Ed Brayton is a freelance writer and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Here's an absolutely frightening study by researchers at Penn State that finds that 1 in 8 public school science teachers in the US are teaching creationism as a valid alternative to evolution in their classrooms. Here's the problem: we only find out who they are if a student or parent comes forward and contacts us. So I'm proposing that we get more aggressive and start rooting them out one by one. Most states have an open records law that allows people to request documents, including documents used in public school classrooms. If we file such requests to get our hands on the supplemental materials - handouts, videos, etc - that are being used, we will undoubtedly identify the teachers who are doing this and we can put a stop to it. Long excerpt from the study below the fold:
We also asked teachers whether they spent classroom time on creationism or intelligent design. We found that 25% of teachers indicated that they devoted at least one or two classroom hours to creationism or intelligent design (see Table 1). However, these numbers can be misleading because while some teachers may cover creationism to expose students to an alternative to evolutionary theory, others may bring up creationism in order to criticize it or in response to student inquiries. Questions that simply ask about time devoted to creationism, therefore, will overstate support for creationism or intelligent design by counting both those who teach creationism as a serious subject and those holding it up for criticism or ridicule. We asked a series of supplemental questions that provided some additional insight into the character of creationism in the classroom. Of the 25% of teachers who devoted time to creationism or intelligent design, nearly half agreed or strongly agreed that they teach creationism as a "valid scientific alternative to Darwinian explanations for the origin of species." Nearly the same number agreed or strongly agreed that when they teach creationism or intelligent design they emphasize that "many reputable scientists view these as valid alternatives to Darwinian Theory" (see Table S3).
And it gets worse.
Among the biology teachers, 16% believed that human beings were created by God in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years (and an additional 9% declined to answer). Although this is a far smaller proportion than found among the general public (48%), our data demonstrate substantial sympathy for the "young earth" creationist position among nearly one in six members of the science teaching profession. The teachers who chose the "young earth" creationist position devoted 35% fewer class hours to evolution than all other teachers (Table S5).
Education & Careers
Comments
I'd be interested in "rooting" this out in Texas, but I'm not sure where to start. Anyone else interested and wanna help?
Posted by: Braxton Thomason | May 21, 2008 10:20 AM
I like this. I actually started but didn't finish a comment suggesting this on another thread yesterday. This is a page right out of the Idiot play book. Clueless parents have long been trying to get people fired who refuse to "teach the controversy." Let's go after the people who do teach the "controversy" (in the sense that they teach creationism). It'll be ugly, because anyone "going there" is going to be seen as "persecuting Christians," but if there's gonna be a war anyway, let's take the fucking gloves off. Lying to children shouldn't be okay.
Posted by: Josh | May 21, 2008 10:27 AM
I'm curious how many of these science teachers have a science background and not just the English teacher that got shoved into the job at some point in their career.
Posted by: yoshi | May 21, 2008 11:06 AM
I would say probably more than we would hope...
Posted by: Josh | May 21, 2008 11:11 AM
yoshi,
Excellent question. There are lots of teachers today who are not certified to teach the subjects they are teaching. It would be good to know what percentage of science and/or biology teachers this is.
Jim51
Posted by: Jim51 | May 21, 2008 11:12 AM
I found a little info on the uncertified topic. It seems that in Corpus Christi, TX approximately 25% of new hires are uncertified, and overall something less than 10% are uncertified.
I know this is only one data point, but I have to get back to work.
Jim51
Posted by: Jim51 | May 21, 2008 11:23 AM
Valid certification is one of the few positive things about NCLB. School districts have to show that their teachers are "highly qualified" in order to meet the guidelines. Unfortunately the individual states can establish what is "highly qualified," so many states have set the bar rather low. In the two states where I have held certificates, you had to do a number of things in order to teach in a content area.
1) Hold a valid certificate in that area, usually meaning you took the necessary college courses to hold at least a minor in that area.
2) Pass a content area test.
3) Hold an advanced degree in the specific content area.
4) Hold a minimum of three related content area certificates (more the social sciences).
That doesn't stop people from teaching one class outside of their content area, but schools have a much harder time getting away with the coach who has a Phys-ed degree teaching biology, chemistry, etc.
As for science/biology teachers teaching without cert., I don't know the exact numbers, but I would expect the numbers to be higher than the average for general teachers w/o cert. Districts nation-wide are desperate to obtain anyone who can teach math or science, if the district has "emergency" provisions in place so they can emergency cert. someone, odds are good they're going to be in those more difficult to fill fields.
