One in eight Biology teachers still teaches Creationism

dco,
Like I said, they also have the option to not teach either like my school did. Honestly, I agree with you, Science is science and religion shouldn't have part of it.... I am just saying I don't care about the 1 in 8 teachers.... Theres only one high school where I live, too, but who buys a house that has, or plans to have, children in a school district that does something they don't agree with?
Look, I'm just tired of the fighting and think it should be up to the districts. Allow me to repeat that MY school chose not to teach either. SO the more conservative school districts that think its science should have the right to atleast request creationism in their school.
Do you understand my point of view better, now?

EbahDyke - If a school were to use your approach, and supplant creationism into science (or any other class). the school, in order to be fair, would also be required to teach the ideas of every other religion. Otherwise, it would be blatant indoctrination. By teaching evolution and creation as evenly matched, you would be confusing the system, for they are not, and cannot be, as kdrew has illustrated. I do not understand your particular misconception that things will resolve themsleves if you present the alternatives. It would be similar to teaching every other language in english class. We need to simply realize (I don't know why we haven't yet) that science is to be taught in science class. Not religion. That's for religious schools, get it? Science is an agreed upon standard. Scientific fact is just that, fact. Different scientific factions don't resort to guerilla warfare because of some dispute over whether or not antimatter can be created, because science is dynamic. Religion is static. Religions typically do not readily accept change. That's why you have such a high coorelation between religion and conservativism. The fact of the matter is, religion is a matter of opinion. It would be an attrocity if we taught opinion in public schools.

p.s. you assume there are 7 other schools to go to? There's one public highschool where I live. Thank god my science teachers are sensible. pun intended.

besides, we also have the option to send our potential future, or current, children to the other 7 out of 8 teachers.

Saladin,
Look, it's just an opinion, if you want me to be blunt, I think creationism is a crock of shit, but that doesn't mean conservatives and other creationist don't have the right to have their views in the classroom as long as they show the other side.
Besides, I'm sick of the fighting! Have them both in the schools or don't teach either, thats always an option! (My school didn't teach either, they were bigger pacifists then me)
Also, who are you to take something from me that I find fascinating? I kind of view it like... well, you know those movies that theres all this build up for and then you go and pay $7for a ticket, $3 for popcorn, another another $12 on your date.... and it SUCKS?!
Thats how I view the Beginning. I'll watch it when it comes out on video... I'd rather revel in ignorance a little bit longer. I am more concerned with seeking other current truths... like what the government is telling us to do with subliminal messages they put everywhere, whats going on with Rex 84 and the the intention of the FEMA camps..... OH! AND possible brain control stuff being put in our food.. WTF! I am sorry about the tangit and the last one I can't say if I think thats valid or not... I just find this things more pressing.

I'm a science teacher in an elementary catholic public school. In science class,(grade 7 & 8) I do NOT teach that we were created by God... why??? Because I teach science.

When if comes into question (as it does from time to time) I separate what the kids are taught in religion class, from what we learn in science class. (You know the boring stuff... method and the ability to replicate similar or exact results based on experimentation and documentation of factual results)

IF it can't be proven, it isn't science. If you can't assess results based on facts, it isn’t' science. That doesn't mean you know all the answers, and it doesn't mean you don't keep searching for something you don't understand, but you MUST draw a line somewhere.

Religion is not scientific, quite the contrary, and so be it. Those who choose to believe in "God", call her or him what you wish, are within their rights to do so, so long as you don't push your beliefs on others. Lord knows the world could use a little more "do unto others" and love thy neighbor" in the world…

But when it comes to saying THIS IS THE ONE AND ONLY WAY...people are too god damned sensitive and often don't have the facts (read knowledge) to support the fire they have in their need to get a hobby little bellies.

I humbly submit that teaching religion in a science class is similar to teaching geography with a flat earth… it was done at one time, but we’ve changed, dare I say evolved…

Now please give your attention to the front counter, you’ll have the opportunity to do this experiment which demonstrates how greenhouse gasses impact temperature. The theory of climate change……….

I'm a biology teacher and I can assure anyone that I am in NO WAY qualified to teach creationism. I am trained to teach science. They are two very different things, based on two very different ways of approaching the world. One requires proof and evidence, the other does not. Where would I even begin? The suggestion has always struck me as absolutely bizarre. I'm disheartened about this poll and its results. What century do we live in? And we wonder why American students score so lowly compared to other Western countries on science and math tests.

renbyrd, it does depend on the forum. It sounds like you were exposed to the controversy in an intelligent way. My beef - and what I'm calling a "travesty" - is the situation that unfortunately exists in too many science classrooms, in which ID and evolution are held up as equivalent "theories," about which reasonable people can disagree.

The problem with that approach is that it's a comparison of apples and oranges. In a hard science class, hard science should be taught. ID is not a scientific theory, it is a quasi-religious explanation that pretends to be science.

