Majority of Biology Teachers Hesitant About Evolution

Creation Evolution Headlines ^ | 03/10/2015

[SeekAndFind]

Secular scientists are at a loss over how to get their favorite origins story, Darwinian evolution, a more confident presence in schools.

After nearly a century of one-sided control of education on origins, Darwinian scientists shouldn’t be faced with this dilemma. After all, their own theory presupposes that human beings are material entities that can be conditioned like other animals. And yet, despite a near total exposure to Darwinian evolution in textbooks, museums, educational TV – and often in the general culture, such as in many sci-fi movies – a substantial majority of the public doesn’t buy the completely materialistic evolution scenario. This includes biology teachers.

In Science Magazine on March 6, Jeffrey Mervis tries to understand “why many U.S. biology teachers are wishy-washy” about teaching evolution:

When two political scientists asked a group of U.S. college students preparing to become biology teachers about their views on evolution, they were shocked by the answers. “I’m, you know, pretty ignorant on this topic … is there enough of scientific evidence to say for sure?” one replied. “Evolution is one of those subjects that I’m still a bit shaky about,” answered another.

Michael Berkman and Eric Plutzer of Pennsylvania State University (Penn State), University Park, knew from a previous study that more than half of the country’s high school biology teachers did a poor job in their classrooms with evolution. But they didn’t know why. Was the topic absent from the curriculum? Did the teachers fear a community backlash? Or were they simply choosing to avoid the subject?

The answer Berkman and Plutzer came up with was lack of confidence. Mervis seems to agree with their assessment of the problem: biology teachers take more education classes than biology classes. To the researches, this is a red flag about educating biology teachers: “Young preservice teachers are already on a path that is likely to lead to evolution instruction that falls short of the expectations of leading scientific organizations.” The majority comprise a wishy-washy middle:

In their earlier study, in 2007, Berkman and Plutzer surveyed a national sample of 926 high school biology teachers to better understand teachers’ role in the country’s long-running battle over evolution. They found that 13% were openly sympathetic to creationism, while 28% provided students with a thorough understanding of evolution. The rest, which the researchers label “the cautious 60%,” spent as little time as possible teaching this most fundamental concept in modern biology.

Surprisingly, the more recent 2013 survey revealed that Catholic teachers, of all people, “were more comfortable discussing the potential conflict between evolution and religion than were their peers at secular institutions.” The reason? They probably thought about it a lot. Secular science teachers assume evolution so strongly, they’re not likely to feel any need to discuss it. “You’re not going to get a Penn State professor to talk about that with their students,” Berkman surmises.

What this implies is that religious faculty know and think a lot more about evolution and its implications than secular faculty do. Another evolutionary biologist, Mervis relates, “recently surveyed 3000 Alabama students on what they think and know about evolution and found their religious faith trumps any book learning.”

Not Republicans’ Fault

In a lengthier “Science Insider” piece on Feb. 26, Mervis included these findings with more general concerns about “Politics, science, and public attitudes.” Scientists are wanting to know “why people ignore solid scientific evidence in deciding what they think about all manner of science-based issues.”

And yet when it comes to scientific knowledge, Mervis admitted that science ignorance is non-partisan.

The U.S. research community has long lamented how often the public disregards—or distorts—scientific findings. Many media pundits point the finger at partisan politics, although they offer contrasting explanations: Liberals often assert that Republicans are simply antiscience, whereas conservatives often insist that Democrats tout scientific findings to justify giving government a larger and more intrusive role.

A leading social science journal, The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, takes a deep dive into the debate by devoting its March issue (subscription required) to “The Politics of Science.” The issue, edited by political scientists Elizabeth Suhay of American University in Washington, D.C., and James Druckman of Northwestern University, includes some 15 articles that explore “the production, communication, and reception of scientific knowledge.” And nobody gets a free pass.

“It’s an equal opportunity scold,” says the journal’s executive editor, Thomas Kecskemethy. “I was fascinated by how the knowledge elites are vulnerable to their own biases.”

The old stereotypes must yield to this evidence. There are no simple answers, Mervis says. One of the take-home messages of the special issue is, “Liberals are just as likely as conservatives to disagree with the prevailing scientific evidence.” The difference is only in the subject matter. If anything, the Republicans tend to be more skeptical of scientific consensus generally, while liberals are more liable to defer to it. But it’s not that simple; the results depend on the policy under consideration. Here was one party divide that the survey showed:

To Shaw, the biggest mystery is why Democrats put so much more faith in science to inform policy than do Republicans or independents. No other factor, such as education, income, or race, appears to explain that difference, he says.

