It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

One in Eight U.S. Biology Teachers Teaches Creationism

page: 1
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 26 2008 @ 11:56 AM
link   

One in Eight U.S. Biology Teachers Teaches Creationism


www.popsci.com

The results of the first national survey of teachers about evolution in their classrooms are in. Darwin would quiver in his boots to learn that in this day and age, one in eight American biology teachers teach creationism and intelligent design as a sound alternative to his theory. In fact, 13 percent of the country’s teachers think they can run an excellent biology class without even mentioning Darwin or evolution.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on May, 26 2008 @ 11:56 AM
link   
This is ridiculous. What, are we still living in the Middle Ages? Why do people think it's ok to filter out other's educations to fit their own belief systems in?

This is dumbing down of the greatest proportion.

www.popsci.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on May, 26 2008 @ 12:05 PM
link   
Hey remember the Phrase ignorance is a bliss, many school teachers just rather ignore the topic of evolution, that is widely acceptable to do than ignoring the good old bible teachings, that is unacceptable to do.



posted on May, 26 2008 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigbert81
Why do people think it's ok to filter out other's educations to fit their own belief systems in?


I would imagine that creationists would argue that this is exactly what evolutionists do.

As long as evolutionary theory is presented fairly and completely, I don't necessarily have a problem with a discussion of creationism. There's nothing wrong with a little side by side comparison, and if evolution is so obviously correct, there's little reason to be concerned about this again, if both sides are given fair, impartial treatment.



posted on May, 26 2008 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by vor78
 


At the very least, the students should get a full, all around education instead of a biased one.

Not even mentioning Darwin's name is a joke of an education.



posted on May, 26 2008 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigbert81
At the very least, the students should get a full, all around education instead of a biased one.


I can agree with this statement.

I believe there are truths to be found in both theories, and they should be taught in conjunction rather than constantly being at odds with each other. By themselves both theories are incomplete. Together, they hold the key.



posted on May, 26 2008 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by bigbert81
 


I agree, but as long as they are covering the topic of evolution in an unbiased manner, I don't think its a major issue. Now if they don't even bother teaching evolution but only creationism, its a problem.

Depending on the grade level, I can understand not mentioning either one and how you could still have an excellent biology class overall. There are enough concepts in biology that this particular one could be pushed down the line a couple of years if the kids are still relatively young. It might even be beneficial to stow the controversial topics until their last few years of school. On the other hand, if its in the 9th or 10th grade and they're not teaching it, its a problem.



posted on May, 26 2008 @ 02:55 PM
link   
Religion has no place in a science lesson. If they must teach creationism it should be in a religious studies class. Educators need to be able to put their own beliefs to one side and teach in a responsible manner and pushing your agenda on a class of children is not acceptable.



posted on May, 26 2008 @ 03:35 PM
link   
The theory of evolution was taught to me in 8th and 9th grade, as well as who Darwin is, and what he did. My 11th grade zoology teacher taught it, even though he is a firm believer in Christ. He did most often emphasize the word theory.



posted on May, 26 2008 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by bigbert81
 


Well BigBert, I certainly agree with you on this issue...if included in science curricula, religious dogma concerning creationism should be offered as just that...dogma, which should not be allowed to supplant the ample scientific facts & evidence of evolution.



[edit on 26-5-2008 by ezziboo]



posted on May, 26 2008 @ 03:48 PM
link   
What many here forget, evolution is as much a theory as religion is.



posted on May, 26 2008 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by West Coast
 


No, evolution has evidence behind it and has withstood the rigour of peer review whereas religion has neither evidence nor any credible review short of belief.



posted on May, 26 2008 @ 04:08 PM
link   
That article makes me sad. I am a strong believer that belief should not be imposed by any means or in any form. By teaching one and not the other, the teacher is imposing his or her beliefs on the pupil and thus limiting them. True education is the examination of everything, it is the search for validation, it is the supporting of opinions and theories. It is NOT for the teacher to decide what is true or not, it is for the students, through examination of presented facts and proofs, and through the evaluation of their own values to decide which is the most valid theory in their view.



posted on May, 26 2008 @ 04:18 PM
link   
It is my belief that Creationism has no place in the school, much less the science classroom. Rail against me if you wish but at least the Theory of Evolution has a modicum of science behind it. The same goes for the "prayer in schools" argument. How can anyone wish for students to broaden their minds in the search for empirical truth when they're praying to a being that they cannot, see, hear, touch, or otherwise prove exists without the aid of a book who's last literary contribution was made well over 1800 years ago? Please! Do I believe in God? Yes, I do. But I do not believe that religion (outside of a religious studies course) belongs in the school.



