Biology teachers don't support evolution...

[RationalVetMed]

Left one, his right hand is surely busy.

It's got Jesus sitting on it if I recall.

Yuri

 

[Java Man]

It's got Jesus sitting on it if I recall.

Yuri

All these years?? ouch!

 

[Bishadi]

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner. We can't expect rank and file high school biology teachers to do the superb job required to address the teaching of evolution when they are poorly educated in the subject themselves.

Issues to address:

*A significant proportion of the U.S. population specifically eschews logic and evidence because they believe the bible to be the inerrant word of god.

tell them (religious wingnuts) mankind created all words in existence (with them words mankind created all dem god(s))

Mother nature is about as pure of being the god of all gods (our creator, that we all live within; the garden (mother nature))

End of story

- you will not reach these people.

i know.....

the children with be ELIMINATING the liars, over time.

ya just gotta arm them with knowledge (my job)

ie... the most dangerous virus in existence........... is the idea that each can comprehend. (truth)

*In the Bible Belt (and elsewhere in this country), a lot of the people teaching biology in our high schools are the people above.

but soon to be 'below' (extinct)


the funny part is, within their own literature, it is all written (the nasties will be judged) and we the people (mankind) are who will be doing the judging.

It all starts by the 'idea' that begins with one idiot..............


and guess who...................?

 

[blutoski]

I've recently learned that in a university here during bilogy class, when the subject of evolution came up, several students walked out of the classroom making a fuss of "it's against their religion" and such (orthodox jews btw)

From what I understood, the students were allowed to drop the class and take another class instead.

Here's my quesiton, I have no problem if they walk out on a class and take another course if that is something that is perfectly valid for any other student for any other reason. But isn't evolutionary studies mandatory for degrees in biology?

I'm sure it would be, but could these students have been taking a 'science elective' for their non-biology degrees?

I'm not familiar with the details of that particular event, but that's the first thing that came to my mind.

 

[blutoski]

Another point is that HS biology teachers usually take a lot more education courses than biology courses.

I think I remember this being discussed in another thread, and that it's probably not an important part of problem.

HS Biology teachers may not all have a biology degree, but in the US, UK, and Canada, from what I can determine, the vast majority do have a science undergrad. BEd is a graduate degree in most regions.

I don't think this contributes significantly to a reluctance to discuss evolution in the classroom. I am confident it's almost entirely social pressure.

 

[MattusMaximus]

here is a pdf on the original 2004 version of the work

http://www.cs.unm.edu/~moret/poincare_survey.pdf

so anyone can read but we all can find, you dont read much of what you post M&M!

<insert mindless ranting>

Ahem...

Computational phylogenetics

Computational phylogenetics is the application of computational algorithms, methods and programs to phylogenetic analyses. The goal is to assemble a phylogenetic tree representing a hypothesis about the evolutionary ancestry of a set of genes, species, or other taxa. ...

For those who can't read between the lines, "computational algorithms" implies the use of math

 

[MattusMaximus]

I think I remember this being discussed in another thread, and that it's probably not an important part of problem.

HS Biology teachers may not all have a biology degree, but in the US, UK, and Canada, from what I can determine, the vast majority do have a science undergrad. BEd is a graduate degree in most regions.

I don't think this contributes significantly to a reluctance to discuss evolution in the classroom. I am confident it's almost entirely social pressure.

This is a major factor. Even teachers who are well-versed in evolutionary theory can be reluctant to teach the subject if they think it will cause them too much grief. I know because I've met these sorts of teachers before.

 

[Bishadi]

Ahem...

Computational phylogenetics

has nothing to do with how mass and energy work.

i have the consistent argument, you post books you dont read!

An evolution began with atoms and energy, not phylogenetics of grouped species. You are putting the cart in front of the horse. (buttbackwards)

For those who can't read between the lines, "computational algorithms" implies the use of math

kind of like an abacus for kids

A 9-year-old IQ Abacus student was taking the Certification Exam conducted by the US Mental Math Federation.

He was using the Abacus Mental Math method in solving the 4 to 5 digits +/- questions. At the end of the 3-minute test, he finished 12 questions of which 11 were correct.


(is that copying large data?)

http://www.iqabacus.com/

 

[Bishadi]

This is a major factor. Even teachers who are well-versed in evolutionary theory can be reluctant to teach the subject if they think it will cause them too much grief. I know because I've met these sorts of teachers before.

so teach the kids the math to prove even a simple evolution. (electrical theory is perfect)


Then explain to them, because of technology, that their knowledge will exceed yours by the time they are your age (an evolution in itself).


Present the examples and let the kids do it all by themselves.


Ie.... that's the problem with so many teachers, they are worried more about how they themselves are observed and accepted over what is progessive for the children.

Heck, MnM you yourself fight me and primarily for your own entertainment and could care less about the sciences themselves.

 

[Monketi Ghost]

Dude. Your arguments are scattershot and hard to follow.

 

[The Shrike]

This is a major factor. Even teachers who are well-versed in evolutionary theory can be reluctant to teach the subject if they think it will cause them too much grief. I know because I've met these sorts of teachers before.

I agree this is important, but I'm skeptical that a significant percentage of our high school teachers are truly confident in their knowledge of evolution. Just a guess, but if 2/3 of the teachers out there really aren't that confident in the subject themselves, then we can't have high expectations regarding their ability to present it to their students.

 

[Jeff Corey]

I think I remember this being discussed in another thread, and that it's probably not an important part of problem.

HS Biology teachers may not all have a biology degree, but in the US, UK, and Canada, from what I can determine, the vast majority do have a science undergrad. BEd is a graduate degree in most regions.

