16% of US science teachers are creationists
Despite a court-ordered ban on the teaching of creationism in US schools, about one in eight high-school biology teachers still teach it as valid science, a survey reveals. And, although almost all teachers also taught evolution, those with less training in science – and especially evolutionary biology – tend to devote less class time to Darwinian principles.
…
The researchers polled a random sample of nearly 2000 high-school science teachers across the US in 2007. Of the 939 who responded, 2% said they did not cover evolution at all, with the majority spending between 3 and 10 classroom hours on the subject.
However, a quarter of the teachers also reported spending at least some time teaching about creationism or intelligent design. Of these, 48% – about 12.5% of the total survey – said they taught it as a “valid, scientific alternative to Darwinian explanations for the origin of species”.
PLoS Biology article: Evolution and Creationism in America’s Classrooms: A National Portrait
At least some have the courage to speak the truth !
Arty is evidence that we need stronger science standards.
Yes, you would want it restricted to your narrow dogma. You want to indoctrinate with unquestioned authority. We sure don’t want any competing theory do we.
The truth will out.
I just saw the debate they had in Kansas last year over teaching ID in school as an altenate theory. The Darwinianists didn’t have the guts to show up and debate the issue. Scientist after scientist spoke on behalf of ID. They tore apart the Darwinian dogma to shreds. It was a rout. Its funny that no one wants an open debate for the public to see.
No wonder the darwinianists don’t want it openly debated in the classroom. They couldn’t hold up in front of children.
Zyg is evidence why teachers shoudln’t get tenure.
The other day I came up with a “list” of subjects/careers that people who believe in a literal interpretation of the bible really couldn’t pursue:
Science, medicine, history, archeology, anthropology, even math!
I say this because all of these deal with ideas/concepts they don’t “believe” in.
Evolution, civilizations that date back more than 10,000 years…..
I tried to list the broad/general subjects- Feel free to add to the list!
Those who believe in scientism can’t understand philosophy, intuition, poetry, the arts, world history, morality, government, psychology, etc.
Those who believe in Jesus Christ and his sovereignty have the better understanding of true science, medicine archeology, anthropology even math, since they have a greater view of each topic and are not limited to just their eyesight. Most of the leading scientists, historians, mathmeticians, etc. were or are all devout Christians.
You have limited yourselves in your understanding of the totality of the human being. You can’t even understand why the human heart beats.
In scientism there is no morality.
Scientism is a philosophical position that exalts the methods of the natural sciences above all other modes of human inquiry. Scientism embraces only empiricism and reason to explain phenomena of any dimension, whether physical, social, cultural, or psychological. Drawing from the general empiricism of The Enlightenment, scientism is most closely associated with the positivism of August Comte (1798-1857) who held an extreme view of empiricism, insisting that true knowledge of the world arises only from perceptual experience. Comte criticized ungrounded speculations about phenomena that cannot be directly encountered by proper observation, analysis and experiment. Such a doctrinaire stance associated with science leads to an abuse of reason that transforms a rational philosophy of science into an irrational dogma (Hayek, 1952). It is this ideological dimension that we associate with the term scientism. Today the term is used with pejorative intent to dismiss substantive arguments that appeal to scientific authority in contexts where science might not apply. This over commitment to science can be seen in epistemological distortions and abuse of public policy.
Epistemological scientism lays claim to an exclusive approach to knowledge. Human inquiry is reduced to matters of material reality. We can know only those things that are ascertained by experimentation through application of the scientific method. And since the method is emphasized with such great importance, the scientistic tendency is to privilege the expertise of a scientific elite who can properly implement the method. But science philosopher Susan Haack (2003) contends that the so-called scientific method is largely a myth propped up by scientistic culture. There is no single method of scientific inquiry. Instead, Haack explains that scientific inquiry is contiguous with everyday empirical inquiry (p. 94). Everyday knowledge is supplemented by evolving aids that emerge throughout the process of honest inquiry. These include the cognitive tools of analogy and metaphor that help to frame the object of inquiry into familiar terms. They include mathematical models that enable the possibility of prediction and simulation. Such aids include crude, impromptu instruments that develop increasing sophistication with each iteration of a problem-solving activity. And everyday aids include social and institutional helps that extend to lay practitioners the distributed knowledge of the larger community. According to Haack, these everyday modes of inquiry open the scientific process to ordinary people and they demystify the epistemological claims of the scientistic gate keepers. (p. 98)
The abuse of scientism is most pronounced when it finds its way into public policy. A scientistic culture privileges scientific knowledge over all other ways of knowing. It uses jargon, technical language, and technical evidence in public debate as a means to exclude the laity from participation in policy formation. Despite such obvious transgressions of democracy, common citizens yield to the dictates of scientism without a fight. The norms of science abound in popular culture and the naturalized authority of scientific reasoning can lead unchecked to a malignancy of cultural norms. The most notorious example of this was seen in Nazi Germany where a noxious combination of scientism and utopianism led to the eugenics excesses of the Third Reich (Arendt, 1951). Policy can be informed by science, and the best policies take into account the best available scientific reasoning. Law makers are prudent to keep an ear open to science while resisting the rhetoric of the science industry in formulating policy. It is the role of science to serve the primary interests of the polity. But government in a free society is not obliged to serve the interests of science. Jurgen Habermas (1978, Ch 3) warns that positivism and scientism move in where the discourse of science lacks self-reflection and where the spokesmen of science exempt themselves from public scrutiny.