posted on May, 26 2008 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chris McGee
reply to post by West Coast
 


No, evolution has evidence behind it and has withstood the rigour of peer review whereas religion has neither evidence nor any credible review short of belief.


what evidence is this? Evolution does not explain how life became life, how the universe became the universe (unless you are saying that the "Big Bang" was seen and withstood all the "rigour of peer reviews"). Science is very much so powerless to answer questions such as "What is the meaning of life?" "Why are we here as individuals?" "Why does mathematics work, anyway?" "If the universe had a beginning, who created it?" "Why are the physical constants in the universe so finely tuned to allow the possibility of complex life forms such as ourselves?" "Why do humans have a moral sense?" "What happens after we die?"

Please, explain in scientific term what all that means.



[edit on 26-5-2008 by West Coast]



posted on May, 26 2008 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by bigbert81
 


No it is not a joke. Evolution is just a theory as is creationism. There is nothing wrong with teaching creationism. It makes a heck of alot more sense than evolution does.



posted on May, 26 2008 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by West Coast
 


Evolution and physics do explain how life became life. Theories on how the universe came into being are just that, theories. The difference is these theories have some reason behind them greater than simply 'because god did it'.

Science is powerless to answer the other questions for a simple reason, they are not questions from the realm of science. The questions you pose are philosophical in nature and exist only in the human mind, there is no right or wrong answer. Just as an example, 'What is the meaning of life'? My answer would be 'There is no meaning to life'. I'm sure your answer would be different but neither answer is correct or incorrect and neither answer can be proven so.

Mathematics works because it is not in it's nature not to work. As strange as it may sound, mathematics is an entirely human construct, it works because it works, there are plenty of mathematical theories that were discarded becuase they didn't work. What we are left with are the theories and methods which have been empirically proven to be correct and which produce results which are predictable and tally up with experimental evidence.

The thing about the physical constants could also be looked at another way. To answer a question with a question, why is the atmosphere on earth so perfectly tuned to the human respiratory system? It has just the right blend of oxygen and other elements it must have been made for us, right? Turn it around and you see that it isn't the atmosphere which has changed to be perfect for us, it is us who have adapted (or evolved if you will
) to the atmosphere around us. The same can be said of the physical constants in the universe, matter and life adapted to them rather than them being adapted to us.

Everyone has their own belief about these things and those beliefs should be respected as the deeply personal articles of faith they are, be it faith in science or a higher power. When you step into the realm of science, however, those beliefs will be challenged, explored and the flaws revealed without any care for the sensibilities of the individual. Scientific theories are held to a different standard to those which govern the spiritual realm, there is no room for unquestioning faith in science, everything must be probed, poked and questioned if we are to progress.

There is a place for everything, I would not advocate teaching evolution in bible class, physics in an art class or creationism in a science class. Despite how strongly people believe about it, it is not science.

[edit on 26-5-2008 by Chris McGee]



posted on May, 26 2008 @ 05:22 PM
link   
No evolution and physics do not explain where life came from. It says that it just happened. By chance it just happened. Science is about logic, and logicly speaking that's not logical.



posted on May, 26 2008 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Christian Voice
 


Research is being performed into the origin of life, it is very much not as haphazard as you imply. These theories adhere to scientific principles and, in my humble opinion, carry more weight than simply saying 'god did it'.


[edit on 26-5-2008 by Chris McGee]



posted on May, 26 2008 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Chris McGee
 


Your post shows, Mr. McGee, that evolution is as much a theory as religion is.


Science is powerless to answer the other questions for a simple reason, they are not questions from the realm of science.


Because science cannot answer them.



The questions you pose are philosophical in nature and exist only in the human mind, there is no right or wrong answer.


Why then do they exist at all? Why does moral consciousness exist at all? Why are humans the only animals on this planet, capable of looking up and admiring a beautiful starry night sky, wondering just how the hell we got here?


The thing about the physical constants could also be looked at another way. To answer a question with a question, why is the atmosphere on earth so perfectly tuned to the human respiratory system? It has just the right blend of oxygen and other elements it must have been made for us, right? Turn it around and you see that it isn't the atmosphere which has changed to be perfect for us, it is us who have adapted (or evolved if you will ) to the atmosphere around us. The same can be said of the physical constants in the universe, matter and life adapted to them rather than them being adapted to us.


Which does nothing to answer how the Universe came into being.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join