1 in 8 Teach Creationism as Science

By BJ

This is sad.

In the "first nationally representative survey of teachers concerning the teaching of evolution," the authors show that one in eight high school biology teachers present creationism as a scientifically valid alternative to Darwinian evolution.

Bad enough in itself, and there is more from the study to be concerned with regarding the time spent on teaching evolution.

The authors show that the disparity in teaching evolution is not linked to differences in state regulations, but can more likely be attributed to differences of religious belief and education amongst teachers. Less than one-third of high school biology teachers believe that God had no part in evolution, nearly one-half believe God had a hand in evolution, and almost one in six believe that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years. The teachers who hold creationist or intelligent design beliefs spent substantially less time teaching evolution than their Darwinist counterparts. Likewise, teachers with a stronger background in evolution spent 60% more time teaching it than those who had the least education in the subject.[emp added]

Biology was never the science field that interested me, but even I understand that evolution is it's cornerstone. Less time spent teaching it, or time spent pretending creationism is a scientifically valid alternative, is a good way to promote a flawed way of thinking. (I'll spare you my snarky comments regarding how this translates to US politics.)

The study's authors believe that making teachers complete courses in evolutionary biology might ensure that the nation's science teachers actually understand science. It certainly couldn't hurt.

Comments

[Mark]

In all honesty, those numbers are better than I would have expected considering that a lot more than 12.5% of Americans generally poll as being less-than-supportive of teaching evolution.

Also, I wonder about the accuracy of the statement that these teachers teach "creationism," which usually refers to Biblical creationism. I would think it more likely that most of them teach "intelligent design" more generally. Not that they should be teaching ID, either, but it's a lot less insane than pure creationism.

So, yeah, this is a sad statistic. But I don't think it's nearly as sad as I would have expected.

[BJ]

Yes, the numbers are far better than the general population, but then one should expect that science teachers are going to be more supportive of teaching science than just about anyone.

They also include ID, but that's just creationism dressed up in pseudo-scientific talk. It may sound more benign, and less insane at the outset, but it is no more scientific.

[Mark]

The thing about ID is that if it is properly explained and not overcomplicated with specific religious viewpoints, it is not necessarily inconsistent with evolution (again, don't take this as advocacy for teaching ID in science class- it has no place being taught outside of a philosophy or religion class; I'm just pointing out that it's possible to both believe in ID on principle while still believing entirely in the concept of evolution).

[BJ Bjornson]

Believing ID in principle, if you mean like the Vatican's official position, which states that evolution is scientific fact but God is still required to explain the "why", I would say is acceptable. ID as a philosophical debate is possible and doesn't interfere with the science of evolution. ID in practice means taking some complicated process and saying, "God did it", which does.