The recent headlines were disturbing:
13% of H.S. Biology Teachers Advocate Creationism in Class
Troubling: 13% of Biology Teachers Supporting Creationism
13% of US biology teachers advocate creationism: Welcome to 2011
These articles were responding to a commentary in Science by Penn State political scientists Michael B. Berkman and Eric Plutzer ("Defeating Creationism in the Courtroom, But Not in the Classroom"; 28 January 2011). Berkman and Plutzer's research -- detailed in several articles and a book--involves large surveys of science teachers. In this most recent study, 926 public high school biology teachers were surveyed, and 13 percent reported "explicitly advocat[ing] creationism or intelligent design."
The 13 percent number is bad -- 1 in 8 public school biology instructors teaches creationism. As the headlines above show, most reporting focused on this 13 percent. But Berkman and Plutzer identified an even greater problem: a "cautious 60 percent" of teachers who, while not preaching creationism, nevertheless fail to be "strong advocates for evolutionary biology."
Berkman and Plutzer write,
The cautious 60 percent may play a far more important role in hindering scientific literacy in the United States than the smaller number of explicit creationists.
There are more of these cautious teachers, and their reluctance to present evolution forthrightly not only impedes their students in learning biology, but also undermines understanding of the nature of science. They fail to teach evolution in the way recommended by the nation's leading scientific organizations, such as the National Research Council -- as the central, unifying principle of the life sciences.
Why is "neutrality" toward evolution such a disaster for college-bound kids?
Evolution is the foundation of biology. Just as geologists cannot decipher the earth's features without plate tectonics, and physicists cannot understand the interaction of light and matter without quantum electrodynamics, biologists cannot explain the diversity of life on earth without evolution. Trying to teach biology without evolution is like teaching auto mechanics without discussing engines. Teachers should not be neutral toward evolution because scientists are not neutral about evolution.
While creationists promote the mistaken idea that there exists scientific controversy regarding evolution, the truth is that evolution has played a central role in biology for over a century. Evolution has not been controversial among scientists since the Victorian era, when scientists noted the time on gold pocket-watches rather than iPhones, and travelled to work in horse-drawn carriages instead of Priuses.
Though quaint and outdated, anti-evolutionism remains alive and well. Evolution is assaulted daily by groups such as Answers in Genesis, which runs a creationist "museum" in Kentucky and plans to build a full-scale Noah's Ark to complement it, and the Discovery Institute, which promotes the flavor of creationism known as intelligent design.
There are many reasons why so many teachers fail to teach evolution enthusiastically, but there is no doubt that community pressure -- enflamed by anti-evolution groups -- is a major part of it. In North Carolina, for example, a parent disgruntled about the presentation of evolution in his daughter's middle school science class promised the principal, "You might be surprised at how your 'stock' could go up in our community if you choose to deal more harshly" with the offending teacher. According to Berkman and Plutzer, 29 percent of non-creationist teachers (compared to only 19 percent of creationist teachers) reported feeling nervous at "an open house event or meeting with parents." Such social pressure on teachers can be particularly strong in small, rural, religiously homogenous communities, where the teacher may be one of the few people in the community who understands and accepts evolution.
The "cautious 60 percent" is not necessarily or exclusively a failure of teachers. Rather, it is a failure of schools to foster an environment where the best science can be taught. Just as it is hard for children to learn in a school filled with bullies, it is difficult for science teachers to teach in a school surrounded by those who would bully them into downplaying evolution.
The majority of Americans do not graduate from college, so high school science classes are for many citizens the last place for formal educational exposure to science; biology is often the only high school science class students take. Therefore, misconceptions about evolution and the nature of science instilled in a high school biology class can influence a lifetime of thought.
Bottom line: we have to ensure that evolution is taught well in public schools. This means exerting community pressure for, rather than against, integrity in science education. You can talk to your children's teachers and let them know that if they teach good science, they'll have your support. You can talk to their principals and let them know that if they fail to foster a strong learning environment for science, you'll hold them to account. You can talk to your local school board and let them know that if they enact or tolerate anti-evolution policies, you'll remember it come election time. Teacher by teacher, school by school, district by district, we can work to turn this "cautious 60 percent" of teachers into a strong majority teaching the best science possible.
The point of this article is that 60% of teachers are either ignorant, or lack balls to speak out. Same is the majority of our politicians, that cater to the ignorant, instead of speaking out, and that includes our President, that makes deals, and ignores problems in our so-called democracy. At least Taliban really believes in what they teach and do. We don't have any moral right to try to change Afghanistan - we are worse. Leave them alone, and take care of what is going on at home.