This implies that Republicans are not ignorant of scientific positions. They know about evolution, climate science, and other hot-button issues. They just employ more critical thinking than Democrats who put “faith” in what science says (at least on those issues). Everyone, though, will disagree with a consensus if it opposes their values. An article on PhysOrg agrees that Republicans trust science except on four issues that contradict their values: global warming, evolution, gay adoption, and mandatory health insurance.

Insider Bias

Speaking of Penn State, a press release takes a more biased view of these surveys. In “Understanding faith, teaching evolution not mutually exclusive,” Matt Swayne pictures “religious anxieties” among evolution doubters as the problem. Swayne fingers “critics of evolution” using doubt as a tactic. “Critics of evolution often take advantage of a teacher’s limited understanding of evolution to foster doubt in the science and make the science seem less settled than it actually is.” It’s just an anti-science strategy, according to Swayne: “Denying evolution could, then, lead not just to doubts about evolution, but also to a broader misunderstanding of science in general, according to the researchers.”

Swayne can’t say that about CEH. We consistently and constantly quote the best and brightest of the Darwinians themselves. We let you hear their best efforts to prop up their vacuous theory. And if you don’t believe us, you can click the links to their articles and read their words for yourself. This is not just sowing tares in the dead of night; it is fair and open discussion in sunshine, the best disinfectant. Darwinians and liberals need to stop stereotyping the debate as religion-vs-science and Republican-vs-science. They need to stop the Association game of calling Darwin skeptics “anti-science.”

The problem with those who are “wishy-washy” about evolution is that they don’t get both sides. They get whitewashed versions of the “fact of evolution” from teachers, textbooks and TV. For instance, you are likely to find a diagram of Darwin’s finches in your biology textbook at school, where you will be told it supplies powerful evidence for evolution. But here at CEH, we quote the original papers of Peter and Rosemary Grant, who spent 30 years studying the finches, and found the finches to be mostly interfertile, with the slight beak variations found to be reversible when the weather changes (e.g., 2/12/15). Who is getting the better information to you? Check all the other major Darwin skeptic organizations, from AiG to CRS to ICR to the Discovery Institute. They all consistently give both sides a fair and open hearing. It’s the Darwinians who want to silence all opposition, so that their genetically-modified version can be spoon-fed to the public. If they have such an intuitively-obvious view, why can’t it stand up to fair and open scrutiny?

Darwinism is not suffering because of wishy-washy teachers, religiously-biased students, or lack of sufficient information. It is collapsing by its own accord, unable to support the philosophical weight heaped on it by those who wish the universe to support their materialist ideology. Darwin’s “one long argument” was a tentative suggestion only. 156 subsequent years of evidence-hunting (exemplified by Darwin’s finches and other shady icons) has failed to justify it, while the evidence for intelligent design in cosmology, the earth, and life has been booming with strong evidential support. We think students and teachers deserve to know that.

[dr_lew]

Exactly what it says: God creates by his Word.

"And God said, Let there be light: and there was light."

This is fiat creation, ex nihilo. But God doesn't say "let there be grass" He says "let the earth bring forth grass", so some sort of natural process is indicated.

[RoadGumby]

So says the descendant of early slime molds and monkeys.

[webstersII]

This study proves liberal-think. “We’re right, we just can’t get our message out because of Rush Limbaugh and Fox News. “

Liberals have to be in control of everything.

[Elsiejay]

The theory (or reality) of evolutionary change of living entities, interesting and perhaps even useful, at some level, offers no clue as to the origin of the phenomenon we call “life.”

[ifinnegan]

Evolution is a full continuum, is purely physico-chemical materialist and includes the earliest formation of life.

Living entity is purely a functional concept.

[PieterCasparzen]

This is fiat creation, ex nihilo. But God doesn't say "let there be grass" He says "let the earth bring forth grass", so some sort of natural process is indicated.

A supernatural process, as the earth in Genesis 1:11-12 does what God commands.

Note that it does not say that God caused seeds to be planted, or that he created seeds which grew into grass plants.

A natural process would be seeds in the ground that were deposited by existing grass plants growing into new grass plants themselves.

If God had only said "let there be grass", that command would not specify that the grass would grow out of the earth, it would have been valid for the grass to grow in midair hovering over the ground, or grow on top of lakes and oceans, but we see that plants grow out of the earth.

His command also expressed the context in which grass grows, and set forth the pattern of procreation of plants:

Genesis 1

"11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good."

