…and this is a 
Are our high schools teaching evolution?
Category: Academics • Creationism
Posted on: February 25, 2008 8:29 PM, by PZ Myers
The Ecological Society of America has just published an article that surveys the state of science teaching in the US. Some of the results are somewhat reassuring — the majority of our college-bound high school students are at least getting exposed to evolution to some degree — but they're also getting taught creationism to an unfortunate degree. Here's the abstract to give you the gist of the story.
How frequently and in what manner are evolution, creationism, and intelligent design taught in public high schools? Here, I analyze the answer to this question, as given by nearly 600 students from major public universities nationwide in a survey conducted during the spring of 2006. Although almost all recent public high-school graduate respondents reported receiving evolution instruction, only about three-quarters perceived that evolution was taught as a "credible scientific theory". Creationism and intelligent design were reportedly presented almost one-third and one-fifth of the time, respectively, though respondents recalled that both concepts were presented as lacking scientific credibility much more often than not. The survey results are presented in composite form and also disaggregated with respect to the strength of evolution-related state standards, red state-blue state divisions, and the regional location of states within the country.
You can also hear the author discussing the methodology and results in a podcast, which I think is a wonderful idea. (Maybe every paper should be accompanied by a 15 minute podcast in which the author explains the work to a general audience…).
Here's the good news/bad news data.
The good news: look at that, 92% are getting taught about evolution to varying degrees. I also think it's good news that 26% say they're getting "in depth" instruction, although, of course, this is self-reported by students who probably don't know how much depth there is. At least this tells me that a solid majority of teachers are trying, and are not silenced by pressure from the public.
The bad news: 30% are getting taught about creationism, and 20% are learning about intelligent design. That's a waste of time and resources, and it's an indicator that the urgings of creationists for a false "fairness" might be having some effect.
Now, of course, maybe they're learning about creationism in high school because the teacher is slamming it as bogus nonsense, as I do in my university classes. There's a little good news there, too: over 70% of the time, evolution is taught as credible theory, but as for creationism…
Additionally, when intelligent design is taught, it is perceived to be presented as a credible scientific theory at a rate higher (34%) than that for creationism (18%). This confirms one of the few narrow points of agreement between intelligent design's proponents and critics: intelligent design is intended to look more "like science" and less "like religion" — and to these recent public high-school graduates, it does.
So we can say that the majority of the time creationism is taught, it is disparaged to some degree and is not taught as a credible scientific theory. That's reassuring. Of course, we could take a glass-half-empty view and note that in those cases where ID is taught, it's taught as a credible theory an appalling third of the time, and it's also a successful strategy for boosting the reputation of creationism.
The situation isn't quite as bad as I feared, although there is a significant minority that are getting taught creationism uncritically in the public schools. What I'm missing is a couple of things. This is information taken from a select population of college bound students, and those students are more likely to have had exposure to science, and are also more likely to be attentive. I'd like to know what impressions other students have of their science instruction.
This is also a collection of exactly that, student impressions. I'd like to see a complement to this study that surveys actual curricula and faculty attitudes. I know how tuned out students can be, so I can't say that I entirely trust student reports.
Bowman KL (2008) The evolution battles in high-school science classes: who is teaching what? Front Ecol Environ 6(2):69-74.
Education & Careers
Politics
Comments
That's the problem with ID, it disagrees with the facts of science less than old-style creationism (not denying the age of the earth, etc.), while it's even more deliberately against science as an evidence-based discipline than 90% of YECism has ever been.
Their raison d'etre is to oppose using evidence to decide things (which they call the "naturalistic" worldview). The creationists were always pro-science, but transparently excepted their own nonsense.
The IDists would destroy all of science if their tripe were to prevail and to be consistently applied.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | February 25, 2008 8:43 PM
I'm happy to say that back in NJ not only was I taught evolution, but my bio teacher also put a total smackdown on creationism (much to the chagrin of one creationist girl in class).
Looks like the ID crowd is on the move in Texas again, working through, surprise! the board of education: http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/02/evolution-on-tr.html
Posted by: James F | February 25, 2008 8:46 PM
As a student in a Texas public high school, I'm happy to say that in my biology class we went in depth into evolution and did not bring up ID/creationism. However, I don't think we are representative of education in Texas because we are a science magnet school. Unfortunately, the state board of education is going to try to force ID through the curriculum process and into our schools. My only consolation is that my biology teacher said that he will refuse to comply with the curriculum if they do, and our principal supports that idea.
Posted by: kerovon | February 25, 2008 8:56 PM
By the way, today, finally, I listened to an interview with Mark Mathis that is about a month old (I was perusing Google at the same time, to ease the boredom, and anger at his lies). Usual crap, uninteresting dishonesty, the whole bit. What I probably hated the most is that Mathis knows how to sound like he's being reasonable (he's been a newscaster), even when he's spewing hatred of the "other."
