Skip to main content

Getting an "F" in Evolution

Some time ago I wrote a post regarding the survey of U.S. biology teachers which found education in evolution to be in a terrible state, where only 28% of those surveyed teach evolution as the unifying theory of biology with the evidence that supports it. In that same survey 13% actually teach some form of creationism, in complete and consistent violation of legal precedent. The group "Creation Moments" took some time to praise these "renegade" teachers who upset the educational establishment and frustrate the progression of public acceptance of evolution.

The creationists assert that while these teachers may get an "F" in evolution, they get an A in their book. Hardly an honor to be proud of, coming from people who make it their business to routinely attack science they believe to be in contradiction to their revelation. Nearly as bad as teaching creationism outright is comparing many different ideas, "scientific or not." Well, that's a new one, unscientific ideas being taught in a science classroom. I find this to be disgusting beyond words, especially the teacher who is quoted as saying it is up to the students to make up their own minds (it is, certainly), "based on their own evidence and research. Not on what a textbook or on what a teacher has to say."

But if they aren't ever exposed to the evidence that speaks to evolution, how can they recognize what real evidence is when they see it in their own lives? And heaven forbid that a student would believe a textbook, written by experts in the field detailing the evidence and importance of evolution, or a teacher who has training in the topic at hand (presumably more than the students do!).

This exposes one of the major battlegrounds in the struggle between evolution and creationism, between reason and irrationality. The fight isn't just for the minds of the public beyond high school but for the future, those who remain in high school. I never heard of evolution at all during my time in a public school, and I cannot help but think that my experience is not altogether atypical. Further, I was brought up in a church that viewed evolution as an evil, an antithesis to the Bible, a church that included a creationist paragraph in their "statement of faith" that posited a literal Genesis and condemned evolution along with several other ideas such as Gap Theory and Day-Age Theory." I had to go to college and take a course in dinosaurs before "evolution" was ever mentioned at all. If students are not taught evolution in the classroom, if they don't see the massive amount of evidence and the great importance of it, then many never will. They will become prey to the shallow thinking embodied in creationist statements such as, "Isn't evolution an evil, godless world view?" and "If man evolved from apes, why are there still apes?"

The battle continues in the classroom, and we need to ensure that not only are biology teachers getting a spectacular education before teaching (ensuring that they know the different evidences for evolution and are able to rebut common creationist claims) but receive the support that they need in the classroom. The administration needs to ensure that they are supported, and those of us in the public who accept evolution must make it known that we support them as well.

Comments

  1. The problem is a lot of teachers couldn't teach evolution without a textbook. They don't know it well enough going into the lessons.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Today I Am Ashamed of My Alma Mater

Over a week ago, my alma mater, Clarion University of Pennsylvania, released what it touted as a "bold" and "ambitious" workforce plan for the next several years. The backlash was both strong and immediate, forcing the University Administration, currently headed by President Karen Whitney, to release a " Frequently Asked Questions " for its plan. The outrage on social media, as well as a MoveOn.org petition with several thousand signatures, doubtless have already channeled the displeasure of the community, alumni, and students with the plan. The University is accepting public feedback, but this seems to be only a political window-dressing for a plan that Whitney herself was  quoted  as saying "...is 95-98% a done deal." For over a week I debated over what form a blog on the topic would take, and while I realize that what I have to say here is little different from what I and others have already stated elsewhere, I feel the need to address thi...

How I Left Creationism

There is a discussion going on right now in the science community about whether or not we should debate creationists: it is a debate within a debate, if you will. There are good arguments on both sides, but I have to think that we should debate creationists, and we should do it as often as we can stand it. Why do I think this? Last week, I saw that Michael Shermer posted a link to a story of a woman who argued this very point. As a former creationist, it was going to debates between Shermer and Kent Hovind that began to convince her of the legitimacy of evolution and of science. I too was once a creationist. Without ever having read anything about it, without it ever having been mentioned in class (I never heard a word about evolution in high school), I was ready to pounce at the merest mention of the topic as false and godless, two of the favorite creationist talking-points. I look back at this self in amazement, at how ignorant and proud of that ignorance I was, how I failed to ...

The Hovinds...Still Poking at Straw Men

Kent Hovind, the false "Dr. Dino", and his ilk are at it again. In a new article on his website, Hovind (or whoever authored the piece, perhaps his son) claims that while creationists have no problems using miracles to explain events (a habit that perpetually makes them unfit to do real science), evolutionists criticize them for it, even though, in Hovind's mind, they rely on miracles just as much to explain their "religion" of descent through natural selection. This is, at its core, demonstrably nonsense. He claims that a "miracle" is needed to make stars and planets form out of gas, a supposed violation of Boyle's Law because there was no "outside force" acting on the gas and dust. How about gravity, Dr. Dino? That would certainly explain it, no miracles needed here. This attack is a non-sequitur. The objection has everything to do with astronomy and cosmology and nothing to do with evolution, which is the development of new species o...