Thus Genesis answers the question of which came first, seeds or plants: it's very clear that God created the plants, and the plants would produce seeds which would reproduce the plants.

The creation of plants not from seed would definitely not be the natural process we see.

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

You can easily Google it. I've heard the term for years. One search result:

Did you notice that those search results, at least the first page, are all about creationism--explanations of creationist beliefs, rebuttals to creationists, that kind of thing? None of them show that a real scientist seriously uses the term.

[longtermmemmory]

popcorn is not the word. we need the “not this sh*t” again picture.

[longtermmemmory]

[jsanders2001]

I found an infinite number of postings about the subject with scientists and tindividuals using the term. I know what they are referring to. Debate about this kind of thing sort of reminds me of the time a well known pastor (in his region) got into a heated discssion about religion and theology with another fellow I know and exhibted let’s say less than very nice terminology forgetting the highest commandments and not exactly exhibiting “fruits of the spirit”. You can argue until you’re blue in the face but its a term used that generally refers to species from what I can tell but then again I’m no scientist.

[PieterCasparzen]

God’s creation acts of Genesis chapter 1 are an essential part of the foundation for Christian doctrine, as they are key to establishing the basis of God’s sovereignty over his creation.

When those who profess Christ deny the reality of Genesis 1 in favor of a doctrinal position that God used evolution over millions of years to do his creative work but he excluded this from his inspiration of Moses in writing Genesis, they are setting the stage for their rejection of other Biblical doctrine that is based on God’s sovereignty, e.g., the doctrines of Grace, predestination, election, etc.

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

its a term used that generally refers to species from what I can tell

Yes, but not by scientists, which was freedumb's original point. (Actually, it's not crystal clear what creationists mean by the term--it's sort of a "I know it when I see it" situation.) Sure scientists use the term, in statements like "creationists talk about kinds, but it's a meaningless term." But that doesn't mean they actually use the term to refer to species themselves. Surely you can see the difference.

[dr_lew]

The creation of plants not from seed would definitely not be the natural process we see. Well, of course not, since the process that we see is cyclical. Yet the agent specified is "the earth", with God ordaining or commanding that this should happen. To me it's just very open ended as an explanation. And I should say that I quail at the term "supernatural". To me this invokes witchcraft and ghosts, and I'm loath to think that Natural Creation is founded on such terms.

And let there be light!

[lavaroise]

Metaphysically, what quantum mechanic “explains” is that particles have superimposed states. Once things are measured in clasical physics, that state is basically chosen.

It is like an opinion survey. No one has really an opinion on anything until a question is asked. Then when asked, the surveyed individual must think and formulate a precise position, but the opposite position could have been taken too at a different time or situation.

At the quantum level, the universe has no “real opinion”, but once it is seen at the classical physics level, it is pretty much frozen in its characteristics.

There maybe an evolution we see, but the formula, the mathematical formulae and patterned chaotic behaviors do not evolve themselves.

Any system, from the solar system to an ecosystem is subject to a level of stability.

[lavaroise]

A person can be a scientist and religious. Contradictions in people’s beliefs and behaviors is quite the norm. Of course picking and choosing parts of the Bible is pointless. The point is to understand the whole Bible juxtaposed with understanding of science.

[samtheman]

Particles have complimentary properties that can’t be measured at the same time.

I just read a joke:

Heisenberg gets pulled over by a traffic cop for speeding. The cop walks up to Heisenberg’s car and asks him: “Do you know how fast you were going?”

“No,” says Heisenberg, “but I know where I am.”

[lavaroise]

That is a good joke, but based on a misconception I hear, which makes it really the joke.

Precise measurements are obtained with quantum mechanic and this is why it is so useful. What it reallys is about is 1. That energy comes in quantum packets defined by the Plank constant. 2. particles can be paired: if the possible spin states are A and B, then each possess both spins at the same time. Thus the proverbial cat is both alive and dead.

Thus if one particle is tested and is read into spin A, then the other pair automatically is now in spin B, no matter how far apart they are.

[PieterCasparzen]

To me it's just very open ended as an explanation. And I should say that I quail at the term "supernatural". To me this invokes witchcraft and ghosts, and I'm loath to think that Natural Creation is founded on such terms.

What is this "Natural Creation" ? It's not in the Bible.

Do you believe that Christ raised Lazurus from the dead ?

Luke 11

"43 And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth.

44 And he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with graveclothes: and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let him go."

No man save Jesus can raise a person from the dead. That's what I mean by supernatural. It's not natural. Naturally speaking, dead is dead.