One thing struck me, though, which is that when Crowther asked if any "Darwinists" were open-minded enough to say that ID should be considered along with science (not their words, naturally), Mathis said he was impressed with what William Provine stated, which is that he is open to discussing ID when students bring it up.
And I thought, what science teacher would not do that? I mean, not forever, one has to get around to the science soon enough. Plus, some HS teachers might not know how to discuss ID. But I can't think of any professors at college or university level who wouldn't be willing to discuss ID if it were a concern of students. Does anyone know of professors who would not do what impressed the abysmally ignorant Mathis?
It just seems to me that Mathis swallows preacher's lies (including those of ID fellows, since I can't think of any term more appropriate than "preachers" for them) whole and spits them out in a grotesquely dishonest "documentary." He must actually think that "Darwinism" is taboo on college campuses, rather than being disparaged like any other pseudoscience would be.
Anyhow, while it's a bit OT, not too much. Clearly, from the data, creationism and ID are discussed plenty in the educational establishment, while Expelled is telling of the conspiracy in which the educational, news, and governmental establishments all conspire to prevent discussion of such "compelling science." Lord, these guys are dumb schmucks!
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | February 25, 2008 8:58 PM
My son was exposed to creationism here in middle school, in Central Virginia. When I heard it would be discussed, I was pretty miffed, but then I found out it was getting very short coverage, featuring the big it's-not-science smackdown.
Posted by: True Bob | February 25, 2008 9:02 PM
They should probably say what they mean by "briefly discussed." Do they mean "But there's a book called 'Of Pandas And People' that you could read for a different perspective,"?
Or do they mean, "Creationism is a religious explanation, not a scientific one. My job is to make sure you understand the theory of evolution." My experiences have been with the latter.
Posted by: Skwee | February 25, 2008 9:11 PM
Canada usually gets good press in these parts, but I am ashamed to say that the Ontario high school curriculum has no teaching of evolution until Grade 12 Biology, a science course taken by only a minority of students. There is no mention of evolution in the general science courses in grades 9 and 10. So while kids are unlikely to get creationism in schools here, it's very easy for a student who has been indoctrinated with creationism at home and/or in church to easily avoid seeing any scientific challenge to this in school.
Posted by: Theo Bromine | February 25, 2008 9:14 PM
I wasn't exposed to more than about a day of evolution in high school, although I am reasonably sure now that my high school biology teacher would personally have liked to have gone into greater depth.
I got virtually all of my pre-university knowledge about evolution from Gould, Dawkins, Sagan, and a handful of other great writers, which in retrospect was not such a bad way to go.
Posted by: Mollie | February 25, 2008 9:16 PM
Simply saying creationism "is not science" is not sufficient to be called a "smackdown. In fact, that strikes me as a woefully insufficient criticism. Rather, what teachers should be telling students is that literal creationism is not true, why we know this, and the dishonest tactics of those who assert otherwise. Literal creationism is not a religious explanation. It is a failed scientific one. There are religious explanations which are compatible with the findings of science. Creationism is not one of them.
Posted by: H. Humbert | February 25, 2008 9:19 PM
What the students *report* as being taught -- and in how much depth -- may not reflect what actually *is* taught.
Posted by: Mister Troll | February 25, 2008 9:43 PM
Oh, right. Last paragraph. I swear that wasn't there before I posted!
Posted by: Mister Troll | February 25, 2008 9:44 PM
The missing option, of course, is "neither". This is what I was taught in high school. Sort of an "avoid the controversy" approach.
Posted by: aporeticus | February 25, 2008 10:00 PM
We need to keep in mind that these were college bound students and may not be representative. In Oklahoma, based on interviews with teachers, we estimate that as many as 50% get no evolution coverage. A study in Arkansas showed a similar result. In rural parts of the country, especially in the Bible belt, I suspect that many students never hear the 'e' word.
The Oklahoma teaching standards do not mention the word 'evolution' (political move)and thus received an F from the Fordham Foundation, but evolutionary concepts are clearly included at several grade levels. We urge teachers to use these standards when they get complaints by saying they are teaching what the State requires.
In week-end workshops for teachers on the teaching of evolution presented by Oklahomans in Science Education (OESE) we have found that teachers receive a great deal of pressure from administrators, parents and students to ignore evolution. They want to know how they can resist such pressures, especially since their jobs may be on the line. The teaching standards alone often do not provide them with sufficient backbone to resist the religious elements in their communities.
Posted by: vhutchison | February 25, 2008 10:15 PM
I taught creationism as an introduction to evolutionary science. We went through the Genesis myth and the FSM creation myth. I then asked my students to highlight the scientific evidence for both myths. One of the students was a bit perturbed that there was exactly the same amount of evidence that Yahweh created us as there was that His Noodlyness was responsible for creation.
