…and this is a 
Creationists in the American classroom
Category: Creationism
Posted on: May 20, 2008 12:50 PM, by PZ Myers
Here's the most depressing thing I've seen all week (and I'm grading genetics exams): it's the result of a national survey of high school biology teachers.
At least 16% of our high school teachers are young earth creationists. Furthermore, 12% our our teachers are using biology classes in public schools to teach creationism in a positive light. The majority are still pro-science, but even in the good cases, relatively little time is spent on teaching evolution.
The news isn't all bad. One constructive discovery is that it is neither legal battles nor demanding state standards that determine how much effort is put into teaching evolution — it's how much education the teachers have in the subject. The obvious lesson is that we ought to be encouraging more coursework for teachers; help educate the teachers, give them more material they can use in the classroom, and the students benefit.
Here's the conclusion of the paper, which lays it all out very clearly.
Our survey of biology teachers is the first nationally representative, scientific sample survey to examine evolution and creationism in the classroom. Three different survey questions all suggest that between 12% and 16% of the nation's biology teachers are creationist in orientation. Roughly one sixth of all teachers professed a "young earth" personal belief, and about one in eight reported that they teach creationism or intelligent design in a positive light. The number of hours devoted to these alternative theories is typically low--but this nevertheless must surely convey to students that these theories should be accorded respect as scientific perspectives.
The majority of teachers, however, see evolution as central and essential to high school biology courses. Yet the amount of time devoted to evolutionary biology varies substantially from teacher to teacher, and a majority either avoid human evolution altogether or devote only one or two class periods to the topic. We showed that some of these differences were due to personal beliefs about human origins. However, an equally important factor is the science education the teacher received while in college. Additional variance is likely to be rooted in pressures--subtle or otherwise--emerging from parents and community leaders in each school's community, in combination with teachers' confidence in their ability to deal with such pressures given their knowledge of evolution, as well as their personal beliefs.
These findings strongly suggest that victory in the courts is not enough for the scientific community to ensure that evolution is included in high school science courses. Nor is success in persuading states to adopt rigorous content standards consistent with recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences and other scientific organizations. Scientists concerned about the quality of evolution instruction might have a bigger impact in the classroom by focusing on the certification standards for high school biology teachers. Our study suggests that requiring all teachers to complete a course in evolutionary biology would have a substantial impact on the emphasis on evolution and its centrality in high school biology courses. In the long run, the impact of such a change could have a more far reaching effect than the victories in courts and in state governments.
Education & Careers
Comments
Wow...I'm surprised that it's 16% among biology teachers. Out of our science dept, I have to say I can't think of a single one who would be a YEC.
That means somewhere there is a school with more than their fair share of YEC in the biology dept. I'm hoping it's a private high school rather than a public one.
(Sorry if this posts twice, I kept getting an error message.)
Posted by: Heather | May 20, 2008 1:00 PM
And that is exactly the point that needs to be made clear. I sat in a high school science class in Tennessee (years ago) and had a teacher tell me that religion and science weren't in conflict, and that God loved science just as much as he loves each and every one of his children. How parochial...
Until we get to the point where our teachers (the ones we hire to stand in front of the little ones) actually can grasp the material they're supposed to be teaching, we'll be fighting the court battles and PR wars. Every time a child comes out of a school system, vaulted by any of these Young-Earth creationists into a skewed view of the scientific world, there is the possibility that kid is a future Behe, Medved, or any other pseudo-scientific quack who looks more for recognition and influence than for the scientific fact.
According to this study, 84% of teachers seem to be rational and competent, but those 16% give the rest of them a bad name. In this case, the 16%, due to the outrageousness of their ideas concerning science and their own field, trump the 84%, because they work in an area that has a huge hand in determining the development of youngsters' minds. I don't think the education system, and by proxy society, will be in the clear until that number os 0%.
Posted by: brokenSoldier | May 20, 2008 1:02 PM
Not really surprising considering that it's more important to have proper certification as an educator than it is to have specific training in the particular science you're asked to teach.
Posted by: Josh | May 20, 2008 1:02 PM
You guys (the US) are more doomed then I thought. Hopefully, this particular delusion isn't catching and won't spread north...
Good luck!!
Posted by: Philippe | May 20, 2008 1:03 PM
Ridiculous.
Posted by: zer0 | May 20, 2008 1:04 PM
Man, it sure is easier to be a math teacher! Creationism seldom intrudes into our curriculum and if I have any creationist colleagues, I don't even know about it because they have so few opportunities to act out.
It does, nevertheless, pop up among our students occasionally. I was teaching a unit on exponential growth and decay in an algebra II class and worked out a problem using carbon-14 decay as an example, whereupon one of my students primly said, "Well, I don't believe in that, of course." She doesn't believe in radioactive decay? Religion sure is goofy. (But you knew that.)
