Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Majority of Biology Teachers Hesitant About Evolution
Creation Evolution Headlines ^ | 03/10/2015

Posted on 03/10/2015 8:20:02 PM PDT by 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.



TOPICS: Education; History; Science
KEYWORDS: biology; creationism; education; evolution; youngearth
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-140 next last
To: freedumb2003

Neither of those are Jesus [personally] speaking. (I was hoping for Gospel/Revelation references.)


81 posted on 03/10/2015 11:37:02 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

Re 36.

Thanks for your honesty.

I didn’t think you had any experience, teaching or training.

And be amazed, be very amazed.

JK Rowling told a funny story about how she made comments on an online discussion, incognito, on the Harry Potter series. The “experts” there told her she didn’t know anything about Harry Potter And didn’t know what she was talking about.


82 posted on 03/10/2015 11:44:02 PM PDT by ifinnegan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: PieterCasparzen
The Book of Genesis is not loaded with imagery and metaphors, but it is consistently historical...

Genesis 1 is very sparse, though, to the point of poesy. "And God said, let the earth bring forth grass ... and the earth brought forth grass."

Doesn't this indicate a natural process? I don't see anything about designing chlorophyl or anything else. That's all left to the earth. It is simply His Will that it should happen.

83 posted on 03/10/2015 11:45:58 PM PDT by dr_lew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: BigEdLB
I believe that the beginning of Genesis is a parable not literal. It teaches us good lessons. It is not a history.

"You believe".

Have you read Genesis ? Are there particular verses from Genesis that cause you to "believe" that Genesis is a "parable" ?

Or are you just going on "a feeling" ?

I'm going on chapters 1-50 of Genesis consistently recount history. It's a historical book.

Wouldn't it be kind of a sneaky LIE to start off a historical book with some metaphorical parable, seeing as how the rest of the book comes across as historical and people would thus obviously be led to believe that the whole book was a historical account ?

Just because I can't personally fathom exactly and specifically how God created the heavens and set them in motion, does not mean it didn't happen. Maybe my little human mind simply can't fathom it. But God revealed himself in his Word, the Bible, obviously with the intent that believers would believe that his Word is true. All I can do, therefore, is remember the "faith of a child", and take comfort that God's Word is true.

Job 5:13 "He taketh the wise in their own craftiness: and the counsel of the froward is carried headlong."

1 Corinthians 3:19 "For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness."

Psalm 19:7 "The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple."
84 posted on 03/10/2015 11:46:44 PM PDT by PieterCasparzen (Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: dr_lew

Think about it - isn’t that really the point ?

Exactly what it says: God creates by his Word.

The details would be incomprehensible to most people thousands of years ago - and even to most people today.

Grass can’t be “built” piece by piece over time... by “letting nature take its course”.

We must remember that we can’t have “part” of a grass plant - it’s all or nothing.

It’s really quite nonsensical to think that grass “evolved” from “some other plant”, once you begin to contemplate just how complex and elegant a design a plant is, and how reproduction works - and how “survival of the fittest” makes very little sense with plants, since they can’t “run away” from anything. Grass begets grass. Grass either lives or dies. If it lives, it can beget more grass. Not clover. Not any other plant.

The details of God’s Creation are left as a mystery to us even today.

Just how did God speak and things came into being ? We can not even make a good guess.

I wonder about the phenomenal forces and incredible precision required to put the moon in orbit around the earth. Seems an incredible feat in the enormous emptiness of space with the mass involved.

Remember, “natural process” with secular humanist (satanic) science means starting with nothing but a big rock, the earth. No organic material, no life. Just elements. And that’s just for creating life. How’d the earth come to be here to begin with ? If one really approaches this from an engineering point of view, one realizes that one is simply out of one’s bandwidth in positing origins. Thus we see the few scientists who actually work on these “theories” of creation resorting to pure conjecture, and allowing the powers that be to convince “the masses” that those scientists “have it all figured out”. It’s a pretty easy scam to pull off if you have a public that is mentally conditioned to “believe” in science rather than be scientific about science. The first step in understanding is always to admit that one does not know.


85 posted on 03/11/2015 12:10:18 AM PDT by PieterCasparzen (Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: tumblindice

“The article in Science can’t be read unless you have a membership...”

The second article linked is accessible.

http://news.sciencemag.org/social-sciences/2015/02/politics-science-and-public-attitudes-what-we-re-learning-and-why-it-matters


86 posted on 03/11/2015 12:14:07 AM PDT by ifinnegan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: cpdiii

“I have degrees in science, geology and pharmacy and know a hell of a lot about chemistry.”

If one wants to call a contemporary Pharmacy degree science. (Just kidding) (or am I?).

“Evolution is real and a fact. “

That’s dogma. Definitely not scientific.

“I have held the rocks and bones in my hand. Evolution is real and a fact. “

What if someone else held the same bones in their hand and pronounced, “evolution is not fact!”.