Jesus Christ did this, most definitely not using witchcraft.

Exodus 13

"21 And the Lord went before them by day in a pillar of a cloud, to lead them the way; and by night in a pillar of fire, to give them light; to go by day and night:

22 He took not away the pillar of the cloud by day, nor the pillar of fire by night, from before the people."

A pillar of fire leading a tribe of people around at night ? Not natural.

Do we actually believe in these things ?

Or do we say they are fables, not to be taken literally, because WE DON'T THINK THEY COULD ACTUALLY HAVE HAPPENED AS WRITTEN ? This indicates a) our lack of belief in what the Bible says in certain cases and b) we then selectively decide which Biblical history we accept as true and which we decide for ourselves could not have happened, so we read into the text that it is a "parable" - even in cases where the context is a purely historical account.

We thus take our metaphorical "teacher's red pen" to the Bible text, editting out what we think is too fantastical to actually happen, thus our "belief in God" is:

"I believe in God, but I don't think he has any power over nature".

Instead, we place our faith in texts not divinely inspired: textbooks, math books, science books.

In essence - they replace God for us - as THEY are what we have 100% faith in, and we reduce God's Word to a fable.

Thus, we see indeed that the Word of God is a two-edged sword: it draws the elect to belief in Christ Jesus, and to the unbeliever it reveals their rejection of God's Word.

Hebrews 4:12 "For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart."

[PieterCasparzen]

A person can be a scientist and religious.

I've been a computer programmer for over 25 years.

As a child, I was very smart and did very well in school. I remember thinking that I would be able to, through science, find out how to live forever before I died. It seemed so obvious to me that it was possible.

THAT'S PRIDE. Of course, with the rush of things in adult life, I didn't think about it for many years. It's one of the things I remembered when I was converted to Christ a few years ago.

Yes, a person can be a scientist and be "religious". But being "religious" does not necessarily mean one is saved - as one can profess Christ and outwardly be a Christian, but inwardly such a religious person may actually not have saving faith. It's very tempting for people to believe only in what they see and not believe in what they can't see with their own eyes, not believe in the miracles recounted in the Bible. This "believing" in the Bible as a fable leads us to invent our own ideas about morality instead of accepting and submitting to the moral laws given in the Bible - because we've already started to be selective about what we believe from the Bible. Our Biblical hermeneutics (interpretation) should be based on logic and truth - seeking an honest interpretation of Scripture. Which clearly involves looking at the context of a passage to determine whether or not it is a "parable" or a poetic image, or whether it's a historical account (which basically always conveys much more meaning - even though it is a historical account - which makes the Bible so amazingly beautiful).

So can I be a computer programmer or scientist and be a true believer ? Absolutely yes - because the Bible is TRUTH. And a scientist or technical type should be pursuing TRUTH as well.

Being a programming troubleshooter has given me a greatly useful perspective (I've always sought the truth, even as a child I specifically consciously sought the truth and loved the idea of seeking truth, even though I was completely ignorant of Scripture and a professing Christian out of tradition but not yet converted to Christ). The troubleshooting perspective that works is simple: do not think you "know" something that you don't really know; don't have preconceived ideas about what is wrong with the software application. For example, if I've prejudiced myself into thinking that the problem is database performance, I go off on trying to improve it. But if the problem is not database performance at all, but my program's logic, I'll obviously never fix my performance problem. Such a confusing situation can happen quite simply: if we are calling the database more often than we need to, i.e., keep retreiving the same values over and over instead of retaining them in our program. While each database retrieval may be relatively quick as database retrievals go, if we do the simple quick database retrieval thousands of times - the time used in total can be large enough that our software application responds to the user very slowly. The database is performing as designed; we're simply calling it thousands of times when we don't need to.

So we should approach the Bible: without our preconceptions of good and evil, right and wrong. We should let the Bible be our guide, not our own preconceptions.

We may find certain parts of the Bible beyond our comprehension: how did God cause the flood, etc. If we take those parts and "edit them out" in our mind by writing them off as poetic or "parables", we wind up missing the basis for much other Biblical doctrine, thus missing out on a deeper, more accurate understanding of much of Scripture.

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

-— The troubleshooting perspective that works is simple: do not think you “know” something that you don’t really know; don’t have preconceived ideas about what is wrong with the software application. -—

Peter Kreeft says that, of his students, engineering students are most open to logical argumen and apologetics because engineers are habituated to bending their knee to the truth Reality is unforgiving, true —and real!