Posted by: Zeno | May 20, 2008 1:08 PM
Well that's just it, they're complaining about evolution in the classroom, without their theology being taught as well, when evolution's been kept out of many classrooms thus far, either by settling for incompetent teachers, or by parents and schoolboards intimidating them in various ways.
Evolution expelled.
That just doesn't seem to bother Stein much, as intent as he is on academic freedom ("5. What would you like to say to Darwin?
[Ben Stein replies]"You are a wealthy man, you married a wealthy
woman, why don't you just live quietly out in the countryside and not
torture us with your half-baked suppositions, which have caused so
much misery?").
If they can keep preventing children from learning science, the cycle of ignorance can continue. Seems to be the plan in several states.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | May 20, 2008 1:09 PM
9% of biology teachers have NO OPINION on evolution?! how can you possibly teach biology and not have any opinion on evolution?
Posted by: Angus Beefheart | May 20, 2008 1:10 PM
It's weird how reality vs. fantasy can come up when you're not expecting it. And then you realize that in order to share the facts of science, sometimes you will be destroying someone's fantasy.
I was taking 9-yr old DS on a walk this morning and we were talking about the North Pole and the South Pole. I mentioned to him that the SP was actually land covered by snow and ice, while the NP was frozen water that could melt and disappear.
And then I realized my mistake - Dang, now he's going to ask about Santa. Sure enough, he wanted to know what was going to happen to Santa and all the elves if the ice melted?
After conferring with my husband, we've decided it's time for the Santa theory to be retired. 9 years old is plenty old enough to know the reality of things, so we'll be having the talk soon. I'd rather he understand that the NP is not a land mass than continue to be concerned about some jolly guy in a red suit trying to swim for Canada once the ice melts.
Posted by: Heather | May 20, 2008 1:13 PM
#8 "NO OPINION"
That's where the intimidation factors in.
Posted by: Philippe | May 20, 2008 1:16 PM
16% aren't YEC's. They are standard creationists. According to the survey, they claim that God created humans about 10,000 years ago. They say nothing about the age of the earth. We can refer to them as YHC (Young Human Creationists), which YECS would be a subset.
Now, whether this is any better than a YEC for the purposes of High School instruction... well, that's not clear. :(
Posted by: ChrisG | May 20, 2008 1:17 PM
Every one of those 16% (or at least those that actively preach ID/Creationsm in the classroom) should be fired. It's amazing that 16% can even *teach* biology while being creationists, since evolution is the cornerstone of the subject.
Posted by: LordJiro | May 20, 2008 1:20 PM
Ah crap, yeah, my pardon PZ.
", our data demonstrate substantial sympathy for the "young earth" creationist position among nearly one in six members of the science teaching profession."
My error. Sorry.
Posted by: ChrisG | May 20, 2008 1:20 PM
I don't know what more to say than to note that I'm stunned. The general public answers are pretty bad, too. 78% of us think it's God-guided, whether in the last 10,000 years or not? When they go to the Grand Canyon, do they think, "Sure, 10,000 years, that's possible!"?
I just don't get it. Is the battle lost?
Isn't this happening at the same time American churches are finally emptying? That implies a disconnect I do not understand.
Ken Hovind is winning. Barf. That was my breakfast. Sorry.
Posted by: MikeM | May 20, 2008 1:21 PM
Glen D wrote:
That's dead on. When parents intimidate teachers and school boards because of their own ignorance, evolution doesn't get taught fully and energetically. Also, parents who don't understand the topic can't help their kids with their homework. Thus we have a society in which even many well-educated people hold and spread myths about evolution.
Posted by: Tosser | May 20, 2008 1:22 PM
I have a cousin that is one of those creationist HS bio teachers. One the good side, she's in a private school. However since the public school system on this small American colony is worthless, small relatively inexpensive private schools like the one my cousin teaches at teach the kids from the working and middle classes.
Since the rise of the crazy religious right in the mainland,charismatic churches are gobbling up the mentally unstable (like said cousin) in the colonies.
Posted by: Brigit | May 20, 2008 1:26 PM
I am confused, in the rest of the developed world to teach a subject in High School you need a degree in it, or at least 2nd year undergrad papers or some equivalent (our head of woodwork/metalwork etc was a Master Mariner for eg).
So either this is not the case or the problem actually lies in your tertiary education of those destined to be biology teachers. Considering how big biotech is becoming world wide you people at risk of being left behind. The Parliament here in the UK has just voted to allow hybrid human embryo creation for research purposes (cloning using an enucleated cows egg so the nucleus will be human but the mitochondria bovine).
All your biotech stem cell patents are belong to us.
Posted by: Peter Ashby | May 20, 2008 1:32 PM
The most astounding number is that 48% of the general population are young earth creationists. It utterly boggles my mind. How did America fall so far into such breathtaking ignorance?
Religion truly is destroying our country, which means it may well end up destroying all of civilization before it's done.
Posted by: Paul Ferguson | May 20, 2008 1:34 PM
I blame atheists.
