Evolution Vs. Creationism: Study Reveals Public School Science Lagging

The majority of public school biology teachers across the country shy away from teaching evolution, keeping instruction to a few short hours, a study has shown.

Research from two Penn State professors reveals American students may be lagging behind in their knowledge of evolution because teachers are unprepared or unwilling to teach it. Some teachers advocate creationism, while others are afraid to address the topic for fear of controversy.

The findings come at a time when reports that less than half of American students are proficient in science has focused a national spotlight on the inadequacies of science education in the nation's public schools.

In their new book, "Evolution, Creationism and the Battle to Control America's Classrooms," Michael Berkman and Eric Plutzer explore the ongoing conflict between religious and scientific teachings.

The pair analyzed data from a survey of biology teachers across the country.

According to Msnbc.com:

The data was collected from 926 nationally representative participants in the National Survey of High School Biology Teachers, which polled them on what they taught in the classroom and how much time they spent on each subject. They also noted the teachers' personal feelings on creationism and evolution.

On the surveys, many teachers indicated that they steer clear of discussing human evolution completely, while the majority only dedicated a small amount of class time to the subject.

The report states:

Seventeen percent of teachers surveyed did not cover human evolution at all in their biology class, whereas a majority of teachers (60%) spent between 1 and 5 hours of class time on it.

Many teachers among the 60 percent that kept evolution instruction brief explained that they wanted to avoid confrontation with students and parents who believe in creationism. In many cases, their own evolution knowledge was also limited.

WIRED reports:

At the opposite extreme, 13 percent of teachers explicitly endorse creationism or intelligent design, and spend at least on hour of class time presenting it in a positive light. An additional 5 percent reported that they support creationism in passing or when answering students' questions.

The remaining fraction of teachers, who Berkman and Plutzer dub the "cautious 60 percent," avoids choosing sides. Often these teachers have not taken courses in evolutionary biology and lack confidence in their ability to answer questions from skeptical or hostile students and parents.

Comments

[AJW1976]

11:19 PM on 03/17/2011

Part 2
----------
"Providing children with a secular education will deprive those children of their parents' culture if that culture is predicated on a non-secula­r education."

Not necessarily. A child may receive a primarily secular education and attend religious classes after/on weekends. Moreover, the child can always choose to learn about their parents' religion once they are old enough to make a conscious and informed decision.

Re ""impose"...": I disagree. You are privileging the parent's "obligation" over the right of child. If the child is a sentient being then it should be permitted to decide which, if any, religion it adopts. You are also assuming that the parent, by virtue being a parent, is competent to make such decisions, which is a premise I do not accept. As well, you are assuming that the perpetuation of the parents' culture is desirable. At one time (circa '97-'04) I would have been inclined to agree. This is one the most difficult issues in liberalism.

"The Establishm­ent Clause prevents the state from interferin­g with a practice of religion (with more exceptions­...)."

Empirically, yes, which is why laws prohibiting religious education and/or home schooling would be unconstitutional. However, that does mean I am in normative agreement.

"Do children have the right to skip out on science class if they find attendance to be an imposition­?"

The question is premised upon a false equivalency but: no, provided it is teaching actual science.

[aganunitsi]

01:18 AM on 03/18/2011

A child has rights, but not against your beliefs? Math class can be imposed, but not a parents religious class? And what if it isn't even an imposition - the child wants to go to temple, but not your math class? If you're just going to leave everything up to the kids you'll get Lord of the Flies.

You are presupposing that the government has the competence to determine competence. On the local scale, I agree. I do not agree that the representatives of 50% of other states have a right to determine what is a proper education for the people of my local community. I believe in governance from the bottom up, not the top down.

Since I hold evolution as truth over creationism, of course I would prefer that every student is primarily exposed to truth. But I also hold another belief - that I shouldn't try to impose my personal beliefs via the federal government. At that 30,000 foot level I can't see what's happening on a case-by-case basis. How am I to ensure that I haven't made some kid's life worse?

I would prefer to lead by example, starting from my community and working out. If the result is "better", then neighboring communities will be inclined to take on the culture of my local community. My desire to make everything perfect everywhere is balanced by me desire to not screw up the lives of people far removed from me via a massive government bureaucracy.

[AJW1976]

02:10 AM on 03/18/2011

Part 1
=====
"Math class can be imposed, but not a parents religious class?"

Math class teaches facts--not a belief--so they are false equivalents. By "parents religious class" I assume you are referring to a class in which one religion is taught as true. That I oppose as an imposition of the parent's belief upon the child. I do not oppose, eg, teaching comparative religion classes. Understanding religions (emphasis on the plural) is important to understanding, eg, literature and other cultures.