Dear Daniel,
The good thing that you agreed that there is “X” between a living body and a dead body, but you don’t know what it is?
And you refused to call it Spirit, and you didn’t give any other solution, and by refusing this fact, simply you will refuse the rest since they all depend on this fact.
If the word “Spirit” hurts you, then you can replace it by “X” descends or “X” ascends, “X” joins, and “X” separates, etc... And for the twins, simply 2 “X’s” join each body.
And for the cat that gave birth for 8 kittens, then 8 X’s join them, each “X” in each body, simply as it’s.. Hope this answer your questions.
But, do you know why “Atheist” don’t believe that Human has a spirit,
Because it destroys all their beliefs, Spirit is still can’t be directly tested by scientific experiments, and being exist then it is created by God Only, and this what means that all their beliefs are simply nothing, so they prefer to deny its existence !! .....
You gave 2 contradicted comments:
First: the Roman said about the Human breath is the spirit, then a belief of billions of people is not necessary to be true !!
Then I'll ask you now, WHY I should take your simple very well known knowledge of the Roman belief “THAT spirit is the human breath” and leave the billions of People that “Human is body and spirit”?
And how do you explain that some people lose their breath for less than 1 minute and die and some for 5 minutes even more and don’t die??
And why some may live again after reviving operations, but some never although they may lose breath for the same period even less??
I know that most of Atheists like to copy-paste directly from Encyclopedias to show “How much they are educated”!! And they invent “Theories” like breathing, so I’ll be waiting your next exciting theory!!
Thanks for the compliment..
I know already that most, if not all of the Atheists are so “polite”, I debated with them on their forum for a while and I really touched their “kindness”..
I asked them once; you are rude because you are atheist? Or Atheist because you are rude?
Honestly, till now nobody answered me and I couldn’t figure it yet..
If you didn’t like my argument on my debate with Atheist, see this post about appraising the valley of Makkah in the bible on:
http://debatewithachristian.blogspot.com/
Hope you will like it this time, but please read it all and don’t be rejecting to any new idea, let it enter into your brain first, take your time to think about it, analyze it, and then comment on it if you want.
Regards,
-------
Freerider,
Tell me, how did you figure that I am over 8 years old !!
You’re really a smart guy!!
Thanks for visiting my site, and I will try to answer your question when I have some time..
Honestly, your question are kind of most difficult questions ever, because it’s very difficult to prove what is already considered a proven fact..
Such as, if 6,900,000,000 humans say that the star which shines during daylight over our planet is the SUN and one only says that it’s a UFO spaceship, and you want to prove it to him it is a SUN !! It will be a little bit difficult..
Similarly, I need to prove to you that living human is body and spirit, and you are not convinced that there is something called a spirit?..
I will think about it..
I just want to tell you that your debate about Creationism and Evolution is unnecessary, simple because the universe was created by God with no doubt, and evolution also exist and created by God for animals and plants, and both of them are mentioned in Chapter of Genesis and The holy Quran.
The problem that Christians were not able to defend what is mentioned in the Bible and couldn’t interpreted easily..
I don’t want to shock you more, but the keys to understand what is in Genesis are mentioned in Quran and when plugging them in bible, the story is all decoded, and both of them in Bible and Quran match Science findings order perfectly !!..
But the problem is in Science and not in the holy books, because still there are so many contradictions in Earth aging (must be >4.5bn), but Universe Age is correct both in Holy books and science and equal to +14 bn years old..
To check it but yourself, please enjoy reading..
The Story of Creation (3) – Earth Formation in 6 Days, Matching between Quranic, Biblical and Science Calendars…
on
http://debatewithatheist.blogspot.com/
When you have time, you can read part 1 & 2 if you want.
Regards,
As for your story of creation, however: You're using science to constrain your interpretation of scripture. But you can do this with *anything*.
You say on your site that the Qu'ran is not a book of science, but a book of signs.
The problem is that the signs are vague enough that they can be interpreted in many ways - particularly when someone as determined as yourself sets about it with vigor and intent.
It isn't anywhere near as persuasive as you seem to think.
The fact is that the science community has come up with tons of demonstrable discoveries whereas the creationists have come up with nothing. Nevertheless those who cling to crackpot ideas such as creationism and intelligent design aren't going to be convinced; this is the Dunning-Kruger effect in action. It takes a bit of intellect and education to become aware of one's own intellectual limitations and those people just don't have it.