(Not really, I just wanted to be the first to say it in this thread.)
Posted by: Screechy Monkey | May 20, 2008 1:34 PM
The infection is spreading.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeTfW8-dCNE
Posted by: Don | May 20, 2008 1:44 PM
#2: "According to this study, 84% of teachers seem to be rational and competent, but those 16% give the rest of them a bad name."
I think you meant only 28% of biology teachers are rational and competent. That's the percent of teachers who accept the evolution of the human species without invoking magic to explain it. This is disgraceful, but not as bad as the only 13% of Americans who accept science without magic.
In my opinion the 72% of biology teachers, who invoke magic to explain evolution, or deny evolution completely, should be fired immediately.
Posted by: BobC | May 20, 2008 1:44 PM
German news magazine "Der SPIEGEL" last year reported about a poll a biology professor at University Dortmund made among first year students. 12.5% thought that it's still unclear if evolution took place. From the biology students 5.5 percent had that view. I'm not sure if that indicate that Germany's high school biology teachers have similar views to yours or if the biology education is just bad for other reasons.
Here's the link to the article: http://www.spiegel.de/unispiegel/studium/0,1518,479460,00.html (Sorry German language only)
Posted by: Martin | May 20, 2008 1:46 PM
I have to say,I'd like to see even more of a push in biology. Why limit it to high school? No teacher should be teaching any form of biology without an understanding of evolution - and that includes elementary school teachers who instruct children in general science.
My eldest is only in kindergarden, and I already have issues with the scientific ignorance of her teachers. We allow people with no science knowledge at all to instruct children in science at younger ages, with the predictable result that they are taught fallacies such as: You lose 90% of your heat through your head; frogs aren't actually animals (don't ask me why...); tomatoes are vegetables, not fruits, bats are blind and see with sound, etc.
If we respect our children, we should ensure that their education has a minimum degree of accuracy at all age levels, and it's never too young to talk to them about evolution.
Posted by: Epinephrine | May 20, 2008 1:50 PM
Actually, it's not that depressing. Given the pronounced trend away from religion in younger generations (from 4% non-religious 40 years ago to between 20%-25% today) that 16% is likely the high-water mark for creationists for years to come.
We have to remember just how much more religious and conservative America still is compare with the rest of the western world. That's not going to change overnight, and it's easy in the continual battles to keep creationism out of public schools to miss the bigger picture. Religious fundamentalism in America is on the wane. We may all be dead and buried by the time the fundies are finally reduced to an insignificant rump but I expect it to happen eventually.
We may have a long way to go yet, but we've come a long way, and I am optimistic about the future. That 16% can still do some damage, by let's not forget that we have 65% (yes, including the non-creationist believers) who can do a lot of good. Let's make sure we support them.
Posted by: tacitus | May 20, 2008 2:03 PM
I don't know what the answer is (if anyone does, please let me know!), but this is insane that the very teachers that we work so hard to protect and allow to teach SCIENCE, are, in fact, teaching CREATIONISM IN A POSITIVE LIGHT. WTF!
There's moles on the inside, methinks.
Something else for me to worry about. Crap.
Posted by: Colin J | May 20, 2008 2:04 PM
I haven't read the report and likely won't have time soon, so I'll just ask of those who have whether the report identifies whether these 16% of biology teachers who teach something other than science are concentrated in any particular geography or demographic. I'm wondering, essentially, what percentage of students in the US are taught by those teachers. For instance, how much of that 16% are in large urban school districts and how much is in small rural districts? Are more of the 16% located in the southeast or is it spread equally across the country?
Does the bad 16% of biology teachers wind up teaching 5% of students? 10%? 30%?
Posted by: Mike O'Risal | May 20, 2008 2:10 PM
Hey Colin, there are some crazy moles on the inside. I've had shady science teachers in school but I ignored them and considered them dumb.
And it's not necessarily lack of education of the teachers - my cousin got her bachelors in biology from a decent school, and I had friends in undergrad in chemistry that were creos, even though I went to a good school. It's the kool-aid, man, that and their twisted little heads.
Posted by: Brigit | May 20, 2008 2:13 PM
About 15 years ago or so, a friend of mine prowled the business district in Toronto asking random passers how long it took the earth to revolve around the sun. The number of people who answered "one day" and even the number of people who answered "the sun revolves around the earth" far outnumbered the people who answered "one year" (which is the right answer btw).
I have a feeling answers would be better if there was something at stake for those being asked (money, their life, and so on). That aside, it seems to me that evolutionary questions are an order more complex than "how long does it take for the earth to revolve around the sun". Certainly, questions that place evolution against religious belief are more likely to inspire instant confusion.
It's sad to say, but I'm actually impressed by the number of people from the general public who lean toward scientific answers. I would have expected far fewer.