I was disheartened to learn from a colleague that (unknown to the school head) my replacement when I left teaching was a YEC. Yikes!
Posted by: touched by his noodly appendage | February 25, 2008 10:18 PM
Uh, did anyway else find the second to last option in that survey data chart confusing? The first questions could've varied from evolution to creationism, but how does "Did not take HS biology" fit under the headings of evolution, creationism, and ID and how do they get different percentages? With the other options you could substitute evolution, etc., but how would you do that for the absolute statement of "Did not take HS biology"? Do you see what I'm talking about? Sorry if I've done a terrible job explaining my observation. Perhaps it explains it in the podcast, but I dare not open it on this painfully slow computer.
Posted by: Ford | February 25, 2008 10:21 PM
I was one of the people who would have reported "Evolution: Yes, Mentioned Briefly" and "yes" to ID and creationism. I went to catholic school, ao it comes with the terrirory (sad as it is to say.) Also, pre-high school classes don't even touch on the issue. Most of my knowledge of evolution was gained from outside sources.
By the way, when I say "Mentioned Briefly," I do mean briefly. We had, as I recall, under two minutes of discussion on it. Which was in chemistry class.
Posted by: malendras | February 25, 2008 10:24 PM
From what I've heard, evolution isn't taught in much of Arkansas and much of Texas. The sources are credible and some of this is from articles in the mainstream press.
There was one on Arkansas featuring science teachers who were all anonymous because they wanted to keep their jobs.
Don't know about other states but have the feeling that in hardcore fundie areas, evolution either isn't taught or taught as one of those theories invented by satan.
Here on the West Coast teaching creationism in public high school classes can get a teacher in trouble and quickly.
Posted by: raven | February 25, 2008 10:39 PM
Re: the 15 minute podcast idea: Seconded!!
I also think an archive of videorecordings of experimental methodology for each study would be helpful. I've seen too many discrepancies between what happened in the lab and how it looked once written up in a methods section.
Yeah, I know, that wasn't the point of your post. Just sayin'
Posted by: Anon | February 25, 2008 10:43 PM
I'll throw in with the people from the lower half of the country who attest to the lack of evolution taught in schools. Back in the 70s, my ONLY exposure to evolution was in an advanced biology class with stringent admission requirements. 12-20 kids a year got to take this course. I was one of the privileged. We only had 12 kids in the class that year.
The teacher had bought college biology textbooks with his own money to explain evolution to us. They were old, probably mid-60s, but the basics of how it worked were (then) good enough for high school students in East Texas. And he told the class, right up front, that if they didn't like learning evolution, they could withdraw from the class for the rest of the year. Period.
He had to buy the books himself, because, yep, we were under the persecution of the Gablers. It was bad enough they did this to science, but they did it to ALL subjects: Lit, history, government--you name it, we had crap textbooks for it. That biology teacher wasn't the only one who referenced to older textbooks to teach basics. Two of my English teachers dragged out textbooks from the 60s for reference material. I don't remember what was so horrible in it that kids in 1968 could handle the material and kids in the late 70s couldn't, but the Gablers had decided in the interim that teenagers didn't need to read it.
I shed no tears when they died. ZERO. My education was anything but, thanks to the ignorant nosy-mindedness of morons like them. I still feel grossly inadequate to even comprehend science, to this very day. Our science education was so pitiful that even the basics are troublesome for me sometimes. And to think, I took advanced courses at one of the (then) premier pubic school systems of the state, which gave me something of a clue. Imagine how it was for students without such an opportunity.
Posted by: Aquaria | February 25, 2008 11:06 PM
Went to Catholic grade school and high school (graduated HS in 2001) in Wisconsin and I don't recall ever being introduced to intelligent design OR creationism. The only time we would have touched on creation myths would have been during Religion class, but that never crossed over into science. Though we were never taught evolution in depth, it certainly pervaded any biological science we discussed.
In fact, I wasn't aware there was even a controversy until my college years, when I really became an atheist and a skeptic, and found out that people outside my blue state bubble actually believed in that crap.
Posted by: John | February 25, 2008 11:10 PM
Is our children learning evolution?
Posted by: Mike | February 25, 2008 11:31 PM
In my high school government class, I teach evolution by natural selection as a fact, and I do my subtle best to ridicule the mutually exclusive creation stories by presenting about a dozen of the most ludicrous sounding (to a modern high school student in Florid, e.g., the Hopi spider woman) along with the Christian creation account. You know, equal time. Incidentally, only about half of my seniors said they had ever heard of Darwin.