Really? I can’t understand that the flow of ions and hormones and impulses from the SA node to the AV node to the bundle of His to the Purkinje fibers causes the heart to beat? Damn…. good think I don’t have to understand how my heart pumps blood through my body, back to my heart, then to my lungs to be oxygenated, and back through my body in order for all of the processes to occur!
Wow you just proved the point. Thanks !
Lets hear you explain love then.
Hormonal and chemical responses in the brain and body.
I shouldn’t bother, but let me try to discuss your position, Arty:
You feel that science is somehow colored by a dogam that you call “Scientism.” I think you mean materialism, but moving on..
You believe that this philosophical stance is responsible for the conclusions of modern scientific rigor, and going further, you feel that the only proper way to do science is to introduce Christian-specific faith to the process.
I can tell from this that you have no understanding of the scientific process. The scientist is engaged in the pursuit of evidence – FACTS – that will prove or disprove a hypothesis. They must pursue a provable question and openly submit their work and conclusiopns to examination by their peers.
How can you possibly submit faith as a portion of your work. How can your personal and subjective faith be tested and proved? It has no place in the scientific process, and attempting to reduce it to something to be analyzed and dissected does further disservice to both the science you pervert and the religion you quantify.
In short, please, go read a book or two by Sagan or Gould or Feynman, just so you have something intelligible to say to us.
Ah there is your problem Walter. Intuition, which we all have is part of our belief system, is that part where faith resides. Moral character is not part of chemical or evolving process. Good character traits are derived from the unseen “unempirical” source. Scientism cannot explain the moral law. However good science can yield observable cause and effect sequences which can be a very helpful tool in life.
However, when one divorces “empirical” knowledge from moral goodness, there will be an eventual dilema. Such as eugenices or nazi Germany. Where scientism void of conscience ruled the day. When we imply that scientism alone is the “only way to go”, we fall into a narrow view of life. If scientism is the measure of all truth, then we would expect to see this evidenced in history.When the mind is exalted above the moral code of the heart you can rationalize anything away. You can come to the conclusions of tremendous error and not realize it. God is a moral being and he dictates all things that are created. There is not one shred of evidence that would lead one to conclude that earth was not created in a short time frame. The ability to comprehend this truth is clouded by moral turpitude of varying degrees. When you make judgments in life you must factor all information available through your “grid”. If we just use the mind alone we will become an immoral nation. Our conscience of right and wrong should be strengthened first and then the mind should follow. Its hard for one to see this line of logic unless you prioritize your allegiance to a moral fervencyfirst then scientific discovery. When an evolutionist is confronted with the ID theory there is an immediate angry reaction of indignation. This is because the supressed conscience is exposed and reacts even sometimes violently. If one was confident in their conclusions they could patiently explain their position. But because their conscience is pricked they resort to name calling and othe derogatory terms – or anotherwords a “knee jerk reaction”. Then they may try and convince themselves that its a reaction because of ignorance not conscience. However if that is the position one takes his misery of conscience will still remain and the eating away of the inward man will persist until they become deluded in their sense to right and wrong. Thus eventually leading to an immoral society. (of such a one is blind to their error – unless they after realizing something seems wrong in their own heart, then cries out to God, he will remain in his morbid state)
Really classic creationist drivel you got going there. You’ve even dragged out the whole Nazi eugenics myth which was actually inspired by biblical interpretations of bloodlines and NOT any of Darwin’s theories. Your whole rant is an attempt at sounding intelligent by using scientific and philosophical terms taken out of context, but ends up playing the same debunked lies that you and your ADD afflicted brethren keep repeating.
To sum it up, the same history you claim to extol your Christian virtues and the evils of science has proven again and again that your faith does NOT have a monopoly on good morals, and is in fact, capable of some incredibly evil, sadistic, and violent acts. From the crusades, the inquisition, murder of “witches” and heretics, the holocaust, and even slavery, the track record of your Christian religion is a bloody one indeed.
