60% of Science Teachers Don't Stress Evolution In US Public Schools

1. 59

   ediggityposted 12 years ago

   Pretty interesting article about the current trend of teaching the Theory of Evolution in public schools.  Do you think public schools should put more emphasis on teaching evolution to students?
   
   http://content.usatoday.com/communities … ng-poor-/1

   replyreport
   1. 0

      gobanglaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I wonder what percentage of High School Biology teachers actually have enough knowledge themselves to teach Evolution. Churches are training students to challenge Evolution in the classroom. If the teachers lack extensive knowledge, they may not be able to deal with that.

      replyreport
      1. 59

         ediggityposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Most science teachers should have had some exposure to The Theory of Evolution, even if their degree didn't concentrate in the subject.  You need a science background to teach science.  For example, even a High School teacher with an Astronomy degree would most likely have a course like Astrobiology under their belt.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            gobanglaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            I meant enough knowledge in terms of dealing with "challenges" from religious students. Degree programs deal with facts about Evolution. I'm sure most Biology teachers have a good basic foundation in Evolution. But do they have the level of knowledge to address creationist and ID claims? I think most don't and that's why they would rather avoid the subject altogether.

            replyreport
            1. 59

               ediggityposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               I think you may be correct about their in depth level of knowledge about evolution.  To "address claims", I guess it depends on what the claims are.  One would think that if the Theory of Evolution was so irrefutable, a science teacher would have enough knowledge of resources to counter said claims.  Instead of avoiding it all together.

               replyreport
   2. 61

      damajoyiposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      well in public high schools that might be true, but am taking evolution right now at a university and my professor is going through the whole shebank like is going out of style.  i must say, it is valuable information regardless on where one stand on creation.

      replyreport
      1. 59

         ediggityposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         What degree are you pursuing?  I assume you are a fairly recent High School grad.  How much evolution were you taught in High School?

         replyreport
         1. 61

            damajoyiposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Oh no, i am by far not a rescent high school graduate.  I am taking this course i find it very interested and controversial.

            replyreport
            1. 59

               ediggityposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Oh, so you're just taking a course without pursuing a degree?

               replyreport
   3. 62

      PhoenixVposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      After 40 years of Piltdown and 150 years of Haeckel's recapitulation theory, perhaps teachers are tentative.

      replyreport
      1. 59

         ediggityposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Do you think if teachers side with a more linear form of evolution they should address it when teaching Darwin's Theory?

         replyreport
         1. 62

            PhoenixVposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            I'm not sure exactly what you mean, because your sentence seems to be a run-on sentence.
            
            What I am saying is: maybe teachers, don't want to look back in 30 years, on what they were teaching and look like they were making a "piltdown man " of themselves

            replyreport
            1. 59

               ediggityposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               This is what I meant to type:
               
               Do you think if teachers side with a more linear form of evolution they should address it when teaching Darwin's Theory?
               
               Sorry, I was doing three things at once.
               
               
               I thought you were pointing out the differences between Haeckel's recapitulation theory vs Darwin's.

               replyreport
               1. 62

                  PhoenixVposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Evolution, currently, isn't math. We all know that 2+2 = 4. 200 years ago 2+2 was 4 , a hundred years in the future it will be four. On the other hand, other sciences are not as cut and dry. They take time to:
                  
                  ... "evolve"...
                  
                  
                  

                  replyreport
                  1. 59

                     ediggityposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     So do you think teachers should premise their instruction of Evolution with that sentiment?

                     replyreport
                     1. 62

                        PhoenixVposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        If they are honest, yes. The OP states, 60% dont stress it.I think thats probably a fair %, considering. In 100 years information regarding evolution theory will have changed by what %? There are so many peripheral factors, genetic drift vs natural selection and their influence or importance, just to key on only a couple of examples.
                        
                        If genetic drift comes to the forefront, I think that will dramatically impact my view of evolution.

                        replyreport
2. 60

   Evan G Rogersposted 12 years ago

   it's cuz they'd get fired.
   
   The problem is that people aren't in control of their education.
   
   Privatize the system and let people choose where to educate their children.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      William R. Wilsonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Fixed.

      replyreport
   2. 59

      ediggityposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I don't necessarily think they would get fired.  The information is already part of the curriculum, the teachers are just choosing not to teach it.  If anything, shouldn't they be fired for not following the curriculum?

      replyreport
3. 61

   RDSPhDposted 12 years ago

   It's sad when the education system is controlled that much by conservative parents. Why conceal scientifically proven facts ? Or at least let the students choose themselves which theory they would like to hear more about after having discussed the two theories in detail.
   
