Study: High school teachers influence student views of evolution, creationism
May 1, 2009College students' views about evolution and creationism are often shaped by what they learned in their high school biology classes, according to a University of Minnesota study published in the May issue of BioScience, the journal of the American Institute of Biological Sciences.
Co-authors Randy Moore and Sehoya Cotner, professors in the College of Biological Sciences, surveyed 1,000 students taking introductory biology classes at the University of Minnesota to learn how biology majors view evolution compared to non-majors. Results showed that the two groups' views were similar and revealed that high school biology teachers influence whether majors and non-majors college students accept evolution or question it based on creationism.
About two thirds of students from both groups said their high school biology class included evolution and not creationism. Only 1 to 2 percent of classes covered creationism and not evolution. And 6 to 13 percent of classes did not cover either evolution or creationism. But 29 percent of majors and 21 percent of non-majors said their high school biology class covered both evolution and creationism.
Students whose high school biology class included creationism (with or without evolution) were more likely to accept creationist views as entering college students. Similarly, students exposed to evolutionism but not creationism were more likely to accept evolution in college. For example, 72 to 78 percent of students exposed to evolution only agreed that it is scientifically valid while 57 to 59 percent of students who were exposed to creationism agreed that it can be validated.
"I've long known that many biology teachers teach creationism, but was surprised to learn they have such a strong impact," said Randy Moore, professor of biology and lead author. "It's unfortunate that so many teachers think their religious beliefs are science. Teachers who don't teach evolution deny students the understanding of one of the greatest principles in history."
"I was shocked that there weren't bigger differences between majors and non-majors," said Sehoya Cotner, associate professor of biology. "Evolution is the foundation of the entire discipline. It leads me to believe that these students are probably interested in biology for reasons besides gaining a full understanding and appreciation of the science."
The article included a review of previous studies that explain why so many high school biology teachers endorse creationism. The studies say that more than 25 percent of biology teachers do not know it is unconstitutional to teach creationism. One third didn't major in biology in college and never studied evolution. One fourth believe that creationism can be proven scientifically. Administrators, parents or colleagues may pressure them. There are usually no consequences for teachers who do not cover evolution or who teach creationism.
The authors are interested in working with high school biology teachers -- and particularly with college students who plan to teach biology -- to improve their understanding of evolution and develop best practices for covering sensitive topics such as human evolution and life's origins.
Source: University of Minnesota (news : web)
Apr 01, 2006 |
not rated yet |
0
Creationism is not science.
Science does not take faith to understand.
Evolution is a proven theory.
These teachers should be disciplined or fired.
OBSL33t - Isn't it a shame that some think that a teacher should be disciplined or fired over a single indiscretion.
Very telling.
I'm tempted to write up a standard response so I can cut and paste when it comes up.
Creationism isn't a theory, it's not even a hypothesis. It has nothing testable and it makes no claims other than "magic man did it".
The people who are likely to be swayed by creationism were abused by religious indoctrination as a child.
Of course. Rejecting all observable evidence supporting evolution always makes for a better theory. Who really needs the scientific method. It just makes you end up in Hell.
Creationism is like steady-state theory, a flat world and astrology. Pity science has NOTHING to do with aesthetics.
So remember, kids, the Bible isn't a peer review journal. And the editor doesn't acknowledge his sources.
What a ridiculous statement. Evolution isn't anywhere close to being proven. How deluded can one be? Frankly, it doesn't even deserve the term theory. It is only a hypothesis at best. So many unanswered questions such as the absence of a supporting fossil record, or the essential trigger that enables nonlife forms to one day have life. Until these are answered, nothing is proven. Evolution isn't supported by anything but faith.
I'm surprised that 75% of biology teachers don't know the first amendment to the constitution.
You simply need to look no further than all the different dog breeds from wolves to see controlled evolution. Or better yet, look at the flu.
To say evolution hasn't been proven by observations in many experiments shows gross ignorance on the part of those making the statement(See Ben Stein's propaganda movie).
Evolution theory extends the observation that populations can change due to natural (or human mediated) selection and that those changes can result in the appearance of new creatures.
Your examples of dogs (all dogs are dogs) and influenza (all influenza viruses are influenza viruses) are irrelevant to evolution theory.
The argument is flawed because it is circular:
1) I see changes in populations mediated by selection pressures.
2) I postulate that these changes over time will result in new creatures (evolution theory).
3) Observe dogs and influenza. Because they show changes (initial observation) that proves the theory (postulate).
However, item 3 is only a restatement of the initial observation.
That is but one of many hundreds of living examples which it takes blind faith in evolution to bypass.
Then we can turn to the eyes of trilobites.
Or never-living features like the quasar in Stephan's Quintet, or Valles Marineris (flat bottom, steep sides, right-angle valley crossings etc)...