Learn to troll better, zealot.
Come now Karl. You can do better than that. You just illustrated what Ive been commenting on. Moral goodness is not evidenced by murder and mayhem. If one were to call himself a car that doesnt mean he is a car. People use the term Christian loosely and those that love their immorality readily mix apples and oranges. By definition one could not be a Christian and commit all those things you so disingenously and gleefully suggest. You again prove the point that you knee jerk react because your suppressed conscious is pricked.
Again you need to read carefully Karl, I was talking about scientism not science.
Our “Arty” is yet another C&P troll who gleefully plagiarizes their crap from other sources. In this case, the nonsense he spouts first spewed forth from this site http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~mryder/scientism_este.html His posts actually smack of John McFundie’s effluence and it gives me to wonder if this isn’t a sockpuppet or just another member of that Panhandle cult come to play.
Once again, this is FLORIDA CITIZENS for SCIENCE and the woo-woo infected crawl out from under their mental dungheaps to discuss their own particular flavor of mythological mind virus and philosophy.
Yet you do the same yourself with that nazi eugenics example. The moral goodness of science is not evidenced by eugenics and other forms of murder. What about all the medical research and innovations that saved countless lives? Your “scientism” remarks seem to be a mix of the worst that materialism and naturalism have to offer, which YOU “so disingenuously and gleefully suggest” as being the dogma of modern science. The difference between our respective rants is that your claims of morally dubious happenings with this “scientism dogma” have been based on false examples while my claims against the so-called moral superiority of your faith have occurred and been documented repeatedly throughout history, but of course, you must say that my observations are purely empirical without any further meanings.
Pot, kettle, black, you know the rest.
Artsy style mysticalism gave us 2 millenia of dark ages. 100 years of rationalism has given us space travel, longer healthier lives, instant global communications, instant access to infinite information. Artsy – throw away the computer, you do not deserve it! Live in a cave and die at 25. Your philosophy is no more meaningful than phrenology, crystal or pyramid power. You are a superstitious, ignorant primitive, being cheritably supported by your superiors.
Wolf again you prove the point that was made.
Karl, so you equate murder and mayhem with moral goodness ? Again read carefully what was written. Science can be very helpful as long at it is subservient to moral goodness. But without moral goodness it can become very dangerous in its mindset leading to scientism.
Chip, again you must brush up on your history lessons. You honestly equate moral goodness with cave life ? You all seem to project a misguided idea of what a Christian is. Its the true Christains that made it possible for the advanced discoveries to take place. The dark ages belong to the moral corruption of the time and not to a moral goodness. It is those that realize that there is an order to life that make the discoveries showing that order. Not randomness and chance, which is what a morally corrupt generation holds onto.
Innit funny that the jebus lovers #1 forget that about the Code of Hamurabi-gosh, they they worshiped lotsa gods/godessesssssss
#2, Science has unlocked many of the brains functions and love just like altruism can be traced to chemical reactions in the brain.
Chip you should know about those philosophies since Darwinianists are the greatest adherents. (phrenology, crystal or pyramid power that is)
Fire you need to read a little more about the heart. The heart has more control over the brain than you think. It has been proven scientifically. The motives of the heart train the brain how to think. Either for good or for bad.
LOLArty! 🙂
So you would say that shakespeare’s plays were the result of merely chemical processess ?
Well enough for your lessons today. Will be here early tomorrow for your next insruction. Have a good night ! LOL 🙂
Not quite. Most “Darwinists” are skeptical and since they ( we ) are science driven, we would not support any of those phrenology, crystal or pyramid power, since they are not science based and under scientific testing, the cannot and do not pass muster.
Wow.. I laid what a scientist actually does in his or her job, and Arty’s reply to me said.. nothing. White. Noise.
” Fire you need to read a little more about the heart. The heart has more control over the brain than you think. It has been proven scientifically. The motives of the heart train the brain how to think. Either for good or for bad. ”
WTF?? This guy is just having fun with us! LoL!!
Yeah, I see it all the time, people know they should get out of bad situations ( relationships?) and they don’t.
Please provide peer reviwed scientific data to support your claim.
S.Scott is on the ball!
Thanks!
How could one be honest and not be a creationist?
We’ve been wondering the same thing, WW. How CAN you be so dishonest? Boggles the mind.
An alternative theory from Florida.
How does the Citrus Taliban feel about this, I wonder?
Well guys what a beautiful day it is today ! Opps am I allowed to say that on here ? I don’t have empiricle data to prove it, sorry.
Hey nice article Mike. It looks like some of these guys over here need more exorcism than over there. Like the school teachers who are Darwinianists.
