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."

Comments

America has jumped the shark

[Snaller]

If even the teachers aren't educated enough to understand this - what hope is there for the rest.

Re:America has jumped the shark

[circletimessquare]

supply and demand

anyone with a strong science degree is making more money somewhere other than teaching. so either we have to pay science teachers more, or we need to accept that science isn't being taught by science majors. take your pick

it's easy to demand higher standards. it's hard to think it through and figure out how to make that happen

and i will bet you a GNP that every other country has the same problem

Re:America has jumped the shark

[Intrepid imaginaut]

and i will bet you a GNP that every other country has the same problem

The issue of pay isn't as clear cut as you might think. The problem you run into is that if you sweeten the pot too much, you attract people who only want the benefits and have no real interest in or passion for their field, in this case teaching science. We all observed similar effects during the dot com bubble, with reams of people who really had no business getting into IT joining up because they heard the pay was good.

I don't know, there's a rising darkness in the US, not to get too emotive on the matter. I cannot imagine something as fundamental as evolution making people uncomfortable in a widespread manner even a couple of decades ago. Your children are being targeted here, the future of your country. To add to the problem, the multiplying disciples of Dawkins (NOT actual scientists, I mean the amateur atheists) are just as likely to dig their heels in and refuse to step outside what authority figures tell them, even on scientific matters - there's a general withdrawal from creative problem solving and imagination that urgently needs to be addressed.

Re:America has jumped the shark

[Rob the Bold]

If even the teachers aren't educated enough to understand this - what hope is there for the rest.

That's not what TFA really says. TFS is somewhat misleading. Teachers aren't unprepared, they're uncomfortable. And while it doesn't say exactly why they're uncomfortable, I'd wager they're more afraid of one set of parents than the other.

Re:America has jumped the shark

[anandrajan]

My wife is a middle/high school teacher and is teaching evolution in 8th grade as we speak. The other day, a student confronted her in class and said, "You may have come from a monkey but I certainly didn't." This is a charter school here in Gainesville, FL (where we also try burning Qurans every once in a while).

You would think that the situation is better in a magnet school. Nope. In one of the magnet schools here, the teacher flat out refused to teach evolution claiming that it went against her beliefs.

Re:America has jumped the shark

[Antisyzygy]

My response to that little bastard would have been, "You're right, you came from the dirt".

Re:America has jumped the shark

[timeOday]

The summary is also misleading in that "backing away" implies they're becoming less likely to teach evolution than in the past. In fact the article does address this, and it's the opposite of what the summary implies:

"The data Berkman and Plutzer gathered didn't show trends over time. But Berkman says one bright spot is that standards are being imposed in more school systems. Since many of these standards include evolution, younger teachers are more likely to hew to them"

If true, a more accurate summary would be, "Teachers Embrace Evolution in the Class."

Re:America has jumped the shark

[geekoid]

Please never have that conversation, it only hurts. There are far better ways t deal with it and a confrontational manner will only have them dig their heels into the ground. At that age, it could very well be the last opportunity for those people to get it right.

There are far better answers, from 'That's not what evolution says' to 'That's not where the science leads us.'

Re:America has jumped the shark

[NiteShaed]

You would have missed an opportunity.

You could have said, "You're right, and neither did I", and launch into a discussion about the common misconception about "evolving from monkeys", and correctly explained common ancestry, and the theories about how various apes and humans diverged from that common ancestry. Challenges to science can, if handled well, be a great opportunity to teach, assuming the audience is willing to listen. Even if that particular kid refused to listen, that's fine, the rest of the class might benefit from the discussion.

Re:America has jumped the shark

[MightyMartian]

The way to deal with it is to tell the student that whether or not they accept evolution, the overwhelming majority of scientists do, and since this is a science class, it's what scientists accept that will be taught. You will be graded on how well you understand the information, not on whether or not you believe it.

As to any teacher who doesn't teach the curriculum, they should simply be fired. They, like the above hypothetical creationist student, are not required to believe any of it, but they are required to teach actual science.

Re:America has jumped the shark

[LordNacho]

I went to an international school in Europe, where evolution isn't really up for debate. Not the high school level material anyway. So, one day, a girl from the US, a recent arrival, says "wait a minute, I've read that it isn't that way and my bible studies guy says it's different. The Earth isn't that old, etc..."

So teacher says something ala "Don't be ridiculous! That stuff you've been told isn't science, in fact it's all lies, and you won't pass the exams saying things like that."

The exchange went on for a bit, but in the end we ended up having a bubbling, tearful American girl crying her eyes out. Come to think of it, I didn't give bio teacher as much credit at the time as I should have. She truth, while painful, is good for you.

Re:America has jumped the shark

[rockNme2349]

She truth, while painful, is good for you.

I remember when my girlfriend dropped a big she-truth on me. It took me a week to recover.

Re:America has jumped the shark

[Noren]

Someone who was reasonably familiar with the scientific method would see that you've made no verifiable predictions, that your hypothesis that something 'used to exist but no evidence can possibly be found' is not falsifiable, and conclude that this is fundamentally not a question that can be addressed by the scientific method.

If you were to assert that this hypothesis was scientific, you would deserve criticism.

Re:America has jumped the shark

[jfengel]

Sure, they could have, but you would't know why. There's nothing that evolution did produce that couldn't have been produced by conscious design.

The difference is that there are things that a conscious designer can do that evolution can't. There are many more effective ways to design livers, or other body parts, if you were starting from a completely clean slate. (Livers, for example, have some ability to grow back, but kidneys don't, and it would be awfully nice if they could.)

The theory of evolution constrains what you'd expect to see, and you can use that to your advantage. Every difference and similarity between a frog's liver and a human one is informative; it got that way based on the different ways that humans and frogs evolved. It lets you know what lessons you can take, and which ones you can't.

By contrast, the design theory looks at each and every feature and says, "I dunno." Why did the designer feel all vertebrates needed livers, but no other species? No idea; that was just the mood he was in. It certainly isn't optimal. Everything that was included, or idea that was rejected, is arbitrary. Fossil organisms, too, are entirely unexplained; they just happened to bear traits similar to existing ones for no reason.

That doesn't mean it didn't happen that way. It would be hard, perhaps impossible, to disprove. It just so happens that every single time we look at a feature of an organism, it looks exactly as though a designer made a design constrained by the requirements of evolution. It's a valid theory, just not a terribly useful one, one that tells us nothing about the organism and nothing about the designer except that it chose to make everything look precisely as if it had evolved.

Re:Not a science major?

[Sonny Yatsen]

I think it's probably because most science majors don't go into teaching. From what limited information I gleaned from some of my friends who are teachers, a lot of them have some sort of general education degree rather than a specialized background. Unlike other developed countries (especially the ones who kick our butts in education), we don't recruit teachers from the top of the graduating classes in their fields, which is why we have such terrible science education.

What an Absolutely Clueless Response

[eldavojohn]

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.

Re:What an Absolutely Clueless Response

[Sonny Yatsen]

It's just ridiculous how the popular political pinata today seems to be teacher's unions. I still can't believe that people complain that they're overpaid. If anything, compared to the highest ranking countries in terms of education, they're way underpaid and undervalued. As you said, they get paid peanuts, especially in the first few years, which isn't very conducive for retaining new teachers. A lot of them also work in dangerous schools, their students don't respect them, and they get grief from the parents who foist off all educational responsibility onto the teacher.

Schools should be cathedrals to learning, but so many politicians in America would rather see it turned into an outhouse.

Re:What an Absolutely Clueless Response

[Mr.Intel]

Having dated a couple teachers, let me explain to you how it works.

Being married to a degreed High School biology teacher, let me explain how it works. This is with the caveat that it only applies to the two school districts she has worked in.

My wife is not tenured, which in our district and state means teaching for five years while passing all proficiency checks. That means she has to watch her butt and toe the line very carefully. Which means she is always the first on the list when the district is cutting budgets (which they have been doing every year since she started teaching in this district). Luckily for her, she is an amazing teacher (yeah, I'm biased, but her peers and supervisors agree) and she still has a job.

In our district, the teachers are responsible for making sure students are "engaged in learning" from "bell to bell". They must provide students every opportunity to pass their classes, which translates into students retaking tests as many times as they want, having as much time as they want to turn in assignments, and having the option of changing classes willy-nilly if they don't like the teacher/subject. Basically, the entire school district bends backwards for every single student no matter what little johnny or little betty do in class. There is no recourse for behavior problems and often the first step (calling the parent) results in the parent accusing the teacher of "not understanding" their child's needs or the teacher must obviously be doing something wrong. That's assuming that my wife can even get a hold of a parent. Most kids are either "independent", living with extended family, have only one parent and that parent works three jobs, or if by some miracle both parents are at home, they are drugged/stoned out of their minds and it's a wonder the kid comes to school at all.

Bottom line: Teachers are charged with educating a public that is disengaged with learning. Parents are hostile, administration is hog tied by budget and legislation and no one seems to understand one basic truth: It's not the teacher's job to force kids to learn. It's their job to teach those who want to learn. If johnny's mom got sent to jail for the third time and he has to live with his meth-addict uncle, then johnny doesn't care about extracting DNA from chicken livers or charting the energy of a falling mass. If anyone is to blame for the sad state of education in America, it the parents that need to take the blame. But that won't happen because the parents are the tax payers and the voters. How do you hold them accountable?

Re:What an Absolutely Clueless Response

[houghi]

Schools should be cathedrals to learning, but so many politicians in America would rather see it turned into an outhouse.

With so many people in prison for the profit of those penal institutions, perhaps that is a better way to prepare them for their future.

