The results of a new study over science education conducted by Penn State University has come to a rather disturbing finding: high school science teachers are actually advocating the notion of creationism, which goes contrary to everything that modern science tells us about our world. In the study, three main trends appeared: those who teach evolution, those who profess belief in creationism, and those who don't teach at all/teach both sides equally. Perhaps the most disturbing finding was that 13% of teachers surveyed actively advocate creationism in their classrooms.
And one wonders why the United States is falling behind other nations in relation to performance in the sciences.
The study also delved into why evolution is not being taught in the nation's classrooms and for ways to remedy this problem. One chief reason: many teachers simply do not believe in evolution themselves. Another cited reason for lack of evolutionary education is that many teachers do not have the knowledge themselves to approach the touchy topic in their classrooms with enough confidence. How bad is the problem? The study found that only 28 percent of high-school biology teachers followed the National Research Council and National Academy of Sciences recommendations for teaching evolution in the classroom
In Ohio, the state has implemented academic content standards for all core school subjects, including science. The goal of these standards is to ensure that teachers are teaching the same content in every school at any given grade level. By looking at the Ohio science standards, one sees no reference to creationism/intelligent design, only evolution, to which there are over a dozen in just the high school grades alone. Besides scientific facts, the Ohio standards also emphasize the scientific method, which makes no room for including one's preconceived notions in scientific research. .
When it comes to fixing the problem, the study recommends that all science teachers should be required to take at least one class dealing with evolution and natural selection with follow-up courses and classes emphasizing the scientific validity of evolution being offered, too. However, critics point to the fact that, if someone doesn't believe in something, no amount of education may be possible to change that.
As for the controversy, in the last 40 years, every single court case seeking to challenge the teaching of evolution in public schools and instill a creationist curriculum has failed. Clearly, the courts are siding with science. Now, one may be asking “what does all of this have to do with astronomy?”
Answer: plenty.
Like biology, astronomy is a subject that has hada history of conflicting with religion and, even now, can shock the sensibilities of some, particularly religious fundamentalists, who continue to hold onto the belief that the world was created in a matter of days and that the age of the Earth can be determined by counting back the years as given in holy books. Just as anyone committed to the correct teaching of science would be appalled at the lack of evolution in biology, a same revulsion would occur if the Big Bang along with solar system formation were taught side by side with the account in Genesis, or skipped altogether. Needless to say, omitting these two most basic of processes would do as major a disservice to any astronomy student as glossing over evolution or teaching it in tandem with a most nonscientific idea as creationism would do to anyone learning biology.
Needless to say, if biology teachers are too afraid to teach evolution through either personal ignorance or risk of offending someone, what's not to say that astronomy teachers will become the same way if the religious decide to get up in arms over the Big Bang or solar system formation? It's a scary thought but, considering the social climate of the country we live in, it may not be an impossibility, especially considering that the U.S. is an anomaly in the Western world wherein belief in creationism far outweighs that in evolution.
As a final thought, consider the following: in science, if there is any commandment, it is this: respect the facts. No matter what we want the world to be or what our preconceived notions are, the world is the way it is, inflexible to human will. If one truly wishes to assume a scientific mindset, he/she must have respect for facts, no matter how contrary to personal beliefs they are. In the case of both evolution and the Big Bang, all facts point towards the scientific theories, not the religious dogma, being the truth. Yes, there are many great things about religion, such as ethical principles, its function as a social bonding agent, influence on the arts, and many others. However, religion is not science and it should be kept out of the science classroom.
For more info:
FOX News
Ohio Science Standards (click on the PDF file and go to pg. 136
Ohio students fail to grasp science
Find where your child's school ranks (note: only early 2000s data free to everyone)
Comments
Evolution isn't something you believe or not, it's something you understand or not.
We didn't descend from apes noob. Apes and us descended from a common ancestor...not known as an ape. Go back to school before you start embarrassing us in front of the Christians with your scientific writting =D Please and thank you.
Humans are apes. And along with other apes descended from what would have been a very ape-like ancestor.
Scientific method? Observe and report objectively?????
No one has ever seen one species change into another
species.
Darwin's name for his book, "The Origin of Species" was a
misnomer. He never addressed or answered the title. He
wrote of a tree of life that he theorized branched out into
many different paths. If I remember correctly, in a letter to
a friend, he theorized about a "primordial ooze" that became
life.
"No one has ever seen one species change into another
species."
Not in the sense that you mean, no. It isn't possible to see this because the process takes too long; the changes are gradual and cumulative. Eventually, after many generations over thousands of years, you have a new group that is significantly different from the original group.
The evidence supporting this theory is more than sufficient to convince any reasonable, rational person.
How about the research by Dmitri Belyaev on domesticating the silver fox. With just a couple of generations of selective breeding he managed to domesticate the silver fox. This meant not only behavioral changes but physiological as well. The domesticated foxes began to take on dog like characteristics, in fact they now sell them as pets.