Posted by: Jams | May 20, 2008 2:15 PM
Like ecology, everything in public policy is connected, and requiring additional education for public(-funded) school science teachers in the current USA environment is a recipe for failure.
Public school budgets in the USA, including teachers' salaries, are primarily funded from local (county or smaller political subdivisions) property taxes. This has the predictable effect on money for education, and teacher qualifications. Poorer school districts (mainly rural and inner city) don't pay teachers very well and supply both teachers and students with quite limited resources. Thus asking someone who's got a degree and a passion for biology to make perhaps a quarter to a third of the salary teaching as she would working for a pharmaceutical company is pure wishful thinking.
Recruiting science teachers from those with education degrees rather than those with course work or degrees in specific sciences is simply drawing your employees from the pool of those most likely to work for what you're paying. Requiring extra course work or degrees would very likely reduce the pool of those willing to teach science - they'd just take jobs teaching other subjects that didn't pose such requirements, offering so little monetary reward in return.
Posted by: Jud | May 20, 2008 2:22 PM
We had a creationist in our high school science department. I came into his classroom one afternoon to talk with him at the beginning of an Earth Science course and saw the seven days of Genesis outlined on the board under the heading, Creation Science, alongside the accepted Earth history starting with the Big Bang. I hit the roof. He just couldn't conceptualize that it wasn't OK for him to proselytize his evangelical worldview on the taxpayer's dollar. He lived in an imaginary world of devils and demons. Loved Dr. Dino. He'd close the classroom door and show his church's videos attacking evolution. Eventually the department wouldn't let him teach Life Science Classes. To seriously deal with this would have divided the faculty, tearing the school apart. Since he could control his class, the administration wouldn't push the issue. The fundementalist churches had a strong influence on the community. There was some significant push-back against the subject from the students. If you were on top of your game you could win over the college prep Biology classes but the lower level Life Science classes were a real challenge. This wasn't South Carolina either, it was in the Los Angeles area. Only a parent threatening a lawsuit could have changed this situation.
Posted by: C Barr | May 20, 2008 2:24 PM
Those 16% + 47% should not be allowed to call themselves biology teachers - or be allowed anywhere near a high school.
Posted by: CalGeorge | May 20, 2008 2:25 PM
This is just bleak. Thanks for posting it though PZ, now perhaps people in other countries can see the monumental problem we are up against here in Fundy-S-A.
Posted by: Patricia C. | May 20, 2008 2:28 PM
Obviously 16% of high-school "biology teachers" aren't biology teachers. They're something else.
Depressing as all hell. Maybe lots of these are just lying or pretending in order to keep their jobs. Maybe. But even if one figures intimidation, fear of losing one's job or peer-pressure or whatever into it to balm the numbers somewhat, it stays pretty scary, since that just translates into a conclusion that putatively "American Virtues" like honesty, integrity and courage are not being served or cultivated. If anything, they are seriously eroding.
Isn't that surpassing strange? Such a LARGE proportion of religious morality-mongers in the population, and the general morality of the country is in DECLINE, in lock-step with the rise in ignorance. Don't they notice? They sure point at it and complain about it alot, though, don't they?
A no-win-no-win situation of alarming proportions. It's safe and cool to be weak and stupid. It feeds on itself.
Posted by: Arnosium Upinarum | May 20, 2008 2:28 PM
Actually, what I see from that graph is that education hasn't had much impact on the general public where evolution is concerned. I am not hopeful that fixing the teachers will fix the problem.
We just appeared 10,000 years ago? How did we populate South America? Where did the aboriginal populations come from in Australia? Did the children of Adam and Eve simply spouted wings to quickly fly to the corners of the world? Or did they catch AngelAir?
Who painted the caves in France?
There is plenty of evidence to be found all around the general public to clearly indicate a longer than 10,000 years existence for humanity. Not seeing it is willful ignorance. About 1/2 of the general public. 10s of thousands of years of human struggle and culture willfully erased. Sort of like a retroactive genocide.
Sorry, you don't exist anymore. Bye.
Posted by: MutantJedi | May 20, 2008 2:31 PM
Also it is important the fact that 9% of the teachers are afraid to answer the question!
Posted by: torcant | May 20, 2008 2:35 PM
"9% of biology teachers have NO OPINION on evolution?! how can you possibly teach biology and not have any opinion on evolution?"
Actually that 9% is for both those who have no opinion and those who gave no answer.
I agree with you that it is odd a biology teacher should not have an opinion, but more understandable if, given the present climate in the US, they would prefer not to state that opinion.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | May 20, 2008 2:38 PM
From the biology students 5.5 percent had that view
martin in #22 ish
This means that German students have a better understanding of evolution than US teachers...
Did anybody ask how many teachers subscribe to the stork delivery theory of human reproduction? A non-zero percentage if the previous poll is anything to go by.
Posted by: Jit | May 20, 2008 2:40 PM
This reminds me of an experience I had in college. I was working in a warehouse for a summer job and found myself doing some task with a woman who said her husband was a biology teacher.