Re:What an Absolutely Clueless Response

[Hatta]

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.

It doesn't actually, but the hours are better and the rats are better behaved.

Re:What an Absolutely Clueless Response

[Foobar of Borg]

Learning is something that should be considered sacred, at least in the secular sense.

This is why I left academia. Useless spouting of dogma. If you understood learning, you'd know that schools are not the only places learning occurs. Businesses are as well. So are many other activities.

Businesses are where you learn how to be a good slave. I guess to you only consider something to be "education" if it has an immediate, practical benefit. No wonder America is rapidly becoming a third-world country.

If you can't understand that, then it is good that you left academia.

Schools and in particular colleges are supposed to offer a particular form of learning called an education. I heard the myth, how an education is supposed to broaden your horizons, think deeper, etc. But too many "educated" people are of your kind, ostracizers. People who are glad when different-thinkers, who don't believe your dogmas, aren't allowed to taint the holy grounds of academia.

You really do assume a lot, don't you? I'm not an "ostracizer" (whatever you mean by that). I guess by "ostracizer" you mean someone who simply doesn't uncritically accept whatever you say (hey, you're making sweeping, unfounded assertions, so why can't I?).

My view is that dogma should always be questioned.

It's not dogma. Learning should be a noble goal, even if some people do not live up to it. But then, you apparently like to use pejoratives against anything you disagree with.

Further, the "open" environment of the university has a rigid caste system. Tenure-track positions are ruthlessly exploited. And there's great overproduction of graduate students in many fields (particularly the non-science ones, but several science fields as well). The business world tends to be a lot more open about the shit you have to put up with and the conflicts of interest. But they don't generally claim to treat the job as a sacred duty and then half-ass it.

You're kidding, right? Business bullshits about conflicts of interest all the time. There is also a rigid caste system, especially between the "business" people and the people who do the actual work. The business world tries to sugar-coat the shit you have to put up with to add an additional barrier to you being able to complain about anything, and to justify how they shit on you.

I abandoned academia for seasonal work at Yellowstone National Park and have become much happier for it (well, during the summer half, winter, like now, I'm grumpy without work, though I think it'll change next winter). Sure I'd like steadier work that uses my knowledge better. And as the saying goes, I've been rich and poor, rich is better. But I wouldn't give this up for a post doc or a lecturer in a university.

So, you give up the rigid, ideologically driven academia (at least, according to you) to work for the Federal Government? And you don't see the irony?

Re:What an Absolutely Clueless Response

[melikamp]

I know next to nothing about the reality of K12, but from what you say, it sounds like the blame can be put everywhere. All of you, Americans, should first of all secure federal funding so that you can provide the same basic level of education to every American. I don't care if "it can't be done", it was done in other developed countries, and until voters and the administration come together on this one, you will continue shafting the poor, in defiance of the declaration of human rights. With the funding secured regardless of students' performance, your schools can actually start failing students who refuse to learn. And when a school or a district starts sucking for reasons other that students being lazy (as substantiated by unbiased auditors), you don't cut its funding: you shaft the educators responsible, be they teachers, principles, or board members. We can all benefit from recognizing that assigning blame is easy, but gets us nowhere. Instead we should simply model K12 after systems that seem to be more humane and more effective.

Re:What an Absolutely Clueless Response

[DrgnDancer]

I'm a senior systems analyst/engineer for a government contractor. We pay entry level engineers 50-60. Dunno where you are, but it must be fairly low cost of living; which probably means the pay for teachers is lower too. The vacation is nice, I won't deny, but at least at my school the "lounge" was a big table with a some plastic chairs surrounding it. The break room at my current place is a good bit nicer. Tenure didn't happen in my school system, though I know it does in others, nor did sabbatical (though the summer could count, not that you were getting paid).

The union protection is certainly worth something. It's harder to get fired as a teacher because of the unions, it's true; but the flip side is that the protection is somewhat necessary. Lots of school districts have funny ideas about what constitutes "performance". Some push a political agenda (mostly neo-conservative here in the south, but I wouldn't be shocked to hear the opposite problem on the coasts). Others will always take the side of parents, because they're the "customer" and the customer is always right. Still others consider student performance on standardized tests to be the only viable measure of success (mostly in under-performing districts that desperately need that performance to prevent funding cuts).

I'm not saying they don't also defend teachers that probably should be fired, it's their mandate to defend all of their members; but in many cases they are defending perfectly competent teachers who are being railroaded by the nature of what they do.

Science is being bullied

[captainpanic]

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.

Re:Science is being bullied

[Gunkerty Jeb]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. We are doing an excellent job preparing our children to be the future slaves of China. I just hope I'm dead before I see their economy surpass ours.

Re:Science is being bullied

[Vahokif]

Speak for your own democracy.

Re:Science is being bullied

[Alarash]

It's really only in the US I think. Nobody in Europe will contest (except the occasional, marginal and fortunately exceptionally rare nutjob) the teaching of evolution. Maybe it's because Public Schools are actually good in Europe, and many countries are officially agnostic, so it's a moot point ; whereas in the US there are much more private schools that have to tread carefully not to alienate their customers.. err.. student's parents?

Re:Science is being bullied

[ElectricTurtle]

I, for one, would like to welcome our new Chinese overlords...

... and I'm only half kidding. The Chinese culture and people are actually really fascinating and worthwhile once you study them. When you look at China's history you realize that their being a super economy was actually always inevitable. In the first place, it won't be the first time. Do you know how immense Chang'an was during the Tang dynasty? It was like four times the size of the ancient city of Rome at their respective peaks. It was the largest metropolitan area ever anywhere before the modern era.

Re:Science is being bullied

[omglolbah]

"It's ridiculous, but science is being bullied in the US..."

There fixed that for ya.

Here in Norway... if a teacher were to teach creationism in a biology class they would most likely be fired...
Religious theories and differing views like creationism and FSM (flying spaggeti monster) would most likely be covered in a class covering religion.
Before everyone goes batshit:
The classes covering religion and alternate belief systems are structured around facts about said groups. Like pillars of faith, holy texts and history about the origins of the religions. It has been decided long ago here that it is essential for our population to at least have a minimum of information about such issues as it makes society a whole lot less ignorant and hateful.

Both my parents are teachers and teach sciences. There is the occational student with anal parents making demands but they usually shut up after being introduced to the actual content of the lessons... If they continue and disrupt the education more likely than not a "letter of concern" would be sent to child services. (Routine thing in schools here, to help discover unhealthy home environments and abuse etc).

Amusingly my father has a muslim student and he attended the Advent christian protestant ceremony before christmas. He was given a letter to be signed by his parents if they wanted him excused from it but their reply was simply "It doesnt matter, he has his own belief and experiencing the christian ceremony wont harm and might be useful for him". The kid had no issue and put it more bluntly "I dont believe in any of it anyway so why make a fuss?".

Less BS and more common sense please!

Re:Science is being bullied

[Xyrus]

That's why I home school. That way I don't need to worry about the ultra-religious/ultra-conservatives poisoning education with their inane rhetoric and beliefs. After the absolutely idiotic display of ignorance and political hackery provided by the Texas board of education, I'd had enough.

Unfortunately not everyone has the capacity, time, and resources to do so.

Re:Science is being bullied

[Rob the Bold]

Speak for your own democracy.

You're lucky, you chose your place of birth well -- or you made a wise move. Please send help our way, or at least sponsor us for residency.

Re:Science is being bullied

[Antisyzygy]

Or just tell the fundies to go fund their own private school and drive themselves back to the stone age at their own peril.

Re:Science is being bullied

[interkin3tic]

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.

It's no longer illegal to teach evolution. It was illegal at least 43 years ago, when the Butler act was repealed.

43 years is a long time on our time scale, but when it comes to beliefs changing, that's pretty short. Science is winning.

Greenhouse gas is not really science being bullied. It's science ignored for convenience's sake. That's not specific to science. How often do our politicians ignore basic morality or the constitution because it's politically convenient.

I'm often overly optimistic, but I'd say science is holding it's own and doing pretty well. It would be nice, sure, if science trumped goofy interpretations of religion and special economic interests automatically.

God bless America

[Haedrian]

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.

Re:God bless America

[thijsh]

God Bless America.

... and no place else! :)
This always reminds me of "Gott mit uns".

Re:God bless America

[SteveFoerster]

What's next? Advanced physics teaching that the sun goes around the earth?

Of course. To promote the heliocentric model is racist, because it values the European contributions of Copernicus over the African contributions of Claudius Ptolemy.

-=Steve=-

Re:God bless America

[Missing.Matter]

What's next?

At least one "educator" has a beef with relativity, citing that Jesus acted faster than the speed of light in performing miracles.

Re:God bless America

[Haedrian]

It is so statistically improbable that that it staggers the imagination that anyone can claim to even consider it part of science.

I don't know, but there are billions of planets which have been around for millions of years. Yeah, statistically, even the creation of a proper protein is.. miniscule. But you don't know how many failures have occured, and how many times an attempt has been made.

Its a grey spot at best, but given the vastness of the universe - its not so amazing.

The main difference between science and religion is simply the rigor behind it all.

Science is about - coming up with a theory, attempting to devise an experiment or find proof, if there is a failure, you create a new model.
Religion is about coming up with a theory, telling enough people about the theory such that they believe you.

I have nothing against religion doing what it does best - supplying a moral code, being conservative, and giving people hope - but when it comes to 'scientific' things, it hinders. To bring an example, demanding that the sun revolves around the earth.