I don't think this contributes significantly to a reluctance to discuss evolution in the classroom. I am confident it's almost entirely social pressure.

Mattus Maximus linked to the original report in his blog. http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience...ofhsbiologyteachersadvocatecreationisminclass
"The researchers found that many of these teachers didn't have an educational background that instilled confidence in teaching evolution as a scientific fact. "You can take very little science and get a degree and be teaching in high school. The quality of what [students learn] is so dependent on the teacher you get," Newton said. "It's almost a random experience; it's kind of the luck of the draw."

 

[Dr. Keith]

I agree this is important, but I'm skeptical that a significant percentage of our high school teachers are truly confident in their knowledge of evolution. Just a guess, but if 2/3 of the teachers out there really aren't that confident in the subject themselves, then we can't have high expectations regarding their ability to present it to their students.

I think both you and Mattus are right, but it is not an either or sort of thing. It is a process that leads to unfavorable results by default.

First, the teacher don't pitch their curriculum, the school board does. In religiously conservative areas the word evolution will not be in the curriculum.

Second, the teachers are tasked to create lesson plans to meet the requirements of the curriculum, not what they think is important.

Third, the fact that the curriculum does not mention evolution means that if the teacher decides to teach evolution they have to defend the decision as a part of the curriculum.

Fourth, therefore the teacher has a strong incentive not to teach evlolution to avoid conflicts with teacher or the school.

My wife taught middle school science and was constantly alert that certain students were trying to bait her into say the bible was wrong. She rarely used the words evolution or Darwin, but she never shied away from the concepts.

Now she is a librarian and she has to be careful not to use the word "appropriate" when discussing challenging books. Key words taken out of context can undermine her position far too easily.

 

[Emet]

My wife taught middle school science and was constantly alert that certain students were trying to bait her into say the bible was wrong. She rarely used the words evolution or Darwin, but she never shied away from the concepts.

(my bolding)

That's both sad and infuriating.

But understandable...

 

[Dancing David]

(my bolding)

That's both sad and infuriating.

But understandable...

Just like the mix of students and lack of support it is part of public education.

There are people who object to all sorts of things, mainly homework, the rules, Xmas trees, the lack of Xmas trees, handwriting, the lack of handwriting, etc... .

 

[Mahaha]

Back to the OP...
It's funny that here in Italy, home of the Cahtolic Church, we have no such problem. There is no consistent creationist voice, and there has never been a case of people getting mad because of teachers talking about evolution, which is a standar high-school subject.

I think that in America there are more pools of extremism. Let me clarify, before anyone gets offended: you have more people than us, and you have been taught more than us that any belief is fine, and I think that this led to having some isolated groups to hold on to absurd beliefs.

For contrast here in Italy we have an entire generation of really dull people who never ask questions.

Do you think I'm completely off the mark?

P.S. Bishadi, we have already established that you know nothing about evolution. Evolution is not like "getting better" at something, so your example is so wrong that it's not even worth commenting on.

 

[Emet]

I think that in America there are more pools of extremism. Let me clarify, before anyone gets offended: you have more people than us, and you have been taught more than us that any belief is fine, and I think that this led to having some isolated groups to hold on to absurd beliefs.

For contrast here in Italy we have an entire generation of really dull people who never ask questions.

Do you think I'm completely off the mark?

As an American, I am not the least bit offended.

There are at least 3 issues in the US:

1. Large number of fundamentalist theists, who interpret the bible literally.
2. Political pandering to garner votes.
3. Basic science education of biology, including genetics.

 

[jayh]

Just one more reason to support the National Center for Science Education.

Though some biologsts like Jerry Coyne and PZ Meyers feel that NCSE is not helping because they pussyfoot around religion; claiming, for example that religion should be respected a separate area of human knowledge (as per Gould) and is completely compatible with science.

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress...nts-on-evolution-by-scientific-organizations/

 

[Mercurial Artism]

You don't consider the Arts at least a little bit woo-y?

No. While anecdotally IME there is a lot of overlap between people in the arts and woo enthusiasts (don't know whether any studies have been done and am too lazy too look it up but find it entirely plausible considering that all five or six of the people in my college visual arts class, writing on a list their specifications of what kind of food we could or couldn't bring to a class trip, wrote "no chemicals" ; besides, you made the claim, er, implication), the arts itself doesn't strike me as woo-y. After all, playing music, painting pictures, writing stories, dancing, singing, acting - these things are well known to evoke emotional responses in the public, even though we can't predict whether a particular work is likely to evoke such responses in a wide audience before it's had a large audience (or at least of a similar time and culture), or whether a particular work can evoke such responses in a particular person. However, no sensible person would claim that you could evoke such responses so predictably, like putting a piece of code through a specific compiler on the same OS each time, since people have different tastes. While there is no "magic formula" for creating good art, there are good practices in the various fields (which is why we have music theory, color theory, 3-act structures, etc.), and I don't think the trends and fads of various artistic groups, however displeasing we may personally find them, qualify them for woo-status.

Seems appropriate. The Egyptian god Amun quite literally masturbated the world into existence.

Speaking of which, why aren't we teaching THAT controversy.

At my high school, they did teach it! Of course, that was in a mythology class, and not a science class - where it belongs.

 

[Dancing David]

I think that in America there are more pools of extremism. Let me clarify, before anyone gets offended: you have more people than us, and you have been taught more than us that any belief is fine, and I think that this led to having some isolated groups to hold on to absurd beliefs.

No offense taken, some people came here to be crazy religious, some came here to get away from the crazy religious.

We don't have a concept like systemarsi.