Thinking that I was in friendly territory, given her husband's profession, I cracked a joke about the school boards in Pennsylvania who were at that time trying to get intelligent design taught in the classroom.
Within seconds I found myself in a debate with this woman, with her arguing that the Earth was actually only 25,000 years old. I kept thinking, "Is she for real? This woman's husband is a biology teacher and she thinks this?"
The convo didn't get ugly -- it was mostly polite -- but I left the convo with a bad feeling. Before then, I had thought that nearly 100 percent of biology teachers were on our side, and it turns out I was wrong.
Posted by: Simon Owens | May 20, 2008 2:41 PM
There's a trap here: While it's hard to argue with the general proposition that teachers should be well qualified in their subjects, defining "well qualified" as having a degree in every subject can be devastating to small schools, rural schools, and to specialized parts of the curriculum... because it's only within the core curriculum, or at very large schools, that single subjects generate enough enrollment to occupy one or more full-time teachers. Teachers in English, social studies, basic high-school math, and basic science (i.e., just Physical Science and Chem I, at many schools) may be able to fill their whole days within a single degree area, but the reality in many schools is that the Biology teacher is also the Advanced Chemistry teacher and the Physics teacher is also the Calculus teacher and the Drama teacher is also the French teacher and the Psychology teacher is also the Auto Shop teacher.... Requiring an undergraduate degree in each and every subject taught would drive many advanced and non-core subjects right out of the curriculum altogether, and would (in fact did, under NCLB) put many small and rural schools into regulatory default.
It's easy to sneer at the fact that "it's more important to have proper certification as an educator than it is to have specific training in the particular science you're asked to teach" [Josh@#3], but speaking as a former teacher who missed out on the traditional "certification" curriculum (i.e., courses in pedagogy and student teaching), I can tell you that the importance of professional training in pedagogy is underrated. IMHO, someone with an undergraduate degree in any science plus solid practical training in teaching is likely to do a better job teaching high-school biology than even a world-class biologist who lacked solid grounding in how to teach.
Any well-educated person (and pretty much all teachers are required to hold advanced degrees by fairly early in their careers) can learn the curriculum of any high-school subject well enough to teach it (excepting skills-oriented subjects like foreign language, music performance, etc.), but a subject-matter expert with no skill in teaching will find it difficult to impart his/her greater knowledge to a roomful of restless, hormonal teenagers.
Honestly, the "extra" knowledge one gains in a specialized undergraduate degree program is usually outside the scope of the high-school curriculum, almost by definition. In the sciences, especially, I think it's far more important that teachers be well grounded in, and well trained to communicate, the general methodology of science than that they be high-level subject matter experts.
No, I'm afraid the defects revealed in this survey can't be remedied as easily as simply by making people get more degrees. This is a cultural and political problem, not a teacher education issue. IMHO, of course.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | May 20, 2008 2:42 PM
It is frightening that 9% of teachers are afraid to answer. What I see over and over is that Creationists scream "academic freedom!" but what they really mean is they want the freedom to teach whatever mumbo-jumbo they want and keep actual facts out of classrooms.
What's even more frightening is that at the college I went to most of the Biology department professors were Creationists. Ironically there were more people in the Theology department who believed in evolution. Go figure.
Posted by: Christopher Waldrop | May 20, 2008 2:43 PM
A study using self-response surveys with a data set
Posted by: Anonymouse | May 20, 2008 2:48 PM
School curriculum seems to vary a great deal throughout different areas of this country. I attended Catholic high school (in New York City), where I was taught about evolution; it was the Church's policy that religious belief and scientific theory could co-exist.
It seems as though some would make this a battle between religion and science, when creating such a divide is what maintains ignorance. Is it not possible for those of faith to open their minds to science, and for scientists to show a mutual respect for those who are religious? Religious institutions have historically attempted to hold back scientific progress; however, it is not necessary for the pendulum to now swing the other way. As scientists, you are more enlightened than that. The way to combat ignorance and intolerance is not with more intolerance.
Posted by: Jade | May 20, 2008 2:48 PM
Here's an idea:
Require everyone to get a college degree.
Posted by: Katharine | May 20, 2008 2:48 PM
The wording of this option perplexed me a bit:
Why "but"? Wouldn't "and" be more appropriate here?
Posted by: Etha Williams | May 20, 2008 2:49 PM
A study using self-response surveys with a data set
Posted by: Anonymouse | May 20, 2008 2:50 PM
A study using self-response surveys with a data set
(Sorry about the earlier double-half posts. There was a server error with SciBlogs.)
Posted by: Anonymouse | May 20, 2008 2:51 PM
Not in relation to anything, but Susie Bright's Journal has a must read post, especially for younger readers to see what the world was once like.
http://susiebright.blogs.com/susie_brights_journal_/2008/05/sally-binford-n.html#more
It is a long post about anthropologist Sally Binford. Impossible to summarize, and well worth reading every word.