Now this is not the same as a new species, but if you consider how insignificant 60 years of selective breeding is in comparison to the age of the earth. It should be evident how two species can branch from a singular species through gene expression given enough time, the genetic variation would just keep widening.
BTW, Darwin's book was originally titled "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life", It wasn't changed to "On the Origin of Species" until its 6th edition 13 years after its first publication. Although the originally title was far more indicative of the subject matter, I think you will agree it was quite a mouthful.
It is time you read Darwin's book again. This time read it seriously please.
---"Scientific method? Observe and report objectively?????
No one has ever seen one species change into another
species."
Speciation has in fact been observed. However if you're looking for the rather ridiculous demands made by some, like say, dog giving birth to a cat, or bacteria giving birth to a giraffe, then we can't help you. (nor could anyone)
---"Darwin's name for his book, "The Origin of Species" was a
misnomer. He never addressed or answered the title. He
wrote of a tree of life that he theorized branched out into
many different paths. If I remember correctly, in a letter to
a friend, he theorized about a "primordial ooze" that became life"
Not a misnomer. The theory of evolution does not rely on abiogenesis for the same reason the theory of gravity does not rely on explaining the origin of mass. Evolution specifically deals with explaining the diversification of life on Earth. That's it. Therefore the title was spot on.
By and large, High School & Primary teachers belong to a faith community of one denomination or another. These communities generally believe in some form of Creationism.
Also, in many public schools around the nation, openly supporting Evolutionary Theory can a quick path to a shortened teaching career.
The Christian right can decry how put upon they are by national education policies, but on a local level, they are a force to be feared.
Scientist's attitude toward understanding the world: here are facts, what conclusions can I draw from them?
Clergy's attitude toward understanding the world: here are conclusions, what facts can I distort to agree with them?
Good point. To be fair, not all clergy does that. Fundamentalists are the ones who do it all the time.
The writer of this article is so biased in his views that he is 'pulpit pounding' his faith in a theory as fact.
He also lumps together any other belief as 'creationism', due, I believe, to assumptions he's made due to his bias. If he had indeed ever read a bible, he would note that the account in Genesis refers to the creation of the heavens and the earth as occuring "In the beginning", not in a day. This report is based on hearsay, not facts, which brings in question everything else the 'reporter' has to say.
Anyone reporting on a subject should at least learn the facts of the subject they're reporting on and then report on them accurately.
First off, I say created in a matter of "days"," not "a day," perhaps I should have specified that, at least according to the Bible, God created the world in 6 days and rested on the 7th.
Second, going to Genesis, you seem to overlook the fact that the first two chapters are really two different creation stories, not one, which means that not even the Scripture writers knew what to believe.
As for preaching a theory as fact, click the two links in the last paragraph, you will be much enlightened as to how flimsy the argument for creation really is when one looks at the scientific evidence.
---"The writer of this article is so biased in his views that he is 'pulpit pounding' his faith in a theory as fact."
You mean the theory of gravity? Yeah, I've always had a problem with that one too - I mean, it's ONLY a "theory"...
(note - anyone who says I'm daft for not knowing it's a "scientific law" then a cute little kitten may have to be sacrificed to Dog)
For anyone who questions the reality of evolution, it is going on around us all the time. Below is a link to a recent article in the New York Times dealing with the rise of drug-resistant bacteria, a within our lifetime example of evolution by natural selection.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/01/science/01obpneumonia.html
Evolution is an unproven theory. Period. The study of the science of spontaneous generation of life is ridiculously impossible. While adaption among animals in Family or Order (the Bible states 'according to their kind', but we have no direct correlation with taxonomic ranking) is certainly evident, there is no body of evidence to say that has or could result in the creation of a new 'kind' of amimal (fish to mamal or reptile to bird).
I 'understand' evolution and I also understand the Bible. Bible 'truth' however, isn't very prevalent in the world religions. For instance, a 'creative day' is not our 'day' but a day to God; 2Pet 3:8 (for example). Also, the universe, and the earth, are shown to be created before the 6 'creative days' beginning with plants and fish, then mamals and man.
Here is a link to a most interesting read on how life can originate from non-living matter:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html
It should be noted that the assertion that life can spontaneously assemble itself has been supported through actual experiment, too.
http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html
For a point to ponder, take a look outside at the beautiful, biologically and environmentally diverse world around us and, on a clear night, at the stars above and just think how lucky we are to both live in such a wondrous universe and then be able to contemplate and discover how it all began.
---"Evolution is an unproven theory. Period."
"Proof" is for math and alcohol. NO scientific theory gets "proven", they are supported with a large body of evidence, testable, falsifiable, and are capable of making valid scientific predictions. This includes evolution.
---"The study of the science of spontaneous generation of life is ridiculously impossible"
I repeat, the theory of evolution does not rely on abiogenesis. However reality contradicts your claim, as it is based on an all too common gross misunderstanding of Pasteur. And scientists who know better are working on abiogenesis as we speak, at places like Harvard for example.
