Creationism In US High Schools: 16 Percent Of US Science Teachers Are Creationists

ABC News reports on the findings of a study that concluded 16% of U.S. science teachers are Creationists, and that, disturbingly, one in eight are teaching creationism as a valid science:

Despite a court-ordered ban on the teaching of creationism in U.S. schools, about one in eight high-school biology teachers still teach it as valid science, a survey reveals. And, although almost all teachers also taught evolution, those with less training in science -- and especially evolutionary biology -- tend to devote less class time to Darwinian principles...

...The researchers polled a random sample of nearly 2,000 high-school science teachers across the U.S. in 2007. Of the 939 who responded, 2 percent said they did not cover evolution at all, with the majority spending between 3 and 10 classroom hours on the subject.

However, a quarter of the teachers also reported spending at least some time teaching about creationism or intelligent design. Of these, 48 percent -- about 12.5 percent of the total survey -- said they taught it as a "valid, scientific alternative to Darwinian explanations for the origin of species".

Related: Ben Stein: Front Man for Creationism's Manufactroversy

Comments

[valkyrie607]

Interestingly, my tenth grade biology teacher said in class that he didn't think evolution was a viable explanation for the origin of life. It didn't dampen my enthusiasm for evolutionary biology. He taught evolution, and taught it pretty well, I thought, and he didn't spend much time on "intelligent design," which was actually not a term back then. He just mentioned that in his opinion, evolution was an inadequate explanation.

To me, that is the maximum that any science teacher should move beyond evolutionary theory in class. Any more than that is straying into the realm of politics and philosophy.

[Smunker]

From a recent Eddie Izzard concert, Darwin's working title for his book:

Monkey, Monkey, Monkey, Monkey, Monkey, You!

In all seriousness, science is science, and religion is religion. Creationism is firmly grounded in the latter, and should really have no place in the schoolroom.

[jacobomorales]

Shame on the school superintendent and the school board for allowing this to occur. Why don't we ask these people how their childern will feed themselves? I suppose they learn to pray for welfare, charity or maybe mana from heavens.

[Mogamboguru]

In german schools, you get fired for teaching such a scum as "intelligent design" in class.

The concept of "intelligent design" stems from the deep Dark Ages.

If somebody wants to return there, he's welcome.

Because, that'll leave me alone today with nothing but REAL intelligence to enjoy.

[AbdulScarface]

Why not teach philosophy. That's the perfect avenue for such discussion in the classroom. Have science and religion go toe to toe in a philosophy class but please do the kids a favor and let science be what it is empirical and analytic.

[hypnotoad72]

A terrific idea.

Teach everything; kids are supposed to be taught. As long as they have respect toward what's morally right, and what can be redefined as morally right, such discussion is certainly encouraged.

[laocoon]

Science and math are both subdivisions of philosophy.

[bknott]

That doesn't mean that a philosophical discussion belongs in a science class.

That's like stating that because Berkshire Hathaway owns both Dairy Queen and Borsheims Jewelry, the jewelry store should also offer dilly bars.

[thefireguy]

Fact: republicans and the christian right wing versions of fascism requires dumb asses!

[steve12]

Please leave fascism out of this. Fascism has nothing to do with this. Fascism is about putting corporatism, nationalism, militarism, and the power of the state above the individual. It has nothing to do with teaching creationism in a classroom.

Remember fascism did not rise in third world countries, but in some of the most educated countries on the planet.

[hypnotoad72]

Inference and conjecture are not fact.

Right or left, there are people who ARE concerned about the well being of others. Right or left, there are dummies on both sides. Right or left, mutual respect and appreciation of society does not equate to fascism.

[Dave24]

IT ISN'T SCIENCE. It doesn't make predictions; there is no experimentation to weed out subjective bias and error; and it's invoking supernatural explanations when science deals only with natural explanations.

It's just as ridiculous as teaching the stork theory in sex education.

[elbzee]

It's just as ridiculous as teaching the stork theory in sex education. Beautiful and right on spot Dave!

[stsw531]

I don't personally care if someone believes in creationism, but 1) it isn't science and 2) it doesn't belong in a science classroom. I can't really understand how a teacher truly qualified to teach science could actually believe in creationism. It's just nonsense. Moreover, one has to wonder whether a teacher with a creationism bias is injecting that, however subtly, into their teaching. In 4th grade, my son was confronted with the whole "god did it" scenario, when the teacher asked the kids, "How was the earth created?" -- All the kids said "God" except mine (raised as an atheist), who nervously offered, "The Big Bang?" He was thereafter branded a "Jew" by the other kids (funny, they didn't even know what a Jew was, just that it was something "different.") The teacher's response to this was to avoid the topic altogether by just NOT talking about the science.

