Slashdot Mirror
Teachers Back Away From Evolution In Class
RedEaredSlider writes "A study (abstract) from Penn State shows that a lot of teachers — some 60 percent — are reluctant to teach evolutionary theory in the classroom either because they fear controversy or they just aren't comfortable with the material (as not every biology teacher was a science major). It shows the importance, the authors say, of training teachers well before they step into the class."
How can one be a Biology teacher without having a major in at least one of the sciences? Sad. Schools ought to demote these persons to HomeEc or English, and hire some actual degreed science majors to do the teaching.
Maybe they can't do that because of Union rules.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
If even the teachers aren't educated enough to understand this - what hope is there for the rest.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
How can one be a Biology teacher without having a major in at least one of the sciences? Sad. Schools ought to demote these persons to HomeEc or English, and hire some actual degreed science majors to do the teaching.
Maybe they can't do that because of Union rules.
Wow. It's pretty evident you don't understand what's happening in schools in America.
Having dated a couple teachers, let me explain to you how it works. If you're a teacher (and I'm talking grade school or high school) you get shit on. You don't get paid shit and your 'customer' treats you like shit. What's worse is that you cannot refuse your customer and it's your duty to make sure no child is left behind.
So let's say you get a degree in biology. Any lab job or anything else will pay much better right off the bat than a teaching position in grade or high school. Why anybody would get a degree in education is beyond me. Most teachers I think are psychology or sociology majors that, if they teach something like biology, have taken some specialized courses in teaching that material. Not actual high level biology coursework -- because they're not teaching that to students.
Your attempt to blame this on the unions amuses me. Public schools don't make money. That's not what they're there for. They're not some corporation or car manufacturer, they're a public utility that provides a human right to education. As such when a school is operating in the red, it would normally be really tempting to just cut teacher's wages. The unions are there to prevent crap like that from happening. Furthermore, they can't walk away from a customer so really bad interactions occur. And the unions are there to make sure that the teachers have the appropriate representation and responses. Schools don't compete with each other for the best students like a manufacturer competes for customers. The same can be said of hospitals and nursing unions. I don't know how a union would make sure that you can't teach Biology without being a Biology major.
The fact is that teachers have a really crappy job, they don't get paid much and that's why you don't see someone graduating with a Masters of Science in physics to go teach fourth graders science. Maybe you pay extra to send your kid to a magnate school or some private school where they guarantee that the teachers are such distinguished individuals but certainly not a public schools and until you're willing to pay a lot more in taxes to make those jobs desirable to such a graduate, I'd shut up.
My work here is dung.
It's ridiculous, but science is being bullied in our Western democracies...
There are fights about the greenhouse gas, about evolution, and several other topics... and if teachers say something about that, they are said to choose a side and teachers should be politically neutral.
That, of course, is ridiculous. If teachers can no longer teach science, because some theories (which have a lot of evidence) might undermine the political course set by our Great Leaders or because they might upset certain religious people (science always does that), then we might as well close our schools.
Now the evolutionary theory, which follows a degree of scientific rigor (compare it to other theories to explain the same phenomenon) is controversial. What's next? Advanced physics teaching that the sun goes around the earth? Carbon dating deemed heresy because we all know the earth was created in 7 days?
God Bless America.
Believing in God doesn't mandate a belief in Creationism (though believing in Creationism requires the belief in God). Anyone whose faith is so fragile that it could be damaged by a rigorous class in evolutionary biology should go back to CCD or Sunday School or whatever their faith's equivalent is.
No, they can't teach Creationism since we've already had that trial and it has been determined in court that ``science is what scientists do''.
People who believe in the literal Word of God as the Bible remind me of the grand-daughter of a family friend --- he was a woodworker, old school, wanted me to be his apprentice so he could put me to work re-sawing wood rather than purchase a band saw. He made a cradle as a gift for the grand-daughter in question, for her to keep her dolls in --- she was very impressed when her mother told her, ``Your grandfather made this by hand.'' and immediately evinced a desire to see his and to see his shop and to watch him make something. The visit was arranged and upon arrival, the young lady was taken out to the shop and the large door rolled open, revealing rack upon rack of chisels, saws, hand planes, a simply unbelievable quantity of clamps and other hand tools --- the girl let out a shriek such as only a 5 year old girl can and yelled, ``Mommy! You lied! Grandpa doesn't make things by hand! He uses tools!''.
God is quite capable of using DNA and RNA and quantum mechanics and other theories which we have yet to learn about to make people and the world.