There are plenty of settings in which students could be taught about the controversy in modern-day America over evolution (again, it sounds like that's the way in which it was handled in your class), but if ID or a similar religious belief is taught AS science, it's simply a false teaching. So, at the end of the lesson, if students come to believe that the theory of evolution and ID are somehow competing scientific theories, that is a travesty of science education.

What I have said is not an opinion. It is simple fact. It's interesting to explore different beliefs, but evolution is not a belief, it is science fact; ID is not science fact, it is a belief. Period.

Great. There goes our rank in the world.

You have confirmed my theory stopnoise. Maybe it is the same tree, but different branches. The science and religious branches are different. You obviously believe the branches of religion and science stem from a common ancestry tree, otherwise, why did you post this particular quote to make your point.

Bravo, you have used Darwin’s branch-off theory to prove yours!

Ebah,

Your argument is essentially that you don't wish to know the truth because it would ruin that nice cuddly feeling you have about how the world works. Did it ever occur to you that the "romanticism" you're supposedly experiencing is an illusion? A lie?

And why would truth supplant romanticism? There are many romantic and epic stories throughout history. Are you saying you'd rather believe in a fiction?

Also, you ought to look up the definition of a theory. dco defined it pretty well. A theory is based on evidence and the scientific method and has been well tested.

I don't know why so many people still don't get this, but...

PLEASE LISTEN, ALL ADVOCATES OF ID OR CREATIONISM IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS

... a theory is something that is internally consistant, supplied with evidence, can be tested and proved, in accordance with the scientific method. The THEORY of gravity, the THEORY of germs, and the THEORY of evolution are three examples that meet these criteria. The concepts of creation and ID, however, do not, and could not legitimately be called anything more than hypotheses.

So, evolution is, as so many claim, "only a theory," but so is all of science. Religion, spirituality, theology, on the other hand...

Public schools are in place to teach people facts about many subjects. We learn historical facts, linguistic facts, mathematical facts, and scientific facts. In order to maintain the secularity of our schools, public schools do not concern themselves with religion. If the religious beliefs of any or all faiths were injected into the curriculum, the equality and safety of school children would be tested, and would fail.

As long as they teach them both and present them both as theories, I am fine with that. But I am not a creationist, I think knowing the Source, the very beginning, would completely erase the romanticism of history and archeology to me. So I do not wish to know and I do not care.

stopnoise my San Francisco buddy,
I have to say that while I admire your faith, I don't share it. You can't force other people to believe in what you believe in, and quoting Scripture is not going to convince them. I like you but here I disagree with you.

Let's all play nice, OK?

To me it is embarrassing that 1 in 8 biology teachers teach "creationism" alongside evolution in a science class. I think most posters on this board have illustrated well that the "evolution is only a theory, there are other theories" argument doesn't hold water. And Ellegirl put it best when she said that Creationism was a story to explain something we didn't have any way to explain, and now science has filled in some of the holes.

What Albert Einstein himself believed seems beside the point.

Everyone should have the freedom to worship who they wish. But children in school should be taught science in science class, and creationism belongs in religion class.

Why is that so hard for people to accept?

You wouldn't teach "stork theory" alongside the human reproductive biology, right?
http://current.com/items/88909357_sexpelled_no_intercourse_allowed

Disturbing to think that, somewhere down the line, a child will believe that her ancestors rode dinosaurs because of the severe change in life's timeline that Creationism teaches...or preaches. *shudder*

Why is is such a travesty to be "taught the controversy", Blazesboy? Shouldn't colleges teach their students to be critical citizens? I endorse education that doesn't produce sheep.

And for the records, I wasn't endorsing ID being taught in science class as a credible science, but rather presented in a science theory course. Also, it should be noted that we learned about creationists beliefs from other religions (including Pastafarianism) to compare how ID is a theory more closely related to religion than to science as it proclaims.

All hail Flying Spaghetti Monster!

It doesn't actually.

You can believe as much as you want that rocks are soft and will pass right through you. Promise not to move if I hurl one at your face?

There is objective reality, we just aren't able to accurately recognize what it is.

And stopnoise, do you actually have the ability to rationally support your arguments or are you just going to keep posting irrelevant quotes all day?

.

Everybody has a theory on how life was created teachers can teach it and lecture it as much as they want. But at the end of the day it all come down to what you your self personally believe in.

All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree.
- Albert Einstein

It's also worth noting that the vast majority of Christians and Christian denominations support the teaching of evolution. The Roman Catholic Church, for instance, the largest Christian denomination in the world, has supported the teaching of evolution for many years. Ditto, the mainline Protestant denominations (as opposed to the fundamentalist branches) and the Orthodox churches. These churches do not advocate the teaching of "Intelligent Design," because it is widely recognized that it is not scientific.