Posted by: bernarda | May 20, 2008 2:52 PM
A study using self-response surveys with a data set less than 1000 lacks rigor in every sense. This study is shitty and shouldn't be taken as science.
(Okay, this is getting annoying.)
Posted by: Anonymouse | May 20, 2008 2:53 PM
#42, the creo science teachers I know have college degrees. In the natural sciences. Sometimes even being double majors in chem and bio. Somehow they remain impervious to reality in spite of their higher education.
Posted by: Brigit | May 20, 2008 2:54 PM
These statistics do depress me.
It seems to me that it's impossible for a democracy to function when 50% of the people are so ignorant that they think tyrannosaurs roamed the Earth within the last few thousand years. I think I would support a scheme in which voters would have to take an exam that demonstrates a minimum competence in their understanding of reality.
Yes, it's elitist, but if we let such people continue to vote, then I hold out little hope for our future as a race.
The only other option is some sort of universal education- but it seems this country is abandoning that path.
Posted by: Christianjb | May 20, 2008 2:57 PM
Bernarda:
I'm glad to see I'm not the only Susie Bright fan here. Thanks for the pointer to her blog: I subscribe to her Audible.com podcast, but often forget to check the blog.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | May 20, 2008 2:57 PM
Is America heading for a new Dark Age?
It would be interesting to do a similar survey in the UK. Religion is taught as a subject in schools; the science syllabus includes "variation, inheritance and evolution", but as far as I know the subjects are kept strictly separate and most schools teach the Garden of Eden, for example, as a myth. As a school inspector for nearly 14 years I've only come across one creationist - but perhaps they just keep quiet!
Posted by: Chris Shaw | May 20, 2008 3:02 PM
"Of teachers surveyed, 17% did not cover human evolution at all in their biology class, while a majority of teachers (60%) spent between one and five hours of class time on it."
Pitiful.
Posted by: CalGeorge | May 20, 2008 3:06 PM
"Is it not possible for those of faith to open their minds to science, and for scientists to show a mutual respect for those who are religious? Religious institutions have historically attempted to hold back scientific progress; however, it is not necessary for the pendulum to now swing the other way. As scientists, you are more enlightened than that. The way to combat ignorance and intolerance is not with more intolerance."
Religious institutions are still trying to hold back science. You only need to look at the debate that has been happening in the UK parliament over the last couple of days to see that. Thankfully a majority of the members of parliament saw through the religious cries of "frankenstein science " to approve the use of animal stem cells with the nucleic DNA replaced with human DNA for research. The whole argument of those against the bill seemed to consist three nonsensical arguments. First they claimed it was "frakenstein science", and thus unethical. Quite why it was unethical was not spelt out. Second they claimed it was scientist playing god. I suppose they mean scientists playing god. Of course by that argument doctors play god everyday. The final argument was to claim it would not produce any decent science. How they know that was not made clear. Nor did they make clear why they knew better than scientist expert in the field who seem to agree it is a technique that shows a lot of potential.
The last two days have also seen debates on "saviour" siblings and lowering abortion limit to 20 weeks from 24. In both cases we have had just plain lies from a good number of people who oppose saviour sibling, and want the abortion limit lowered. Lies that just ignore the science.
We see people opposing sex education and easy access to contraception on religious ground. We see religious groups preferring to have women die from cervical cancer than support a vaccination program for young women.
In short we see religious people behaving like despicable human beings, with more regard for their imaginary deity, than they do for their fellow humans. Not all religious people behave like this, but too many do. And why, in the C21st should we still be having to battle them ?
Posted by: Matt Penfold | May 20, 2008 3:07 PM
Before my own daughter attended the excellent public middle-school she attends, I told the science teacher straight out that I was thrilled with the Dover decision. She didn't know it, but I was giving her a mini-interview.
She said, "I was too."
Signed my daughter up for that class. No-brainer.
Posted by: MikeM | May 20, 2008 3:10 PM
I teach biology at a Catholic school in Texas, and I'm proud to say that intelligent design and creationism are never mentioned in any science class, even by overtly religious teachers. On the contrary, evolution is discussed at great length and considered one of the main overlying themes of all biology courses. In fact, some class time is even set apart to cover the flaws of intelligent design as a scientific theory in some biology sections.
Consider this evidence that even private Catholic schools can believe in the benefit of quality science education.
Posted by: Jeremy | May 20, 2008 3:12 PM
939 Responses...a great start. The survey may slightly overcount the number of creationist teachers if you assume that creationist teachers are more likely to settle in smaller towns/more rural settings. From their materials & methods section:
Still, this is a small quibble on what looks after first read to be a good and interesting survey. I'd second Bill's thought that its going to be hard to increase teacher training requirements while the job remains low paying (compared to other 4-year degrees). So I'll throw out a hypothetical follow-up question for PZ or the blogosphere in general: if we want to add a course in evolutionary biology, what other biology course do we take out to make room for it? Or is this going to descend into the typical argument over the value of subject matter training vs teacher skills training?