Moreover, those who believe that humanity is incapable of learning how God works are being blasphemous and not remembering the lesson of the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11:6) which indicates that humanity's learning capacity is without limit.
William
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
Why should the teachers "grow some balls"? Seriously, they are there to teach, not to get into some great philisophical debate which can have very real and permanent repercussions for them and their careers - the debate is for the public and the politicians to get into and sort out, not for the class room.
Like it or not, a lot of people have very real issues with evolution (I am not one of them), and those issues can extend to causing problems for those willing to teach their kids.
Refusing to teach it because of the political and ideological issues surrounding the debate is most certainly a valid stance for a teacher to take - a teacher shouldnt have to put up with hate mail or threats or harrassment any more than the rest of us. By forcing them to teach it, you are forcing them to open themselves up to attack.
If you want your kids to be taught about evolution so desperately, run your own little class on saturdays (or even sundays). Take the debate on yourself.
Oh dear. Anti-union BS alert! So the unions have been calling for larger classes and lower pay for teachers, yes? After all, that's one reason for poor recruitment (just ask any HR department on their hiring technique for the upper management).
And I guess that it was the unions insisting on paedo suspicions on all teachers, annual checks on the background and the continuous persecution of teachers, yes?
Unions also made parents toss lawsuits and complaints at teachers who didn't give their little dahling an A in class?
I guess it must also be the unions that insist that unruly kids cannot be punished or dealt with by expulsion too?
If the union is "partly to blame", then it's MOSTLY government and busybody parents who are to blame, since THEY are the ones who generate the most absurd environment possible for teachers.
You call that "not so bleak"? When ~72% of teachers actually give sky-daddy-dunnit some credence in a science classroom? Holy shit.
If you want your kids to be taught about evolution so desperately, run your own little class on saturdays (or even sundays). Take the debate on yourself.
The problem with your line of "reasoning" (and I use the term most charitably), is that you seem to equate the theory of evolution with any number of mythological stories that purport to account for how creation came to be. The first one is not like the others, at all, despite what Glenn Beck and The Creation Museum have managed to make you believe.
So, if you want your kids to be taught about your mythological version of creation so desperately, run your own little class, and stop expecting science teaches to seriously consider your religious beliefs as anything even remotely approaching valid science.
So, according to your numbers, 72% of US biology highschool teachers teach ID as potentially valid "theory". If that's "not so bleak", I don't know what is.
Unless you're a teacher yourself, you have no idea just how much balls it takes to fight this battle.
When religion and politics are prioritized over science and the pursuit of new knowledge, we are moving backward. Meanwhile, the rest of the world is increasing its science and technology expertise and we are all "finding religion." If we all become Amish, that would be one thing, but no one is prepared to give up what they have now and fail to appreciate that the status quo is not sustainable.
Religious nutbags need to be suppressed for the good of human kind. And to be perfectly clear, if you believe in a god at all, you are, in my opinion, a religious nutbag.
You aren't helping.
The reason that teaching evolution have become controversial is because of the New Atheists. People like you who want to "tell the religious freaks that would have us living in the dark ages to fuck off and die". See that sort of rhetoric makes religious people rightfully feel nervous. They feel like they are under attack by atheists.
And evolution being a core part of New Atheism, is also seen as part of your attack on religion. So the religious see the theory of evolution as an attempt by atheist to turn their children against God.
If you really want evolution taught in schools (I think it should be) then stop throwing insults at the religious. Stop making this issue about "ignorant christians" vs. "intelligent atheists". Because when you try to frame it that way the christians are never going to see your side of things. Calling people ignorant isn't the best way to make them see your point of view.
So you want to know the reason isn't being taught in schools now? Look in the mirror. Maybe putting down other religions makes you feel good about yourself but it sure as hell doesn't help anyone else.
I stopped being a Christian because I saw the whole thing as being a few people at the top telling everyone else what to think for their own personal gain. I stopped being an atheist for the same reason.
You aren't any better than the fundamentalist Christians. You're playing the same game, pissing all over the education system just to mark your turf. The only difference between you and them is that you're on different sides. Some of you believe in God and some of you don't. I wish you'd all just shut the fuck up and let teachers teach science without politicising it.
+1. I find that terrifying. If we're teaching our kids that a scientific theory, which all about validating a logical chain of though based on observation, and which, by definition, must make valid predictions about the world around us, and a creation myth are the same, then we're screwed.
Don't get me wrong, I like creation myths; some are absolutely wonderful. And on that score, biblical creationism and ID come in at the lowest end of the creative scale; as creative writing I'd give them a C-.
