New Scientist yesterday reported that a Pennsylvania State University professor's survey of high school biology teachers reveals that 16% of them hold young earth creationist views. Prof. Michael Berkman's research found that approximately one in eight of the 939 teachers responding to the survey say they believe human beings were created by God within the last 10,000 years. Some 25% of the biology teachers responding say they devote some class time to creationism or intelligent design. Almost half of that group teach one of these as a valid scientific alternative to evolution.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.jpg)
Posts
13 comments:
Berkman's observation (the teacher's educational level rather than state standards was more likely to influence the response) aside, I wish they published a summary by state. Instead of illusory voter fraud cases, the next administration's US Attorneys might focus on some real criminals.
I wish they published a summary by state too, but I fear it might be far less divided than I might hope. There are enclaves of fundamentalist religion in even some fairly progressive states. My son has had arguments with young earth creationists in suburban New Jersey. In second grade.
A study using self-response surveys with a data set <1000 lacks rigor in every sense. This study is shitty and shouldn't be taken as science.
Actually Anon, the study is published in a peer reviewed science journal, and one of the political science professor co-authors is also Director of the Penn State Survey Research Center.
Their sample size yields statistical accuracy of ±3.2% with a 95% confidence level. Not perfect of course, but for those of us with limited olfactory range, a reasonable way to quantify creationists hidden in science classrooms.
I believe the % is higher. ID is valid science when examined properly and not confused with "creationism". The majority of science teachers I know (me being one) teach it in conjunction with evolution. They do not necessarily conflict with one another when emotions stay out of the conversation.
ID and evolution wouldn't actually need to conflict with one another for one of them to be complete garbage. And, of course, many of its proponents just happen to be creationists. Many times the argument would go directly from a vague "some kind of intelligence" proposition directly to the Christian deity in a preposterous leap that reveals the intent of the initial proposal quite clearly.
That aside, you're probably in a localized area. The poll is nation-wide. I imagine there are many areas in the country where the science teachers cannot imagine that anyone teaches ID.
Let me know what state you're in, so I can make sure my kids never go to school there.
I agree that the study has methodological flaws, but I don't think the sample size was one of them.
Sci Guy,
I'd be interested in knowing how ID can be separated from creationism or how it could be considered valid science. Do you have a blog or something? This isn't the place to get into this debate.
-American Atheist
Tim, peer review is no guarantee of quality, and that one of the authors has a fancy title is argument from authority. I'd like to see either you or anonymouse point to an actual statistical argument assessing the study's meaningfulness.
sci guy, ID is not valid science. You need more education.
Blake, my husband has the MD and the equivalent of a PhD in Biochem (just didn't write the thesis for the 2nd degree, didn't need it) --and studied at the ARgonne National Lab for a special program--and got superior rating for his knowledge of genetics in med school.
He isn't sure about the 6 literal days --but he's sure we didn't evolve from common ancestors --says we should be standing knee deep in trans fossils if Darwin's theory was correct about all life from one cell over millions (gazillions?) of years. Darwin even said if the fossils didn't materialize, he could be wrong. The British Museum guy, Patterson, once bravely admitted that the fossils don't prove the theory --but he more or less had to recant to save his skin.
My point --people with more science education than you probably have --and with more accomplishment in science --who do science careers quite well --who teach it quite well--do not necessarily have to believe in Darwin's naturalistic theory of origins in order to function as good scientists.
I know --that blows your preconceptions about what creation scientists must be -- flat-earth know-nothings who are dangerous to science education.
but you are just flat-out wrong.
You go, sci-guy!
A former Teacher of the Year for the STate of Michigan is a creationist, by the way. Excellent teacher of science. You think the evolution part of science curriculum is so all fired important --but even the National Geog can't explain in their latest magazine why the birds are smarter than they thought! Able to communicate in language with humans --yet they were supposed to be 300 million years earlier than humans and not any where near as close in descent as the primates --and yet, the bird brain seems smarter than the primate! able to talk! Kind of messes up their little tree of transitions, you know?
BUt in defense of ID (defense from your point of view) I'm told that some of the ID theorists (high in their careers who have the most to lose) claim to believe in common descent --(meaning like ape to man)
they just believe there is design and thus an intelligent agent behind the process of life's evolution/origins.
Now, the UM church (in case above) should agree --because they believe in evolution--and just believe God did it that way. That's what SOME ID theorists reportedly believe. So these ID guys are not ALL "6-day believers and evolution-bashing creationists" --but some are theistic or ID evolutionists and do distance themselves from the 6-day creationists.
ID guys, however, share with the creationists the disbelief that life and the universe just happened without any intelligent agent behind it --to them --and to li'l ol' me --that's just preposterous --given the intricacies and beauties of life on the earth alone--and our delicate balance as a life-sustaining planet.
It is as stated in Romans 1:19-20
"...what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world, God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse...."
Barb,
Birds being smarter than we thought "messes up" the tree of transitions? How, exactly, does it do that? I don't think evolution is necessarily a race towards an endgame of intelligence.
I'm really curious, though, why you'd think ID would "explain" the intelligence of birds. Saying "an intelligence" designed something actually says nothing at all by itself. I have heard definitions of "sentience" that went as far as defining any self-organizing being as sentient, including trees. You have no basis to restrict the notion of "intelligence", and hence the idea of intelligent design is empty, void of anything at all.
The real problem, though, as you note isn't that they believe in creationism. They're free to. The problem is that they teach it.
Of course, that's part of the problem with the study. We don't know to what extent these teachers teach ID. Some might mention it briefly, including simply saying it's not part of the curriculum and isn't science, and consider themselves as having taught it. That would tend to play havoc with the statistics.
Well, they are free to believe in creationism you say--but they wouldn't dare SAY SO ANYWHERE in today's oppressive academic climate in science. They are treated as "know nothings" and "flat earthers" unworthy to teach or have a science career.
yet they could be EXCELLENT explainers of difficult scientific concepts --excellent researchers --excellent scientists.
But the average joe thinks a scientist or teacher has got to believe we descended from apes or he doesn't know science.
The bird brain issue is that the Natl geog seemed puzzled by the fact that the birds were brighter than the primates in language --because they were supposed to be farther back on the evolutionary time table --and thus, less evolved! See? Read any of their articles that allude to evolutionary origins --it's almost comical--They "may have" "quite possibly" "perhaps" --and the one my husband likes, "millions of years ago --between 100 million and 300 million approximately." Blah blah blah. Speculation city!
There is a huge difference between saying, "I believe in..." and "You must believe in..." The first is acceptable. The second is not.
Post a Comment