It is a shame to hear from such users as renbyrd and lockoneyes that they have been "taught the controversy," as some style it, in their science classes. This is a travesty.

“We don’t teach alchemy along with chemistry. We don’t teach witchcraft along with medicine. We don’t teach astrology with astronomy."

Precisely, because Fundamentalist Christianity relies on the same logical fallacy that classical scientists use to make.

There's also the fact that, you know, it's not science.

Great post mako.

Creationism has no place anywhere near Science.

"So wee words of wisdom
Have come from my pen,
For the foolishness of GOD
is wiser than men!

Really, people Today can have all the theory and knowledge they want, "à la carte" if you may! But have wisdom is a totally different story.

In school I have to learn all theorys I hate it

If Creationism is taught in school and in doing so Darwinism is put in question, then it is hypocritical to not present BOTH sides of the argument for Intelligent Design as well. Let the students decide what to believe.

My college course covering evolutionary theory covered both Darwinism and Intelligent Design. The point of doing so was to see the broad spectrum of theories both sides have and how the theories have developed over the centuries. From there, students were free to form their own opinions.

The schools my kids go to have been teaching the "scientific method' every year in science class since about the third grade. They are required to participate in the science fair and the science projects must conform to the scientific method.

I can readily recall what kids were like 40 years ago when I was in school. Were a science teacher to put forth a "theory" such as intelligent design the kids would respond as follows.

"Mr. Science Teacher, could you please posit a hypothesis supporting ID that conforms to the scientific method".

"In Him was Life; and the Life was the Light of Men. And the Light shine in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not."

It's really difficult to believe that you're not a troll.

I'm just going to plug my ears and ignore you. Your pathetic excuse for human reasoning has long since given up on reality because you are too afraid to admit that you don't know what the hell is going on beyond anything outside the small segment of the planet you walk each day. You construct a world of simplistic explanations all around you and ignore all of the paradoxes that result from it. Again, you do this because you are mortally afraid, as all humans are, of not knowing your purpose in life or what will come when this painted veil recedes.

The only evidence you need for that, is to take a look up at space. Once you realize how small and insignificant you are, it's easy to see how constructed all of religion is. In the face of a vast and infinite universe, what possible significance _could_ man have?

If you're looking for God, look in yourself. Not in a book about a group of backwards, violent people you would never relate to in real life.

On the issue, this is insulting to our national intelligence. People wonder why other countries graduate 30% more scientists than we do and why all of the most important new inventions have all come from Europe and other places.

I don't understand why Christians consistently get this issue wrong. EVOLUTION DOES NOT CONTRADICT THE BIBLE. NOR DOES IT STATE THAT MAN CAME FROM A MONKEY. The theory of evolution simply states that in a state of nature, creatures will adapt and survive according to their surroundings. That's it, that's all it says. Lots of other theories are based off this, but that's all the theory of evolution states. It's irrefutable! It doesn't state anything that isn't already common sense!

"We're all apart of GOD!"

Atheists must be God's self-loathing subconscious.

;-)

Stopnoise, you might want to check your sources.

Due to be auctioned this week in London after being in a private collection for more than 50 years, the document leaves no doubt that the theoretical physicist was no supporter of religious beliefs, which he regarded as "childish superstitions".

Einstein penned the letter on January 3 1954 to the philosopher Eric Gutkind who had sent him a copy of his book Choose Life: The Biblical Call to Revolt. The letter went on public sale a year later and has remained in private hands ever since.

In the letter, he states: "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."

Einstein, who was Jewish and who declined an offer to be the state of Israel's second president, also rejected the idea that the Jews are God's favoured people.

from http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may/12/peopleinscience.religion/print

You all learned how to write and speak and are in this exact moment expressing yourself here because GOD; the One that invented Language gave you the means to do it! Now, after you have learned it; you want to deny the One that gave it to You! That's Rich!

Even the One that invented the relativity theory, Mr. Albert Einstein; admitted the existence of a Creator. We are all part of GOD! Therefore everything you can see and touch was invented by Him!

Moses, Jacob, Isaac, the whole Torah and the Bible is just a Myth right? Just wait until the Jewish Nation finds out that You burned their whole Culture, Believes and Costumes with just a few words of denial.

Ruckus, a large part of this "debate" hinges on a fundamental misunderstanding of the word "theory." A scientific theory - for example, the theory of evolution or the theory of gravity - is not the same thing as you saying "I have a theory that it will rain tomorrow."

Non-scientists, like us, use the word theory in a casual way; this is NOT what a scientific theory is, however. I suggest that you look into it - even wikipedia has a perfectly good definition of what a scientific theory is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

For scientists, many theories ARE facts; they are referred to as theories because they meet certain criteria (read the linked article).