Anyway, in my class, after I give a brief talk on Darwinism, we watch Carl Sagan explain natural selection (from Cosmos). Then we study how evolution affects government and economics by looking at in-group/out group dynamics, cheater detectors, game theory and the prisoner's dilemma, etc. I use Paul Rubin's "Darwinian Politics" as a guide, along with Will Wilkinson's short paper "Capitalism and Human Nature." This year I incorporated Michael Shermer's "The Mind of the Market" as well.
The kids are really interested in evolution when it's explained well (Sagan) and when they realize it continues to affect their lives and behavior.
Of course, when I explain that evolution is a fact, some of my dumber students reply that "it depends on what you believe." I explain that, even if natural selection were 100% false, it wouldn't at all depend on what one believed; it either is or isn't true. I add that, of course, it is true.
And others complain that I'm "brainwashing" them. I ask why they didn't have the same objection when I explained that demand curves slope downward. The answer they don't know, of course, is that their parents haven't spent years filling their brains with economics mush, so they don't perceive learning economic truths as "brainwashing."
I guess the point is, even if the science teachers aren't doing their jobs, some of us in the social sciences are picking up the slack.
Posted by: Florida High School Teacher | February 25, 2008 11:32 PM
In my high school science department, most of us were proud of our emphasis and success on building a curriculum around the theme of evolution. But we had a creationist on board who would teach the genesis account of creation along with the conventional scientific view of Earth history. He would close his classroom doors and show students his church's antievolution videos. Eventually our department wouldn't let him teach the life sciences. But if you can control your class and the administration hears few complaints, then they're unlikely to stir the pot by trying to restrain such an individual.
Posted by: C Barr | February 25, 2008 11:38 PM
Florida HighSchool teacher -- you are a disgrace to the education system, as you are doing nothing but dumbing-down your students. It's too bad one of your students doesn't call you on your teaching of natural selection as "fact"......as you can't name even one scientifically-confirmed example of directional (creative) selection.
ToE is a bonafide joke.
Posted by: stanley | February 25, 2008 11:40 PM
"Bona fide" is two words, Stanley. Didn't learn that in church?
Posted by: Florida High School Teacher | February 25, 2008 11:43 PM
#21 beat me to the punch. I swear I can't read anything on education anymore without "is our children learning?" going through my head.
@#25 Nylon-eating bacteria. Drug resistance. Is two too many examples?
Posted by: uknesvuinng | February 25, 2008 11:46 PM
The issue isn't whether or not evolution is mentioned in high school courses. The real question is whether kids graduate with some real knowledge of biology or not. My guess, admittedly based on personal experience and some rather old studies, is that evolution is not effectively taught--even the people I meet who claim to accept the validity of evolution often don't have a very good idea of the subject.
Our system has a tough enough time conveying noncontroversial content, especially when it involves concepts that must be understood instead of facts that can simply be memorized. Add the reluctance of teachers to rile up parents to this intrinsic difficulty and it's no wonder the system fails.
Posted by: Jim Harrison | February 25, 2008 11:47 PM
The atheists responding to this blog are so happy that his/her atheism is reinforced by athiest biologists and visa versa.
Fortunately, the innocents within the classroom have help on the way in the form of a new series of textbooks based on physical science.
THERE IS A NEW DISCIPLINE:
The Quest for Right, a series of 7 textbooks created for the public schools, represents the ultimate marriage between an in-depth knowledge of biblical phenomena and natural and physical sciences. The several volumes have accomplished that which, heretofore, was deemed impossible: to level the playing field between those who desire a return to physical science in the classroom and those who embrace the theory of evolution. The Quest for Right turns the tide by providing an authoritative and enlightening scientific explanation of natural phenomena which will ultimately dethrone the unprofitable Darwinian view.
The backbone of Darwinism is not biological evolution per se, but electronic interpretation, the tenet that all physical, chemical, and biological processes result from a change in the electron structure of the atom which, in turn, may be deciphered through the orderly application of mathematics, as outlined in quantum mechanics. A few of the supporting theories are: degrading stars, neutron stars, black holes, extraterrestrial water, antimatter, the absolute dating systems, and the big bang, the explosion of a singularity infinitely smaller than the dot of an "i" from which space, time, and the massive stellar bodies supposedly sprang into being.
The philosophy rejects any divine intervention. Therefore, let the philosophy of Darwinism be judged on these specifics: electron interpretation and quantum mechanics. Conversely, the view that God is both responsible for and rules all the phenomena of the universe will stand or fall when the facts are applied. The view will not hinge on faith alone, but will be tested by the weightier principle of verifiable truths - the new discipline.
The Quest for Right is not only better at explaining natural phenomena, but also may be verified through testing. As a consequence, the material in the several volumes will not violate the so-called constitutional separation of church and state. Physical science, the old science of cause and effect, will have a long-term sustainability, replacing irresponsible doctrines based on whim. Teachers and students will rejoice in the simplicity of earthly phenomena when entertained by the new discipline.
