Study: High school teachers influence student views of evolution, creationism

May 1, 2009

College 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 taking introductory biology classes at the University of Minnesota to learn how biology majors view 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 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 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 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)

Filter


Move the slider to adjust rank threshold, so that you can hide some of the comments.


Display comments: newest first

OBSL33t
May 01, 2009

Rank: 3.9 / 5 (9)
This is ridiculous.
Creationism is not science.
Science does not take faith to understand.
Evolution is a proven theory.
These teachers should be disciplined or fired.
Razzbar
May 01, 2009

Rank: 1.6 / 5 (7)
Interesting. While Creationism may not be science, saying science does not take faith to understand is certainly an overstatement. There is so much we don't know that it requires 'faith' to believe that what we do know is right. Evolution is certainly NOT a proven theory. Even Gravity is not a proven theory. We may know the effects of gravity but we are yet to truly understand what gravity is.
OBSL33t - Isn't it a shame that some think that a teacher should be disciplined or fired over a single indiscretion.
Very telling.
thales
May 01, 2009

Rank: 3 / 5 (5)
I get so bored with the "Evolution is a theory and it takes faith too" meme that comes up every time there's an article that references creationism.

I'm tempted to write up a standard response so I can cut and paste when it comes up.
Truth
May 01, 2009

Rank: 4.2 / 5 (5)
I went to a terrific high school, Xaverian High in Brooklyn,N.Y. It was run by the Xaverian Brothers (Catholic) and for 4 years I was taught pure science and biology, no fairy tales or magical beliefs. Yet we still received a vigorous "religion" class which was based more on morals than mythical legends. A superb combination of facts and philosphy, and no creationism mumbo jumbo. That is the way it should be. No nonsense,only practical moral philosophy, hard science and documented biology. Because of their superb educational doctrine, I will always honor and respect the order of Xaverian Brothers, for they are truly the enlightened clergy of the modern world.
freethinking
May 01, 2009

Rank: 2.1 / 5 (12)
Interesting, you give both theorys to people, and they think Evolution is bunk..... says a lot about the bunk theory of Evolution. That is why evolutionist try so hard to ban Creationism, because if it is taught or even mentioned, it proves itself a better theory.
Soylent
May 02, 2009

Rank: 4.1 / 5 (10)
That is why evolutionist try so hard to ban Creationism, because if it is taught or even mentioned, it proves itself a better theory.


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.
acarrilho
May 02, 2009

Rank: 3.7 / 5 (7)
Interesting, you give both theorys to people, and they think Evolution is bunk..... says a lot about the bunk theory of Evolution. That is why evolutionist try so hard to ban Creationism, because if it is taught or even mentioned, it proves itself a better theory.


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.
pseudophonist
May 02, 2009

Rank: 3.7 / 5 (7)
The reason people like creationism is that it claims to have all the 'answers' and so it feels like science. It's comforting to know that life has a meaning, right?
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.
SDDuude
May 02, 2009

Rank: 2.2 / 5 (11)
This is ridiculous.

Creationism is not science.

Science does not take faith to understand.

Evolution is a proven theory.

These teachers should be disciplined or fired.


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.
JerryPark
May 02, 2009

Rank: 3.7 / 5 (3)
"The studies say that more than 25 percent of biology teachers do not know it is unconstitutional to teach creationism. "

I'm surprised that 75% of biology teachers don't know the first amendment to the constitution.
legonadir
May 02, 2009

Rank: 3.4 / 5 (8)
The theory of evolution theory is to describe HOW evolution takes place, NOT that evolution doesn't take place.







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).
JerryPark
May 02, 2009

Rank: 2.3 / 5 (4)
leqonadir,



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.
austux
May 02, 2009

Rank: 2.3 / 5 (3)
OK, explain how a Mantis Shrimp evolved (in the complete absence of any selection pressure) UV sight (we see & mix 3 colours, it seems 16, 4 of them UV) & sensitivity to polarised light (2 variants see all 15 kinds, the rest see only circularly polarised) underwater?

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)...
GrayMouser
May 03, 2009

Rank: 3 / 5 (2)
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.

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.
MrFred
May 03, 2009

Rank: 1.8 / 5 (5)
Adapting to new surroundings or circumstances and the addition of new genetic information are two completely different things! Only when the second one happens is it really evolution and there has never been a single documented case of that! By the sounds of it, most of the people who posted here don't really know what evolution is (gives weight to the whole blind faith in evolution thing).
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!
JerryPark
May 03, 2009

Rank: 2 / 5 (4)
GrayMouser ,

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.
Truth
May 03, 2009

Rank: 3 / 5 (2)
I'll agree to allow Creationism to be preached in public schools when the churches allow Evolution to be preached from the pulpit.
fcnotpdaaj
May 04, 2009

Rank: 2.1 / 5 (8)
If Evolution was the better theory, then if it is taught along side Creationism, students should believe in evolution, especially since all the media, TV and Books, keep stating Evolution as fact and all of the media redicules Creationism.