   This is as good as this http://blog.drwile.com/?p=195 a "biology teacher" wanting to prove gods existence with a crucifix shaped protein Hmm what's this http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008 … hannel.jpg then ? xD

   replyreport
   1. 59

      ediggityposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I think students should be taught a variety of everything and left to decide for themselves.  What two Theories are you referring to?  There are a lot more than two things to be taught.

      replyreport
      1. 84

         kerrygposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         "What two Theories are you referring to?  There are a lot more than two things to be taught."
         
         Exactly. If biology teachers are allowed to teach young Earth creationism in schools, I think they should also be allowed to teach that the Earth is carried around on the back of a giant turtle. It has as much basis in fact.

         replyreport
         1. 59

            ediggityposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Sure they should be allowed; however, enough people would have to be in favor of that idea in order to get it added to the curriculum.
            
            "It has as much basis in fact." is only an opinion, it's not really backed up with any facts.

            replyreport
            1. 84

               kerrygposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               "it's not really backed up with any facts"
               
               That's the point.

               replyreport
               1. 59

                  ediggityposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  That's not really a good point to make when trying to argue for the progression of science.

                  replyreport
            2. 73

               getitriteposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               So unlearned parents are to decide what should be regarded as knowledge?  Why do you hate reality so badly?

               replyreport
               1. 59

                  ediggityposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  I guess you didn't read what I wrote before this:
                  
                  I think students should be taught a variety of everything and left to decide for themselves.  What two Theories are you referring to?  There are a lot more than two things to be taught.
                  
                  
                  I don't really understand what you're trying to say.  I don't hate reality at all.  Why are you always trying to pick a fight?

                  replyreport
                  1. 73

                     getitriteposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     What you are proposing is that a variety of opinions should be taught, and the child could choose which sounds more reasonable to him...however, who is going to decide which opinions are to be taught?--because the field could become infinite.
                     
                     Why can't you just accept that evolution is the most logical way to proceed with the education of our children?
                     
                     I'm not trying to pick a fight, I'm just appalled at people who insist that a myth should be given respect in the real world.
                     
                     I don't want to go back to the dark ages, and you can't even see that this is what you are proposing.
                     
                     Be careful what you ask for.

                     replyreport
                     1. 59

                        ediggityposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        Exactly, who chooses what is taught?  Do you know, or do you just assume who it will be?
                        
                        
                        "Why can't you just accept that evolution is the most logical way to proceed with the education of our children?"
                        
                        So, you think children should believe Evolution with blind faith, without exploring any other options?
                        
                        So, the dark ages is teaching students a variety of subjects, while letting them make choices for themselves?  I fail to see how the two correlate.
                        
                        Your statements make you seem paranoid.

                        replyreport
                        1. 73

                           getitriteposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           I don't know.  That's why I asked you.
                           
                           
                           
                           Evolution is an established Scientific Model.  It is only the willfully ignorant who choose to persistently assert that it is blind faith.  Your belief is based on blind faith, and should be given no respect in a real serious adult debate.
                           
                           
                           
                           No I'm not saying that, but I'm saying that creationist science is nonsense, and dumbing down our children is no way to move them forward.
                           
                           
                           
                           What's wrong with being paranoid.  With people like you agitating with such ridiculous assertions, it helps to be proactive.
                           
                           When the missionaries came to Africa, they had the Bible and we had the land. They said "let us close our eyes and pray." When we opened them, we had the Bible, and they had the land.
                           —Desmond Tutu

                           replyreport
                           1. 59

                              ediggityposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                              Normally the states Department of Education.
                              
                              Teaching children one thing in a setting of exploration blinds them from other options.
                              
                              You've made your opinion and nonacceptance of creation known, continuously stating it doesn't help convey your point any better.
                              
                              I guess nothings wrong with being paranoid if you always want to feel like everyone's out to get you.

                              replyreport
                        2. 60

                           Woman Of Courageposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           eddigity, Angry people usually enjoy picking fights. The conversation in this forum were flowing quite peacefully.

                           replyreport
                           1. 59

                              ediggityposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                              Yes, unfortunately you are correct.

                              replyreport
                           2. 73

                              getitriteposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                              ...and evil, brainwashed Christians try their best to vilify and stifle anyone who challenges their dishonesty.