The Quest for Right is not only an academic resource designed for the public schools, but also contains a wealth of information on pertinent subjects that seminarians need to know to be effective: geology, biology, geography, astronomy, chemistry, paleontology, and in-depth Biblical studies. The nuggets from the pages of Biblical history alone will give seminarians literally hundreds of fresh ideas for sermons and teachings. The ministry resources contained in The Quest for Right serve as invaluable aids that will enrich graduates beyond their highest expectations.
You will not want to miss the adventure of a lifetime which awaits you in Volume 1 of The Quest for Right.
Visit the official website for additional information and to purchase a copy: http://questforright.com/
"A book that will change the world." - Wayne Lin, Editor, Tate Publishing LLC
Posted by: C. David Parsons | February 26, 2008 12:01 AM
Its just not a proper "mad creationist" thread until Stanley pops up.
In Aus in the late 80's going through high school teaching creation was actually NOT allowed at all in mainstream subjects and I understand its still the same now. Going through the education system here I'd never even heard of creationism and we're taught the whole monkey thing from an early age (though now I prefer to think of myself evolved from oranges). Interestingly this is not just in the state run or private secular schools but in the private religion-affiliated schools too. I went to a private secular school for five years and then, because of a SNAFU, had to attend an Anglican school for a year. At neither was creationism even mentioned in our biology classes. It IS however taught solely as a concept in the subject of "Religious Education" which is totally optional and, as you would guess, fuck all students take.... Yeah, I'm 18 and have a free period once a week I can either a) listen to somneone crap on about the Shroud of Turin or b) slope off to the library and make out with my boyfriend behind the stacks. You decide what we all chose.
Posted by: Bride of Shrek | February 26, 2008 12:08 AM
We've dealt with your kooky book before, Parsons. You're a delusional loon.
Posted by: PZ Myers | February 26, 2008 12:09 AM
I quite honestly don't remember what i learned in H.S. biology. I remember liking chemistry; but physics not so much (which lasted into college). I think that's why rediscovering a lot of it--which I knew bits and pieces of as an outsider--has been so fun.
Posted by: MAJeff | February 26, 2008 12:21 AM
A few points, PZ:
1) The survey probably understates the degree to which 'intelligent design' may be embedded in some curricula, since ID advocates often slip it in as just another way of looking at evolution
2) It is difficult to effectively teach evolution in the culture we live in without some acknowledgment that some regard it as controversial, that it has religious implications, and that there are pseudo-scientific movements (ID and other forms of creationism) attempting to get their foot in the biology classroom. We can not assume that every student who reports ID or creationism is getting an advocacy lesson, nor that every teacher who completely omits ID etc. is doing a better job than those who don't.
3) Neither of the above nuanced points is likely to be appreciated by students who learned a 'cookbook' version of scientific method which fails to consider what makes an inference valid, a hypothesis scientific, an experiment controlled. This is a common failing at all levels of instruction in my experience.
Posted by: Scott Hatfield, OM | February 26, 2008 1:22 AM
I had the luxury of going to several high schools in my HS career, and i was there from 94-98. I can assure you there was only one mention of a deity of any sort, that was in i believe 11th grade biology, when the teacher was going to do the 2 weeks of evolution section of the semester. He basically said that if you believed in god that evolution shouldn't offend you.
One thing we did have to do though is have our parents sign a release so we could attend that class for those two weeks. If i recall correctly, no one didn't have a signature.
I also attended a Jewish private school. No mention of creationism there. Go figure.
Posted by: genewitch | February 26, 2008 1:50 AM
not that this will get read, nor will i be able to tell (i don't thinK)
But the whole "this is why creationism is a lie" isn't something that should be taught in a biology class. Personally, i believe it's an ethics topic. So it's in the realm of philosophy.
my 2 cents.
Posted by: genewitch | February 26, 2008 1:55 AM
.07% were taught Creationism in depth? What more is there to the story? You were made out of clay by God. Done. There's no depth.
Posted by: Tatarize | February 26, 2008 2:01 AM
The issue isn't whether or not evolution is mentioned in high school courses. The real question is whether kids graduate with some real knowledge of biology or not.
and how, exactly, do you separate the two?
You can't GET a real knowledge of biology without learning about evolution.
EOS
Posted by: Ichthyic | February 26, 2008 2:35 AM
There's no depth.
true it's all shallow drivel, but those devoted to creationism often make time to detail their moronic ideas about flood geology, radio dating, etc.
this is what they call "evidence", remember? It hardly matters that someone pulled it out of their ass, so long as they can use it to confuse kids.
