Evolution Takes a Back Seat in U.S. Classes

[pmbryant]

From the New York Times: Feb 1 2005

Evolution Takes a Back Seat in U.S. Classes

By CORNELIA DEAN

Dr. John Frandsen, a retired zoologist, was at a dinner for teachers in Birmingham, Ala., recently when he met a young woman who had just begun work as a biology teacher in a small school district in the state. Their conversation turned to evolution.

"She confided that she simply ignored evolution because she knew she'd get in trouble with the principal if word got about that she was teaching it," he recalled. "She told me other teachers were doing the same thing."

Though the teaching of evolution makes the news when officials propose, as they did in Georgia, that evolution disclaimers be affixed to science textbooks, or that creationism be taught along with evolution in biology classes, stories like the one Dr. Frandsen tells are more common.

In districts around the country, even when evolution is in the curriculum it may not be in the classroom, according to researchers who follow the issue.

Teaching guides and textbooks may meet the approval of biologists, but superintendents or principals discourage teachers from discussing it. Or teachers themselves avoid the topic, fearing protests from fundamentalists in their communities.

...

There is no credible scientific challenge to the idea that all living things evolved from common ancestors, that evolution on earth has been going on for billions of years and that evolution can be and has been tested and confirmed by the methods of science. But in a 2001 survey, the National Science Foundation found that only 53 percent of Americans agreed with the statement "human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals."

And this was good news to the foundation. It was the first time one of its regular surveys showed a majority of Americans had accepted the idea.

...
/blockquote]

More: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/01/science/01evo.html

[opihimoimoi]

1. It took a very long time before Humans believed the Earth was ROUND

and not flat, that the Earth goes around the Sun and not vice versa.

Ideas and notions that counter beliefs are rejected by EMOTION....

[flamin lib]

2. I have to believe that there is room for inclusion

of both evolution and creationism.

As I understand the Creationists believe that evidence of an Earth older than 6000 years was left by God so that Man could make a choice to believe based on faith alone.

OK, suppose the fossils are real and God created the Creationists along with all their history and evidence of existence last month?

Go ahead, prove me wrong . . .

[ladjf]

3. No theory as baseless as Creationism has any chance

of surviving very long. It will be forgotten in the not too distant future.

[bowens43]

4. It's been around since man learned to speak

and won't go away as long as mankind needs to have gods.

[trotsky]

5. Include creationism at your home or church.

It has no place in public school.

[flamin lib]

6. Come on! Gimme a break!

That was an attempt at humor. Created the Creationists and all their history last month (or maybe last April Fool's day?) so we can believe in them on faith alone?

[Tux]

7. Yup

What is so hard about teaching religion at home or in a church? Why push it on us?

I think it amounts to fear. In the 1990's non-Christian religions took off and fundies se it as a threat since Christianity now has competition.

[NNadir]

8. At this point the US is doomed to becoming a third world backwater

theocracy.

Just one more nail in the coffin.

[Why Syzygy]

9. creationism and evolution are both faith based

Truth is .. we do not know.

Teach that!

Maybe one of those little kids will grow up and try to find an answer.

Don't 'teach' finality. Teach LEARNING.

[NNadir]

10. This of course is complete nonsense.

Evolution theory was not only developed by observation, it is now clearly measurable as physical bioorganic chemical phenomena.

It requires a rather absurd outlook, frankly the outlook of a doomed theocracy, to even remotely propose that the two notions, one a theory (where the word is used like "gravatational theory" and Newtonian theory and Theory of Relativity) and the other, creationISM, a fantastic myth, are equivalent.

The measure of our complete failure as a technological culture and our rapid scientific, economic and indeed, moral, decline is that such a notion can be taken seriously.

[MaineYooper]

11. teaching LEARNING will lead to the scientific method

which will in turn lead to evolution

You need to understand that scientists already intrinsically mistrust dogma. There is nothing we like better than to poke holes in someone else's theory, but it has to be done rigorously, and with the scientific method.

Evolutionary theory is imperfect, as it is exceedingly complicated, and furthermore most of the evolution we have to study has already happened, which means we have to infer the results. What many people seem to not grasp is that evolution is a complex result of both environmental conditions and the history of the organism. By history, I mean species history- the new adaptations that can be made depend explicitly on the genetic material at hand, and that material is the result of all previous evolution.

What is truly infuriating about this is that the scientific community, which is to say those who *are trained* to understand the questions, has already overwhelmingly made the decision, and it's only a few dissenters arguing against evolution. There are many truly vitriolic arguments within the community about *mechanisms* of evolution, but the basic idea itself is accepted.