On the bright side, I would expect this to become less common with AdvancED replacing NCA accredidation, schools wont be able to have as many emergency cert. people on their faculties in order to meet the higher accredidation requirements of AdvancED. I would be even more concerned about voucher and charter schools. But they have a rather iffy legal standing in general...
Posted by: dogmeatIB | May 21, 2008 12:41 PM
I appreciate Ed's idea: rooting out creationist/ID teachers would certainly benefit our societies children. But, it's not that simple.
As a first-year science teacher, I've witnessed the stress the school system is experiencing: teachers receive very little social or economical incentives to teach. Why teach, when the pay is awful, and society undervalues you? Teachers usually quit within the first five years (as I likely will).
"Rooting out" creationist teachers wouldn't improve anything: either schools would be left with empty teaching positions, or the teachers would be replaced with staff with equally poor understandings of human evolution. Either way, students will receive a poor education.
Posted by: Science Teacher | May 21, 2008 12:44 PM
The right thing to do would be to fire them for committing fraud, followed by jail terms.
With the judiciary corrupted by political appointees-cum-agents, this will never happen.
So, get used to it.
Posted by: Rose Colored Glasses | May 21, 2008 12:59 PM
> The right thing to do would be to fire them for committing
> fraud, followed by jail terms.
Hardly. Since for a significant number of people what they are teaching is not fraud but God's Truth.
The right thing to do is for everyone who is appalled by this to *join their local school board* and make sure that the teachers there don't do the same thing. What is needed (if such a thing doesn't already exist) is a national pro-science organization to get people to join school boards.
Nb - something like this would be pretty much *unheard* of where I live (in the UK).
Posted by: David Durant | May 21, 2008 1:11 PM
I'm not sure how often we get to *join* school boards here in the US. I think most positions are elected or appointed.
Posted by: Josh | May 21, 2008 1:17 PM
If you locate a creation science teacher via open records, do you have any standing for legal action if you are not a parent of a student at the school and no parent or student is willing to pursue action?
Posted by: Bob Z | May 21, 2008 1:23 PM
Very few teachers in public schools are not certified as far as I know. Regardless, please do not assume that the creationist-leaning (or all-out creationist) teachers in this study (which grossly underestimates the number) are not regular high school biology teachers. They are.
I'm a little surprised that people hanging out here on Sb are not already aware of this!
A person being a life science teacher is NOT a guarantee of any kind that the person is not a creationist. This may seem hard to believe, but it is simply true. The life science teachers who are not creationists have a LOT of difficult things to deal with, and one of those is their fellow life science teacher who is a creationist.
Sad, but true.
Posted by: Greg Laden | May 21, 2008 1:28 PM
Science Teacher is right: there aren't more science teachers waiting in the wings. However, a concerted effort to put creationist teachers on the defensive would be helpful. If it was clearly spelled out that it is illegal to teach it, and teachers were reprimanded (if for no other reason than that they embarrass the school), there might be some change. The squeaky wheel gets the grease: so parents, colleagues, complain! I have brought it up in my high school science dept. No bio teachers would admit teaching creationism except for mentioning that it is a nonscientific belief that causes some people to reject evolution. And one of our bio teachers is married to a Baptist minister(!), but she was particularly adamant that creationism not be taught in school, thank you very much. But I teach in Houston, which is considered a den of iniquity by fundies.
Posted by: uncle noel | May 21, 2008 1:43 PM
Uncle Noel: Yes, but ....
You need to have an administrator who is not a creationist. The percentages we see for the general public apply, more or less (maybe just a little less) to the admins. (and teachers other than the life science teacher).
Also, there is a LOT of stealth creationism teaching going on in the classrooms.
Here is what you need to do. Find a local life science teacher who is not a creationist, and take him/her out to lunch twice. The second time you'll get the lowdown. Then offer your help in whatever way you can. But most likely, the person will be reluctant to get help for fear of losing his/her job.
Posted by: Greg Laden | May 21, 2008 1:46 PM
Uncle Noel is hitting upon an important point: although science teachers are not "waiting in the wings," some form of selective pressure is needed. Creationists teachers need to know that teaching creationism is not tolerable.