You say silly things.


87 posted on 03/11/2015 12:26:40 AM PDT by ifinnegan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

It’s a freaking theory that has a lot of problems.


88 posted on 03/11/2015 4:20:40 AM PDT by SaraJohnson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

When they talk about “teaching evolution” in high school, it’s important to discover what they actually mean.

In one sense, molecular evolution is trivial to demonstrate. Staphylococcus aureus will evolve penicillin resistance in a few days.

In the Darwinian sense, it’s impossible to demonstrate. You can’t “evolve” Staphylococcus aureus into Salmonella, or into a frog, no matter what you do. You can’t even demonstrate a mechanism that could over thousands of years lead to that result.

So, teach evolutionary adaptation within a species? Even Darwin’s stupid finches? Of course.

Teach the Origin of Species? Ridiculous.


89 posted on 03/11/2015 4:29:42 AM PDT by Jim Noble (When strong, avoid them. Attack their weaknesses. Emerge to their surprise. .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Bookmark


90 posted on 03/11/2015 5:25:37 AM PDT by Wiz-Nerd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dayglored

“I believe that Evolution is the action of God’s mighty hand, continually creating and re-creating the range and diversity of living things.”

The god of evolution does not permit you that degree of heresy; it decrees that nothing used nothing to create something and there is no other god before it.


91 posted on 03/11/2015 5:26:35 AM PDT by odawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: odawg

The main point of that “god” being - there is no ultimate objective accountability,

decide for yourself what is right and wrong,
and your hereafter will be decided based on how you abide by those standards.

Obama said it perfectly: “Sin is... being out of alignment with my values”.


92 posted on 03/11/2015 5:31:45 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Charles Darwin was a brilliant Christian and his genius brings great credit to The Church,as he rests today in Westminster Abby.
Charles Darwin proved that it was physically impossible for Noah to bring seven of the “Clean” and two of the “Unclean” species aboard the Ark in their present form and condition.
That Mankind cannot unravel the fabric of life woven by The Hand of God is of great importance,and,from time to time is often evidenced through the evolution of brilliant thought and experimentation , and therein is found the “Beauty of Evolution”.


93 posted on 03/11/2015 5:51:18 AM PDT by Sophia Androanz ("Once again the Doves are sold in the marketplace")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sophia Androanz

What is the difference between “evolution” and “adaptation”.

Your point #2 seems to suggest that since all the species alive today came from a much limited set of species aboard the Ark,

then “evolution” must be true.
There is a HUGE difference between common multiple ancestry (the “kinds”) of today’s species and extrapolation of that observation into “proving” molecules to man evolution.


94 posted on 03/11/2015 5:54:38 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: odawg
> The god of evolution does not permit you that degree of heresy; it decrees that nothing used nothing to create something and there is no other god before it.

Well, I understand your sarcasm (directed at evolutionary extremists), but their beliefs (including whether I'm a heretic) are not of interest to me, any more than those of other fanatics. Fanatics exist in all areas of human belief, and are useful in nailing down the fringes of human thought, but otherwise are simply boring.

The evolutionary biologists I've known are all much more reasonable, and quite interesting on the whole.

95 posted on 03/11/2015 6:19:27 AM PDT by dayglored (Listen, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is...sounding pretty good about now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Benito Cereno

They were exposed to different elements and conditions. I would expect them to still be fruit flies in 600,000 generations.


96 posted on 03/11/2015 6:19:40 AM PDT by boycott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

That there is no scientific evidence supporting it could be a place to start the discussion about ‘why’.


97 posted on 03/11/2015 6:21:54 AM PDT by RinaseaofDs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sophia Androanz
> ...the fabric of life woven by The Hand of God... brilliant thought and experimentation... therein is found the “Beauty of Evolution”.

Your comment is very well and beautifully stated. Thank you -- you have enriched my day considerably. :)

98 posted on 03/11/2015 6:49:00 AM PDT by dayglored (Listen, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is...sounding pretty good about now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

> I have never seen that term in a single scientific journal, and I have ready plenty especially having to do with TToE and Earth Sciences. I am going to need a link to see the context.

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

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22change+of+kind%22+evolution+scientist&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&client=safari#hl=en&q=%22change+of+kind%22+evolution+scientists


99 posted on 03/11/2015 6:49:15 AM PDT by jsanders2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble

“In one sense, molecular evolution is trivial to demonstrate. Staphylococcus aureus will evolve penicillin resistance in a few days.”

One of the problems is that what you describe is an example of a sort of natural selection and the problem is natural selection is conflated (often purposely by those with agendas) with evolution.

So your sentence is technically wrong. SA does not evolve resistance in a day or two when exposed to anti biotic.

All ready existing penicillin resistant bacteria are selected for by the introduction of the anti-biotic.


100 posted on 03/11/2015 7:26:00 AM PDT by ifinnegan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-140 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson