Article: 16% of Biology Teachers are Young Earth Creationists

[moominmuppet]

Given the state of education in this country, I suppose I should just be grateful the percentage isn't higher.

I'm finding that very faint consolation.

Comments

[calebbullen.livejournal.com]

That doesn't bother me at all. I mean a person's beliefs are just that, their own wacky stuff in their head. I say let them believe in young earth and i'll believe that I'm emperor of Europe and so long as we both keep our silly beliefs to ourselves, it's all good.

It's that one in eight who teach creationism as science that bothers me. Although to be fair and un-snarky for a moment, if they are teaching it like it was taught to me in science class, "Of course some people believe that God created the world in evolution and if you or your parents believe that, that's great and I'm not going to try to dissuade you from your beliefs. but here's how natural selection works..." I think that's fair.

We got a lot of "hey, you're totally welcome to your wacky beliefs and please don't sue the school board but..." introductions in my high school when it came to religion and where it tries to butt heads with either science, literature or other religions.

[moominmuppet.livejournal.com]

That doesn't bother me at all. I mean a person's beliefs are just that, their own wacky stuff in their head. I say let them believe in young earth and i'll believe that I'm emperor of Europe and so long as we both keep our silly beliefs to ourselves, it's all good.

If the entire rest of science teaching weren't dependent on a serious grasp of evolution, I'd be more in agreement. As it is, either they're lousy teachers, or they're laboring under an absolutely incredible load of cognitive dissonance to manage to teach their kids anything at all.

I don't care if you believe you're the emperor of Europe. I would if you were working as our ambassador, though. There are times these things are fundamentally relevant.

[calebbullen.livejournal.com]

Chemistry or physics aren't really dependent on a grasp of evolution.

All religion requires a cognative dissonance with reality, if they can make it through that enough to do their job, groovy. If they can't do their job, go after them for that, not for what is or isn't in their head.

[moominmuppet.livejournal.com]

Chemistry or physics aren't really dependent on a grasp of evolution.

I'd most definitely argue that for physics, as a huge amount of what's covered is directly contradictory with young earth creationism. And more advanced chem that starts to get into the biochemical, again...

Science is flat-out not compatible with a 6000-year-old reality. If you believe that, get out of the field, you have no business there.

I don't think atheists should be teaching Catholic sunday school, either.

If they can't do their job, go after them for that, not for what is or isn't in their head.

Like I said; either they're lousy teachers, or they're teaching things directly contradictory to what they believe (which, frankly, doesn't tend to make for great teachers itself). I don't see a way around that. Evolution is NOT a side-note. It's not optional.

[marnanel.livejournal.com]

a) I think you're demonstrating that you don't have a basic understanding of religion. Any or all religions may be untrue, in which case their adherents are mistaken. A person can be mistaken about something without requiring a "cognitive dissonance from reality" to be so.

b) I think you're also demonstrating that you're lacking a little understanding of science. Science is not a set of interesting facts, and so science teaching is not about delivering such a set of facts. Rather, it's about teaching the scientific method. And belief in "irreducible complexity" is inconsistent with belief in Occam's razor.

c) From what you say, I'm also thinking that you don't have a basic understanding of teaching. Teaching any subject isn't about giving students a list of ideas to commit to memory; otherwise, anyone who has passed an exam in a subject would instantly be qualified to teach it. It requires background understanding and scholarship in the subject as a whole. This is not consonant with beliefs which attack the very material being taught.

d) You are flat-out wrong if you believe that young earth creationism has no bearing on physics. At least, you need to talk to the 2006 Nobel prize committee about it.

[jajy1979.livejournal.com]

Thank you Marn. Saves me the trouble of posting this response.

[calebbullen.livejournal.com]

wow. that was kind of pompous.

my point seems to be completely missed by all reading. I'm sure I'm just not making it clearly enough.

1. The ones who are teaching creationism in a science class are the ones to be concerned about not the ones who might like to.

2. Although there is often a correlation between belief and action, the belief is not the problem. We can all hope to correct someone's actions. We can condemn someone's actions. We can even petition the government to enact laws to regulate or or prohibit certain kinds of actions. But it is absurd to do those about belief itself. Also, its creepy totalitarianism no matter how well intentioned.

3. To say that there is always a correlation between a particular belief and action means you don't have to persecute the belief, because the action is always there. Persecuting the belief because it probably corrolates with the action is prejudice and that too is creepy no matter how well intentioned.

That's all I'm saying.

[moominmuppet.livejournal.com]

my point seems to be completely missed by all reading. I'm sure I'm just not making it clearly enough.

Actually, I think we just disagree with you on several aspects.

1. The ones who are teaching creationism in a science class are the ones to be concerned about not the ones who might like to.

No, the ones not adequately teaching evolution are the ones to be concerned about. It's much broader than whether they try to actively push their beliefs. It's that everything they teach, to be taught properly, needs to be taught from the opposite perspective from the one they hold.

the belief is not the problem

In this case, it really is. If you don't believe in the scientific method, you shouldn't be teaching science. If you do believe in the scientific method, you're not a young earth creationist. Period.

But it is absurd to do those about belief itself.

Did any of us suggest legal action? No. We all said that it was deeply disturbing because of what it means about what types of actions (in terms of teaching proper theory) are likely occuring, and we find it gut-level horrifying that people who believe that think they're able to teach science without it mattering that they just don't happen to believe "that part of it". Because it can't be dissected out like that. It really can't. And they keep trying to pretend they can, and they're teaching a bastardized and twisted version of science as a result.

[calebbullen.livejournal.com]

but that's like saying I couldn't tell a person how to loose weight because I'm obese.

You can understand scientific method, be able to teach it and still make exceptions in your own head. That's your typical do as I say not as I do. or those who can do do those who can't teach.

Next thing you'll be saying English teachers can't misspeak or dangle a participle.

Where they're too tangled up to teach, we're all in agreement. So that's something positive anyway.

[jajy1979.livejournal.com]

We're talking about impressionable aged individuals who aren't stupid (despite claims to the contrary) they readily pick up on when a person is telling the rote that they themselves do not believe in.

Further despite the idea of "do as I say, not as I do" you have a major issue that most people actually still find ways to openly show their disdain for ideas they don't support even if they tell others to do it.

Also refusing acceptance of the scientific method, even on a personal level, makes one ultimately unqualified to teach the subject. You're talking about the foundations of the entire field, and a refusal to accept this means that you hold all scientific law as suspect. Thus completely impairing your ability to teach the subject matter that is founded upon it.

[moominmuppet.livejournal.com]

Next thing you'll be saying English teachers can't misspeak or dangle a participle.


Closer to an English teacher who rejects the fundamental concept of grammar.

[jajy1979.livejournal.com]

My first college biology teacher refused to teach Evolution because she didn't believe in it. Two of the professors and myself out and out verbally attacked her in the hallway and threatened her job security. She ended up teaching it under protest but made it clear she didn't believe a word of it. It's the ONLY science teacher I've had who didn't buy evolution, but I've seen others and most of them are of the same mold.

[moominmuppet.livejournal.com]

*nod* This is one of those cases where it's possible for a job and a set of beliefs to be so directly contradictory that I consider it to be substantively different from "we all believe whatever we believe".

I don't think anti-choice people should be working in abortion clinics. I wouldn't hire a PETA member as a butcher. I don't think atheists should be christian ministers. There is a point at which a belief system is so incompatible with a line of work that the person needs to consider a different line of work.

[moominmuppet.livejournal.com]

(and of course, I don't believe this applies to the "god directed evolution" perspective; that's an additional spiritual perspective, not a direct denial of the entire field)