Re:God bless America

[jeremyp]

People that claim that living cells somehow came to be out of a chemical soup don't know much about science. The concept of abiogenesis (life from non-living matter) has NEVER been shown to be possible

People that claim abiogenesis and evolution amount to the same thing do not know anything about science. You should have just shut up instead of displaying your ignorance to the World.

It is so statistically improbable that that it staggers the imagination that anyone can claim to even consider it part of science.

If nobody knows how abiogenesis happened, how can you possibly claim that it is statistically improbable?

It comes down to the same issue every time, which is whether there is a God or not.

Actually, the theory of evolution has nothing to do with whether there is a god or not? Where on Earth did you get that idea.

Evolution is a pathetic attempt to counter the idea that there must be some intelligent design behind the universe.

No it isn't. Evolution is an observed fact (and a solid theory to explain that fact). It's no more an attempt to do away with God than the heliocentric model of the solar system.

Science is science until we get to the theory of evolution where the religious belief, and claiming no religion IS a religious belief, of the person gets revealed.

I think you need to educate yourself about what the Theory of Evolution really is. You clearly don't know.

Re:God bless America

[Creedo]

People that claim that living cells somehow came to be out of a chemical soup don't know much about science. The concept of abiogenesis (life from non-living matter) has NEVER been shown to be possible, even in a laboratory situation,

Look around you. Do you see living things? In the beginning of the universe, those living things did not exist. Therefore, at some point, abiogenesis occurred. I know, I know, you believe in a story with disembodied ghosts, talking snakes, rib women, dirt men, flaming swords, magical trees and spirit-fathered giants instead of relying on actual data. Good for you. Have a cookie in the corner while grown-ups discuss reality.

It is so statistically improbable that that it staggers the imagination that anyone can claim to even consider it part of science.

Ah, yes, the old "tornado in a junkyard" argument. I hadn't seen someone trot that out in a while. It's cute, going back to the golden oldies like that. How's about you go and try(and I realize that this will be very hard) to get a grasp of actual evolutionary theory? Maybe then you will might grasp how non-random selection processes turn random input into non-random output.

It has NOT impeded the progress of science to have the explanation for the existence of all the flora and fauna on Earth undetermined by science.

The whole point of science is to further explore the universe in a systematic manner. Declaring one bit off-limits because your ancient holy book is wrong is not the way to understand anything. Except the depths of human delusion.

It comes down to the same issue every time, which is whether there is a God or not.

Wow, it's a good thing you are here to speak for the majority of religious people, Christians included, who have no problem reconciling their faith with the empirical evidence.

Evolution is a pathetic attempt to counter the idea that there must be some intelligent design behind the universe. Science is science until we get to the theory of evolution where the religious belief, and claiming no religion IS a religious belief, of the person gets revealed.

No, science is science until we get to the point of religious morons such as yourself getting their theological panties in a wad because their favorite mythologies are disproved by evidence and then trying to get society to support them in their fact-free delusions.

WTF?

[snookiex]

(...) 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)

Is THAT hard to go to the library, take a book and read it to prepare a class? Geez, they don't even have to do it in a yearly basis.

Re:WTF?

[mopower70]

You don't get it. Teachers are being paid crappy hourly rates and forced to work "contract time" that has them there for 8+ hours a day.

Man, am I getting sick of this. Would you like me to post the list of salaries from my school district here? Over 78% of the teachers in our school district make over $50K a year for 9 months of work. 12% of our teachers are making over $100K for 9 months of work. Illinois averages $58K for 9 months http://teacherportal.com/salary/Illinois-teacher-salary

I'm sure there are plenty of teachers out there making crappy hourly rates, but that's YOUR fault, not theirs. If you don't value your kid's education enough to shell out the bucks, you deserve what you get.

Re:Good :) Now, can they teach creationism??

[WillAdams]

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

Re:USA != World

[Haedrian]

Well, looking at what is today so far...

1 Story about OpenSrouce (not really US-Centric)
A story about Egypt
A story about conficker (has a worldwide scope)
A Japanese company updating firmware
Russian Media comments on a russian terrorist attack
A site with an Australian link about messaging aliens
A streaming site comparing ISP speeds in US and Canada
A comment about the latest product from a Japanese company
Facebook used as evidence in US Courts

Not very US centric is it?

Re:Seriously?

[Richard_at_work]

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.

Re:Not a science major?

[FuckingNickName]

This is why everyone attending university gets ends up a shining star: professors, having accumulated years of knowledge and wisdom in their field, all make excellent teachers.

Teachers want to keep their jobs!

[Matt_Bennett]

Teachers don't want to get fired! I live near Austin, TX and the Austin Independent School District just announced plans to lay off 450 teachers next year due to budget cuts. Administrators will be looking to anything to give them an excuse to fire a teacher- for cause: no unemployment... Bonus! The problem lies in the extremely vocal minority of parents that protest (generally anything that falls outside of their narrowly defined set of "values"). They get the administrator's attention, and the teacher gets fired. When there is a need to re-hire, there are plenty of underqualified Teach-for-America supplied teachers (who, as new teachers, get paid much less). While the TFA teachers may be qualified on the subject matter, they don't have much basis on *Teaching* the subject matter- an entirely different skill. Don't worry, most of the TFA teachers get a hard dose of reality (low pay, no respect, long hours) and quit teaching in a few years.

[my wife is a teacher (15 years teaching), she's just glad she's got an engineer husband to support her teaching habit... I'm just an enabler, I guess]

Re:Teachers want to keep their jobs!

[supermank17]

That's depressingly true. My wife is a teacher, and when she gave out report cards at the end of the semester, the administration censored all of the negative comments in them because they were afraid of parent backlash (for elementary kids!). She was upset at the time, because they were things the kids genuinely needed to work on, but now she's somewhat relieved; another, more senior teacher was able to keep her negative comments intact, and now is dealing with irate parents who want her fired. This is all because their children have comments saying they have issues with behavior in class, or need to work on their math skills, on their ELEMENTARY School record. It's just bizarre.
There's a reason the average teacher only works 6 years, and its not the children or administration that are the (main) problem.

Re:Slow news day??

[Foobar of Borg]

So the reason US students fall behind might be because some teachers don't want to teach the theory of evolution?? Yeah, that must be slowing down the US production of Evolutionary Scientists. Let's see the ridiculous straw arguments now that this somehow explains why we are behind in Math and other Sciences.

Critical thinking is a part of being good in any science. By your "rationale", we should only teach chemistry to people who plan to go into a chemistry-related field.

If you teach children that wishful thinking and majority opinion somehow constitutes observable facts, you are going to wind up with a country of people who cannot think logically.

And, in other news, a study from Saudi Arabia shows that a lot of teachers — some 60 percent — are reluctant to teach the theory that women can be as intelligent as men in the classroom either because they fear controversy or they just aren't comfortable with the material.

Re:Not a science major?

[56ker]

At least here in the UK there's a shortage of maths and science graduates who teach, because they can get higher salaries in the private sector. There's no controversy here about evolution. It's part of the curriculum they have to teach kids for their exams as well as related areas such as genetics.

Summary wrong, not so bleak

[Loomismeister]

Unsurprisingly, the summary is wrong. 28% actively teach evolution as if it is a correct theory, 60% teach both evolution and ID and do not make claims as to their validity. The last 12% actually only teach creationism. All of this survey was done with biology highschool teachers.

Re:Summary wrong, not so bleak

[gardyloo]

You call that "not so bleak"? When ~72% of teachers actually give sky-daddy-dunnit some credence in a science classroom? Holy shit.

Re:Summary wrong, not so bleak

[witherstaff]

How is 72% still teaching superstition any better? I went to a catholic school and they taught evolution as fact, of course there was a religion class but biology was science.

Re:Summary wrong, not so bleak

[PseudonymousBraveguy]

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.

Re:Summary wrong, not so bleak

[cptdondo]

+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.

Re:Summary wrong, not so bleak

[Loomismeister]

Yea the summary is misleading people into thinking that 60% of highschool biology teachers aren't teaching evolution. The reality is better than what is described in the summary, hence reality is "not so bleak".

Re:Summary wrong, not so bleak

[gsslay]

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?

Re:Summary wrong, not so bleak

[cptdondo]

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.

Re:Summary wrong, not so bleak

[Dhalka226]

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.

Re:Summary wrong, not so bleak

[Jason Levine]

Exactly. If you want to have religious/creationism-type discussions in school, the place for it is a philosophy class. "Why are we here? What is the meaning of life? Is there some higher purpose?" These are perfectly valid questions for religion to tackle. Religion's not a requirement, of course, but, when you get right down to it, these kinds of questions are what religion is "designed" for. The question of "what physical processes took place to develop life", though, is one that science can answer just find without shrugging your shoulders and saying "God did it and we don't know how."

Re:Summary wrong, not so bleak

[johnnysaucepn]

Historic perspective is all very well, but presenting it as an alternative theory is inappropriate. You wouldn't find a chemistry classroom discussing the atomic structure of wood and also offering the perspective that it might be made up of fire and earth.

Re:Summary wrong, not so bleak

[gardyloo]

Yes, postulates have their places.

The problem, though, is that postulates live or die by the successes or failures of the hypotheses which hinge completely upon them. Thus far, all hypotheses hinging on the postulate of a creator of some sort have died. And I haven't seen any which are specific beyond some sort of vague handwaving; their goalposts are shifted all the time.

Besides which, this is exactly what Ockham's razor, Russell's Flying Teapot, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster (hollow be His penne) are brilliant at showing.

It certainly looks as though your postulate is completely unnecessary.

Re:Summary wrong, not so bleak

[PseudonymousBraveguy]

God is a postulate. He can't really be tested for or proven. And postulates have their place in scientific theories.