Evolution works because it can make predictions about the gaps in our knowledge. It's called a "theory" because that's the tag scientists picked early on. We should not be teaching that a "scientific theory" and "something I made up while sitting on the crapper and reading the comics" have equal validity - even by omission.
The reason we have few competent teachers is simple: Education is one of the most poorly compensated professions in the USA and has generally atrocious working conditions. Education attracts many teachers, but most last less than 2 years on the job before switching professions. Very few competent people are willing to grind away their soul day-in, day-out for pennies. At the same time, the cost for a college degree and certification is skyrocketing. It just doesn't make economic sense to be a teacher.
The public has an incredibly patronizing attitude that teachers should accept miserable accept out of the goodness of their heart. That attitude worked back when women faced systematic artificial barriers in most other professions. In our grandparents generation, we were effectively subsidizing our education system by restricting opportunities for women. That was true in the 60s. It's not true now. Women are competing in every profession, and now education salaries must also compete.
Blaming the Unions is a popular game, but they are not the central problem. If schools seriously want the top college grads to go into education, then obviously they need to compete with other opportunities that top college grads are offered. But you can't offer people a starting salary of $33,227 and then bitch and moan when your top applicants are C students from state universities. The Unions are basically the only force keeping teacher salaries competitive. States with a heavily unionized teacher work-force are better compensated and, unsurprisingly, produce better results
Fixing this for you;
"28% actively teach evolution as it is a correct theory"
Beyond that, I can't imagine anything more depressing than a biology high school teacher giving instruction on something so fundamentally anti-science and disingenuous as "ID". No matter what claims are made about validity. The very fact it's mentioned gives it credence.
Creationism is not so bad, at least it's honest about what it is. But totally out of scope in a science class. Do history teachers cover trigonometry? So what's a religious subject doing in a biology class?
The GP's tone might have been a little shrill, but you are reading way too much into this issue. Evolution is NOT a central tenet of atheism, it's just a true scientific theory that happens to be frequently rejected by religious people. Atheists, when pointing out the ways that religious people believe stupid things, find evolution a handy example of established science being rejected for theological reasons.
The difference between the two groups is that atheists accept evolution, like all other current scientific theories, because it's our best current scientific theory in its field, rather than for some sort of political/cultural reason. Certain brands of Christianity deny evolution because their belief system is more important to them than a reasoned understanding of reality.
They aren't playing the same game. Atheists, and many religious people the world over, accept reality and the results of our investigations into it. Certain religious folks, quite loudly at home, reject our best understanding of reality in favor of a belief system that is unprovable, usually by definition.
Although the moon is smaller than the earth, it is farther away.
I think you missed that religion and science are branches of philosophy that try to answer different questions.
hehe. I think I know the difference - I have a BA in religion from a Jesuit University and a BS in Engineering from an Ivy League School.
Since they answer different questions, our students should not be misled into believing that one is as valid as the other, or that once explains the other.
I care.
Honestly, if they want to teach ID, no problem -- they can set up an entire class for it, or add it as part of some comparative religion class or something that they might already have going on. If there is a class on extremely recent history, it might even fit there.
But not in a science classroom. It is not science, and it does not belong there. There are enough idiots running around out there who don't even know the difference between, as another poster put it, a scientific theory and something they came up with on the shitter while they were reading comics that this is more than misleading, it's downright dangerous. The mere fact that you're fine with them teaching evolution as "the leading theory" implies in no uncertain terms that ID is another theory, putting them somehow on the same level other than evidence in support -- and they are not. One is science. The other is something somebody came up with on the shitter.
If these people are religious, that's fine. They're welcome to believe in ID. They're welcome to believe in god. They're welcome to put "because god says so" at the end of every theory. Science and religion need not clash -- which is exactly what you set them up to do when you treat them as equally valid views on the same matters.
I don't know about you, but I've had more than enough ignorant generations of people and I'm not in the mood to foster more because people need to be coddled. If they can't believe in god AND evolution that's a problem with their religion or their faith, not with evolution. If teaching just evolution gives them a complex about their religion, good. It means they're actually thinking about what they believe and why, and whether they ultimately come out of that going "I still believe in god" or "what a fucking sham religion is!" they're healthier and frankly more intelligent people for it. "Fuck that science shit" as a valid atttitude... not so much.
I'm sure it exists, but I've never been able to find it; there's something that would really help: An up-to-date complete treatise of all the basic evidence that demonstrates the foundations of evolutionary theory.
