TV Schedule

One in eight Biology teachers still teaches Creationism

  2. saverio
  3. related topics
According to a study published in 'Public Library of Science Biology', one in eight U.S. high school Biology teachers presents creationism as a valid alternative to evolution.

Only 32% of the 900 teachers who responded the poll thought that creationism should be taught as "scientifically unsound", while 12% called creationism a "valid scientific alternative to Darwinian explanations for the origin of species," and the same number said that "many reputable scientists view these as valid alternatives to Darwinian theory."

The full essay is available at http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-d...

Illustration: Kirk Anderson
http://www.cartoonistgroup.com/store/add.php?iid=9664
saverio

50 responses // One in eight Biology teachers still teaches Creationism

  • 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.
    Ruckus1122
  • 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!
    stopnoise
  • 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"
    RoBot_rOcKer
  • 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!
    stopnoise
  • adam and eve were africans - end of story .
    malathion
  • 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?
    crob80227
  • 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.
    RoBot_rOcKer
  • It's your human right to "create" (no pun intended) any stupid-assed theory you want...just don't call it science.
    smallwood
  • 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.
    Elligirl
  • just read Sartre's "Being and Nothingness" , it's all right there .
    malathion
  • 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."
    stopnoise
  • 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_rOcKer
  • 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?
    crob80227
  • 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"?
    RoBot_rOcKer
  • stopoise,

    You might want to check your original translations. The meaning got lost along the way.
    Elligirl
  • 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.
    RoBot_rOcKer
  • 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.
    Blazesboy
  • 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.
    stopnoise
  • 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/peopleins...
    Elligirl
  • "We're all apart of GOD!"

    Atheists must be God's self-loathing subconscious.

    ;-)
    crob80227
  • 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!
    Saladin
  • "In Him was Life; and the Life was the Light of Men. And the Light shine in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not."
    stopnoise
  • 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".
    seeker561
  • 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.
    renbyrd
  • In school I have to learn all theorys I hate it
    lockoneyes
  • "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.
    stopnoise
  • http://physics.suite101.com/article.cfm/theory_vs__hypo...
    The origin of this confusion has it's roots in the history of the development of science. When we speak of early, classical physics, we talk about laws, Newton's laws of motion for instance, the ideas have the weight of veracity. After all, the word "law" has a serious and strictly defined meaning in our culture. Back when Newton declared his laws, he believed them to be absolute descriptions of how the universe worked. At the time, they were irrefutable. We now know that his laws are in fact approximations, rules that work when describing motion on the macroscopic scale but which break at the quantum scale.

    Since that time, science has gotten warier about describing anything as being absolute. Science, and physics in particular, is a tool to root out the true nature of reality. It can describe only what it observes which may or may not be true in every case. In order to say if something is absolutely true, every single possible case of a particular phenomena must be observed. In a universe as vast as ours, that's completely impractical. Science can say if something is probably true all the time if observations of a phenomena are the same in many cases. This tiny bit of waffling bothers many people who are not familiar with the inner workings of science. Shouldn't something be always true if it is true at all? Science just can't commit all the way to absolute - otherwise it wouldn't be science, it would be faith.

    So science has tossed the use of "law" in favor of "theory". This "theory" does not mean "hypothesis" which is a speculation. In this case, think of music theory - definitely not a hypothesis, but a working set of rules that define a body of knowledge.

    [The copyright of the article Theory vs. Hypothesis vs. Law in Physics is owned by Katharine M. J. Osborne. ]
    mako2424
  • Creationism has no place anywhere near Science.
    mako2424
  • 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.
    Saladin
  • “We don’t teach alchemy along with chemistry. We don’t teach witchcraft along with medicine. We don’t teach astrology with astronomy."
    ryanponce
  • 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.
    Blazesboy
  • http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/quotes_einstein.htm...
    Intelligent Design has been ruled “unconstitutional” and cannot be taught in public schools per the US Federal Court ruling in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. The court also ruled that Creationism = ID. Justice has been served, unless someone wants to step up? I say go for it, that’s what this country is all about.

    The supernatural cannot be disproven, theories can, which is the crux of science.

    There are many forms of Creationism; Old World, Young World, Creation science, etc. The Creationist can’t even agree on what constitutes creationism.

    Georges Lemaître, a priest, theorized about the big bang. He did it with SCIENCE and math, not the supernatural.

    Einstein wrote: “I do not believe in a personal god and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

    How did God let any of the things above happen?
    Pwdrskir
  • All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree.
    - Albert Einstein
    stopnoise
  • 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.
    currentkid
  • .
    currentkid
  • 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?
    Saladin
  • 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!