Posted on 07/17/2008 6:20:34 AM PDT by Soliton
What they found was 12 percent of United States high school biology teachers consider creationism a "valid scientific alternative to Darwinian explanations for the origin of species," and believe "many reputable scientists view these as valid alternatives to Darwinian theory."
(Excerpt) Read more at collegian.psu.edu ...
Has a correlation been demonstrated between biology teachers’ personal beliefs and biology students’ achievement?
Wow, I would have thought conservatives would be open to varying ideas. I thought only the left was into thought suppression.
Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi are 44th, 45th, and 48th in educational rankings. They are also the drivers behind denying evolution.
Yes, not believing in evolution drives down those math and reading scores.
So much for academic freedom!
Welcome to totalitarian religious cult of Darwinism. You will be assimilated, or fired.
Go jump back in a lake!
Just read your profile. You are a liberal. Admit it and move on.
In other words, there is no identified correlation between biology teachers’ personal beliefs and biology students’ achievement. Thank you for answering the question in such a revealing way.
My son went to a conservative religious prep school. The teachers didn’t know what science was and attempted to teach Intelligent Design. Between my husband and myself, this hole in his education was fixed (everything else about the school was superb). He recently completed a BS in physics. No other graduate of that prep school has finished a degree in the sciences.
Nonresponsive to the question, but an interesting anecdote.
Like, say, ebonics; gay, lesbian and transgender studies; new math; fuzzy math; whole language; multiculturalism; bilingual education; Islamic studies; self-esteem enhancement; psychoanalytical, feminist, cultural, and marxist literary criticism; edutainment, etc.?
You could answer your own question if you construct the study. There are schools that teach Intelligent Design and have students capable of attaining science degrees. Compare that to schools that teach science and have quality students.
My experience tells me that it is related but you’re right it is anecdotal.
As a conservative, I believe that we should not be in to thought suppression.
Of course, that doesn't mean that these things should be taught in public school. The article in question never indicates that these teachers are teaching their beliefs instead of what is in the curriculum. So. . .my question to you is, would you advocate firing teachers that have different ideas than what is in the curriculum yet still teach what is in the curriculum? That seemed to be what was being proposed.
When did I say anything about “schools that teach intelligent design”? You brought up that irrelevant point. The article, and my question, were about the personal beliefs of teachers, not about the curriculum taught.
It’s too bad the school your son attended didn’t use a more effective science curriculum.
I’m sure that teaching only evolution in public schools explains why private Christian schools who teach creation in addition to evolution consistently do better on standardized tests and SAT and ACT tests.
While you’re at it, don’t forget the homeschoolers who outperform both and by and large are religious and teach evolution in addition to creation.
Perhaps you could explain the correlation between teaching alternative explanation to where we came from and higher test scores and better academic performance. And maybe you could explain the general decline in education that has occurred in the last hundred years as Bible reading and prayer have been taken out of the schools.
Ok sorry. I tend to connect those things. I live around teachers and have worked in a program they used for continuing education. If what I’ve heard is correct, they tend to teach what they believe in. My anecdote took it one step further.
What's wrong with teaching science in science class and religion in religious venues?
Pretending that creation "science" and its illegitimate offspring, ID, are science is dishonest.
Pretending that theory is fact is dishonest.
I wonder, why not teach both systems of explanation, then contrast the two and use that contrasting as a tool to teach the process of scientific inquiry? Why is it some feel the need to denigrate belief in the Creator in order to fabricate a false demigod in science? As a Christian, I’ve studied Darwin’s model. He made brilliant observations and discovered amazing correlations. But even Charles didn’t claim to have reached ultimate truth regarding The Creator of it all by his discoveries in the created he studied. He later made projections along those lines, but that wasn’t science, as we all realize.
That's why the theory of evolution is called the theory of evolution.
(Do I need to post my definitions again?)
I agree. Believe whatever you want. Teach science.
But as a conservative, I am leary of folks who proclaim the virtues of diversity while touting their pet credenda. Diversity is not an unalloyed virtue, and its loudest proponents are usually the least interested in what virtues it actually has.
That's exactly what my chemistry teacher did with alchemy when I was in high school. It was called *teaching us to think*.
I guess that's not encouraged these days.
Teaching something as fact to a captive impressionable audience is dishonest.
The teachers that teach it as fact are the ones who are being dishonest and failing in their responsibility towards their students and should be fired.
Ideally, any public school teacher who does not teach the district’s or state’s required subjects in such a way that the students succeed according to the district’s or state’s measures should be looking for a new job. In my opinion, the evolution-curriculum issue is a smokescreen to obscure the general failure of public schools to teach challenging subjects, particularly math, at a level comparable to other developed (or even developing) nations.
Evaluating teachers based on their personal beliefs is even another step away from an emphasis on the measureable outcomes of state education.
