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.

 

High School Biology Teachers in U.S. Reluctant to Endorse Evolution in Class, Study Finds

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 06:42 AM
link   
www.sciencedaily.com... 3A+Latest+Science+News%29


The majority of public high school biology teachers in the U.S. are not strong classroom advocates of evolutionary biology, despite 40 years of court cases that have ruled teaching creationism or intelligent design violates the Constitution, according to Penn State political scientists. A mandatory undergraduate course in evolutionary biology for prospective teachers, and frequent refresher courses for current teachers, may be part of the solution, they say.


I guess thoughts on this would tend to run with your religious preferences. They have never quit teaching it here in the bible belt but I am surprised that so many others are still teaching it.


Finally, many teachers expose their students to all positions, scientific and otherwise, and let them make up their own minds.


I tend to go with this option more. I don't really think it is the job of the school to convert any one side to the other. Give the information required and move along.
edit on 1/28/2011 by Kangaruex4Ewe because: add more information




posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 06:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Kangaruex4Ewe
 


get them teaching gym class,maths or english if these science teachers cant understand science



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 06:54 AM
link   
reply to post by lewman
 




they should either teach intelligent design and evolution
or neither...

it all depends what you believe, kids should pick which class they go to.

evolution goes against the beliefs of some just as creation goes against the beliefs of some



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 06:59 AM
link   
We have a problem here in the U.S. Our teaching of evolution is so bad that there are many biology teachers that think it's bunk.

On the other hand, there are many times where kids who are simply asking for clarification get told to shut and stop questioning evolution because they're mistaken for one of those religious kids who try to poke holes in evolutionary theory. Or they're given the "gravity is just a theory, too" argument, which I'm sure is torn apart by creationists in about twenty seconds.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 07:04 AM
link   
reply to post by iSHRED
 


I agree with you. Being a creationist, and a religious family my daughter is familiar with the evolutionary theory. I have no problem with her hearing both sides.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 08:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Kangaruex4Ewe
 


If we are talking about science class, in a public school . . . then you are wrong. ID is not science, as there is no current research or evidence to support it. If you want your children to experience accepted science theory and get the "other" side, send them to a religious institution. Religious beliefs have no business in publicly (state) supported institution. Science is about facts, not beliefs. If you simply deny the multitude of evidence (facts) that support evolutionary theory (genetics, biology, zoology, virology, biochem, molecular bio, etc), you are in support of ignorance due to your personal religious beliefs. Which, again, has no business in a public school charged with educating the public . . . where not everyone shares your personal religious beliefs.

You are simply creating a generation of ignorant children . . . deny ignorance.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by solomons path
 


My not having a problem with my child hearing both sides is creating ignorant children? Wow


As far as I am concerned neither side can be 100% proven. We could argue that all day I am sure. But to allow all points and claim that is NOT denying ignorance is well.... you know.
edit on 1/28/2011 by Kangaruex4Ewe because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 10:18 AM
link   
Just in case anyone is wondering evolution is undoubtably true. I cant find the link but australian scientists have been expressing dinosaur genes in chickens because all species hold their past in thier genes. You could literally make a half earlier hominid half homo sapien by expressing repressed genes. Evolution is a mechanism to deal with the fact the the environment is always changing and so every species on the planet needs to evolve to keep up or else everything would be extinct. You can literally watch bacterial cultures evolve before your eyes in weeks because their environments change so drastically.

However I am not here to bash religious beliefs, Im tired of people believing what they thought is what god did, that couldnt be anymore ridiculous, God created the earth and all the laws that govern the galaxy, why in the hizzell wouldnt he equip every species with mechanisms to deal with these?

So many people believe it has to be one way or the other. There is still so much science we do not understand but everytime we find out something new its against God and not thought of as discovering a mechanism or law that God put in place to govern this world. Why doesnt anyone ever argue science is God and God is science, that makes more sense than anything anyone posts about creationism and evolution. So please just stop the stubborn idea that is has to be one way or the other.