To employ Dawkins/Dennet language: creationism is a dangerous meme.The question is what is the most effective way to select against it: acting too harshly will cause creationists to fight back (or cripple the school system); acting too loosely will foster an ignorant society.
No easy answers.
Posted by: Science Teacher | May 21, 2008 2:04 PM
Here is what has to work, and is starting to work:
Schoolboard
Superintendent
Admins
Teacher
Starting at any of the top three levels of this hierarchy, educate individuals about the cost (in legal fees, etc.) of getting caught promoting religion (ID, etc.) in the classroom.
Groups like MNCSE here in Minnesota, NCSE, etc. need to be ready to identify problems, sue, etc.
Eventually the problem will reduce in its magnitude.
Posted by: Greg Laden | May 21, 2008 2:50 PM
The goal is not necessarily to have the teachers fired but to force them to teach what is required by the curriculum. We can only do that if we know where it's not being done currently.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | May 21, 2008 4:28 PM
Ed, if you wind up making me fill out another stupid piece of paper to "prove" I'm not an idiot, I'll quit reading your blog!
So There!
Seriously, though, some of the certified biology teachers I have known are creationists. Some of the other science teachers I have known are creationists.
The peculiar thing to me is the number of biology teachers who know nothing at all about any other science. Unfortunately, since I know some chemistry and earth science, I get to do that instead of biology.
Posted by: BaldApe | May 21, 2008 5:49 PM
The most potent forces to school administrators are complaints, lawsuits, and their bosses' approval. That's why I said parents and educators who find out about creationist teaching should complain. Not just as in, "I don't like it.", but as in, "It is against the law and you could be sued and embarrassed." No one cares about their jobs more than public school administrators. Even if they're creationists, they might have a talk with their over-zealous charge and have the creationist teaching put in the closet. Like racism, it won't go away until it is repudiated for a long time.
BaldApe: Biology teachers should have had two years of chemistry and physics; it is odd that there is sometimes no evidence of that. And I agree that more bureaucratic oversight may cause resentment, or even Incredible Hulk-like symptoms.
Posted by: uncle noel | May 21, 2008 7:36 PM
I agree. Apparently it is possible to pass a class and not retain any knowledge from that class. :-)
Posted by: BaldApe | May 21, 2008 7:54 PM
To employ Dawkins/Dennet language: creationism is a dangerous meme.The question is what is the most effective way to select against it: acting too harshly will cause creationists to fight back (or cripple the school system); acting too loosely will foster an ignorant society.
It seems like the immediately important thing here isn't whether creationism is "dangerous", it's that it's unconstitutional for it to be taught in or endorsed by state schools. Ensuring the integrity of the separation of church and state is a really fundamental issue, more important than the short-term status of the fights between creationism and science-- and we are therefore obligated to ensure the schools are not being used to promote creationism even if this is not what is most tactically convenient in the meme wars or whatever...
Posted by: Coin | May 21, 2008 8:25 PM
Coin:
1) I don't believe there's anything in the constitution that prohibits teachers from teaching creationism. In fact, it could be said that the prohibition of teaching creationism is an infringement on the freedom of speech.
2) There is debate about whether creationism is dangerous: In 2007, The Council of Europe Parliamentary assembly found that teaching creationism was "dangerous," stressing that creationism was a potential threat to human rights that may result from its doctrines.
Posted by: Science Teacher | May 22, 2008 7:20 AM
Unfortunately, since I know some chemistry and earth science, I get to do that instead of biology.
HEY! Stop picking on geology. It's a perfectly cromulent science.
Posted by: Josh | May 22, 2008 8:01 AM
Hey, I love geology too, but earth science is taught in ninth grade, and ninth graders are, uhhh hard to deal with sometimes.
Posted by: BaldApe | May 22, 2008 8:52 AM
Coin/science teacher, from what I've read I'm pretty sure teaching creationism in public schools has been judged unconstitutional in the US. Ed will undoubtedly have the details around somewhere. My problem with Coin's approach is it makes it look like the issue is a technical legal issue for one country. The risks to society approach is easier to generalise to those of us who aren't Americans.
Posted by: Matt | May 22, 2008 9:02 AM
Where have you been for the past, oh, forty years?
The courts have found again and again that creationism is religious, and that teaching it in public school classrooms violates the establishment clause of the first amendment. Look up Epperson v. Arkansas, Edwards v. Aguillard and Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District for the most prominent examples.