There is none. If you will look at the list of lowest states in education and the list of states with highest minority population I have included, you may get the answer to your question. There are minority cultures that do not value formal education. Why would Hawaii, Nevada, California, New Mexico, and Arizona do so poorly? They are wealthy states.
http://www.mdp.state.md.us/msdc/pop_estimate/estimate_00to07/by_age_race_sex/MdState/chart5_2007.pdf
http://www.morganquitno.com/edrank.htm
What's disturbing about that statement is that it shows how far schools have come from really educating children to *teaching to the test*. I've had plenty of teachers in various schools districts tell me that that is just what is going on. They have to teach to the test so the kids can pass, regardless if it's not the best thing for the kids.
Academic freedom is a college-level closely associated with tenure. It doesn't exist in high school
Sure there is. I asked about Christian schools and homeschools, not minority populations.
Your information is irrelevant.
And I am leary of those who claim to be conservative but want any thought suppressed that doesn't agree with their own. The left is well-known for touting their 'tolerance' while trying to silence those who disagree with them.
Please show from the article where it stated these teachers were teaching anything other than what is in the curriculum. If you can't, then your comment doesn't apply in this case, and claiming they should be fired (as Soliton did) is no different than the tactics of the left who want to control every thought of every citizen.
Pretending that creation "science" and its illegitimate offspring, ID, are science is dishonest.
It's just a different view than yours. Do you want people fired who don't believe as you, even if they stick to the curriculum?
[[What’s wrong with teaching science in science class and religion in religious venues?]]
Nothign wrong with that- so let’s start by teaching the facts instead of hte religious dogma of Darwinism- let’s start by teachign the fact that Macroevolution is a biological impossibility- let’s start by teachign that contrary to hte religious dogma of Darwinism, there are no scientific facts that support Macroevolution and htat Macroeovlution is just a hypothesis that can’t be backed up by science- infact, that biological science argues AGAINST Macroevolution- Let’s start by showing htat biologically, it is impossible for life forms to moVe beyond their own KIND- that it is impossible for nature to construct DNA- to construct the instructions needed for the construction of DNA- that it’s impossible for nature to overcome the upper porbability limits of moving mutations to NEW information. Yes- let’s just teach science in science class, and religion in religious classes- good suggestion
Conservatives support the Constitution and the rule of law.
ID is a deliberate fraud by the Discovery Institute. It was proven in a famous court case that ID is just a substitute for creationism. The substitution was a direct attempt to circumvent a SCOTUS decision prohibiting the teaching of creationism in public schools. ID is a lie and the Discovery Institute are liars.
Court case details
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10545387/
Proof that they lied
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-tk7MkHKtI
Its a fact until they get caught presenting it as fact then they instantly revert it back to theory.
Its slow and its fast. It does not deal with origins nowadays but they get it as close to an origin as they can without touching origins.
It predicts everything and nothing at the same time.
Sorry didn’t realize it was you metmom. I don’t talk to you. Won’t make the mistake again.
The problem is that science operates under philosophy and it is a very specific type of philosophy with a few axioms and a method for reaching conclusions. Theology is a higher plane of inquiry and can look at the same evidence but does it from a different standpoint. Comparing the two is comparing the philosophy of science with a philosophy of theology (which of course isn’t learning about science which is what science class is for)
Even at the university level such comparisons are often in a higher level of philosophy. I encouraged my son to take philosophy of science but he didn’t have the prerequisite philosophy classes for it.
Anyone who denigrates a belief in the Creator using science as a ploy only does so because he’s targeting an audience which doesn’t make a distinction between theological arguments and scientific ones. I’ve never met a scientist that didn’t know the difference.
So go play in traffic, children, while I finish my beer.
“Sorry didn’t realize it was you metmom. I don’t talk to you. Won’t make the mistake again.”
Yeah, how dare she question your position..which you continually boast was decided in a court...and let us not forget the evil Discovery Institute...
YOU posted the article. If you don’t want to debate it, don’t post at all.
Curriculum requirements state what must be covered in the course of the school year but they in no way, address ANYTHING outside those requirements. They don't prohibit the teaching of any material outside that mentioned.
So if the teacher addresses creation and/or ID, they are technically not violating the curriculum guidelines if it's not specifically prohibited.
My!, you religious folk sure are nice!
Conservatives do not support oligarchy, either.
Creation "science" was removed from the classrooms by a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Of course they do. Unfortunately a sizeable percentage of science teachers aren't qualified to teach science in the first place. They don't understand the science behind evolution
It isn't just a different view. It is a proven lie.
I came from New Orleans very near a lake. What do you thing of ID?
Looks who’s talking. I seem recall some comment directed towards *religious bigots* that earned “someone” a vacation.
Then there’s just one’s posting history to peruse in general.
People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.
I don't think a study has been done. This may be because the results would be obvious. Would you teach about rain gods in a meteorology class? Would you have a witchdoctor perform an appendectomy?
You mean the science behind the ‘theory of’ evolution ‘of species’. There is no science behind evolution anymore than there is science behind breathing or science behind flight. Either an action is happening or it isn’t.
The next question of course how can something that doesn’t even exist ‘evolve’? Hence where came the spark of life which evolved into anything?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.