Postulates have only a value in science if used to prove a thesis under certain assumptions. (e.g. "If P=NP, than breaking RSA is easy"). Unfortunately, the existance of a God does not prove ID in the slightest. I don't see any reason why a God should take the stupid task do design all species one by one. (The non-existance of a God, however, would disprove ID.)

Everyone has the right to individually decide if they believe in a Creator or not. But flatly denying that it is even a possiblity is as much as an unfounded leath of faith as flatly denying he must exist.

Evolution does not per se deny the existance of a Creator. If you want to couple evolution with the belief of a creator, just imagine a Creator that made the rules, and said rules resulted in all the life forms we see today. Even the Pope acknowledges evolution, and I'm pretty sure he firmly believes in a Creator...

The proper scientific approach is to suggest it could be valid as a theory, but can't be tested at this time. Suggesting otherwise is zealoty all the same.

It can not only "not be tested at this time", it can't ever be tested. It is also not a theory. (Wikipedia: "The word theory, when used by scientists, refers to an explanation of reality that has been thoroughly tested so that most scientists agree on it. It can be changed if new information is found.") It's not even a hypothesis, because it is not testable. Suggesting otherwise is a grave misunderstanding of the scientific approach.

Oh dear. Anti-union BS alert!

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Oh dear. Anti-union BS alert!

[DrgnDancer]

So you're saying that correct solution is *not* to fund the school adequately, but rather to prevent teacher's unions from insisting on decent working conditions for their members? I mean, really? You're blaming the teacher's unions who insisted on decent desks, chairs, and computers for a failure to recruit scientists to teach science? Don't you think your highly qualified scientists are going to demand all that and more? A person with a masters in biology can get a near six-figure income as a senior lab teach in a bio-science lab and get a nice office with a computer (with Internet!) . A person with a Bachelors in Biology will probably be "stuck" making 40-50K in a lower end lab slot, in a decent cube with a nice computer (with Internet!). Why would they go to teach biology in high school to get heaped abuse, sit in crappy chairs, and have a beat up 486 as their workstation?

There are problems with teacher's unions, most notably the fact that they are highly resistant to merit based salary systems (though given what some districts consider "merit" I can kind of understand their reluctance), but demanding decent base salaries and working conditions for their members are not one one of them. If anything, those demands moderately increase the potential for recruiting better teachers.

Re:Oh dear. Anti-union BS alert!

[DrgnDancer]

The schools and teachers are there for the students benefit. The union is there for the teacher's benefit. Of course in a perfect "for the students" world teachers would be willing and able to work 24 hours a day, for free, while not using any furniture, and still produce outstanding results. We don't live in that world, and someone has to make sure that teachers are compensated for their time, that their working conditions are acceptable and they are being treated fairly. It's probably not the cash strapped school districts who are going to do that, so the union does.

Now was this particular purchase wasteful? I don't know. I don't what the teachers had previously. I taught school for a year right out of college. In my classroom I had a 25 year old metal desk, an equally old wood frame chair (no swivels or anything, just four legs, a stiff wooden back, and a seat with no padding), and no computer at all. My current company's ergonomics person would probably have a heart attack just looking at my setup. This was in the very late 90s. If our union had insisted on every teacher getting a real chair and a computer (let alone a desk) I would have wept for joy. I did all my work that didn't involve actually standing in front of the class at home where I had a decent computer and a crappy, but infinitely better than work, Office Depot desk and chair. If that was the situation in your schools district, then the union was completely justified.

It doesn't really matter where the money comes from. Terrible working conditions should be fought. The real solution would be for the state to ante up for new chairs and books. That would require more taxes though, and we're Americans, so we hate that. Or we'd have to cut some other underfunded service, and we hate that too. So instead we blame the union for insisting that teachers be given working conditions at least comparable to the average secretary.

In the last two years Alabama has cut education funding by 18.25%, and the Governor just asked the Department of Education send him justification for not not taking another 13% in the next two years. Gosh, I guess those unions are to blame.

Re:Oh dear. Anti-union BS alert!

[jahudabudy]

'm all for unions in industries where employee abuse is common. Education is not one of them.

Depends on your definition of abuse. In NC, no teachers union (it's illegal). My mother, sister and ex-wife are all primary education teachers (K-12), so I have seen first hand the environment they have. Teachers earn vacation at the same rate as every other state employee, but are very restricted as to when they can take it. There are legal protections in NC that prevent salaried state employees from being forced to work too much over 40 hours. The legislation specifically exempts doctors and teachers from these protections. So, if you teach at a high-school, you can (and will) be required to work football games, collecting gate revenues. You will be required to occasionally work 12 hour days (with no overtime pay) b/c of mandatory staff meetings. Hell, teachers can't even take a bathroom break whenever they feel like it (can't leave the class unattended). This is not to mention "personal" time spent grading homework and preparing lesson plans. State employee raises are mandated by the legislature (when they happen). Teachers are ALWAYS a separate category and generally receive a smaller raise than other state employees. I could go on and on about the numerous tiny abuse that are heaped on teachers.

I wouldn't say teachers are abused in the coal-miner sense of the word, but they are specifically and consistently shat on compared to other state employees here in NC. I would never, ever be a teacher here.

Re:oh noes

[oh_my_080980980]

Sarah Palin is that you?

"However, my view is that it is down to the parents to do the teaching, and to delegate to schools as they see fit, and also to make up the difference."

It's called the school board. That's where parents raise issues in regards to what little Johnny is taught in school. And no it's not the responsibility of parents to do the teaching. If it was then kids would be home schooled and I would not have to pay school taxes!

"No-group has a right to have their pet subjects taught to children"

Evolution is not a pet subject.

Moron.

Re:Seriously?

[Jawnn]

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.

Re:Seriously?

[drinkypoo]

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.

More to the point, if you care about your kids' education, you won't put them in public school, which is not about education first, but about teaching your children to put up with things no one should ever put up with.

Credentials.

[saintlupus]

It's almost like shuttling weak students who are afraid of math and science into teacher training programs was a BAD idea.

(Disclaimer: I'm employed by a college with a tremendous population of education majors.)

Flip it around

[SirGarlon]

On the other hand, I wonder what the numbers would look like if the survey asked teachers if they were reluctant to teach creationism in class. Probably much higher, in public schools at least. (Given that trying to teach religion in public school is *illegal* for good reason). I'm not sure there is anything to worry about here. Unless you happen to be a creationist.

Anectodal evidence from swedish HS

[Securityemo]

If I got it right, both chemistry/biochemistry teachers had chemistry degrees, the maths/physicists had degrees, but I'm not sure who taught biology since I was in the Sci/Tech program intead of Sci/Nat. The thing is though, the "controversy" never came up at all. While we got some backstory on "scientific thought" and the evolvment of the scientific model, the focus seemed to be on teaching us basic physics neatly intertwined with the math courses. That the scientists who worked out the models was using fallible tools and understanding, and that the models themselves where so "high up" from our understanding that we would have to study a lot more to concretely understand them where sort of implicit.

The religion courses where compulsory, but that guy (who at least seemed like he had a degree of some sort, he "seemed academic") mostly seemed keen on trying to teach us to think about religion in the abstract besides teaching us about the fundamentals of the major religions like Chatolicism and Islam etc., (Eg., "what is sin, as a concept, from a christian perspective?") but I'm quite certain creationism and related concepts where only mentioned in passing unless I missed that class.

In "Junior High" I don't think the (all female) bio teachers had a degree either, since they taught mostly from the books (it seemed). We had "sex ed" in bio class, but it was more like "genital anatomy". They took in some sort of weird female consult (who I now am perfectly sure had Aspergers) for actual sex ed, which included condom usage, oral/anal sex (briefly) and "the importance of cuddling". The most fun part of that year was our Social Sciences teacher (great guy, had been in the jaeger corps when he was younger, apparently had enough "teaching" university education to give him a Masters equivalent) putting on the Monthy Python "Every Sperm is Sacred" skit.

Re:USA != World

[goodmanj]

Yes, yes, you're very enlightened, we Americans recognize the innate superiority of the European educational system, have a lollipop. (I think I'm justified in assuming that's where you're from).

Now, would you cut out the snide smugness and come HELP US fight these religious fundamentalist zealots? I dunno, donate some Euros to Teach for America, encourage exchange programs between your country and Texas, anything.

If this really bothers you, quit making wisecracks and do something about it.

Re:How can a biology teacher not be a biology majo

[DrgnDancer]

It works like this. You go to college and get a degree in biology. You face several choices:

1) You could go be a biology teacher. You could make 30-35K a year to start (not awful, but not great) or even less depending on how much education funding in your state has been slashed recently. In 20 or 30 years you *might* make twice that. You have to spend you days dealing with kids who don't really want to learn what you're teaching them, and parents who alternately abrogate all educational responsibility to you or tell you that your teaching is wrong or even immoral (sometimes the same parents do both!). You probably also have to spend a couple years going to night school getting certified in order to not get fired.

2) You could go work in a lab for 40-50K a year and eventually more. And not deal with any of this crap.

3) You could go to graduate or medical school and make much more money later on down the line as a professor, senior lab tech, doctor, etc.

Which do you choose? A surprising number don't go with option (1) for some reason. This leaves us with a shortage of teachers in biology which gets back filled by people with degrees in "general education".

Re:Not a science major?

[lneely]

An English major with an accurate understanding of the sciences should certainly be allowed to teach to the level of his comprehension, though a science graduate should obviously be preferred. The real reason teachers fail their students is because most of them, 90% or more in my own district, would sooner cheat them out of a proper education than risk their careers to even a minimum extent. They concern themselves only with how they look to their overpaid administrators so that they, themselves, will one day be overpaid administrators. And so on, and on, and on...