Posted by: Ichthyic | February 26, 2008 2:38 AM
When they teach ID or creationism, what exactly do they teach? What is there to teach? Dembski's ID filter or Behe's handwaving about bacterial flagella?
Posted by: Flaky | February 26, 2008 3:02 AM
jeebus, it's like i didn't just post or something.
if you REALLY want to know the kind of shit they teach kids, visit the AIG website, or visit this site:
http://kids4truth.com/hometwo.asp
and make yourself ill.
seriously, you should know your enemy better than to think they have nothing to say other than "goddidit".
they have LOTS to say...
all wrong.
also, you should check out this sometime, and familiarize yourself with the more common creobot arguments (as they NEVER vary):
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
Posted by: Ichthyic | February 26, 2008 3:16 AM
I would echo Bride of Shrek from over the Tasman. In New Zealand I don't remember specific evolution related classes/modules, it was more like Dobzhansky, everything we did was related to evolution. It pervaded everything. I think the problem with how the debate has skewed things in the US is that this is lost. The creationists and IDiots have coralled evolution into a ghetto so that they can better excise it from the curriculum. It needs to be like Dobzhansky said, it should pervade every biology lesson, implicitly as well as explicitly.
Posted by: Peter Ashby | February 26, 2008 4:19 AM
In the UK we're kind of similar to the position Peter Ashby and Bride of Shrek have described re the teaching of creationism (mostly - the "City Academy" idea of our glorious St. Tony has lead to several state schools being bought out by religious kooks who do teach out-and-out creationism - apparently this is OK because it leads to "diversity" in education. Grrrrr).
Unfortunately my memories of School Biology lessons were that they tended to avoid evolution as well - we had lots of lessons about how the gut works (almost a year of it) but only 3 lessons on anything remotely similar to evolution. Even then the module was called "classification" and you passed it with flying colours if you could tell the difference between a newt and a lizard. I'd've given up on it completely if it hadn't have been for David Attenborough and Richard Dawkins (do any other UK pharyngulites remember Dawkins's Christmas Lectures? Fantastic!).
Even allowing for the fact that I went to a religious school (chapel every day, the works) I get the impression having spoken to other people that this is a fairly typical experience of Biology teaching in UK Schools. Does anyone from the UK feel the same, or was my school just bizarre?
Posted by: Lilly de Lure | February 26, 2008 5:24 AM
Lilly de Lure,
I'm happy to say that my experience (in the early 90's) was nothing like yours. We were following the National Curriculum, and most of our biology lessons were spent learning about evolution. We studied the fossil record, mutation, natural selection, genetic drift, common ancestry, human evolution, abiogenesis, and much, much more. Most of our biology exams were specifically concerned with TOE.
It sounds like you really missed out?
Posted by: Damian | February 26, 2008 6:15 AM
The number that caught my eye was the less than 1% who said they did not study high school biology. I realize this is a survey of college or college-bound students. But did 99% really take a year-long course in biology?
At my own California 70s high school biology was taught but was not a required class, the biology teacher was a loon, and I satisfied the one-year science requirement with chemistry instead. Apparently CA requires two years of science now, but that includes 9th grade, and there's no requirement that one of them is biology. Pity.
Posted by: Daniel Murphy | February 26, 2008 6:25 AM
Damian:
It most certainly does! I'd've killed to have been taught about all of that stuff in School rather than have had to have read about it myself (although to be fair we did have a bit of genetics, but we never got further than very basic inheritence and no connection with evolution was made).
I actually remember mentioning the fossil record and human evolution to my biology teacher and asking her about it - I was told bluntly that she wasn't paid to teach Geology and I would have to wait until University to study them. As for abiogenesis, it was mentioned in Scripture lessons as evidence for the existence of God and that was about it.
I'm very happy to conclude that my school experience was indeed as odd as I thought it was at the time.
Posted by: Lilly de Lure | February 26, 2008 6:31 AM
I went to high school in the Netherlands, in the late 70's / early 80's. At the time, evolution was not part of the national curriculum and not on the national exam. This means that it was quite possible to start university without ever having learned about evolution.
Schools could teach it if they wanted to (mine did), but many christian schools apparently taught some form of creationism. At least, that's what my biology teacher claimed: "I'm now going to teach about evolution, and you should consider yourselves fortunate, because those poor kids at the christian school down the road have to make to with Genesis".
Posted by: Marina Muilwijk | February 26, 2008 7:07 AM
I supppose I was one of the lucky ones who had a HS biology teacher who based the entire structure of the course around evolutionary theory (although I have to admit I didn't appreciate it's elegance at the time).
However, I would have had to answer that we were exposed to creationism. We did spend a single half-class period at the beginning of the semester on creationism, and it was slammed as a myth.
