Pharyngula

Pharyngula has moved to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

Tuesday, February 01, 2005

We're losing, you know

From the NY Times:

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."

Even where evolution is taught, teachers may be hesitant to give it full weight. Ron Bier, a biology teacher at Oberlin High School in Oberlin, Ohio, said that evolution underlies many of the central ideas of biology and that it is crucial for students to understand it. But he avoids controversy, he said, by teaching it not as "a unit," but by introducing the concept here and there throughout the year. "I put out my little bits and pieces wherever I can," he said.

He noted that his high school, in a college town, has many students whose parents are professors who have no problem with the teaching of evolution. But many other students come from families that may not accept the idea, he said, "and that holds me back to some extent."

"I don't force things," Mr. Bier added. "I don't argue with students about it."

All true, and it has been true for a long time. Evolution wasn't mentioned even once in my high school days. Not once. It's ignored in my kids' high school.

And this despite the fact that…

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.

And this despite the fact that…

These findings set the United States apart from all other industrialized nations, said Dr. Jon Miller, director of the Center for Biomedical Communications at Northwestern University, who has studied public attitudes toward science. Americans, he said, have been evenly divided for years on the question of evolution, with about 45 percent accepting it, 45 percent rejecting it and the rest undecided.

In other industrialized countries, Dr. Miller said, 80 percent or more typically accept evolution, most of the others say they are not sure and very few people reject the idea outright.

"In Japan, something like 96 percent accept evolution," he said. Even in socially conservative, predominantly Catholic countries like Poland, perhaps 75 percent of people surveyed accept evolution, he said. "It has not been a Catholic issue or an Asian issue," he said.

Indeed, two popes, Pius XII in 1950 and John Paul II in 1996, have endorsed the idea that evolution and religion can coexist. "I have yet to meet a Catholic school teacher who skips evolution," Dr. Scott said.

It's also no consolation to tell you all that they are coming for you next.

But several experts say scientists are feeling increasing pressure to make their case, in part, Dr. Miller said, because scriptural literalists are moving beyond evolution to challenge the teaching of geology and physics on issues like the age of the earth and the origin of the universe.

"They have now decided the Big Bang has to be wrong," he said. "There are now a lot of people who are insisting that that be called only a theory without evidence and so on, and now the physicists are getting mad about this."

Look at us. We should be so ashamed. This country is an embarrassment.

"Wise men lay up knowledge, but the babbling of a fool brings ruin near."
"But I say that wisdom is better than might, though the poor man's wisdom is despised, and his words are not heeded. The words of the wise heard in quiet are better than the shouting of a ruler among fools. Wisdom is better than weapons of war, but one sinner destroys much good."

We've got to change tactics. We need to get much more aggressive in forcing these issues in our schools—it's like watching whole generations of our kid spiralling down the drain.


Trackback url: http://pharyngula.org/index/trackback/1871/wFRe5PQL/

Comments:
#14930: — 02/01  at  10:00 AM
It's not a new trend. In my high school biology course (mid 1980s, Philadelphia suburbs), we simply skipped the chapter on evolution, and the zoology sections were basically memorizing a catalog of phyla and their characteristics.

Since I was a biology major in college, I quickly caught up in undergrad genetics and evolution classes, but if I hadn't studied science, I'd probably still be completely ignorant.

My computer files still contain some of the essays I wrote in high school. One of them, for a philosophy class, was on the impossibility of lungfish evolving. I hadn't the foggiest notion about genetics, but I thought it demolished evolutionary biology. Shudder.



#14932: marrije — 02/01  at  10:15 AM
This is still mindblowing to me. I live in the Netherlands, where I think I ingested the basics of evolution in primary school, but definitely not much later. A few months ago, Douglas Rushkoff mentioned on his blog that about 50% of Americans don't believe in evolution - and I'm afraid I didn't believe him at first. Thank you for the insight into how this remarkable situation happened (and keeps happening!), even if it's a sad story.



#14933: — 02/01  at  10:17 AM
It is interesting that the Catholics are doing so much better than the secular schools. I went to a Catholic HS, and we covered both the (most basic) theory and quite a bit of the history of evolutionary thought. My little sister goes to a public school about 10 blocks to the west, and there's no mention of evolution at all in her bio class this year. I find it pretty ironic that an organization that took 1900-odd years to stop celebrating masses in Latin could be doing so well in this area.

Rrawr!