Re:Seriously?

[goodmanj]

Those teachers should grow some balls...

Unless you're a teacher yourself, you have no idea just how much balls it takes to fight this battle.

Re:oh noes

[Asic Eng]

If science isn't taught because of someone's pet beliefs, then that's a matter of interest. It has an impact on the future of the country. It also has an impact on children who are not taught properly because someone else would prefer to pretend their was a scientific debate about a topic where there isn't one.

Scientists who see that should feel a moral obligation to point out what's happening. It's good to see that some do.

In the words of Professor Farnsworth....

[gnesterenko]

"I don't want to live on this planet anymore."

"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."

Re:Not a science major?

[FatdogHaiku]

Not to mention anyone going to the trouble of getting an advanced degree in a hard science is probably expecting to have more financial rewards than a teachers salary.

Re:Whatever

[boxwood]

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.

Poor Teacher Compensation

[mathmathrevolution]

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

Re:Poor Teacher Compensation

[mathmathrevolution]

Yeah, I know bashing unions is a great way to get labeled troll in a discussion on education, but I stand by it.

What you need to do is justify your opinion. If you're unwilling to pay teachers more, then how does union busting alone attract better teachers? It doesn't because there's no such thing as a free lunch.

Honestly, and I really hate to make this a partisan thing, but education is simply too dominated by liberally minded people.

I would love for there to be more conservatives in education. Unfortunately, conservatives believe in _self-interest_ and are therefore unwilling to take positions at considerably below their market value. Currently our schools rely more on _altruism_ for retention than on providing staff with adequate market compensation. And the people motivated by altruism, surprise, surprise, are overwhelmingly Democrats. That's what happens when you insist that people take a difficult and poorly compensated job out of the goodness of their heart

Besides, I have no problem with how much money teachers make. Nearly all of my close friends are teachers, and they're all doing just fine and have no problems finding a job making good money. Sure, it may not be on par with what other Master's degrees may fetch, but education majors also aren't the brightest bulbs in the box.

You're right. It is easy to get a job as a teacher. That's because there's no competition. *Nobody wants to be a teacher because it's a shit job that pays shit*. It should be difficult to become a teacher. If we paid a competitive wage, then it would be difficult to be a teacher, much like its currently difficult to be a doctor or engineer. And if we were willing to pay teachers a competitive wage, then we could actually get more qualified teachers than your friends who are, as you say, not the "brightest bulbs in the box".

Show us the evidence of evolution!

[Theovon]

I've spent many years learing about evolutionary theory. It seems quite intuitive to me. But it isn't intuitive to many people because it's unlike anything they observe normally. Among scientists, evolution isn't controvercial, but among others, it is. Therefore, others need more convincing. But telling them to "just believe because you're an idiot if you don't" is just religion. To most people, evolution vs. something else is just a war between factions. There's no science in it. And while religion remains relatively stable, evolutionary theory keeps changing; what's "true" one day is "false" the next. The way that evolution is taught is partly responsible for this controversy.

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. 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. 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.

I have a little girl, and I don't want to just tell her "evolution is true, and those creationists are idiots." I want to show her the science. Besides, its misleading to say that "evolution is true". Evolutionary fact observed in the lab is true. 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.

Re:Show us the evidence of evolution!

[MattSausage]

I once made my fundamentalist christian boss at an old job pratically swallow his tongue because I almost forced him to understand evolution. Along with loving Jesus, he was a super gear-head. So I broke Evolution down into car terms (very basic terms since I'm NOT a gearhead).

First I asked why we don't drive Model-T Fords anymore? Because someone added pedals to the next car. The car people bought after that had a hardtop roof or windshield wipers. Then some came out with larger engines, those cars survived longer in the marketplace because they were a better fit to what people wanted from their money. Some cars had innovations that didn't work, and they died off (Edsel, et al). And now we have lamborghini's and Bentleys and Chevys and Fords of all different makes and models, with GPS and remote start, and some will do better than others, and continue to be developed. Others will be too expensive, or too fuel hungry, or too feature-poor, and those won't sell as well, and over time, those models will disappear.

Effectively the slow progression the car industry makes in response to market forces is analogous to the evolution of life in response to changing environmental pressure.

Re:Show us the evidence of evolution!

[AthanasiusKircher]

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?

Re:Show us the evidence of evolution!

[arthurpaliden]

When chicken embryos first start to develop they have teeth buds along their jaw lines and the beginnings of multi segmented tails. As they develop their DNA tells the developing embryo to absorb them. Much like human embryo's absorb our own embryonic gill slits. Now if you turn off the genes that control this absorption instruction you get chicken embryos that develop long multi segmented dinosaur tails and meat eating dinosaur teeth complete with the serrated inside edge.

And a few news sites discussing this:

• http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/03/05/dinosaur-chicken.html
• http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/12/60minutes/main5629962.shtml
• http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2009-08/scientist-vows-backwards-engineer-dinosaur-chicken

Some of the people involved:

• Raul Cano, professor of microbiology at California Polytechnic State University
• Jack Horner, professor of palaeontology at Montana State University
• Hans Larsson, a paleontologist at McGill University in Canada
• Matt Harris and John Fallon, developmental biologists at the University of Wisconsin
• Dewey Kramer, at Texas A&M University

Re:Show us the evidence of evolution!

[thijsh]

Asimov's essay "The relativity of wrong" should be required reading... It puts some perspective on 'truth' and 'wrong'. Religious people love to point out small errors in the theory of evolution and claim that all must be wrong, that's an inherent property of blind faith (you either believe the whole thing no matter how ridiculous or you have to abandon your whole faith, it's an all-or-nothing game). The scientific way that Asimov illustrates has degrees of 'wrongness', but a steadily improving model that gets closer and closer to the truth.

Re:Show us the evidence of evolution!

[Anonymous Coward]

The Kitzmiller v. Dover, PA School Board trial in 2005 gave public airing to the best arguments of evolution and those of Intelligent Design. The trial was presided over by Judge John Jones, a George W. Bush appointee with conservative values. Judge Jones ruled, in a 139 page brief, that ID was merely creatism warmed over and ruled against the school board's attempt to inject ID into biology highschool classrooms. If you read some of the transcripts you really get a feel for the complete lack of scientific basis for ID. It was brought out that if you use the ID definition of "science" then astrology also passes muster and should be taught alongside astronomy. Some of the best witnesses for both sides were questioned at the trial and it makes the Scopes Trial in TN (1930's) seem boring. Here is Nova's webcast on the trial: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/intelligent-design-trial.html

Re:Show us the evidence of evolution!

[Bobfrankly1]

I once made my fundamentalist christian boss at an old job pratically swallow his tongue because I almost forced him to understand evolution. Along with loving Jesus, he was a super gear-head. So I broke Evolution down into car terms (very basic terms since I'm NOT a gearhead). First I asked why we don't drive Model-T Fords anymore? Because someone added pedals to the next car. The car people bought after that had a hardtop roof or windshield wipers. Then some came out with larger engines, those cars survived longer in the marketplace because they were a better fit to what people wanted from their money. Some cars had innovations that didn't work, and they died off (Edsel, et al). And now we have lamborghini's and Bentleys and Chevys and Fords of all different makes and models, with GPS and remote start, and some will do better than others, and continue to be developed. Others will be too expensive, or too fuel hungry, or too feature-poor, and those won't sell as well, and over time, those models will disappear. Effectively the slow progression the car industry makes in response to market forces is analogous to the evolution of life in response to changing environmental pressure.

Just wait until someone turns that analogy on it's head, as the vehicles you are referencing were designed by an intelligent being (or group thereof).

Re:Show us the evidence of evolution!

[TheThiefMaster]

Evolution has been observed in action in the Peppered Moth. Found in both "peppered" (white with black speckles) and completely black, over just a few hundred years it went from most being peppered, to most being completely black, then back to most being peppered, in response to which colouring provided the best camouflage. Note that the individual moths didn't change colour, they still "looked like their parents" as it were, it's just that the massive amount of pollution put out in the industrial revolution made everything black and so all the white moths became easily visible for predators. Later, once we cleaned up, white went back to being the ideal colour and the black moths started to get killed off more than the white, pushing the population back the other way. If it had persisted for too long, the species could have become permanently black, and could even have become unable to (or unwilling to) breed with any white moths elsewhere that hadn't been subject to the same selective pressure.

Re:Not a science major?

[Wolvenhaven]

My highschool opened the first internet lab in a school in our state thanks to a grant one of our history teachers got. He started up a class that ran an online magazine and it was listed as an english class. He has a doctorate in english, a masters in history, and a couple of bachelors in other areas, but because he was "registered" at the school as a history teacher, they took the class away from him a few years later and gave it to an english teacher because he wasn't "qualified". The same school allowed an ex-hospital lab technician teaching on-level and honors biology because of her degree in nursing. Schools generally don't follow any logical thought processes when doing anything.

Re:Seriously?

[goodmanj]

As I've posted elsewhere, I understand how hard this subject can be to teach in some communities. But comparing it to teaching abortion in the schools is a false analogy.

Grade schools exist to teach students facts, skills, and deductive reasoning.

Abortion is a moral issue about which I have strong beliefs, but which I understand are not universally held. My views on abortion are not facts, and deductive reasoning does not lead to a logical conclusion on the subject. Evolution *is* a fact -- or as damn near a fact as one can get without doubting one's senses and powers of deduction -- and the process that led Darwin to the idea is a great demonstration of deductive reasoning. Thus, evolution belongs in schools, abortion does not.