"And what if it isn't even an imposition - the child wants to go to temple"

If the child has developed the intellectual faculties then he is capable of exercising his freedom of conscious and if he has been exposed to a number of different religions then he is making an informed decision.

If it were my child I would be disappointed but would accept the decision.

"but not your math class?"

False equivalency, see above.

[AJW1976]

02:13 AM on 03/18/2011

"You are presupposing that the government has the competence to determine competence."

In a way, yes, however it depends on the structure and composition of the government. Representative democracies require the some decisions be delegated but also provide mechanisms (elections, recall, separation of powers) to reduce the likelihood of incompetence.

Certain decisions require specialized or highly technical knowledge. Imagine if, for example, defence R&D spending or the pharmaceutical drug approval was by plebicite.

"On the local scale, I agree. I do not agree that the representatives of 50% of other states have a right to determine what is a proper education for the people of my local community. I believe in governance from the bottom up, not the top down."

I do not see intrinsic differences between the two: it is merely a question of resolution.

All governments engage in identity construction. See Hobsbawm, Nations and Nationalism since 1780: Programme, Myth, Reality. The lower the level at which education policy is set the more provincial the identities of the populace.

Some issues are better addressed at the local level but other issues are more conducive or even require more centralization. For example, I think neighbourhood/community level site plan controls are important for the development of livable communities. However, public transportation systems require coordination over a larger geographic area to be efficient. Few residents want an airport near their home but the airport must be placed somewhere.

[AJW1976]

11:04 PM on 03/17/2011

@aganunitsi (Top-posting from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/AJW1976/evolution-vs-creationism-_n_815664_81109314.html)

Part 1
---------
Re: Establishment Clause
Yes, there are interpretations and the USSC takes a very peculiar approach to statutory interpretation. Nearly all other states based on English common law use "plain and ordinary meaning". There are strong precedents, including appellate court cases, prohibiting the teaching of religious beliefs as "fact" (but not the fact of those beliefs) in public schools.

"if enough people have a certain interpreta­tion, we can amend the law."
Agreed. It also applies to constitutions (which are really just a special law). I do not think the Establishment Clause supports religious public schools as drafted but we will have to agree to disagree on that. If the are enough people that want them then the Constitution can be amended accordingly. I think it would be unfortunate as it is inconsistent with the ideals on which the US was founded and which made it a shining light for others envy.

"A creationis­t teaching evolution is a liar, since they are stating as fact something that they do not believe to be true."

I do not agree. A creationist teaching evolution as science would not be lying provided he did not state that he "believed" in the theory. Just as a teacher trained as an evolutionary biologist may teach creationism in the context of a course on comparative religion or the history of ideas.

[aganunitsi]

12:46 AM on 03/18/2011

I suggest you read the Wikipedia article on the Establishment Clause. The "ideals" you think the Founders had do not agree with the facts of the day. The original intent was to prevent the federal government from interfering with the affairs of the states, as there were six states at the time which had established religions. These state established religions were not abolished upon the signing of the Constitution (in fact, they were protected.) A significant number of the Founders where anti-federalists. (Which is my preferred political philosophy, thanks to my excellent AP History teacher in the 11th grade, who made the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers required reading.)

OK, so a creationist can ethically teach evolution as long as they confirm that they do not believe that what they are teaching is true. But they don't get to clarify what they think IS true if a student asks... How confused do you think those students are going to be?

[AJW1976]

03:33 AM on 03/18/2011

Part 1
---------

"the affairs of the states, as there were six states at the time which had establishe­d religions"

That was Rehnquist's criticism of Black's ruling in Everson but his criticism was premised on incorrect facts:

"Critics of Black's reasoning (most notably, former Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist) have argued that the majority of states did have "official" churches at the time of the First Amendment's adoption and that James Madison, not Jefferson, was the principal drafter. However, Madison himself often wrote of "perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters" (1822 letter to Livingston), "line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil authority... entire abstinence of the government" (1832 letter Rev. Adams), and "practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States" (1811 letter to Baptist Churches)."

I am not sure why you think that was their overriding concern and not the separation of church and state in principle. The other provisions of the Bill of Rights are very much in the spirit of the Enlightenment, whose leading thinkers (including Jefferson) were highly critical of religion even on the Continent. See, eg, Voltaire, Candide http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Candide (one of my favorites).

[AJW1976]

03:50 AM on 03/18/2011

Part 2
---------

"OK, so a creationis­t can ethically teach evolution as long as they confirm that they do not believe that what they are teaching is true."

Yes, assuming that those are the only relevant criteria.

"But they don't get to clarify what they think IS true if a student asks... How confused do you think those students are going to be?"