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?
komone
May 04, 2009

Rank: 3.5 / 5 (4)
I suppose you could say that relativity has "disproven" the physics that took us to the Moon (Newtonian mechanics), but it makes more sense to say that relativity is a refinement of the Newtonian model. All theories are models of the world that provide explanations for what we observe. Let us suppose that Evolution was "wrong", but then we need to find a better explanation why we share 90% of our genome with chimpanzees. Creationism does not provide a better explanation for this observation, and thus Evolution is a better model of the world. This does not eliminate the possibility that there's a better explanation, just that evolution is the best model we have managed so far.
lengould100
May 04, 2009

Rank: 3.8 / 5 (4)
It's hard to believe anyone cares this much about creationism nonsense. Children.
Sirussinder
May 04, 2009

Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
Creationism is not science.

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.
acarrilho
May 04, 2009

Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
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.


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...
thales
May 04, 2009

Rank: not rated yet
fcnotpdaaj, you wrote:

it is easy to present facts that show it is a very weak theory


I'll bite. I need to sharpen my skills anyhow. So. Present a couple facts please.
QubitTamer
May 08, 2009

Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
The most ridiculous part of this is the fact that someone would do a study to determine if high-school level instruction shapes ideas and views of the students in it...



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...
Mandan
Aug 01, 2009

Rank: not rated yet
"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."



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".
Rank 5 /5 (4 votes)
Related Stories
Relevant PhysicsForums posts
  • The Biggest Lie Ever
    created13 hours ago
  • What are the limits of learning?
    createdFeb 06, 2012
  • Isn't that grammatically wrong?
    createdFeb 06, 2012
  • What does it mean when traders are indifferent?
    createdFeb 04, 2012
  • Peak of Our Civilization
    createdFeb 04, 2012
  • bonds and YTM
    createdFeb 03, 2012
  • More from Physics Forums - Social Sciences

More news stories

US workers are 'giving away the store,' costing firms billions

Nearly 70 percent of the nation's service employees give away free goods and services – from hamburgers to cable TV – costing companies billions of dollars a year, according to a groundbreaking study.

Other Sciences / Economics & Business

created 13 hours ago | popularity 5 / 5 (1) | comments 8

Storm warning: Financial tsunami heading this way

In today's global village, national coffers are more interconnected than ever before. And as the current economic crisis has proven, a downturn in one country can travel in a wave across the globe, like a financial tsunami. ...

Other Sciences / Economics & Business

created 14 hours ago | popularity 3 / 5 (2) | comments 6

Prague gets hold of modern genetics founder Mendel's papers

Germany has handed to the Czech Republic a manuscript of Johann Gregor Mendel, founder of modern genetics, on his plant hybridization experiments, the Czech foreign minister said Thursday.

Other Sciences / Other

created 10 hours ago | popularity 5 / 5 (1) | comments 1

Kids show cultural gender bias

(PhysOrg.com) -- Talk about gender confusion! A recent study by University of Alberta researchers Elena Nicoladis and Cassandra Foursha-Stevenson in the Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology into whether speaki ...

Other Sciences / Social Sciences

created 19 hours ago | popularity 1.5 / 5 (2) | comments 2

'Flipped classroom' teaching model gains an online community

Researchers at Harvard University have launched the Peer Instruction (PI) Network, a new global social network for users of interactive teaching methods.

Other Sciences / Social Sciences

created 14 hours ago | popularity 5 / 5 (2) | comments 0


'Dark plasmons' transmit energy

Microscopic channels of gold nanoparticles have the ability to transmit electromagnetic energy that starts as light and propagates via "dark plasmons," according to researchers at Rice University.

FDA-approved drug rapidly clears amyloid from the brain, reverses Alzheimer's symptoms in mice

Neuroscientists at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine have made a dramatic breakthrough in their efforts to find a cure for Alzheimer's disease. The researchers' findings, published in the journal Science, show t ...

Hydrogen from acidic water: Researchers develop potential low cost alternative to platinum for splitting water

A technique for creating a new molecule that structurally and chemically replicates the active part of the widely used industrial catalyst molybdenite has been developed by researchers with the Lawrence Berkeley ...

Ultraviolet protection molecule in plants yields its secrets

Lying around in the sun all day is hazardous not just for humans but also for plants, which have no means of escape. Ultraviolet (UV) radiation from the sun can damage proteins and DNA inside cells, leading ...

Soraa LED light may dim 50-watt halogen rivals

(PhysOrg.com) -- Soraa, a Fremont, California company founded in 2008, this week launched its first product, a light that uses LEDS (light emitting diodes). The "Soraa LED MR16 lamp" is the "perfect" replacement ...

Anyone can learn to be more inventive, cognitive researcher says

There will always be a wild and unpredictable quality to creativity and invention, says Anthony McCaffrey, a cognitive psychology researcher at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, because an "Aha moment" is rare and ...