[Paul]

Let's give the teachers the benefit of the doubt. It may be that one in 8 teach creationism, but that does not make them creationists. If you worked in a school district where this was an issue, maybe you would teach it just to keep your job.

This is a school district issue, not a teacher issue.

[DRaymond]

Correct, Because local school board elections have so low turnout it is easy for a dedicated religious zealot to get all the like-minded members of their congregation to vote for them. They then pressure the cirruculum and the textbooks.

[Ajita]

What nonsense! The supreme court has ruled that it is unconstitutional to teach creationism/intelligent design in science classes. These teachers know this very well and are doing it DESPITE the fact that they can lose their jobs.

[Paul]

They can lose their jobs if the school district decides to fire them. But the politics of this go beyond the classroom.

And anyway, maybe a good teacher would be able to explain why creationism does not reach the level of science - so are they teaching it or not?

[steve12]

I have no issue with creationists, far right zealots, Christians, Jews, Muslims, or whomever teaching science. However, I do have issue with them teaching religion in a science class. This should be banned. If they want to teach creationism, intelligent design, or whatever, it should be in a religion class, not a science classroom.

[Raymondf]

You can't belive in God if you go to School, Mary Madaline Ohare saw to that 40 years ago that's the reason they found her and her sons ashes burnt to a crisp. Gods rath.

[kdogg]

you are a sick person.

[gwhizz]

...and it's "wrath".

[Annette]

Not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

O Hare's lawsuit said nothing about what a person believes, it said the school could not indoctrinate any specific religion. You loony right wingers just have no respect for facts.

God's wrath ?? More like a murder. Your "god" kills people for noth believing and not wanting their children to be taught alien beliefs? Pretty insecure "god" you have there.

[KYSmiling]

Thank you!!! That is the point. Creationism is religion, not science and should be taught in the church, not school. Should all types of religious creation ideas be taught or just Judeo-Christian ideas? I swear this scares the heck out of me!!!

[Tom0063]

This article misleads with the near all-pervasive, purposeful conflation of creationism and intelligent design.

I myself am a post-Christian maybe Buddhist, so I don’t have a stake in creationism, but I am interested in shedding light the purely scientific and logical aspects of this religious morass.

Darwin proved the case for evolution through natural selection, and makes a strong argument that natural selection is self-sufficient and retains full explanatory power without any sort of divine intervention. But that is a long way from proving that there was no divine involvement standing behind the very existence of the mechanism.

Intelligent design merely points to a larger meaning and possible deeper involvement, and is in no way to be confused with creationist myths. It is a metaphysical interpretation of scientific facts.

Sadly, evolutionary theory is often used in a completely unscientific manner to promote a religious (in this case atheist) agenda, as if evolution, and more specifically natural selection, somehow disproves the existence of God or the presence and involvement of God in the world. Such a militant non-scientific religious position holds that science has “proven” that a belief in such involvement is irrational.

Making things even more confusing, creationists sometimes just re-brand their myths as “intelligent design."

For this reason, it is critical that students be exposed to all three theories in a secular educational environment. It is the perfect exercise for studying the ineraction of various religious agendas with scientific knowledge.

[Detestable]

Being both degreed in hard science and having been a student of the metaphysical and esoteric sciences for 20 years, let me first agree with you that each side (religion and science) uses their position to try to nullify the other. Unfortunately, these two subjects cannot be studied so that one is an alternative to the other. They each are very different and must be approached very differently. Science can no more prove atheism than creationism can disprove evolutionary theory. They meet in many places but differ in too many areas to be treated as 2 subjects in a larger heading. Each is deserving of its own larger heading. Keep religion and science separate, but equal.

[Dave24]

IT ISN'T SCIENCE. It doesn't make predictions; there is no experimentation to weed out subjective bias and error; and it's invoking supernatural explanations when science deals only with natural explanations.

It's just as ridiculous as teaching the stork theory in sex education.

[primordialsoup]

The existence of God or any divine intervention in nature is outside the realm of science. It's ludicrous to teach creationism/intelligent design in a science class because the existence of God and divine intervention have no evidence to be tested. It's all speculation. Science does not deal with the supernatural. If a school wished to teach creationism/intelligent design in a philosophy class, that would be appropriate.