Posted by: Eric | May 20, 2008 3:12 PM
In some parts of the U.S. the situation is much worse. A survey in Arkansas a few years ago showed that 50% of science teachers did not mention 'evolution.' I suspect that this is the situation in quite a few states with a high proportion of fundamentalists. Most of the teachers that give slight to evolution do so out of fear from parents, admimnisrators, students and community churches.
An example of school administrative interference in Oklahoma came to us from a teacher in Oklahoma just last week. The teacher's principal told her that she was not to mention evolution (but could talk about natural selection!) and that each student would need a permission slip from parents for that part of the course. Such occurrences are not that rare. The ignorance of previous court decisions is similar to the ignorance about evolution!
In an attempt to make at least a small impact on the teaching of evolution in our state, Oklahomans for Excellence in Science Education (OESE) has organized the third annual weekend Teachers' Workshop on Teaching Evolution, to be held at the University of Oklahoma Biological Station in November. A grant from the DELTA Foundation provides full scholarships for the teachers selected. Information is linked on the OESE website: (http://www.biosurvey.ou.edu/oese/). This will not replace the need for solid college courses in evolutionary biology, but we hope it will help through continued education. Similar workshops are offered in a few other states, but more such endeavors could help.
Posted by: vhutchison | May 20, 2008 3:13 PM
I apologize if I am repeating what's most likely been said already but I'm short on time. PZ wrote:
"At least 16% of our high school teachers are young earth creationists."
No, 16% of high-school biology teachers are. A survey of all high-school teachers would reveal even sadder numbers.
Anyway, it's fucking disturbing beyond measure to see that almost 70% of bio teachers with an opinion either believe that a skychopath guided evolution or reject the whole concept. This is where I really throw in the towel; if the burden of ignorance is that huge in this country, I have no desire to fight it directly, just to either deride it or avoid the hominids perpetrating this shit. I don't even like going to Publix because if I happen to think of science or evolution while picking through produce, I start looking around and considering the reality that half the people in the store think the Earth is younger than domestic dogs.
Posted by: kemibe | May 20, 2008 3:20 PM
Jeremy:
Anyone who teaches in a sectarian/religious school has my utter contempt as a disgrace to the practice of teaching.
You've chosen to work at a school which educates children on the basis of the religion of the children's parents.
Sorry if I'm not impressed that you're teaching them evolution. I do know that every child who passes through your school is subtly branded with a religious labeling system, and in turn learns to label others based on religious categories.
I come from an island in which the little boys and girls are often divided into Catholic and Protestant schools. The quality of their education may be uniformly excellent, but it doesn't make up for the fact that these children are placed into instant categories which define them with respect to the rest of society, often for life.
(I'm grouchy today. I'm only criticizing you in the abstract- I'm sure you're a lovely person.)
Posted by: Christianjb | May 20, 2008 3:30 PM
Is said small island the same American colony I was raised in? That Protestant/Catholic division of the private school system is also the case where I'm from. I'm a product of a Catholic HS, and it did take me several years to deprogram myself.
That was so much the norm, that in my college the benches of the general studies building were informally labeled with the names of our (mostly private and religious) schools. Public school students were few, and mostly from the center of the island.
Posted by: Brigit | May 20, 2008 3:40 PM
At my university, propsective secondary biology teachers are required to take our evolution course, and must maintain a higher minimum gradepoint in science courses than is required of premeds.
Posted by: Jim Thomerson | May 20, 2008 3:40 PM
While it is pathetic, it isn't surprising. 20% of the US population believes the sun orbits the earth, and it is higher among fundies at 26%. It's only been 400 years since Copernicus and we have a probe orbiting Saturn for Cthulhus sake.
That indicates that no idea is so stupid that at least 20% of the population won't buy it.
Does that 20% ever wonder why a year is 365.25 days long? Probably not.
A few of my science teachers were openly religious but AFAIK, none of them were creos.
Posted by: raven | May 20, 2008 3:44 PM
When i was a high school biology student in Pakistan, the high school biology textbook was imported from the US, but chapters 31-34 or so (which dealt with evolution) were specifically EXCLUDED from the curriculum. MANY students in our class (at an "elite" school) went one step further and PHYSICALLY TORE OUT the offending pages to make Allah happier wth them. It must have worked because most of them are here in the US now, raking in the big bucks.
Posted by: omar ali | May 20, 2008 3:47 PM
Hi all, I'm from Middle Europe (Hungary)
Despite that here the ID movement is not so widespreaded and serious as in US, we also have our local creationists/ID proponensists :) As expected they are usually the protestant-evangelic believers, but they are a tiny minority and our education system does not allow them to f**k up the biology curriculum (thanks to Jee :))
I have had a frightening experience, as a biology enthusiast i bought a book called "Life of plants", it is a very serious and well written university textbook, and was written by a hungarian professor. The foreword was really shocking. This guy wrote such kind of nonsense what is typical if astronomers are writing their misconceptions about biology..