#14934: Sean — 02/01  at  10:32 AM
It is an embarassment, and I think that's the angle that should be pushed. The anti-evolution campaign is gradually being taken up by more and more empty-headed conservative pundits (O'Reilly being an example), but there are still plenty of grown-up conservatives who understand that it's anti-scientific nonsense. It's those people we should be going after, to convince them that this particular effort is discrediting their entire political outlook. How can a serious person take conservative political thought seriously if it denies evolution?



's avatar #14936: — 02/01  at  10:48 AM
It's not just science education...it's everywhere. This article talks about how high-schoolers don't really know what's so important about the first ammendment: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6888837/

Education as a whole is lacking...and our Secretary of Education's biggest concern seems to be a cartoon bunny visiting a kid with lesbian parents. Woo and yay for our children.



#14937: — 02/01  at  10:51 AM
I went to a suburban Philadlephia high school in the late 1970's. We actually had an anti-evolutionist as a biology teacher. I remember hearing how mutations were all harmful, but that's about all I can bring back after all this time.

Instead, we watched him feed mice to the snake.

I never did learn anything about biology until my 20's, when I started reading Gould.



#14944: — 02/01  at  11:35 AM
I was fourtunate enough in 10th grade (back in 1972) to have an advanced biology class that not only covered evolution, but also required me to write a report discussing whether Ramapithicus was a hominid or not. What's sad is that I've noted fundie web sites that crow about how it was generally assumed that Ramapithicus was a hominid before 1982, but the reality was that that it was always something that was not settled.

That said, much of what I've later learned about evolution was due to reading popular writers such as Gould and Sagan, and later books by Ernst Mayr. I freely confess thought to being confused by some of the posts PZ has made here on genetics. I'm afraid I'd be in that unfortunate third category in his current class.



#14946: — 02/01  at  11:40 AM
If you worry for the future, then you should not concentrate on evolution. Rather, you should concentrate on critical thinking, which is far more effective at getting people to be rational about things. Teach them that and they'll repudiate creationism on their own. Teach them science and they may be rational about what they learn but not in other areas of life, as several studies show.



#14947: — 02/01  at  12:06 PM
"If you worry for the future, then you should not concentrate on evolution. Rather, you should concentrate on critical thinking, which is far more effective at getting people to be rational about things."

I'm not sure how to read this - is Alon Levy really proposing that we not teach science? If science is taught well (a big if, I'll grant you) what students learn is critical thinking. I'm skeptical of calls to arms to teach "critical thinking" as a subject of its own. If anything, we should teach "critical thinking" as part and parcel of all disciplines. What is sadly true is that too often tradition subjects are "taught" as compendia of information rather than as active processes of inquiry.



#14948: bitchphd — 02/01  at  12:14 PM
Count me as another one who went to Catholic hs and was taught evolution (although one of my good friends, a Lutheran, didn't believe in it, but she did do very well in the class by learning it even though she refused to accept it, heh). We also dissected cats and studied the embryonic development of chicks and ducks, although after we opened the first shell and found a beating heart, our biology teacher (who was not himself Catholic, I don't think) felt kind of bad, so we studied the rest of that unit with the book, and then all the chicks and ducklings hatched and we played with them until one girl, who lived on a farm, agreed to take them home.

My h.s. biology class was cool.



#14951: — 02/01  at  12:37 PM
It is sad and not a very good portent for the future of the country. I am sure there will always be those who make it into the sciences (or just critical, logical thinking) despite the crappy educations they receive. But what happens when we have a society divided into a small, elite group of intelligent, educated people, and a large underclass of ignorant sheep?



#14953: — 02/01  at  12:42 PM
This trend is worrying. In my secondary school, my biology teacher told us that evolution was science and if we wanted to learn about creationism, we should go to church. Actually, we were also taught about creationism in school, but this was as a part of the Religious Studies syllabus, in which we were taught about the beliefs and cultural practices of all the major world religions, in a sociological rather than an evangelical way.

We also have crazy creationists trying to muscle in on schools in this country, but there is hope:
http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,1244097,00.html



#14954: Nathan Newman — 02/01  at  12:51 PM
So why not promote "teaching the controversy", as the Discovery Institute folks want. I'd rather kids get some evolution taught, even if they read ID crap alongside it. They are getting creationism at church, so school is the only chance to hear about evolution.

In some ways, it's a basic political deal. They teach their crap and we get some evolution taught in the schools. It's unlikely to happen in practice any other way.