Yes, there's no specific mention of creationism in the constitution. But the constitution was written in the 1780's, when there was no creation/evolution "controversy" at all. You can't expect them to foresee the future on every single issue and write it explicitly into the constitution.
And prohibiting it, in public schools, is not a violation of free speech. The teacher can talk creationism all he or she wants in his or her private capacity, but when teachers are in the classroom working on the government dime they must abide by the constitution.
Posted by: Wes | May 22, 2008 9:07 AM
Hey, I love geology too, but earth science is taught in ninth grade, and ninth graders are, uhhh hard to deal with sometimes.
Yeah, it always bugs me that earth science is the 9th grade class, or that it gets relegated to the "throw away" class at higher levels. Lots of people going into college don't even really consider taking geology classes. Most end up in them by accident or chance. And then everyone is surprised when something like Katrina happens. Guess what: Katrina wasn't a surprise to the geosciences community...
Posted by: Josh | May 22, 2008 9:15 AM
I have always thought the best was to eradicate creationism was to popularize the importance of a school having a science curriculum that was certified by a prestigious body such as the National Science Foundation or the American Academy for the Advancement of Sciences. It would be absolutely impossible to argue against these standards as they would be the standards set by the working professionals in the field. Universities could then easily judge the quality of a student's science education. If universities severely down-checked any applicant who came from a school that did not have such a certified curriculum, then parents themselves would become the best and most relentless police force for keeping scientific illiterates out of teaching positions in science class rooms.
Regardless of the rightness of the cause it never looks good to be seen to be hunting dissidents and rooting them out one by one. Americans by nature don't like to see the little guy getting kicked around. It is much better to build into the institutions themselves systems that cause the public to demand truth and excellence out of them. Having parents in the habit of looking for an NSF or AAAS certification, and if and when they don't find it going out and demanding from the principal or school board an explanation as to why there is no certification would be the best way to fight these ID trends. School districts that did not have such certification would stand no chance at all at attracting educated affluent families.
And this proposed system also recognizes that you will ALWAYS have a certain number of schools that value religion more good science, and so what. Their students will end up stocking shelves at Walmart just like mom and dad.
Posted by: Timothy | May 22, 2008 1:37 PM
I must say that I admire the faith of an evolutionist...The true determined faith that something was created from nothing without any help of a higher power is truely an amazing thing.
It takes tremendous faith and belief to conclude that all we see today came from chance, happenstance and mere luck.
Posted by: David | May 22, 2008 7:02 PM
David: Really? More faith than you have in your "higher power"? Where did that thing come from? It always existed outside of time? Fine: the source of the universe exists outside of time. But some people are willing to try to find out what's going on rather than pretend to know. The universe is an amazing thing; but you just label the cause "God" so you don't have to think about it too much. But I appreciate your admiration!
Posted by: uncle noel | May 22, 2008 7:59 PM
David, would you care to enlighten us as to which of the mutually contradictory versions of creationism you believe in?
Posted by: Martian Buddy | May 22, 2008 9:45 PM
David, the only thing you have to take on faith is that the evidence of your senses can be made reliable within the framework of the scientific method, and that the laws of the universe don't change from one day to another.
The rest follows from evidence.
Where is the evidence that your imaginary friend can influence the real world?
Posted by: BaldApe | May 23, 2008 9:16 AM
It is a vicious circle, and a problem that has no easy solutions.
Teachers who do not slip in creationist nonsense (no beneficial mutations, no transitional fossils, law of conservation of information, etc) into the classrooms effectively indoctrinate the next generation of teachers with pseudoscientific dogma, and the cycle continues. The problem is that many high school graduates are not properly equipped to deal with creationist claims, or are averse to any "Darwinist" sources which they could otherwise consult. One solution could be to start teaching basics of evolution in earlier grade levels, so that by the time students are in high school they are able to deal with the more meaty issues and perhaps learn about the real controversies that scientists face today rather than creationist strawmen. The problem with that is actually implementing it when a serious boost in the quality of science education is needed, as well as teachers who are better qualified to deal with these evolutionary concepts. I think all biology teachers need to take courses in ecology and evolution, and introductory geology, paleontology, and genetics as part of their core curriculum. If nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution, then the college science curriculum of future science teachers needs to reflect that.
Posted by: NP | May 23, 2008 11:14 AM
Dang...I meant to say "Teachers who do slip in creationist nonsense..."
Posted by: NP | May 23, 2008 11:20 AM