[Tom0063]

You are absolutely right that those lines should be very clearly drawn.

But whether a science teacher ventures a bit into philosophy or a philosophy teacher ventures into science is not really critical, provided they clearly dilineate the disciplines for their students.

On this question, the rational non-dogmatic deists and the rational agnostics really should unite against the creationists and atheists. We really have much more in common with each other than either of those two.

[BlueOnBlue]

Lumping in creationism and intelligent designs with evolution as "theories" shows a basic misunderstanding of science. In science, a theory is a testable model of natural phenomenon. An idea which requires the suspension of disbelief and cannot be tested, as with anything involving a god, is not a scientific theory. It is just an idea.

You sound sort of intelligent yourself, but you seem a bit too willing to allow magical explanations for how the universe works.

[Tom0063]

I have not lumped creatonism and intelligent design together with evolution as "theories". I have lumped creationism, intelligent design and religious evolutionism together as beliefs.

The survey did not even test for those who use evolutionary theory not just to teach natural selection and evolution, but to teach is as an atheistic "proof."

When a physics teacher teaches the Big Bang, and then says "we don't know what happened before that - it could be nothing, and many people believe it was God" no one gets hot and bothered. But when similiar questions of not just "how" but "why" are addressed in biology, even if fairly and to give students a context into which to fit the "how" questions, there are huge emotions.

Just an over- reaction to Christian domination in the culture, I guess.

[swooge]

BULL!!

There is absolutely NO evidence or science to back intelligent design OR creationism.

Call it what you want, "metaphysics" or "supernatural", ID cannot be subject to scientific theory because it works outside the physical laws of nature. Period.

It should be relegated to theological discussions and left out of scientific discussions for that reason.

That's not atheism, it's science.

[OlongapoEd]

This is one of the many ugly aspects of the USA's continuing flirtation with Christian supremacism. Yes, yes, yes, not every individual in the USA is like this, but far too many are quite comfortable, at least, with Christian supremacism. I have no doubt that most people in the USA, even so-called "liberal" or "progressive" Christians are quite at ease with Christian supremacism in general...the "nice" Christians just want a "kinder, gentler" Christian supremacism. Creationism and "Creation science" are *obviously* sectarian anti-scientific frauds, and yet most people in "one nation, under God" seem to shrug that off as of little consequence, even if they do not actively support such thinly disquised religious propaganda. The prevailing lack of willingness to do anything to combat these frauds speaks volumes about the mindset of too many people in the USA.

[Raymondf]

If you don't believe in creationism. You are an atheist.

[BlueOnBlue]

Huh? How about the many religions of the world which don't believe in the bible's creation story? Are the adherents to those religions atheists, too?

There are many religions - Catholicism being one - which see no conflict between their beliefs and the theory of evolution.

[guntotinganglion]

Let's get something straight up front...the creationism - atheism argument you make is self-serving and deeply ignorant. To say that if you don't believe in this fantasy you are an atheist is stupid. For me, the true depth and complexity of the real world (as opposed to the creationist fantasy world) is evidence of a creator far more deep, innovative and creative than any of the fantasist views. In the creationist universe, God is the most obsessive/compulsive workaholic micro-manager ever. In the actual universe, whatever God is (which I believe is unknowable), it has obviously (based on empirical observation) put in motion a self-governing system that survives over a vast array of environmental extremes, over a vast amount of time. In the case of life on this planet, that time scale is around 3.5 to 4 billion years...we are all as old as the oldest life on this planet, because we represent an unbroken chain that goes directly to the original ancestor of us all, whatever that was (it remains an unknown...look up LUA on wikipedia).

My view of God is as a force of creation that, in our case, is much like the force used to push the snowball into motion. After that, the other forces inherent in nature take over and guide the path of the snowball. And this snowball started rolling about 3.5-4.1 eons ago.

[Annette]

Writing your own dictionary are you?

[JoeKing]

Raymondf, do you say that as if being an atheist is a bad thing?
Or just merely stating an opinion?

[Viper]

16% of our science teachers is bad... but remember the majority of Americans believe in creation Theory! Eh Gads .. There is a reason why we are 51st in literacy and 22/23 in math and science with dropout rates approaching 50% and less people graduating college than 10 years ago.

They are called Hillary/Bush voters.

Regards

[eka]

This is one of the reasons the United State under George Bush is fast becoming a thirld world country.