---"there is no body of evidence to say that has or could result in the creation of a new 'kind' of amimal"
"Kind" is a meaningless creationist term, however the fact is that all biological evidence points to common descent. This is observed in fused chromosome 2, the fossil record, DNA, orthologous ERV's and nested heirarchies consistent across all of them.
---"I 'understand' evolution and I also understand the Bible."
You don't understand science, period. Understanding the Bible is utterly irrelevant as it has nothing at all whatsoever to do with science. If one was a Biblical literalist, then they believe the Earth is a flat square circle which rests on foundations fixed in place at the center of a geocentric universe, as in accordance with scripture. But totally contrary to all available scientific evidence.
Evolution is rejected only on religious grounds, not for scientific reasons.
It is really unsettling for those of us observing from afar
( as there is no safe distance from anywhere any more ), this heated, politicised debate being conducted in a country where it seems that most of its citizens and all of its legislature and judiciary feel they have the right to run the rest of the world in accordance with their beliefs and objectives. The rest of the world, not surprisingly tends to resent this, with results we have all seen.
Extremists and fundamentalists of whatever ilk require careful treatment, not followers.
My book says a frog was swimming aroung in the ancient ocean and thew up all the land, then he took a turd and people and all the "kinds" of animals came out of his turd. Can I have equal time in science class?
Nice article.. and keep coming back at those who throw the usual ignorant canards. Sometimes I think it would be useful to just have a list of answers to the stream of silly assertions ("its an unproved theory") and logical errors.
The core idea in science is to establish fact by the most reliable means possible. All of the rules and methods are aimed at that end. That's why saying something is science carries weight..because we can rely on its finding in finding practical ways to cope with our world. Religionists don't like that because it deprives them of what used to be their authority.
alcibiades42 said: "Sometimes I think it would be useful to just have a list of answers to the stream of silly assertions ... and logical errors."
There is a GREAT list right here, in the Talk Origins Index to Creationist Claims: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
Browse it and see. All the rote anti-evolution catechisms spouted by the ignorant creationists are listed and refuted in nice simple language.
Science is based on an approach called the scientific method. Ideas that have passed the scientific method are what should be taught in Science classes.
Religion is based on faith. A Religion class or perhaps a Sociology class is the ONLY PLACE for discussions of faith.
On a side note, the schools have sex ed classes but no personal finance classes. Crazy huh?
So many people confuse the teachings of science as fact. It is not. It is a process. It is perfectly acceptable to teach creationism as a scientific hypothesis, if only to demonstrate that not all hypotheses are correct.
The problem with teaching creationism is that the biblical creationists don't just disagree with evolution. They also believe the world is only 7000 years old. Teaching this would end most accepted theories in archeology, anthropology, astronomy, geology, physics, and chemistry. And they want it taught as fact instead of theory. I don't think anybody saying that all scientific fields are wrong because they conflict with the bible should be taken too seriously.
May I suggest you refresh your reading on science. I think you are confused. Science teaches both facts and the methods found, tried and tested to be the best way to obtain them, as well as build explanatory models conforming to fact.
It is not acceptable to teach creationism as science because it isn't science. Teach it as cultural history, comparative religion, comparative mythology or my preference, culturally induced socio-pathology..but not science.
One of the key rules which science developed, and which helped free it from the swamp of religious dogma, is methodological naturalism: that to ascertain fact we ignore any consideration of things we cannot observe or measure. In particular, it means excluding consideration of the supernatural because there is no way to observer, test or measure it. Creationism, is built on the principle of the supernatural. On that grounds alone, it is eliminated.
I do a natural history presentation for elementary and middle schools. I find some students saying "How can that be x million years old when the Earth is only 5000 years old?"
First: I think we need religion to correct a basic wrong: The Bible is not, and never was, meant to be a natural history book. It is a book of worship.
Second, once you understand the first, natural history doesn't contradict the basic religious teachings, it can work along side them.
While assembling my "traveling history museum" and writing the book Handbook to Life on Earth, I looked at the evolution of the horse. This is an excellent example of visible evolution.
Recent findings of early man are creating a very good picture of evolution at work.
And, this is probably the most "offensive" reason people object to evolution - man evolved from ape. Wrong.
Man, apes, and monkeys evolved from a common primate ancestor.
Only in America can a person find people so utterly moronic. How incredibly stupid does a person have to be to actually believe the crap that is coming out of some of these fundies mouths.
This is not an attack on Christianity. Most Christians (world wide) are intelligent enough to understand evolution (even the stupid pope believes this).
But then, you get the unfortunate "American Fundie" (The dumbest species on the planet).
I am smart enough to not judge Christians on their inbred cousins from "the Deep South" though. I feel sorry for anyone living in America right now. Surrounded by absolute morons 24/7.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!