16% Of U.S. High School Science Teachers Are Creationists

- I wonder if any of those parents can sue to get part of their tax money back based upon incompetence???
========================================================================
DeSwiss


http://atheisttoolbox.com/">The Atheist Toolbox

If you live in an Evangelical or Fundamentalist area you have to lie.

:eyes:

Narrowly dodges the Godwin rule, by referring to the Inquisition instead of Nazis.

Interesting maneuver, since this not unlike having 16% of high school science teachers still teaching geocentrism.

Lets just write up the accepted personal religious beliefs so we can keep people of certain faiths out of certain professions...


But before you (again) try to distort my positions on this:

1) Personally I think evolution should be taught because while I may not believe in it it certainly seems to be a useful item in the tool box of biology and medicine.

2) If we are raising a generation of kids so weak in critical thinking that a science teacher cant give them two sides of the argument their understanding of evolution is the *least* of our future problems.

It is not something you get to not believe in. It is as real as gravity, magnetism, and photosynthesis.

Creationism is not the other side of the evolutionary debate. (which is a debate among scientists on exactly how evolution works not whether or not it exists) Creationism is a completely different subject and should be dealt with as a part of theology, not biology.

Yup real American..

I could care less *if* creationism is taught, my point was if they are teaching evolution and mentioning creationism then its *not* the end of the world... And its *certainly* not the end of the world if the teacher believes it but does not teach it..

"If we are raising a generation of kids so weak in critical thinking that a science teacher cant give them two sides of the argument their understanding of evolution is the *least* of our future problems."

Or is it only two sides for every issue in science class?

for someone accusing me of skirting goodwin but a few post ago you're quick to jump right in..

How about holocaust denial in history class?

Flat earth in earth science class?

2 + 2 = 5 in math class?

And Godwin doesn't apply, it's a valid comparison.

Thanks for the correction btw..

Should 2 + 2 = 5 be taught in math class?

It's an alternative to 2 + 2 = 4.

acknowledge under normal conditions thats a reasonable possibility, then we will come back and talk about it.

shall we teach it in history class?

There is a difference between comparing someone to the Nazis and asking a question about something that the Nazis did. No one accused you of approving of the Holocaust or even denying that it happened. If you can't grasp that distinction, you have amply demonstrated your own point about poor critical thinking skills in this country.

Try being an Atheist and getting a job holding public office. Talk to any non-believer and they will tell you about exclusion in the job market.

And I suppose you would support a flat Earth curricula for geography class?

office and I have little issue voting for one... At least I am consistent..

BTW I have works with *plenty* of atheist in my day and I have acted as hiring manager for more than one so don't give me this job market exclusion crap...

Public office Im sure and its a damn shame but in the average $Job its not an issue..

...if tax dollars are paying their salaries. Period.

Teaching creationism or ID in a science class is fine -- in a religious school.

but there are ID people out there who are PHd's in their field and while I'm 100% with you that *no* particular faiths account should be taught in science informing students that there is a small minority of scientist out there who believe in ID is not going to ruin their scientific education. And as I have already said several times if we are raising a generation that is so weak in critical thinking that we have to shield them from that fact were in a heap load of trouble no matter *what* is presented to them.


--

Even Richard Dawkins admits it:

DAWKINS: To me, the right approach is to say we are profoundly ignorant of these matters. We need to work on them. But to suddenly say the answer is God–it’s that that seems to me to close off the discussion.

TIME: Could the answer be God?

DAWKINS: There could be something incredibly grand and incomprehensible and beyond our present understanding.

COLLINS: That’s God.

DAWKINS: Yes. But it could be any of a billion Gods. It could be God of the Martians or of the inhabitants of Alpha Centauri. The chance of its being a particular God, Yahweh, the God of Jesus, is vanishingly small–at the least, the onus is on you to demonstrate why you think that’s the case.

--

Because you're not answering my question.

The core issue I brought up is when a sizable body of scientist exist who acknowledge the possibility of intelligent design (Dawkins is among them) is it really justified to ramp up into some sort of hissy fit because some teachers believe that.

Even when *according to the article* most who do believe it don't bring it into the classroom and those that do bring it only as a reference still focusing on the theory of Darwinian evolution.

--

Going from that to a fight on ID itself is not worth the energy you think what you think and I think what I think and neither you or I will be changing each others minds on this today.

--

on edit: but I do like you calling me scared to goad me into a fight, nice touch

"The core issue I brought up is when a sizable body of scientist exist who acknowledge the possibility of intelligent design (Dawkins is among them) is it really justified to ramp up into some sort of hissy fit because some teachers believe that."

Ah, but Dawkins is an atheist who believes in Evolution, denies Intelligent Design, and is being misrepresented by you.