What business is it of the student to know the teacher's personal religious views? How is the teacher expressing his personal religious views during a science class in any way compatible with a school being an institution of learning? If asked, the teacher should respond "My personal views are not relevant."

Also, what if that teacher also believes that the Roman Empire never existed?

No one living person on the planet has seen the Roman Empire. No person currently on the planet can claim to know, with 100% certainty that the Roman Empire existed or that a person named Caesar existed. There are remains of water works, roads, buildings and books that provide substantial evidence of the Roman Empire but that is not sufficient for this teacher because he believes, as strongly and as genuinely as the strictest believer in any religion, that the Roman Empire never occurred.

If that teacher were teaching history class would you consider it appropriate for the teacher to ignore the section on the Roman Empire? What if the teacher taught it sarcastically?

[Nikolai Curtis]

02:11 PM on 03/15/2011

There is only one true deity and you will obey your noodley master. Flying Spaghetti Monster forever!

[Tom Iarossi]

01:28 AM on 03/14/2011

This article actually inspires me. Recently retired from the military, I'm working on my credential and substitute teach every day. You can bet I will teach evolution if the science modules call for it. I will not be intimidated by these superstitious, anti-science thumpers.

Get your religion out of my government and my public schools.

[sibyl9]

10:24 PM on 03/15/2011

Excellent! F&F!

[Linda from Pahrump]

04:46 PM on 03/10/2011

So many American parents have removed their children from public schools because the ciriculum was too "secular" - no prayers in school, teaching sex education, teaching science , as if it were based on facts. Now, the religious right, backed by the Republican party's "slash-and-burn" policy on education, have scared so many teachers into "submission", to not teach those subjects to their students, thereby shortchanging them in today's world theater.

I find it ironic, that those parents who are the liberal, free-thinking, progressive, open-minded, and, I dare say, more educated, are begining to think about home-schooling THEIR children, in order to give them a well-rounded education based on facts, not religious (strictly christian - other's don't count) dogma.

The American education system has become a joke. When I talk to people in Europe and other places, they all think that I am making-up the fact that creationism is taught as fact in schools here.

The reality is, that American schools don't even place among the world's top10, and with the Republican assault on education, I'm sure that it will sink even further down the list!

[skyewriter]

06:42 PM on 03/09/2011

Thumpers equate the theory of evolution with atheism...

Makes as much sense as equating the theory of gravity with atheism...

[Katherine Hompes]

06:23 PM on 03/09/2011

If you want your children to learn religious dogma, put them in a religious school, or teach them yourself. Religion should have no place in a science classroom.

I live in Australia, and I well remember my high school biology classes. When were taught about evolution (quite extensively), one student raised her hand to explain that she believed in creation. The teacher said- "that's fine, but we are learning about evolution, and you will be graded on your grasp of this concept regardless of your religious beliefs."

[skyewriter]

06:44 PM on 03/09/2011

O/T: my hubby and I are looking at Syndey for possible relocation from the states... glad to know they teach evolution in Australia!

[Chaton de Malheur]

12:10 PM on 03/10/2011

Hello. I am a small feline ISO escape from the conservative hellhole that is the USA. There are many big scary mice in Australia. I saw them on the Discovery Channel. They are the highly venomous Tunnel Mice. You will need a kitty to bite them and make them go away. There are no kitties in Australia as they all went into the ocean during the last heat wave and the box jellies got them. (Katherine- shhhhhhh....) So you will need to bring your own kitty. Customs will not even let you on the plane without one. Maybe I can help you out. : P Meow?

[Dyson]

07:39 AM on 03/18/2011

Australians acknowledge that it would have been impossible for koalas to march all the way from Mt Ararat to the Snowy mountains, and that there couldn't have been much in the way of eucalyptus to eat whilst en route.

[JaxReader]

06:04 PM on 03/07/2011

Oh wow, this is ridiculous. The fact that this is even a 'controversy' is extremely ridiculous.

"Strange times are these in which we live when old and young are taught in falsehoods school. And the one man that dares to tell the truth is called at once a lunatic and fool"
- Plato

[Craig2]

09:23 PM on 02/28/2011

Good evening. How do you grade Creationism Biology? Are there wrong answers? If the "Biology" teacher asks old a shell fossil could be. Student A says, "2.5 million years". Student be says, "6,000 years". Student C says, "My people have known this shell from the beginning". Who is correct? You can not grade crazy. It's still crazy.

[JaxReader]

06:05 PM on 03/07/2011

Every answer would be: D. God did it.

[marind]

11:31 AM on 02/06/2011

While the religious right bullies the public into NOT teaching science, China and India are moving forward with real science education.

Who needs radical Islam to destroy America? The religious right (and its unholy alliance with mega business) is doing a good job of it.