Posted by: Flex | February 26, 2008 7:13 AM
That would be true Flex, if the numbers of iconoclastic youngsters were constant, but the trend amongst them is for more iconoclasm as you put it. it is in this that the optimism relies, not the simple fact of the young being iconoclastic.
Posted by: Peter Ashby | February 26, 2008 8:19 AM
I'm fascinated by the notion that 0.07% of respondents believed they were taught Creationism "in depth". What would an in-depth treatment of a field that concentrates on poor rebuttals of evolution look like?
Posted by: Dougal | February 26, 2008 8:20 AM
Maybe the kids memorise the entire output of the Disco Institute - extra credit if they can regurgitate Dumbski's "work" accurately enough to give the maths teacher a nervous breakdown?
Posted by: Lilly de Lure | February 26, 2008 8:30 AM
@ Lilly #41
I too remember spending most of 2 years studying Human Biology (in the 80s). I vaguely remember looking at flowers and that's about it. There must have been more but I don't think fossils, or anything to do with evolution were mentioned. Possibly five minutes on classification but no more.
I do remember that 2 of us considered too thick to do Biology had to do Human Biology instead and I do recall that the curriculum for that sounded much more interesting which doesn't say much for the Biology we were supposed to be learning.
Funnily enough, I didn't do Biology for A Level (Years 12-13) and I'm now wondering where I first heard about evolution. It must have been my parents but I don't remember any occasion.
Posted by: tintin | February 26, 2008 9:01 AM
Hpoefully, in another 5 years or so, this study can include children in Florida.
Posted by: firemancarl | February 26, 2008 9:10 AM
Oh dear, perhaps I wasn't so odd after all! I was taught a little later than you (early '90's) but that sounds about right. Certainly I heard too didn't hear the word "evolution" at school at all - I heard it for the first time via David Attenborough.
Posted by: Lilly de Lure | February 26, 2008 9:27 AM
I took standard biology in Arizona; I don't recall being explicitly taught about evolution, but it probably was taught. When I took AP biology in high school (in Virginia), the AP teacher told us that it was forbidden to talk about evolution in the non-elective biology classes. In an elective class, like AP Bio, it was assumed that evolution would be explained and elucidated.
Posted by: Greg | February 26, 2008 9:58 AM
I took biology at a somewhat prestigious Christian prep school (Ted Turner and Pat Robertson are alums!) and we did evolution and left creationism for Religion & Philosophy class. I then went to the local state college where my Anthropology 101 prof refused to cover the evolution chapter (I dropped that one like a hot potato).
Posted by: Sarcastro | February 26, 2008 10:35 AM
I would think that the average inquisitive student would be interested in the origination of life. How did he get here? There are but two ortions. God created or He didn't. Or,we are products of inconceivable complexity magically assembled by natural means over incomprehensible periods of time. Those are the most logical choices and the current controversy centers around them. But many do not want to allow our youth to decide based upon scientific evidence only on the presumptive views of biased atheistic evolutionists. In other words, sacrifice the opportunity for our youth to be part of an important real debate in order to sell our own tainted viewpoint. It is called censorship.
Posted by: Ronald Cote | February 26, 2008 11:09 AM
#15, that's what I was thinking. I have to conclude that either the questionnaire was extraordinarily badly written, or the people running the poll had no idea how to analyze the results.
Posted by: Mark | February 26, 2008 11:30 AM
Ronald, which is more magic, evolution or goddidit? It's goddidit. Evolution has rules, magic skypappy doesn't.
Posted by: True Bob | February 26, 2008 11:34 AM
My sister's biology teacher at a public HS in Texas turned out to be a creationist. I went to a private school. They taught evolution for a full trimester and creationism wasn't mentioned at all. Somewhat to my disappointment: I was hoping for a good fight.
Posted by: Dianne | February 26, 2008 11:49 AM
"It is called censorship."
It's actually called "the consensus of experts". It's the same reason that mechanic schools have largely abandoned teaching that fairies make engines run.
Keep it in the churches, Ronald.
Posted by: Rey Fox | February 26, 2008 11:58 AM
When creationists have some scientific evidence for a creator, let us know Ronald.
Posted by: Steve_C | February 26, 2008 12:01 PM
True Bob, My guess is evolution! Please illucidate on the rules you mention. Rey, Changing the name,isn't very convincing. Keep evolution with the Fairy Tales. Steve, just look out the window. All of this magnificent complexity is by chance over time? What are you smoking? And please cite some scientific evidence for your fantasia. All you evols have smart comments with zip for backup. Get real, open your crania and seek the truth, it will set you free rather than keep you captive to a deceitful fairy tale.
Posted by: Ronald Cote | February 26, 2008 2:03 PM
Ronald Cote: i adore irony, and that you can aver, with a straight face, that natural processes more "magic" than Special Creation is the apotheosis of irony
so, thank you for that
*hugs irony*
Posted by: skyotter | February 26, 2008 2:17 PM
"... that natural processess ARE more 'magic' ..."