Re:oh noes

[Ephemeriis]

I'm trying hard to read this as more than a complaint that "Oh noes, my pet-theory/favourite-subject isn't being taught as much as I think it should"

The general form of the story is well known.

In this case it is a scientific theory so scientists see it as bad for future science.

It could just as easily be engineers claiming about the poor quality of mathematics teaching, or CS professors complaining about the lack of independent thinking.

However, my view is that it is down to the parents to do the teaching, and to delegate to schools as they see fit, and also to make up the difference.

No-group has a right to have their pet subjects taught to children. Except the gubbernment, of course.
But- they are allowed to whine and make a noise about it.

The idea behind the public school system is, at least in theory, to give everyone the basic knowledge necessary to function in the world.

People need to be able to read, they need to be able to write, they need to be able to do math. Folks need to have at least some basic understanding of classic literature because so much of the modern world is built upon it. Folks need to have at least some basic understanding of history, they need to have some understanding of how our government works, they need to have a basic understanding of science.

We consider it fairly normal to know that the heart pumps blood around your body, for example. It may not be necessary to know exactly how many bones are in the human body, or be able to name them... But it's a good idea to know that humans have bones, and worms do not.

Obviously, individual families and parents are going to impart their own wisdom along the way... Or, at least we hope they will. But the whole point of a public school system with expectations and requirements is to establish a baseline of sorts. A foundation to build upon.

Now, you can certainly argue that any particular bit of education is or isn't necessary... Do folks really need to learn geometry? Is it essential to read Romeo and Juliet? Do we have to teach evolution?

I would argue that the scientific method - the process of testing and refining a hypothesis until you've got something useful - is absolutely essential. It's the foundation of the entire modern world. And without a grasp of the scientific method you're going to have a hard time establishing critical thinking skills.

And I would also argue that evolution is essential. The theory of evolution was developed by scientific observation and testing, it isn't something some random person just thought-up out of the blue. It has some basis in reality. And it goes a long way towards explaining how the world around us works. Why diseases change and adapt to new hosts or drugs. Why certain creatures live in one place and not another. Why we have the tremendous diversity of life on our planet. That one theory provides an awful lot of answers.

Now, I suppose, if the problem was just a lack of funding or time or something... If they just couldn't squeeze everything into the curriculum... I wouldn't be so bent out of shape. I'd be very curious what was being taught instead of evolution. And I might very well suggest that it was more important to teach the basics of evolution than to dissect a frog. But I'd at least understand what the pressures and limitations were.

As it is, however, the pressure is not one of funding or time. The reason evolution is not being taught is because it conflicts with an alternate "theory". One that was, in fact, simply thought-up out of the blue by some guy. One that is not based on the scientific method. One that does not have any basis in reality. One that cannot be objectively tested, or used to make any predictions. One that may, possibly, offer some emotional solace... But is absolutely useless in understanding the actual world around us.

I would be just as offended if they stopped teaching Shakespeare in classes for no other reason than because Twilight fans were feeling threatened.

Re:This is what leads to the death of the USA

[TheSpoom]

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 were fine until you proved yourself an extremist.

You won't be.

[aussersterne]

As someone who was born in the U.S. but grew up in a Chinese family, let me tell you that the differences are stark. The U.S. is already a third world country by ideological and cultural standards. The population is lazy, self-entitled, undereducated, science-illiterate, unversed in either informal or formal logic, and completely averse to quality standards, quality control, or doing quality work.

All that's left is the resultant 1-or-2 generation slide into broken economy, broken infrastructure, broken governmental systems, etc. America is getting by on inertia and its population isn't doing the work to maintain its current standard of living and production, much less return it to some past glory or other.

China, on the other hand, is ruthlessly pragmatic, wholly rational-instrumental in its current approach to the world, science and math obsessed, achievement-oriented, and completely cold-blooded about it. The achievements are stunning to anyone that looks at what has been done in a few short years, and the expectations and determination are much higher. People that are busy worrying about "human rights" in China really don't get it; most of the Chinese couldn't care less about human rights right now. They want Progress, capital "P", they believe it comes from science, work, and sacrifice, and they're willing to give up almost anything to get it. They want to dominate the world economy and they're well on their way.

The recent furor over Chua's "Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother" demonstrates at the micro-level, in very clear terms, why China will shortly surpass the U.S. Incidentally, I grew up in a family much like that. Grades were all-important, people were called "trash" and "garbage" when they didn't achieve or perform, and standards were witheringly high. I resented it very much when I was a teenager. By the time I was in my 20s, I recalled it all with fondness and in my 30s I wish I had worked even harder than I did to meet those expectations. And at the end of the day, I don't feel "abused" at all and plan to work hard to raise my own daughter with very high academic and intellectual standards.

My wife and I are currently trying to decide whether this process will require us to leave the U.S. for either China or Eastern Europe (where she's from, and was a child prodigy at top schools under the old Soviet satellite system) in order to get a good education and avoid the dead weight of American anti-intellectual culture holding our daughter back.

Re:You won't be.

[geekoid]

Much of China is ignorant people buried in a false history of ideological crap.

If you want your child to not only be buried in memorization, but instead learn to think, put them in a good American school. Do you have any clue about schools in China? or are you just carrying on your parents racist attitudes? Because all that hard work your parent put you through, and they utterly failed at teaching you how to think. Simple research would have shown you all the studies facts and tool you need to have actually come to a rational conclusion.

You're conclusion are so wrong, it's hard to even know where to begin. Not that it would matter, because you have stopped thinking.

And oh, a top school in the Soviet Union.... BWahahahaha.

You do realize that all school in the old Soviet system where always presented as the top school, right?

I was taught Math, science, computers. Pretty much all the basics one needs to know coming out of high school. That was in 1982.

My kids are being taught good math and science; however I don't need to drill them, I don't need to create a false sense of importance, I don't teach them to look down on people. They do fine.

You're whole 'argument' seems to hinge on people are claiming to be abused for studying, I'm not sure why you think that?

Yes, some teacher in some schools are idiots. No the system is perfect, and yes parents need to be involved.
But there is no reason to think there will be anyone surpassing the US. Evidences point to other countries rising to the US level of income.

Remember, China's rise to power is on the back of sweatshop slaves, and manipulation of the their third world status to avoid paying their share.

Re:You won't be.

[LanMan04]

and completely averse to quality standards, quality control, or doing quality work.

Just ask the kids who died from melamine in the formula.

Or poisoned pet food. Or cadmium in kids jewelry.

Such quality control/standards!

Re:oh noes

[samjam]

I think you answered my flamebait the worst, so I'll continue the discussion from your post.

"Evolution is not some 'pet theory' but part the framework of humanist enlightenment that has proven itself again and again." is a baseless statement with the same sort of authority as my flaimbait; which is merely this: "that's how I like it".

I'm not a young earth creationist or even nearly one, but from a distance I can't see the difference between the position presented here and the one presented by "creationists".

Both groups sum up to "right thinking folk are against it" and it is an embarrassingly weak position to argue from.

The person who talked about the school boards was a bit better, but the school boards teach the things demanded by parents who call for accountability and less so the things demanded by other parents - which is to be expected.

Re:Seriously?

[ElectricTurtle]

Oh sweet, so now all I have to do is threaten some teachers, and it will be reasonable for them to stop teaching things I don't like? Awesome! I can't wait for society to become even more ignorant through base cowardice and fear of unpopularity, that's always produced such great things in history, like, you know, the holocaust and pogroms.

Re:Whatever

[246o1]

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.

Don't buy it

[cyberchondriac]

Honestly, I find this report hard to believe.
I wouldn't be totally shocked to find it was embellished to make a point or generate sympathy for evolutionists, because I just can't beleive creationism is gaining a foothold over real science.

The Scarier Part...

[Solarch]

The scarier part of the summary is this: "not every biology teacher was a science major". It is, unfortunately, true. Teachers can get certified to teach biology with a degree in education and a minor (or even less in some states) in biology. Contrariwise, a person with a B.S., M.S., or even Ph.D. in biology is considered unqualified to teach their subject without significant financial and time investment for certification. While I understand that not everyone who can do science or has an advanced degree can teach well, is it not better practice to at least have some path by which they can easily and practically attain a teaching position in a quick and inexpensive manner? When non-science majors with a minimum of science education are considered more qualified by the establishment to teach science than experts in the field, is it no wonder that we are lagging in science education?

Abortion as a subject

[danaris]

You don't make teachers teach about abortion, so why make them teach other difficult subjects?

How about, "because abortion isn't a fundamental part of any reasonable biology curriculum."

Seriously, you can't see the difference here?

Dan Aris

Re:Seriously?

[drinkypoo]

More to the point, if you don't want a working public school system and think that education is something the parents have to afford

Uh no, that's not how this happened. This happened because parents didn't care, not because I don't care. They don't involve themselves sufficiently with the education process and then are surprised when their children aren't educated. School has become what it is because parents were happy to have someplace to pack their kids off to so they could avoid actual parenting.

Zealots of different spots

[PNO]

The US used to be great. It used to be the land of opportunity. Now, it's the land of the petty, the vindictive, the greedy, the power-hungry and the entitled.

The never-ending debate about evolution (which is clearly evident to anyone with a brain and at least 1 eye), will never be settled. Religious organizations (pick your denomination) refuse to give up control of their sheep. True science threatens that.

Meanwhile, the science zealots refute Faith, even though they can't disprove it using their own vaunted methods.

It boils down to a simple matter of agreeing to disagree and allow others to live their freaking lives as THEY choose to.