He’s just a funny, silly little troll Mike – ignore him. WW on the other hand is just sad that his creationism bills keep dying all over the country. 🙁
S.Scott, the trolls are crawling out from under the bridges…
GE, they better put on some sun screen! 🙂
It’s so amusing to see creationists tout the evils of “scientism” on a computer. I suggest you take a sledge hammer and beat the demons out of this evil machine created by science, along with your cell phone, flat screen TV, and internal combustion engines. Then you’ll be stuck in whatever swamp you live in ranting about creationism by candlelight and we won’t have to hear or see from you. ever.
Listen. sorry guys I was wrong. I know ID and creationism is just stupid. Theres nothing wrong with believeing in the bible but I just took it too far. Clearly Im the one in the wrong, I hope you can all forgive me
Also, incase you haven’t noticed I don’t have a life and I just spam peoples blogs. Sorry again
My parents were brother and sister, too. I was raised to believe incest is the one true path to enlightenment.
Can someone please explain what the hell ” scientism ” is. That jackass Arty uses the word nearly 20 times and seems to have no real definition. If by ” scientism ” he means ” atheism ” then he should just come out and say,” I dont like people who dont believe in my foolish, poorly translated, misinterpreted, and generally incompetent system of beliefs.”
There is no god, no karma, no spirits, no afterworld or afterlife ( which you probably hope will be better than this one that you’ve wasted being a mentally unstable religious fanatic ). We evolved. Love, art creation and anything else you deem to be “inexplicable” are all the cause and effect of neural connectivity and hormone levels that occur in our highly EVOLVED brain.
Any science teacher promoting religion should be sacked. Let’s ignore the law for the moment – religion is about the cessation of reason – science is about using reason. Any teacher who cannot see that does not deserve the title.
Okay, so 16% of U.S. Teachers are idiots… got it.
Sorry about everything I said guys, I don’t get my pills until Sunday.
It does things to me. =/
Arty you sound like a fuckwit to me. I’d like to point you all to a handy xkcd comic strip.
http://xkcd.com/438/
Arty, Intelligent design isn’t a competing theory; because it isn’t a theory.
ELIMINATE
Yeah….
I don’t believe in fairy tales so thats probably why I don’t believe in God.
Can someone kill that Arty guy please, he’s bringing down our average IQ…
Arty, you can’t spell, why would anyone listen to you? Fundie retard. Why don’t you go get raped by a priest and then tell me how great it is to be a christian?
It seems like those who can’t comprehend evolution like to over simplify its processes to either create a straw man argument against it or throw out some sort of red herring that binds it up with morality. It seems some people can’t palate the fact that we are a consequence of evolution and not its “goal.” Many of those people like to couple it with the Big Bang theory (even though they are completely separate concepts) because their mythology associates the origin of humans with the beginning of the universe.
For the record and those of you who denounce scientific understandings as “just a theory” don’t seem to understand that a “Theory” in scientific terms is one of the highest forms of scientific understanding. A “Theory” is the best understanding we have of any given concept based on evidence. This understanding is mutable given new evidence and should change based on new proof.
As for popular Judeo/Christian creationist mythology, the fact that it doesn’t change isn’t a valid argument. Every primitive culture has their own creation myth, so what proof can be given that the Biblical version is any more valid than the Hindu creation myth or Flying Spaghetti Monster theory? While some stories in the Bible may reflect proven historical truth, the ineffability of the creation myth (or Intelligent Design if you like) makes it unprovable and therefore invalid given the evidence to the contrary.
I give up. You guys are just too smart for me. I’m going to go pray now.
Obvious troll is obvious.
I REALLY hope Arty is just making some waves here and doesn’t actually believe the spew coming out of his mouth. I really don’t want to lose ALL faith in humanity.
I believe that those teachers should be fired. There’s no need to spread any more ignorance, there’s already more than enough in the world. The major news networks, governments, and churches do enough of that.
A good study and understanding of physics and cosmology will change any rational thinker’s point of view on the origins of the universe. A good understanding of molecular biology and then biological systems and communities supports the establishment of organisms that can change through time.
Understanding that the insides of a person are analogous to pigs, monkeys, gorillas, and countless other species should convince an open-minded, rational thinker that the scientific way of explaining the universe is far superior in credibility than a book written by people who believed the Earth was the center of the universe.
I am shocked at the number of web users that seem unable to understand the fundamental definition of scientific theory, evolution, and their own exalted creationist views. Creationisms ultimately relies on a suspension of reason and investigative curiosity; these are the foundations upon which good science is based. I am a science teacher, I rebuke those that believe that creationism should be taught in general, let alone as an equivalent to the elegant theory of biological diversification that is evolution. Think objectively!
Arty is a troll. Stop feeding him.