#14955: Orac — 02/01  at  12:54 PM
Sadly, this does not surprise me. It's an explicit tactic of creationists and ID advocates. They figure that, if they can make the issue of evolution too much of a hot potato, a lot of teachers, rather than court controversy and complaints by parents, will simply either stop teaching it, downplay its importance, or exaggerate its shortcomings. Usually, they just neglect it or fail to teach it much. Sadly, the ID proponents are succeeding, and rationalists and scientists are losing.

In any case, it's odd that the Catholic Church, whatever its other shortcomings, is a model of enlightenment when it comes to evolution--at least compared to the fundamentalist religions that seem to predominate the debate.



#14959: Sharon — 02/01  at  01:05 PM
I'm pretty sure we were being taught evolution as standard at school here (Britain) as soon as we were old enough to have distinct science classes. At least, in 1979 (when I was 12), when the x millions of us first sat down to gawp at David Attenborough's Life on Earth, we knew what it was he was talking about, and there was nothing controversial about it. In fact, most nature programmes on British TV (and there are a lot of them...) wouldn't make any sense without a basic knowledge of evolution. I've just had a look: Evolution is definitely part of the national curriculum for science from the age of 11, and probably earlier (haven't had time to check that). That is to say, essentially, schools *have* to teach it.



#14964: — 02/01  at  01:20 PM
Alon wrote:

"If you worry for the future, then you should not concentrate on evolution. Rather, you should concentrate on critical thinking, which is far more effective at getting people to be rational about things. Teach them that and they’ll repudiate creationism on their own."

I think this is an important point. Part of what enables this whole controversy is that there isn't nearly enough emphasis on science as a <i> process <i>. If people's view of science is that it's just an arbitrary list of observations about the world, it's easy to corrupt.

On another topic, we definately learned evolution at my high school, and I also rememember that we covered the history of how people have thought about these things. I specifically remember the "spontaneous generation" hypothesis, where people noticed, for example, that if you left some laundry in the basement, there would soon be some mice living in there: ergo, old laundry creates mice!!

That was great stuff.



#14965: — 02/01  at  01:22 PM
If "teaching the controversy" was done in a non-science class, without claiming authority as science, I might agree. That is not what they're arguing for. And, even then, I think this goes back to false equivalence. "Teaching the controversy" gives creationism too much credit. We shouldn't have to even consider it. This is not something as balanced as liberal vs. conservative. This is spherical Earth vs. flat Earth.



#14968: — 02/01  at  01:28 PM
Yeah, what would he content of "teaching the controversy" be?

"Okay class, we're going to be learning a lot of stuff this semester. I should tell you though, that there are people who believe everything just happened magically, and they find evidence of this in an old book which the majority of folks view as being merely metaphoric".

End of "controversy" section.



#14970: — 02/01  at  01:31 PM
am a HS Bio teacher in Texas, 3/4 of our department have zero problem with evolution. 1 does as she is a fundy. But shes coming around. I also teach it as a unit but the other do 1-2weeks worth. We get a few comment now and again but nothing worth noting. MOST say no one has ever explained it to them before, INCLUDING adults. They have heard the propaganda but not the truth. This is partially the fault of educators. Period. People need to get a pair.

It is funny that the Catholic church has no problem with evolution. They have many archaic notions that defy logic and common sense, and are scriptually wrong but that doesn't matter as they view the bible with suspition anyway. But in this matter you must give them kudo's.



#14973: Leah — 02/01  at  01:44 PM
I graduated from HS in 2001, and my biology class definitely covered evolution. I went to Inglemoor High School in Bothell, WA. We learned quite a bit about organismal development, and we had several days dedicated to learning about human precursors (Lucy, of course, was a favorite because we spent the entire lecture watching a video about her discovery and the implications of her discovery). There are places out there where evolution is studied.

It's possible our class only covered it in such depth because we were in a two year advanced biology class (Int'l Baccalaureate), but I know other classes in my HS covered evolution too. It's definitely out there . . . so don't lose all hope.



#14974: Michael — 02/01  at  01:47 PM
I’m pretty sure we were being taught evolution as standard at school here (Britain) as soon as we were old enough to have distinct science classes.
I must be as near Sharon's age as makes no difference, and I completely endorse everything she says.

I only did biology to O-level (not sure what the US grade equivalent would be, but we're talking age sixteen or thereabouts), and while I don't specifically remember any classes on evolution I'd be very surprised if the subject had never come up - and I would certainly remember if any alternative theories had been put forward.