Federally funded school systems should stop playing politics and trying to control people with textbooks. Present the main theories and let people think for themselves (or not).

Genetics Proves Evolution

[arthurpaliden]

Genetics Proves Evolution: The Creationist's Galileo Moment

When chicken embryos start to develop they have teeth buds and the beginnings of multi segmented tails. As they develop their DNA tells the developing embryo to absorb them. Much like human embryo's absorb embryonic gill slits. Now if you turn off the genes that control this absorption instruction you get chicken embryos that develop long multi segmented dinosaur tails and meat eating dinosaur teeth complete with the serrated inside edge. Other studies have also been successful in regressing feathers into scales.

This is not hypothesis. This is not supposition. This is not interpretation. This cold hard, hold in your hands see with your own eyes type reproducible proof. It has already been done, in Canadian universities no less, and is documented and reproducible. One more thing. No DNA was ever added to the bird DNA. This was done using 100% pure chicken DNA.

They have proved that bird DNA contains genes that create dinosaur characteristics. The only way this can happen is through the evolutionary process.

So like when Galileo first pointed his telescope at the heavens and learned that Aristotle was wrong modern scientists have pointed their microscopes at developing bird embryos and learned that they are correct. Evolution is real.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1026340/Jurassic-Park-comes-true-How-scientists-bringing-dinosaurs-life-help-humble-chicken.html

Note:The 'Daily Mail' isn't the gold standard for scientific reporting but here it does a good job of describing the research so the public can understand it (creationists excepted). Names of people and institutions where the work was done are given allowing Internet searches to the relevant papers and science reporting.

Re:Genetics Proves Evolution

[slimjim8094]

What you're talking about is one of my most favorite phrases: "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny". In short, embryos will traverse the evolutionary tree as they develop. While not always true, it's worth reading about.

Re:Genetics Proves Evolution

[Bawbsmith]

To be honest, this doesn't prove Evolution, any more than changing program code and subsequently altering the result of the program - proves that code is self-changing or that the language's author doesn't exist either for that matter. I don't suggest that DNA doesn't mutate - but i disagree with the basis of your 'proof'

It seems to me that DNA is like any other programming language, really. You've got a set of instructions - that run through some process - to generate some output. Alter the instructions - alter the output.

Re:Genetics Proves Evolution

[CharlyFoxtrot]

Does that mean everything actually tastes like dinosaur ?

Re:Genetics Proves Evolution

[bwayne314]

Also, how about the nerve that connects the mammal voicebox to the brain! In humans it travels down through the neck and exits at a specific vertebra into the voicebox, roughly 6 inches in length. In the giraffe, due to the gradual elongation of the neck over evolutionary time, this nerve ends up traveling over a meter down through the vertebrae of the giraffe, then exits the spinal column at the base of the neck, then travels over a meter BACK UP to the head and throat of the giraffe. Its a 3 meter long nerve, that only needs to be several centimeters in length ... If this is by design, then its a pretty fucking stupid design :)

End of story

Re:Only in America

[Rob the Bold]

Christians around the world give thumbs up for evolution. What went wrong in the U.S.? Come on now, you're an embarrassment to the world.

All US Christians favor teaching creationism as science in exactly the same way as all Muslims are terrorists. Please, please, read that twice before bashing or modding.

Re:How can a biology teacher not be a biology majo

[jack2000]

What the hell 'Murika. I'm from an ex soviet country and even here, in order to teach something you must have a degree in it from a higher education institution.

This aplies to everything, especially things like Biology, History etc...

The only place where you can get away with not having a diploma is perhaps PE.

Re:How can a biology teacher not be a biology majo

[jack2000]

Simple, increase pay for teachers and slash taxes for them. Hell, that should be the norm, otherwise the government is taxing it's own money that it is givving to the teachers. Ouroboros anyone?

fight fire with fire

[deodiaus2]

Instead of arguing about evolution, the teachers should teach about religion.
When I was going to school, teachers wouldn't not miss the chance to tow the party line, and voice their opinions. Many would talke about their support for the US against communism. My 4-th grade teacher would denouce the Civil Righs movement and say that to join the "Black Panters", you had to kill a white person.
Don't miss this opportunity to remind students that the Catholic church protects pediophilacs and sacrifices children. Tell them that Jesus was a political criminal. Remind them that the Bible says that during the trial of Jesus, Piotious Piolot gave Jesus a chance to demonstrate that he was the "Son of God". Why did Jesus perform miriacles on other stated occasions, when he had a full entarage just waiting for Him to prove himself?
Instead of being silent, use the occasion to read these quotes:
http://dailyatheistquote.com/list.aspx
I am sure some will sink in!

Contrarian...

[bayankaran]

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.

As someone in education, I'm not surprised...

[eepok]

I'm not calling teachers wimpy, but they have very little to fight for anymore. They *are* going to fold on their curriculum if there's enough public pressure (read: further threat of job security). Often they quit teaching altogether.

Here are some example of topics that teachers just won't teach in California:

1) All 4-6 grade students in California have to learn about the Spanish Catholic missions built throughout the state and how much the natives welcomed the religion and the establishment of permanent cities. Except that's not how it happened, teachers know it, and they teach it because it's part of the California standards. If they say, "The Catholics came to the west coast, enslaved natives, forced their religion on them, and killed those that tried to keep their own religions.," they'd be tossed out on their asses.

2) No president chopped down a cherry tree and then ratted himself out to his father.

3) Many of the founding fathers owned slaves.

4) Slavery was popular and the entirety of the initial financial success of the states was built on the backs of kidnapped, raped, beaten, and worked black people.

5) The Civil War still produces some animosity throughout the South.

6) The "first Thanksgiving" may have happened, but it was cautious and tenuous at best. The pilgrims soon saw the natives not as temporary saviors, but as savages who needed to go away or be purged. Even if they changed to Puritan Christianity, they would have still been seen and treated as beings just above animals and far below humans.

7) The US is *not* a meritocracy. That was the plan, but classes carried over from Europe and further developed here. That's a myth perpetuated by people who want *you* to work hard for *their* benefits.

8) No, not everyone can be president. Not anymore. You need to have a saintly background and/or a TON of money. ... the list goes on and on. Essentially, anything that forces children to confront tradition is sharply argued against and often the source of bad reviews. Call it the "snowflake" or "hover-parent" phenomenon if you wish, I call it the "litigation scare".

Re:Seriously?

[Creedo]

You still aren't grasping the basic facts of the issue here - teaching evolution, no matter how correct or factual it is, can still get teachers into a lot of shit. Why should they be forced to take that shit for you?

So, biology teachers should ignore the central unifying facts of biology to avoid trouble? Let's take that a step further. Let's not teach about the Civil War because it gets people upset. Let's not teach about the Holocaust in case Johnny's daddy is a Holocaust denier. Let's not teach about slavery in the south. Let's not teach about the history of the Native Americans. Let's not teach about the Cold War, or the Protestant Reformation, etc.

No matter what you are teaching, it will likely upset some wanker. The teacher's job is to teach their subject. The administration should be running interference for them if they are catching flak while adhering to scholastic standards. If we back down from this, then we might as well throw in the towel right now on education in this country, because all you are advocating is pandering to the local prejudices.

You don't make teachers teach about abortion, so why make them teach other difficult subjects?

If there is a class that touches on abortion(say, US History or Sex Ed.), then, yes, they should be teaching it. If my high school aged kid got out of those classes without a mention of abortion, it would be a travesty.

Mod Parent Up

[twoallbeefpatties]

A short reminder for those who forget - half of all teachers in America quit within 5 years.

Re:Good :) Now, can they teach creationism??

[CharlyFoxtrot]

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.

Let me tell you a story on how we deal with creationism in Belgium. I went to a catholic high school, no particular reason it was just the best in the area, and as part of the deal you get an hour of religious instruction each week. This class was taught by an old priest, couple years away from retirement. We had 1 (exactly one) creationist in our year, an evangelical christian, and one day he brings up creationism in this class and how a catholic school should treat the subject more seriously (there was literally just one sentence in biology class to the effect that "some people don't 'believe' in evolution" and that was it.) So this priest just looks at him and then laughs out loud in his face and it was like a cartoon where you see a character slowly become red from the bottom to the top of their face, like he was about the explode. You see this priest was a teacher and an intellectual and didn't have any problem reconciling all of those things with his faith and wasn't about to go about ignoring evidence to make this guy happy. These biology "teachers" in the US should be ashamed of themselves.

Re:Whatever

[Gadget_Guy]

As far as I know, Christians wanted to stop evolution being taught in schools in the 1920s. But after the Scopes Monkey Trial public opinion changed and people turned against laws preventing the teaching of evolution. And evolution was being taught in more and more schools.

So what changed the trend of evolution being taught in more schools? What shifted public opinion against evolution being taught in schools? It was backlash against Atheists.

No, there is no backlash. These so-called New Atheists really don't exist. If they did, where would you find them? Do they picket out the front of churches like the Christians picket abortion clinics and movies that they don't like? Do they stack the church boards so they can change the church policy like the Christians stack school boards?

No, it was the establishment of the Intelligent Design movement that changed everything. Once the states were told by the supreme court that they could not ban evolution from being taught in schools for religious reasons because that was against the constitution, the anti-evolution crowd began to re-invent their movement as a secular one. After trying out some terms like Scientific Creationism (which didn't work in court because it still had the name creationism), they eventually went with Intelligent Design.