*sigh*
Posted by: skyotter | February 26, 2008 2:18 PM
I see Ronald is displaying classic creationist projection.
Posted by: spurge | February 26, 2008 2:27 PM
While I am not a scientist, I have a spare understanding of evolution. So here's a rule for you. Evolution requires changes by modification of descendents*. That is, over time, a population has changes in characteristics via alterations, and accumulation of alterations, to their offspring. Also, no shortcuts, i.e. no miracles, no magic tricks, gotta obey the laws of physics, etc.
goddidit theory is 100% magic. No rules, at all. Not measurable, no predictions, not detectable, not bound by the laws of physics, and on and on. It's the ultimate cop-out. I don't know, so god. Is there a teeny tiny god in every nuclear reactor? Tiny gods in your TV? I bet you don't know how fission works. Ever been to a magic show? There isn't really any magic, it is all illusion - the audience is misled, just like you are about gods.
*scientists, I am but a miserable engineer, please correct me if I'm off.
Posted by: True Bob | February 26, 2008 2:32 PM
Well, I grew up in Wales, in the UK, and I can remember our science teacher introducing us to evolution and on the second lesson saying "I suppose I should point out that in some schools in the world, like in America, they teach an alternative theory to evolution."
Our ears picked up... what could this alternative theory be?
"They teach that God literally made the world in seven days. You know, Adam and Eve and all that. I felt I should tell you all that in the name of fairness."
Blank looks all round. We sit there waiting for the punchline. The teacher nods, sheepishly. Then we break out into laughter. "No way!" we laugh. Hahahahahaha.
And then we got back to work.
That's the way Creationism should be taught.
Posted by: Wrought | February 26, 2008 3:05 PM
I would have responded evolution in depth, a little creationism, and no ID. I don't see the problem with that in the proper context. Our textbook traced the history of each problem, and showed the evolution of current theory by the scientific rejection of former theories. Hence, old superstitions about abiogenesis were taught as a kind of scientific prehistory. That seems to me the best kind of science teaching: introduce competing theories, and show how experiment rejects one. Especially since most of what one learns in school is simply taught as dogma (or something related: language classes teach arbitrary conventions; much else is simply common knowledge which was directly witnessed and not controversial).
Posted by: pholidote | February 26, 2008 3:29 PM
I see Ronald is displaying classic creationist projection.
*bing*
winner!
I'd add Ronald to the ever growing database I have of creobots who exhibit projection as their primary mode of expressing themselves, but he's already in there.
Posted by: Ichthyic | February 26, 2008 3:42 PM
Hence, old superstitions about abiogenesis were taught as a kind of scientific prehistory
Science crawling out of the primordial ooze.
Posted by: Ichthyic | February 26, 2008 3:44 PM
"winner!"
I can has cookie?
Posted by: spurge | February 26, 2008 3:46 PM
No, you're watching your weight, remember?
oh, alright, just one though.
:P
Posted by: Ichthyic | February 26, 2008 3:48 PM
If Evolution is a fact, why are you afraid of creationism? If it is not, then show me a decent reference that puts evolution beyond all reasonable doubt and **answers** the major claims of creationism/ID. Until I see that, I will consider evolution to be an attempt to cut the inconvenient notion of God from the consciousness of society.
Posted by: AC | February 26, 2008 4:41 PM
If Evolution is a fact, why are you afraid of creationism
nobody is afraid of stupidity... just the results obtained from letting it run rampant.
Posted by: Ichthyic | February 26, 2008 4:43 PM
Well then disprove it
Posted by: AC | February 26, 2008 4:44 PM
sigh.
Proofs are for geometry. Science is about inference to the best explanation. Unknown actions at an unknown time by an unknown agent of unknown capabilities doesn't even qualify as an explanation under any reasonable epistemology, much less the best explanation.
And if you want a single reference that "**answers** the major claims of creationism/ID," may I suggest the TalkOrigins Index to Creationist Claims?
Posted by: CJO | February 26, 2008 4:52 PM
Well then disprove it
assuming by "it" you mean creationism...
why?
would it make you feel better to know?
somehow, I rather doubt it.
Posted by: Ichthyic | February 26, 2008 4:53 PM
I ask Ron for evidence of a creator and he points out the window...
he could have easly just pointed to his crotch.
Hey I got your creatah right hee... Ohhhh. Badda-bing.
Fucktard.
We have the dna, the fossils and the time. He has a 2000 year old myth created by bronze age cultists.
I'll ask again... where's the evidence Ron? Don't point out the window to the biological evidence for evolution, which is EVERYWHERE, it just makes you look deranged.