I am coming to you neutral on the issue and I am not telling anyone God does or doesnt exist, just think about it though,

Nothing proves anything about God, science can always be wrong.

edit on 28-1-2011 by LetsTouch because: Correcting some spelling and grammar



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Kangaruex4Ewe
 


There is no scientific basis for ID or creationism. I'm not bashing your religion or anyone elses. You are free to believe whatever you want and spread those beliefs to your offspring, but those are your beliefs and not founded in science . . . that's faith. To equate faith based hypothesis, which have no physical evidence to back them, with any field of science is the definition of ignorance because it puts faith on the same footing with the physical world. They grow up without the ability to be critical thinkers . . . everything gets equal weight. Not everyone shares your views . . . home and church is where you can "educate" your children on those matters.

You can claim it isn't raising a generation of ignorant children, however they will grow up thinking they are on equal footing . . . and they are not. If you choose not to believe in evolution . . . that's your personal choice. It doesn't change the fact that evolution is a proven fact. Your denial doesn't change that. ID has no evidence to support it . . . at best it's a hypothesis, not a theory. If you want ID in science class . . . design an experiment that shows some physical evidence for it. Until then, unfortunately for your beliefs, it is founded in faith . . . and doesn't belong in science class. I'm not sure why so many IDers can't comprehend this fact.


edit on 1/28/11 by solomons path because: add omitted line



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 11:32 AM
link   
I think that ID and evolution can be discussed within schools, however only evolution should be taught. If you want to teach/learn about ID, go to sunday school.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 01:38 PM
link   
I didn't believe in ID until during my studies of biochemistry. I find it interesting that people could believe the biochemical processes which are substantially more efficient as well as more complex than what man has been able to create simply evolved.

I don't discount evolution entirely but feel things are evolving along the lines of their original design.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by solomons path
 


I believe we can respectfully agree to disagree as I can see where you are coming from. I am not asking that anything religious be taught in school. I commented on the fact that it is still taught here and that I do not mind her hearing both sides.

I wholly believe in ID. However, I would not/did not fight to keep it in school here when evolution became the thing (not knowing most would still opt to teach it). Because however you look at it we do agree to an extent. Religion doesn't need to be taught in school because I don't want to deal with other religions being shoved down my daughter's throat just as some don't want her's etc. If you open that door, you have to open it for everybody .

I still disagree with the idea that it makes children ignorant. There are a lot of folks that were not raised on evolution that are very intelligent indeed.

So basically you and I can go off into the sunset almost agreeing.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by iSHRED
reply to post by lewman
 




they should either teach intelligent design and evolution
or neither...

it all depends what you believe, kids should pick which class they go to.

evolution goes against the beliefs of some just as creation goes against the beliefs of some

Should we also endorse the teaching that the theory of gravity is enforced by angels pushing everything along?
No, because science doesn't work like that, and Biology is a science.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 04:11 AM
link   
reply to post by hippomchippo
 


Exactly. Science is NOT and should not be a democracy. Science should be a dictatorship of scientists and facts.

What laymen believe is true is not important. Only scientific consensus is. Should we also teach alchemy or phlogiston theory as an "alternative" to chemistry, or geocentric universe model as an "alternative" to heliocentrism? Crazy.

If a teacher doesnt want to teach science in a science class, he should be fired.


edit on 2/2/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 09:34 AM
link   
relpy to all you anti-ID folks in here:

how is ID any different then non-ID teachings. ID doesnt discredit evolution, or space formation or anything. It simply changes a random explosion creating the universe and life and says, it cant be random and something/someone put order to it. ID has the exact same crediblity as mainstream science and does not equal religious teaching. Both are ONLY theories.


IMO a random unexplainable "big-bang" sounds absolutly obsurd and takes more faith to believe in than ID

shoot, real science shouldnt even include a beginning (big bang or ID) because the only real way to know which is true is whether your burning in the lake of fire, or in the presence of God when you die.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by iSHRED
 


I think noone has s problem with ID or creationism teached as one of the hypotheses for the cause of the Big Bang itself (or even appearence of the first life cells, until abiogenesis is proven).
But these people are speaking about ID as an alternative to biological evolution. Thats of course nonsense.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by iSHRED
 


I personally believe in a form of ID and evolution. However that said, ID should NOT be taught in science classrooms (where as evolution belongs in Biology class), if ID is going to be taught in school at all it should be taught as part of a religious studies class, though personally I think it has no place in schools (along with other religious concepts).