This is purely a religious movement hiding their real beliefs for legal reasons. These people who had successfully made laws to ban evolution in the past never stopped working towards their goals. It was not some mythical anti-atheist backlash that brought this controversy back. It was the tireless efforts of a group of people who were not going to let the US constitution stop them from forcing their beliefs on others.

Creating Life from Scratch

[VirginMary]

Now go ahead and prove evolution by creating life from scratch in the lab.

I'd be happy to oblige. Now all you need to give me are a planet much like what earth was like about 4 billion years ago and a few hundred million years time to run trillions of biochemical experiments. Then I think it might be quite easy.
Ongoing evolution on the other hand is another story.
Evolution can be seen for example in the DNA of all living things. It can be simulated on a computert. Observed in bacteria in almost real time and traced in the fossil record. It is after all a very simple concept that only requires variation and selection. I highly recommend Relics of Eden a book written by a christian. Anybody who read that would have a really hard time to deny that humans are the outcome of an evolutionary process.

Monkey Trial and Sputnik

[k6mfw]

A recent program on PBS (I think) that discussed the The State of Tennessee v. Scopes in 1925 where a teacher was prosecuted for teaching evolution. It was said after the trial (teacher was found guilty and fined $100), schools across the country continued to teach biblical creation. After the Soviets launched Sputnik in 1957, evolution was brought into school curriculum because, "we are behind the Soviets in teaching science."

As science is taking a backseat to sales, marketing, and religious dogma, I can see how evolution will be removed from school curriculum. But then those godless commie's in other countries will churn out more engineers and scientists while we bitch and moan.

That is the thing

[SmallFurryCreature]

In Europe, this ain't even an issue. Evolution isn't taught in school, it is fact. School explains the fact same as school explains gravity. You have to be educated that gravity exists, just how it actually works.

That evolution is even up for debate shows a LOT about the USA. There shouldn't even be a debate. You don't debate facts. And if you claim evolution is not a fact... happy beard in the sky day.

Re:That is the thing

[dondelelcaro]

Evolution isn't taught in school, it is fact.

Evolution isn't a fact (or even an observable). It is a theory supported by vast amounts of evidence (observables), which we constantly test every day. Claiming that something is a fact and therefore shouldn't be debated or discussed is antithical to science. Everything in science is debateable. We debate it by doing experiments.

School explains the fact same as school explains gravity. You have to be educated that gravity exists, just how it actually works.

A proper school would discuss gravity by showing the observables, working out how to derive simple laws of gravitation, then working up to how to deal with two body problems and other methods of measuring big G. Finally culminating in the currently open problems in gravity (gravitons, gravitational waves, etc.)

The very move to supress dissent and discussion leads to ruining the very skeptical, curious nature which makes for the best scientists. Schools which do this are squandering their children's future.

Re:That is the thing

[Alain Williams]

In Europe, this ain't even an issue. Evolution isn't taught in school,

Not true: when I went to school (England in the 1970's) evolution was taught. Competing theories such as larmarkism and the bible story where given as alternatives and we were then shown that the evidence (experiments, observation, ....) supported evolution through natural selection. That was done the right way.

Re:Fair ground

[robthebloke]

My issue with the political / bureaucratic side of evolutionary theory is that even its most ardent proponents are too ill-equipped to engage in rational debate that they have to effectively bully their way into the education system.

Ok, I'll give you an opportunity to get around that then. I'm in Oxford in the UK. If you wish to present YEC ideas in a biology class at a school over here (free from US bureaucracy and politics) then you are more than welcome to do so. Over here science classes are really very simple. If it's been proved and independently verified (typically Oxford and/or Cambridge universities fill this role), then you may teach it. If it has been disproved, or has not been verified, then it is not allowed within the classroom. So for example, you cannot say "The earth is 6500 years old" because that has been proved to be false. You could however say "Whilst completely untrue, some people used to believe (and some still do!) that the Earth is 6500 years old". If your YEC ideas truly have scientific validity, then I invite you to have them independently verified by Oxford university, and then you may present the ideas in a science lesson (but only those theories that the university allows obviously! We don't want you breaking the law!). You can take a double class if you wish (70mins). Sound fair?

(p.s. I've offered 3 people this opportunity so far. No one has ever taken me up on the offer for some reason.... )

The same science that makes the lights come on...

[Brannon]

makes medicine, makes the internet, makes planes fly, explains why birds fly and where babies comes from also tells us that evolution is how we got to where we are. Modern biology *is* evolutionary biology. If you want to become a doctor or a scientist or even a moderately informed citizen--you need to understand evolution and fit it into your belief system somewhere just like millions of other people before you have--including millions of engineers/doctors/scientists who are also Christians.

Try that.

Re:This is what leads to the death of the USA

[CharlyFoxtrot]

No harm in talking to an imaginary friend, it's when they start talking back you should get worried.

Better: Show that they believe evolution too

[Roger W Moore]

The way to deal with it is to tell the student that whether or not they accept evolution...

There is an even better way which points out that really they probably believe in evolution too. Just ask them whether they were worried about the swine flu outbreak last year or the bird flu a few years before. Assuming that they respond that these were valid causes for some concern ask them why because, if there is no evolution, then there will be no change in infectious diseases either so there is nothing to be concerned about. Then let them think about that for a while.

While many people may profess otherwise when push comes to shove they do believe in science. This latest science-religion controvesy is utter nonsense. Science and religion have coexisted well for hundreds of years. Yes, with occasional conflicts - but lets not forget that a lot of science was actually conducted by religion early on. It only seems to be recently that a few idiots on the fringe of religions seem to have garnered undue support...which is probably not unrelated to the declining educational standards in schools.

No reason for Ignorance

[turkeyfish]

" 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.

So do administrators! Guess who wins?

[bradley13]

I knew a teacher in Austin who was paying for school supplies out of her own (underpaid) pockets. And I remember seeing statistics that there were more non-teaching staff than teachers in the district. Time to google...

The school district employs 12,183 people. Of these, 6079 are teachers (that is less than half). Now look at the reductions:

• Total reduction: 484.7 total positions (FTE)
• Teacher positions: 381.2
• Teacher "scheduling efficiencies": 40
• Non-teaching staff: 63.5

In other words, teachers are 49.8% of the staff, but 86.9% of the reductions.

What they ought to do is fire 450 administrators.

Re:Not a science major?

[gorzek]

The best teachers are quite often the ones nobody likes. In fact, I didn't even like the best teacher I ever had. She was a stodgy old German lady with a thick accent that taught me in fourth grade, but she did three things for me that no teacher before or since came close to:

1. She recognized that I was having genuine difficulties learning and paying attention and she suggested my parents see a doctor. Out of that I got ADD and Tourette's diagnoses. I'm not medicated for them now but they're much easier to cope with, knowing what they are.
2. The school got a grant for 20 TRS-80 computers and none of the other teachers wanted them, so she took the whole batch and taught us all how to type.
3. She noticed my interest in programming and had me teach the other students a bit about it. Did a lot for my confidence and pride, of which I had just about zero at the time.

That said, she was very cold and strict and a lot of the parents didn't like her because she was so standoffish. She was a great teacher, though, even if it wasn't appreciated.

Re:Not a science major?

[kj_kabaje]

I don't believe anyone was claiming destitution.  The point of the original posts above was to state that, apart from the political/cultural issues, there is a financial disincentive for science teachers to keep teaching.  My mistake was not being clear about this--that I voiced support for the previous posts would seem to indicate I agreed with their arguments for financial motivations, however.

On a personal note: My wife earned 22K as a new teacher in her first job.  Average starting salary for a new professor like me--33K.  Needless to say, we both bailed on teaching.  I realize one data point does not make a statistic.  Nationwide, teachers tend to burn out or make the same decision at around 5 years in.  This actually is another disturbing trend in education.  We can't seem to keep teachers.  Why would that be, if their benefits and vacation time are irrationally good or high, per your argument?

Part of this may be in part due to most teachers working under a 9 month contract with little economic opportunity for the other 3 months.  Yes--you can score papers for testing companies thanks to NCLB/RTTT or get a minimum wage job, but does that really make up for the lost potential? Teacher attrition rates would seem to indicate that it is not so.

On your other point that teacher benefits are much greater than those of professionals in other occupations, I would have to agree if this were 20-30 years ago.  When I was growing up, we never had to worry about going to the doctor and my parents seem to have done fine for retirement.  That said, the current state of affairs is not as nice.  In one of my wife's teaching positions, her school had to bargain for healthcare and benefits individually rather than as a state collective (as in other states).  In a small school with some aging teachers this didn't work out so well.  We had minimal coverage and just hoped not to get sick or need a doctor.  As far as retirement goes, I think you'll see that there are two outcomes that seem to have demonstrated themselves over the last 10-15 years.  They are: 1) the privatization of teacher pensions/retirement options--subject to the same crash as any other occupation so no real incentive there, and 2) the reduction in or state de-funding of pension/retirement plans due to other budgetary needs/issues.

Claiming that teachers receive disproportionate benefits and vacation time is does not seem to hold true.  Otherwise, I should think you would see a trend toward a much higher teacher retention rate as well as a boom in the number of students of teacher preparation programs.  Having worked in a university in a state which produced a surplus of teachers, as well as working closely with departments of education, I can tell you from experience that neither one of these are occurring.

Re:Not a science major?

[MaskedSlacker]

They are in the top half of earners in a group that includes the 75% of people who do not have a college degree. Being in the top-half there is not remarkable.

No one claimed teachers were destitute (well, except maybe the teachers' unions, but fuck them). What was claimed was that teaching high school science is far less lucrative than other possible options with a science degree. Science teachers (high school; tenured college professors are another story) are NOT in the top half of earners among people with science degrees.