You can't find it because it would be a massive encyclopedia. There are dozens of scientific journals devoted to evolutionary theory, churning out thousands of pages each year. But if you're looking for a basic summary, try a textbook on evolutionary theory -- there are a number of college-level textbooks (500-1000 pages long) on evolutionary theory that should give you what you want, as well as having a bibliography to track down more information.
Observations of microevolution in the lab, sequences of fossils and how they were dated and how we're certain that they're from the same lineage, numerous clear examples, multiple convergent lines of evidence (fossils vs. dna), etc. In science class, they don't teach this.
Of course not, anymore than they teach a complete history of Newtonian physics in high school or go into the methodology of meteorology or vulcanology before giving basic concepts of cloud formation or the dynamics of volcanoes. I agree that it would be good for middle school or high school students to see more scientific methodology that is critically evaluated, rather than just results. But evolutionary theory is not unique here -- you could ask the same for almost any topic presented in a science class.
They teach the end results of the science as though it were FACT, but it's NOT. It is a fact that it's a good theory, but the theory itself cannot be deemed fact.
It's all theory. What's an example of a "fact" to you? Are there scientific "facts"? Almost any collection of information that combines raw data in any way is an interpretation of that data. In essence, it is a "theory." Whether that theory is expressed in equations or collections of artifacts or accounts of historical events, they all require someone to put the data together, and in my view (and in the view of most scientists), no interpretation is ever final. Beyond raw data, there are no "facts" -- there are only "theories," so don't get hung up on terminology.
Evolutionary fact observed in the lab is true.
No, data we observe in the lab may support an interpretation consistent with evolutionary theory. For every such experiment observed in the lab, I'm sure some creationist or other scientist could come up with a different explanation that interprets the data in a different way, which might conflict with or complement evolutionary theory but not require it.
Evolutionary theory is a MODEL that we STRIVE to MAKE true and is the best model we currently have. If it were TRUE, we'd be done. No more to discover. Rather, it is a gradually improving approximation.
Again, one could say the same for EVERY area of science. Would you require physicists to summarize all the evidence for theories of mechanics, optics, electromagnetism, etc. before they present it as well? What about this atom theory, with electrons buzzing around? "Where's the EVIDENCE?" you say. We should teach students to think critically, but we can't introduce every idea of elementary science like this. Why is evolution special, except for political reasons, rather than scientific ones?
I am from India. I have to differ from your world view. I travel between India, US and a bit of China. The idea of Americans as lazy, self-entitled, undereducated, science-illiterate is lazy generalization. The same can be said of any community.
The idea of America still remains. This country still attracts the best of the talent across the world (even if getting a visa is a pain in the back for anyone out of G7.) This is the only country where you become an 'American' the moment you are in the political borders. And the political system more or less works (compared to the rest of the world.)
What can cause a decline to US is the assault on the American middle class...I hope the plutocrats are not so stupid as to kill the golden goose.
You can bring up your child in China or India or anywhere else. Nothing wrong with that. Your child should be fine if you give him/her the right values. But I can see you made sure your child is an American citizen.
Tat Tvam Asi
" it's what scientists accept that will be taught."
This is total antithetical to science. The fact that scientists accept it is not the reason it should be taught, rather the reason is that all evidence scientists accept it is because ALL evidence points to the inescapable conclusion that evolution is a fact. We are the way we are because our ancestors evolved in ways that left us with the genetics that we have. There is no other rational explanation.
The teacher should have pointed out the fallacy in the student's reasoning. The student nor the teacher evolved from "monkeys", but it is virtually certain that both evolved from an ancestor that shared an ancestor with ancestor of monkeys. In this context the teacher would then be in a position to begin to enumerate the great many reasons scientists know this to be true. Namely, the many features their ancestors share in common. More importantly, not only do they share such features in common but what we know about the genetics of each of these features indicates that these features share their "similarity" all the way down to the molecular level of organization. Consequently, if they did not descend from a common ancestor one is forced to confront the necessity of developing an alternative explanation that doesn't involve anything about these organisms that science has been able to learn in the past 200 years, whether it be their anatomy, their physiology, their genetics, their ecology, their behavior, or any other known aspect of their biology. There is no testable, scientific alternative explanation that has yet been proposed. Scientists accept the theory of evolution 1) because there is no credible alternative explanation, 2) all efforts to scientifically reject Darwin's theory have been rejected as inconsistent with observable facts, and 3) because of its explanatory power. We can learn even more about the biology of these animals by examining the consequences of evolution by means of natural selection.
America hasn't jumped the shark. Sharks will probably outlast America, as it lets its education system fall behind in science and technology to other nations, such as the Chinese. In the end, survival of the fittest has some very real consequences.