Certainly the idea they should be taught side by side in science class is utterly ridiculous. Evolution is a proven fact, it happens, get over it. Is god behind it? Maybe, but as we don't have proof it doesn't belong in a science based classroom. If parents and religious instructors are so concerned about children learning some form of creationism / ID, then either the parents or the religious instructors should teach them the concept.

Could you imagine the outrage if a muslim teacher began teaching Sharia Law alongside the US Constitution. There is a reason these things are kept firmly seperated.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 10:30 AM
link   
I have an issue with people who say, "ANY religious mention does not belong in PUBLIC schools!"

Anyone would have to concede that there is a vast difference between a secular discussion of religious belief and proselytizing such belief. We hope that by sending our children to public schools (or otherwise) they are taught some basics about diversity of thought and social belief.

Many people are totally OK with Islam being taught in school, but not Christianity. Why is that? Both are wide-ranging beliefs found throughout the world. Would our children not be better rounded having some understanding of what other think, what others hold dear, what guides others' moral processes?

Creationism vs. Evolution is of the same vein in my opinion. It will not "turn" your child to hear alternate social theories on the origin of mankind. It isn't as if the teachers are dying to get up in class and profess the gospel to the captive audience in front of them. While not "scientific", it is a very important facet of the issue which can only help your child understand future discussion/debate.

That being said, I don't think that Christian-based creationism should be exclusively taught along with evolution. A good cross section of major worldwide beliefs would be most appropriate. Perhaps the best forum for the whole issue would be a module in a social studies class timed to coincide with the evolution module in the science class.

But in the end, I DO think that there is a place for religious discussion within public school.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by blamethegreys
 


I agree that there should be an unbiased study of religions presented in schools, as a subject of its own, however what I don't agree with is that religious doctrine be presented as fact (or alternative fact) alongside other lessons.

When I said religion has no place in schools, that is what I meant. As something to be studied from the outside looking in, marked for what is, a conceptual study of current spiritual practices alongside humanities history of belief, then that is totally acceptable. Though equally I think a primer in religious tolerance and the basics of the various mainstream religions could just be a small part of social science based classes.

It isn't necessarly a good use of peoples time to force 'secular' religious studies classes on all students as a madatory experience. Equally schools should not be looking to replace the churches in regads to teaching active spirituality to their students, after all that is what the temples are for.


edit on 3-2-2011 by maskfan because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 11:00 AM
link   
Eventually evolution will prove to be bunk. It appeals to those who find it simpler to associate on base instinct, than to consider the spark of 'life'. Can we control 'the spark of life'? Not likely. Meaning=God. Can we control base, criminal instincts? Yes, we can. In doing so we can control everything.

I remember that although we had the answers to many of the questions, that none of it made sense, and that extreme memorizing was needed to make the faces match the bodies, during the test.

I know it is zionism at work that made the bias in favor of monkey motion. It makes it simpler to assimilate and control culture, society, politics, and law. They always have to get the courts to make their ways and means the ONLY ways and means, under threat of law. Note the the jewish holocaust is completely ignored, because we aren't supposed to remember the jewish Bolsheviks and stalin, or what Hitler was fighting against. Instead, you must believe that 6 million jews were 'gassed' by 'Hitler~the world's most evil man'. If you say otherwise, in 13 countries minimum, you are subject to arrest and or fine. This is fact. What are you gonna do about it? Zionism always frames everything.

Now picture kagan sitting in her fat chair throne, deciding on darwin vs. any other fair opposing argument or presentation, over there at that supreme court... Something we cannot trick, deceive, or control has a hand in this...? nah. No good. We evolved from slime at the bottom of the ocean? It's easy to see which way the human amoeba would side. That is why she is there. Have they given her the Nobel Prize yet?

To the final conflict, comrades.

Never forget.
edit on 3-2-2011 by starless and bible black because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-2-2011 by starless and bible black because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join