                              replyreport
         2. 49

            Carpet Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            It's insane to even consider teaching creationism.

            replyreport
      2. 61

         RDSPhDposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         I was referring to the never-ending creationism vs. evolutionism debate

         replyreport
         1. 59

            ediggityposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            But Evolution doesn't attempt to explain creation.

            replyreport
            1. 61

               RDSPhDposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               well in a way science states that all these unexplainable phenomena mankind witnessed (stars, the moon, thunderstorms, the question where we're from etc.) and our need for certain morals, ethics, laws so we don't all live in a chaos/anarchy world caused us to invent certain "gods" or beings with super powers (you'll find that in EVERY culture that has existed on this planet!!!), and we made up a story for every natural phenomenon or anything we couldn't explain ourselves just to stay calm and not panicking because we thought some god/gods are here protecting us so we don't need to worry...)
               This is somehow a side-effect of evolution, other theories state that hallucinations and "inner voices" showed up when the brain evolved to a certain state and started splitting into two hemispheres, this could also explain all the stories in all the "holy books" ever written.

               replyreport
               1. 59

                  ediggityposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  I still don't really understand how this equates to evolution explaining the creation of anything.  There are scientific Theories for the existence of everything.  What you stated seems more like Philosophy.

                  replyreport
                  1. 61

                     RDSPhDposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     These are proofs (with a partly scientific approach) that explain why the theory of creationism (a somewhat overrated theory) [still] exists today assuming that Darwins evolution theory is the correct explanation where mankind comes from (atleast over a short span of several thousand years).

                     replyreport
                     1. 59

                        ediggityposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        Again, Darwin's Theory attempts to explain something completely different than creationism.  I don't really see how you can compare the two.  Additionally, I don't see any "proofs".  Are you speaking mathematically, or metaphorically?

                        replyreport
                        1. 61

                           RDSPhDposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           Im talking about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation†… ontroversy
                           
                           Quote: "Since the 1920s, creationism in America has contested scientific theories, such as that of evolution"
                           
                           What I tried to say is that creationism is at least in my opinion made up by mankind and I tried to explain why people still believe that we were created by a god...

                           replyreport
                           1. 59

                              ediggityposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                              I understand, but what I wanted to know is whether or not you thought there should even be a debate about it, because Evolution doesn't attempt to explain creation.

                              replyreport
4. 0

   Onusonusposted 12 years ago

   Parents should not be allowed to teach their children, or decide who teaches them. It must be left up to the government to educate the future generations. Science and evolution are the most important and useful subjects that are being taught in the schools today.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      ediggityposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      So I guess we should just give our children to the government when they're born then?

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Onusonusposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         It's the only way we can truely advance as a socoity.

         replyreport
         1. 59

            ediggityposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            

            replyreport
5. 59

   Beelzedadposted 12 years ago

   Exactly, evolution does not explain creationism just like gravity does not explain light. Apples and oranges.
   
   
   
   I wholeheartedly agree with you. And, that is most likely what is going on in schools with subjects like Social Studies, where students are exposed to a number of religions and some of their basic beliefs and rituals. From those belief systems, students can read about and understand the many mosaic and abstract stories of creation from a variety of scriptures.
   
   The problem is that by the time most students begin to learn of these things, they are already indoctrinated into their parents religion. Not many of them will have choices as a result anyways.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      ediggityposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I don't really agree with your last statement.  Social Studies are taught at elementary, middle, and High School levels in the US.  Evolution is even taught at these same levels. Additionally, middle and especially High School are the years that children are most likely to rebel against what their parents want them to do and believe.

      replyreport
      1. 59

         Beelzedadposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Sure, and we can see the results of those rebellions right here on these forums. Some happened, some did not and their indoctrinations held and continued to be supported.

         replyreport
         1. 59

            ediggityposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            You're correct, some do and some don't. Both my parents are still Atheist and Agnostic, so I guess it just depends.  I guess that's where choice comes in.

            replyreport
            1. 59

               Beelzedadposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               I have always found that claim to be specious, at best.

               replyreport
               1. 59

                  ediggityposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Lol, well, I don't know any other way to put it.  One parent is Atheist, and the other is Agnostic.  I wasn't trying to be misleading. 

                  replyreport
                  1. 59

                     Beelzedadposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     Regardless of the fact you have attempted to be misleading before? Okee-dokee.

                     replyreport
                     1. 59

                        ediggityposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        No, where have I "attempted to be misleading"? I just thought you might have been confused by my statement, so I tried to clarify it.

                        replyreport