Creationism or "Intelligent Design" are NOT scientific theories even if they are called theories by some people. This is because they do not meet the requirements of a scientific theory. For one thing, a theory must be testable, but creationism and intelligent design both posit the existence of god or a god-like entity, which is not something that can be tested. Therefore, these are not scientific theories.

Science is science, religion is religion. Both, in my view, are perfectly valid ways of interpreting our troubling and wondrous existence on earth, but only one of them belongs in a science classroom.

i dont have "MADE IN HEAVEN" stamped on my ass either. how do you explain that?

believe what you want you can't change my mind. i have a very firm and solid belief that there is no such thing as a god and that he created everything. and if there were i wouldn't praise his name and thank him for allowing all this bullshit to happen. why would he create such a stupid self destructive race anyways? you give god too much credit and you don't give humans enough.

stopoise,

You might want to check your original translations. The meaning got lost along the way.

also last time i checked language wasn't just invented. it is a complex process that man has developed for centuries to express their ideas and thoughts. and remember there isn't just one language there's thousands, and not all of them are with words either. some have symbols and goofy pictures some you even have to "talk" with your hands or read from little bumps on pieces of paper.

how could it just be "invented"?

stopnoise -- the entire premise of Intelligent Design is based on the assumption that the complexity of all life could not have arisen spontaneously.

The more complex the organism the mor elikely there has to be some entity to design it.

Okay.

By that logic God must have a Designer....and that Designer (being complex enough to create God) must have a a Designer....and on and on.

How do you explain that?

You don't believe God needed a Designer, do you?

You believe God essentially "created Himself" out of nothingness -- so why is it impossible for life to arise in the same manner without an outside Designer?

well said Elligirl.

stopnoise

according to my sorces:
Prometheus and Epimetheus were spared imprisonment in Tatarus because they had not fought with their fellow Titans during the war with the Olympians. They were given the task of creating man. Prometheus shaped man out of mud, and Athena breathed life into his clay figure.

so yeah... Zeus told them to do that. yeah.

Robot;

"In the beginning was the Word, and The Word was with GOD, and The Word was GOD. The same was in the beginning with GOD. All things were made by Him;* (*Male and Female); and without Him was not anything made that was made. In Him was Life; and the Life was the Light of Men. And the Light shine in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not."

just read Sartre's "Being and Nothingness" , it's all right there .

How about this: Science teachers should teach SCIENCE and Religion teachers should teach RELIGION. Then it's up to the child and his/her parents to decide which theory they want to follow.

creationism is not science. It never has been and was never intended to be. It was a story to explain that which we did not know at the time. Now we have actual science to fill in some of that missing information. Perhaps the dragon will eventually swallow itself or the Titans will crush the Earth in their battles or Ra the Sun God will burn us all in anger or Jesus will return and send 120k chosen people to heaven and the rest to hell. Who knows? Those are the subjects of Religion class and social studies, not Science.

It's your human right to "create" (no pun intended) any stupid-assed theory you want...just don't call it science.

StopNoise thanks but no thanks there is nothing wrong with my progamming so there is no need to fix it.

im argueing about what science teachers should be teaching in school so they dont contradict themselves and the kids can have as much consistancy as they can.

there are no scientific FACTS pointing towards a creator.
on the contrary evolutionary theory does have facts and evidence.

I wanna meet the deity that created God!

Because obviously God couldn't create Himself, right?

But if we allow for the fact that something as complex as God could arise independently and without the need for a outside "Designer" to create Him -- couldn't we make the exact same arguement that life on earth also arose without the need for a Designer?

adam and eve were africans - end of story .

Are you a Robot talking? How did you learn how to Speak and Write? I think someone programmed you a little off! But do not worry, I have some good friends that can fix you!

one: creationism doesn't have any scientific base like evolution does.
two: Darwin is not the only damned evolutionary theorist out there so why dont you try learning about J. Gould or something?
three: this one ties the previous two together. all evolutionary theories have a scentific base and are more valid in the world of science then creationism.

im not sure what im trying to get at but science teachers should teach science NOT "mythology"

This stuff looks like a pin ball going back and forth! But it is fun to talk about it once again. Darwin came from a Jewish Family and the Man new something before he started his work. The fact is that Man have been attempting to steal GOD credit from the beginning of Creation. Here I will leave something for everyone to think about:

"If we came from a Monkey or a Fish, why is that Monkeys or fishes do not continue to evolute into a Human, let say, in a space time of 10 Years! My GOD, this is just too obvious..."

"There is no evolution without Creation!"

We must be Created first before we can evolute so speak!

Therefore, Academic Writers and Publishers, Please go back there and change these text books so we can end this silly academic confusion and move on!

Ps: You better do it soon before I start to use this script at the local Comedy Club here in Town!

Darwinism is a theory. It’s not a fact. If they truly want to be scientific about things then why not teach Creationism, the other major theory also? It can be done without promoting any specific religion.