Actually, evolution (in this case change to adapt to new surroundings) has been observed and documented in the wild. Moths have been observed to select for new colors when the forests they live in have undergone a change in the dominant species of tree.
This constitutes an observational proof of evolution. It does not prove the evolution of man from apes (or hominids) but it adds weight to the theory.
I am sick and tired of the those who are part of the religion of evolution which rejects all that does not fit its theory. Darwin himself would have rejected his own theory had he know the kinds of things we know today about life. If you don't believe that then you haven't read his stuff.
As for those that completely discard creationism on the basis of it being a religious view, you are not scientists but only priests in the religion of evolution. Science does not discriminate based on the origins of a theory. It takes facts as they are and pursues ANY theory that could account for them!
You make the same mistake. Humans have been breeding for specific traits in both plants and animals throughout our history. But human beings have never produced a new creature -- only specific types of a pre-existing creature.
Noting that a group of moths shift their dominant color due to changes in the environment is not an example of evolution. It is an example of selective breeding.
It is circular reasoning to suggest a theory based on the postulate that changes in a population due to selective pressures can result in new creatures, then use the known changes in populations due to selective pressures to state that you have proved your theory. You have only restated the observation which led to the postulate.
But the funny thing is, even though the media ridicules Creationism, and most teachers dont mention Creationism, most students dont believe in Evolution. Why? Because evolution theory is full of holes.
Since evolution is such a weak theory, taught by weak minded dogmatic individuals, Evolutionist need to force the belief of evolution on students. Just like natzis forced their belief on children. What next? Laws to prevent creationism being mentioned in churches, or homes. How about jail time for those that admit they dont believe in it? What about losing ones job for saying it isnt true (wait teachers have lost their jobs for saying it isnt true!)
I love debating Evolutionism vs Creationism. I know the theory of evolution so well, and better than dogmatic evolutionists (and so do my children), that it is easy to present facts that show it is a very weak theory that only the willfully ignorant, or athiest (at least they admit the reason they dont believe in creationism) can believe.
For Truth.... for your information, if you make your own church you can preach evolution, also Im sure my pastor would allow you to present evolutionist viewpoint at our church so we can debate the point. So now, you agree we can preach creationism at public schools?
Its easy to make up stories and tell them to children!
I'll agree to allow Creationism to be preached in public schools when the churches allow Evolution to be preached from the pulpit. - Agreed.
It's not funny at all. Homegrown stupidity and indoctrination are a very sad and a very powerful combination. The media ridiculed Bush for a long time, and that didn't make any difference for a lot of people. The same people that don't read peer-reviewed magazines...
I'll bite. I need to sharpen my skills anyhow. So. Present a couple facts please.
Umm... Duh...
This is further proof to me of how disconnected from reality many of these social scientists are.
For instance i don't need a study to tell me that young people educated at the high-school level in North Korea or in Saudi Arabia are going to have vastly, wildly different beliefs and world views from anyone educated in ANY high school in the U.S.
I find this assumption over and over in American liberals. American libs think that everyone in the world really thinks just like they do and wants the same things in life but that oppressive forces prevent them from living in harmony with nature, each other, etc.
I've lived on every continent in the world except Antarctica and I will tell you that bonhomie and live and let live attitudes are few and far between even in well-industrialized countries. American libs would be shocked at the level of hate the average Kurd has toward the average Turk, or how the average Serb or Croat would leap at the opportunity to hack the Bosnians who live in the village down the road to pieces.
These kinds of hatreds spawn from unceasing cycles of retribution going back generations, something which only americans who have traveled and lived abroad can really understand. I assume the authors of this research have never lived anywhere where people run around with blood lust revenge always present in their mind or else they would not have needed to waste their time studying whether or not children's world-views are shaped by what they are taught in high-school or high-school equivalent.
Oh and i will send them a note letting them know that the teaching and opinions of parents also affect the views of children...
They may feel the need to conduct another study just from that wild idea alone...
Well, three months after the thread has died, I'm sure you'll never see this Qubit, but I learned exactly the same thing you did by attending University and getting to know international students. I knew Kurds and Turks, Arabs and Persians, Pakistanis and Indians, Muslim Nigerians ans Christian Nigerians. Along with my academic studies, these experiences, and my personal, extra-University studies in cognitive neuroscience, evolutionary psychology, and paleoanthropology led me to discard the Standard Social Science Model and the Blank Slate-- but it certainly did not convince me to embrace conservatism or any of the other rightist philosophies, which are simply polar opposites of liberalism, and this doesn't necessarily make them any more accurate. Just as there are many more shades of color than black and white, there are many more ways of seeing the world than just as "conservatives" and "liberals".