicted by enormous amounts of scientific data. Direct creation is not even considered by "objective" scientists who base their interpretations of data on the presupposition that evolution is true.

Falsifiability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Just because something hasnt been evidenced against doesnt mean it exists.

You cant evidence that I am not a green superevolved extraterrestrial penguin typing this from a different mars in another galaxy with technology far beyond that which you could understand.

OMG!

 

[Revoltingest]

People are quite varied as well. But a dog is always a dog, a human always a human. And if there were no biological or genetic reason such boundaries could not be transgressed, it would have been so demonstrated long ago. But it hasn't, and attempts to do so have one and all failed. Why? Because Genesis is right after all. God created animals according to their kinds, and one kind cannot change into another. In short, macro-evolution is false.

But the tiny dog there was once a wolf. That's pretty darn far apart for a change which occurred over
only a few thousand years. Give hundreds of millions of years, & the difference would be far greater.

 

[Me Myself]

People are quite varied as well. But a dog is always a dog, a human always a human.

What makes a dog a dog? The variations between breeds of dogs are far greater than the variations between human ethnicities. FAR greater.

This is because they were bred specifically for this, so they changed on way less time.

What makes dogs dogs, is that they are closer to the same animal. The grey wolf. The DNA has already been compared. There is no question about this. The dogs of today come from the wolf.

Time changed them a lot within a few millenia.