It was an eclectic mixture of Gaia-hypothesis, reiki/prana/psi-energy and his belief that our cosmos is a tightly coupled system, everything is connected with everything via an additional fifth dimension...
That's ok that he read a little too much esoteric bulls**t, but how can he write down such nonsense as a scientist - without any proof (! it should be his working method, shouldn't it?) In their own topic the scientists/profs are thinking logically, i just can't understand why do they need make fantasy stories when dealing with other topics like astronomy or physics, whatewer.
Posted by: Alexander Babus | May 20, 2008 3:47 PM
I posted this on Greg Laden's blog a few days ago:
Evolution has become a "core issue" for the religious right (which, among other things, is a semi-rational political enterprise whose LEADERS have fairly rational short term political aims, mostly having to do with grabbing more money and power in the shortest possible time...and having NOTHING whatsoever to do with actually believing bullshit about talking snakes and water into wine). Because they find that this nonsense works (bringing in voters and canon fodder) they are not going to shut up about it. Science in general is sufficiently complicated that MOST people really understand it only to the extent that they get a simplified (oversimplified) version from "experts". When a competing version is in the market, a good number of people are bound to be fooled if "their experts" are pushing ID, specially if if it is stamped with religious authority. Still, the segments of society that actually DO science are going to stick with evolution. Scientists and science supporters should continue all efforts to educate people, but for years to come, this nonsense will be with us...
By the way, the leading Islamist creationist in the world (a charlatan with the pen name Harun Yahya) was just sentenced to prison in Turkey (some financial technicality)....makes you think there IS a god, and he is NOT a creationist.
Posted by: omar ali | May 20, 2008 3:54 PM
Thanks to my parents for living in an area, where despite how backwards the town itself is, all of my former high school biology/other science teachers were not stupid, and did not fear teaching evolution. If anyone complained our teachers laughed.
-RW
Posted by: Robert Ward | May 20, 2008 3:57 PM
It is. From the web, it seems that evolution is not taught and/or creationism is taught in much of Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas, and Florida that I know of. Probably it is the same in many more states. And there is a sprinkling of creos everywhere.
I've heard of a few in Washington state and Minnesota. About time for Mr. Olsen of Osego to show up and brag about violating state and federal laws again.
Posted by: raven | May 20, 2008 3:59 PM
What really stings about this is how there's no balance. Between 12 to 16 percent of high school biology teachers are YECs... and what's the percentage of atheist Sunday school teachers? Theologians? I think this is a relevant observation because YECs disbelieve the very core of modern biology. How could they possibly be qualified, nay allowed, to teach it? I disbelieve the Christian myth, but I am not going to sign up as an instructor at a Bible Camp so I can lecture the kids on skepticism.
... maybe that's what we should do. ;)
Posted by: GregV | May 20, 2008 4:13 PM
I bet the remaining 9% are YECs too, they're just being clever and lying for jebus.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | May 20, 2008 4:20 PM
Marcus, I bet they're smart biologists in Texas or Florida who don't want their house egged or cat stolen.
Posted by: Dennis N | May 20, 2008 4:22 PM
To be fair... and I'm *nothing* if not fair.
I'm not sure it matters if a teacher is a YEC. The only thing that concerns me is if the teacher is capable of fulfilling his or her roles as an educator.
I try to be a secularist, but that cuts both ways. It's not enough to only criticize the religious when they bring religion into the public sphere- I should also defend the right of the religious to enter into public life, as long as they are able to leave their religion at home.
To be honest, I think it would be wrong to discriminate against any teacher for holding *private* young earth creationist views. I agree that we should be shocked that so many teachers hold these views, but I think action is called for only in the cases where those teachers let it affect their professional ability to teach their classes.
Posted by: Christianjb | May 20, 2008 4:27 PM
Before they hire science teachers, there should be a national requirement for them to be informed, in no uncertain terms, that they're being hired to only teach actual science, not their personal beliefs. If they're unwilling to do that, then they're unwilling to do the job as it is required to be done and, as with any other job, they should be informed at that point that they won't be hired. If a teacher who has already been hired is caught not doing or openly admits to not doing the job he or she was hired to do, he or she should be immediately dismissed from the job.
Alas, that's not the world we live in.
Posted by: Steve Sutton | May 20, 2008 4:31 PM
Is there a link/source for this survey?
Posted by: Chris Bell | May 20, 2008 4:34 PM
#73
Chris, just hit the "paper" link in PZ's post and it will take you to the open access article in PLoS Biology that contains the survey.
Posted by: James F | May 20, 2008 4:42 PM
Good to see that 48% of US citizens still know The Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything.
Posted by: Ross Nixon | May 20, 2008 4:45 PM