[Linda from Pahrump]

03:45 PM on 03/10/2011

F&F. So true.

[Fran Jaime]

02:33 AM on 02/05/2011

Currently, the government has attempted to put religious teachings in schools and limit sex education. It has been unsuccessful because, although the majority of Mexicans are Catholics, secularity in schools is a deeply held and much loved principle. Therefore, I find it truly shocking that the USA, a first world country and world leader in many ways is going backwards in its teaching of Science. It is truly a sad thing.

[Fran Jaime]

02:30 AM on 02/05/2011

I live in Mexico and am totally nunplussed by the whole creationism vs evolution in the schools debate. Education is by law secular and although the majority of Mexicans are catholics, religion is not and can not be taught in public schools. The theory of Evolution is part of the normal school curriculum since 6th grade. In Jr. High, kids read texts from different religions and analyze them: from the Old and New testaments to the Vedas. They do this again in High School when they study Ethics. ...

[Jim Anderson]

09:32 PM on 02/24/2011

Sounds like they are way ahead of us in the sciences.

[Linda from Pahrump]

03:46 PM on 03/10/2011

At least they teach ethics!

[bessielil]

01:48 PM on 02/04/2011

I'm so sorry that 60% of the science teachers are more afraid of confrontation than imparting knowledge. Parents can (and do) request their children be given alternative assignments when they feel insulted by a book, an issue, or a scientific truth. While I feel parents should have that option, as long as they do not influence the curriculum or the books bought for the library, many parents are hardly critical thinkers themselves. Never mind church teachings, Bill O'Reilly thinks god causes tides. Or god 'makes' the moon cause tides. Or........

While abstinence only programs of sex education do not give a student a full perspective on the topic, it's not the same to say that 'both sides' of the evolution debate belong in the science classroom. The latter should be discussed in sociology, psychology, and philosophy courses.

[Chaton de Malheur]

05:45 PM on 03/09/2011

"Parents can (and do) request their children be given alternativ­e assignment­s when they feel insulted by a book, an issue, or a scientific truth."

This is disgusting. Parents should not have any say whatsoever in the curriculum of the school. It's bad enough they fill their children's heads with specious nonsense at home, but they should not have the right to burden an educator with teaching their superstitious garbage.

Elementary and High School curriculum should be standardized at the federal level so that every student in America has an equal chance at developing their own personal worldview in an environment free of religious ideology. Evolution is based on scientific observation and has a legitimate place in the classroom. Creationism MUST be identified as religious dogma, and not discussed as an "alternative scientific theory", which it most certainly isn't.

Those who disagree are burdened with proving the existence of god. Period.

[aganunitsi]

01:10 AM on 03/10/2011

In America, the parent always has the right to educate their children themselves (homeschooling). I call it a responsibility. Regulating what your child learns in the public education system is just one step towards homeschooling.

In a democracy, "the government" means "all your neighbors". If every one in your community decided that your child needed to learn the Koran, and you didn't, do you abide? Is democracy automatically right?

It sounds like you want all of America's youth to be taught as YOUR children.

[throwcautiontothewind]

01:44 PM on 03/10/2011

It's true--my daughter was forced to read Ayn Rand books in middle school because the Ayn Rand foundation donates lots of books & money to schools that force this. I didn't pitch a fit, simply engaged in a critical thinking discussion of the idiocy of the Rand philosophy with her during the assignment.

I also was sorely tempted to "donate" a lot of Saul Alinksy books & Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle"!!

[AJW1976]

12:25 AM on 03/10/2011

I must disagree. I do not think parents should have that option. You assume that it is acceptable for a parent to impose their religious views upon a child. That is predicated on the notion that the child is some form of chattel belonging to the parent and that the parent may fill the child's mind with whatever believes--however unfounded in fact or reality--the parent chooses. I do not believe that people are chattel and therefore must respectfully disagree.

Further, an abstinence only "sex education" program provides no education at all. It denies the child the information necessary to make responsible choices about their health, welfare and significant life decisions (ie to have a child).

[aganunitsi]

01:14 AM on 03/10/2011

Homeschooling is always an option.

[dragonlady620]

01:31 PM on 02/04/2011

If the ignoramuses that insist that creationism is a theory- which it is not by any definition of the word- would educate themselves they would find that not only is there an overwhelming body of data to support evolution but that creationism and evolution are not incompatible.

[raechel]

11:56 AM on 02/04/2011

One of my favorite news articles:

"Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory" at

http://www.theonion.com/articles/evangelical-scientists-refute-gravity-with-new-int,1778/

[JaxReader]

06:07 PM on 03/07/2011

Hahaha, Thanks for that.