I don't know what the answer is but I am not at all optimistic.
Also, believing that it should be taught is not the same as actually teaching it.
Science teachers should teach SCIENCE. Creationism / ID is not science - the courts have consistently upheld this view. The fact that the US courts can see that Creationism / ID has no place in the public science classroom, and the teachers responsible for teaching can't, is more than maddening to parents with children in the public school system.
Interesting that you chose gravity as the first example. You don't have to believe in Newtonian gravitation to think that it should be taught. In fact, no one who's qualified to teach physics does believe in Newtonian gravitation: they all know that Einstein solved the problem of the precession of the orbit of Mercury by figuring out general relativity. But Newtonian gravity is what's taught.
I agree that creationism is religion and should not be taught. Freedom of religion is best served by having public schools refrain from teaching religion, not by having having communities democratically choose what religion will be taught. But it's possible have a different view on will of the majority vs rights of the minority in a community, even while being in that minority.
If a survey wants to find out whether teachers believe religious gobbledygook, it should ask them whether the gobbledygook is true, not whether schools should teach gobbledygook when large majorities demand it.
Moreover, I think that it _does_ follow that if one teaches creationism, then one really does not understand evolution, or understands only enough of the science to fake it by parroting information well enough to disingenuously pass tests.
I'm sure almost all of the teachers involved support democracy, but the process of science is not a political system; reality is not contingent upon opinion polls.
Now, in the second link, the only instance of "13%" says "When we asked whether an excellent biology course could exist without mentioning Darwin or evolutionary theory at all, 13% of teachers agreed or strongly agreed that such a course could exist."
However, table S3 of the PLoS article breaks down the 224 teachers who spend time in class teaching about creationism. Of those, 48% "emphasize that this is a valid, scientific alternative to Darwinian explanations for the origin of species". That's about 108 (depending on roundoff of sub-categories) out of 939 teachers surveyed. And why does the PLoS article say 939, when this page says 924?
Bottom line: I was mistaken, and about an eighth of HS biology teachers do unambiguously report teaching religious tripe.
Democracy doesn't determine whether animals including humans evolved. It does determine whether communities get to have government schools teaching the majority religion. Our system, in this case, favors the individual right to a real, secular education over the will of the majority of a community.
The Evolutionists continue to use the old "Bait and switch" routine.
First, they say Evolution is "the foundation of biology".
In THAT context, they are speaking of the fact that living things change over time.
Then they talk about how 73% of the teachers do not properly teach "evolution".
In THAT context, they are speaking of Common Descent; the religious belief that all living things, extinct and extant, descended from original single celled life forms, the origin of which is claimed to be a separate topic from evolution itself.
Guys, get real. NO creationist denies that living things change over time, and that is what is required to understand biological mechanisms.
NO ONE has a better grasp of biology by accepting the belief that they are related to a carrot.
Come and discuss origns at Talk About Origins:
http://www.tao.invisionzone.com
1. All species are fixed
2. Change is only within a species
3. Mutation is always negative
Modern *evolutionary* biology has already directly observed all the components of evolution - speciation, positive mutation, and migration from one species to another. These are the basic principles behind evolution. Most of the creationists' arguments come from an oversimplification of evolution or from misunderstandings of basic science like math or physics.
Common descent was confirmed by modern genetic science. Darwin could not "prove" this the way modern biologists have with DNA. This was a prediction by Darwin that gets confirmed over and over again. Our common ancestor with other great apes is indisputable because of the similarities in our DNA, including retro-viral gene insertions. By working backward we can see genetics, morphology, and vestigial features/organs that work us back further and further toward common descent.
Knowing that organisms change, how they change, and why they change is evolutionary theory and it is the foundation of modern biology.
Please.... I think you really need to do some more reading. Start with "Your Inner Fish" by Shubin.
Someone that accepts a fact about biology has a better grasp of biology than if they didn't accept that fact. Trivial, yes?
Okay.
All living organisms share a common root - this is a fact about biology supported by overwhelming evidence.
So anyone who accepts this fact has a better grasp of biology than if they didn't - as with all facts about biology.
It's not hard.
Evidence is the only truth - that's why it trumps what people say and believe, even after they swear on a Bible.
And all your belief won't change the fact that your DNA clearly shows that you are the blood relative of chimpanzees.
Then publish already.