"Going from that to a fight on ID itself is not worth the energy you think what you think and I think what I think and neither you or I will be changing each others minds on this today."

Fighting ID is a fight worth fighting, regardless of whether or not numbskulls acknowledge they've been beaten.

They're not called "breathtakingly innane" for nothing.

And if youre so happy you "won" this "fight" here is your cookie *....

Regards..

See below.

It doesn't belong in public schools. Period.

Its also a part of Judaism, Hinduism, Many Aboriginal beliefs (including native American), ....., .....

Besides like I said even one of the most prominent anti religious spokes people out there acknowledges ID is a possibility..

"DAWKINS: There could be something incredibly grand and incomprehensible and beyond our present understanding."

I think not. ID is Christian in origin. Its "argument from design" dates back to the bible.

Creationism on the other hand is shared by almost all beliefs.

You can ignore that if you so choose..

Dawkins is hardly a Christian and even *he* acknowledged ID is possible..

You can ignore that if you so choose..

On edit: It's the Christians who are promoting ID in this country, is it not?

Further, "Intelligent Design" is new, even if the ideas behind it are old as dirt. Here is how a proponent describes it:

"What has emerged is a new program for scientific research known as Intelligent Design."

It's creationism repackaged and rebranded in hopes of passing it off as science.

And as far as Dawkins is concerned, acknowledging the "possibility" of ID isn't the same as calling it science. ID and creationism can NEVER be called science because they can't be falsified: there must be a way to test a scientific theory for soundness, and that can't be done when dealing with BELIEFS.

Scientific Creationism got ruled unconstitutional by the supreme court in the 80s.

The nutjobs just cut and pasted "intelligent design" over every place in their literature over "creation science."

Sometimes they fucked up and invented the field of "crintelligent designeation science."

They're claiming ID or creationism is "a valid, scientific alternative". Neither is. Creationism is clearly wrong (and was clearly wrong before Darwin came along - and is specific to certain religions). ID is not scientific - it's the abdication of science, throwing their hands up in the air and saying "I'm not clever enough to work out how organisms evolve - maybe something we know nothing about did it". That's guesswork, which can't even be taken as proper philosophy. In no way is it science. But 1 in 8 teachers are lying to their pupils about it.

to teach creationism ID as a subsititute for evolution.

And ID/creationist opponents still, STILL don't know the meaning of the word "THEORY" as used in the scientfic method. They never address that. How about you?

I don't think kids ought to be exposed to ID in the science class. If you want to teach it in philosophy class or a compariative religions class, A-OK by me. But leave the science class room ALONE.

I don't know why ID proponents take it upon themselves to twist themselves in knots over Darwin's ideas. It's a really terrible, terrible, pointless and regressive use of brain power.

And I say all of this as a spiritual person who enjoys science and is just fine w/ Darwinian ideas.

When it comes to science, what is the "second side" of the evolution debate?

and you are being disingenuous when you imply that. Creationism cannot be taught in schools because it is a religious idea. This has long been established. Your personal protestation does not make it acceptable to violate the Constitution.

The 'both sides of the argument' line is a red herring. Evolution is firmly grounded in evidence, as close to a fact as any other scientific concept. No distinction can fairly be made between evolution and ideas like gravity or electromagnetic theory. There are not two sides in these 'arguments'. There is merely acceptance of rejection of the evidence.

If we are to teach your personal religious ideas in biology class, how can we possibly exclude other religious ideas? Teaching only the Judeo-Christian story is discriminatory. We would also have to teach Hindu creation myths, Native American stories, Greek, Norse, and Egyptian versions, not to mention recent fabrications like Scientology and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Are you willing to let your children hear all of those stories and make the decision for themselves?

Despite a court-ordered ban on the teaching of creationism in U.S. schools, about one in eight high-school biology teachers still teach it as valid science, a survey reveals. And, although almost all teachers also taught evolution, those with less training in science -- and especially evolutionary biology -- tend to devote less class time to Darwinian principles.

...

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=4895114&page=1

:thumbsup:

Science classes are getting short shrift because there aren't enough qualified teachers to go around, for starters.

to mask incompetency.

There's a gradual drift of scientific productivity out of the US and into Europe and Asia. When an appreciable fraction of high school students spend their biology course dabbling in bullshit, this is hardly surprising.

There are still some districts where you don't have to have a liscense to teach. And by extention, you don't have to have any special expertise in your disciple discipline, either.

Also, there are teacher shortages (not enough of the aforementioned certified teachers) and well, I can easily see how that would happen that 25% of "science" teachers think creationism is equal to evolution.

Sad.

They shouldn't be allowed to teach science.