Interestingly enough, at my school one of the biology teachers was also the school chaplain - but not only did this not colour his lessons in any way whatsoever (I'd definitely have remembered if it had!), he also had a decidedly secular approach to teaching religious studies as well, generally using the compulsory 90-minute slot to cover moral issues such as drugs, crime and teenage pregnancy from an entirely undogmatic standpoint - with the result that we actually learned something useful instead of collectively switching off at the first sign of Bible-thumping.



#14976: — 02/01  at  02:12 PM
DC relates the problems with "teaching the controversy" -- people learn the controversy, and not the facts.

We need a bumpersticker that says "Teach the scientific facts first."

PZ, we're not losing the war, yet. We have powerful allies for good academics in key places. Former Education Sec. William Bennett advocates that kids learn evolution. We may poke fun at his former gambling habit, but if we'd stop long enough to enlist him in the fight for solid academics, he'd have clout. I was looking last night at the "core curriculum" program offered by E. D. Hirsch, the guy who came up with the idea of cultural literacy. Since evolution is a key part of cultural literacy, his curriculum covers it. These guys are part of the conservative, better academics movement.

Prior to Bennett's tenure at ED, Sec. Ted Bell got a commission going to look at the idea of excellence in education. The report of that commission was quite stellar, really -- it talked about a "rising tide of mediocrity," and it noted that, had them nasty old Russkies done to our education system what we had allowed to happen, we'd consider it an act of war.

Soviet communism is at least so decrepit it's no big threat, if not completely dead. But the threats to our nation are no less severe. We shouldn't allow creationists to do to our schools what bin Laden did to the WTC. And if we phrase it that way, and if we accept a broader array of people on the side to fight against dumbing down education, we'll probably find a lot of support.

No one is for making textbooks stupid. No one is for teaching rot to kids, especially when good science is available. Even the staunch theological opponents of evolution will admit to liking high standards.

The question is whether we will have standards in science class. If we phrase it that way, we'll probably find a lot of allies.



#14977: — 02/01  at  02:23 PM
A former student of mine is now a high school teacher in a public school in the south. She had a good news/bad news scenario for teaching evolution. The good news: it is a required unit that is tested on the state-wide exams. The bad news: students have to have their parents sign permission slips in order to actually enter the class for that unit. If the parent doesn't sign the slip, then the student spends the 2-1/2 weeks in study hall. In a class of 26 students, only 5 students attended the evolution section (even worse than the 45% disbeliever number nationwide). Part of the problem: one of her colleagues refuses to teach the course because he "didn't come from a chimp." (Would be nice if he actually knew that none of us did) Also, her principal is apparently a baptist minister who would prefer to get rid of the evolution section all-together.



#14981: — 02/01  at  03:11 PM
Surprisingly, this is a good post. My unintelligent view is that evolution and design/creationism/whatever are not mutually exhaustive. But, so what.

Here's the conundrum, though:

We’ve got to change tactics. We need to get much more aggressive in forcing these issues in our schools

I respectfullly disagree. I think the tactics of the defend-Darwin-at-all-costs crowd has helped stimulate the challenge by the ID crowd. I think more aggressive tactics will stimulate it more.

It's like politics -- some misguided folks (like Myers), thinks the Dems were not aggressive enough and need more of a bull-dog like Howard Dean to lead the way.

I think the opposite. I think the Dems were too shrill, loud, and obnoxious (as exemplified by Dean), and that his ascendance, will further fortify GOP majorities.

One of these views is wrong -- it may well be mine. It will take a few more elections to determine whether the Flynn or Myers view is right.

But, I think it's a similar dynamic with this Darwin/ID stuff.



#14982: — 02/01  at  03:19 PM
Thats a sad story Ron, if it is true, I'll bet given the number of students it is a small rural school in which no one dares speak up. In short, they would certainly lose a court challenge.

Whats even worse is that some institution granted a degree to the buffoon that she teaches with. What student wouldn't take a 2.5 week study hall. I teach HS and you simply can't let the kids choose what they will or will not learn. Otherwise lunch, gym, and art would be overflowing all day and I'd be out of a job.

In my mind that school has a poor teacher, a poor curriculum, AND a crappy principal. None of that would fly here and I'm in a conservative area in Texas. I'm also disappointed in the parents. You should always want you kids to learn the best science has to offer.



Page 1 of 5 pages  1 2 3 >  Last »

Next entry: A glimpse of Kansas

Previous entry: Newman vs. Mooney

<< Back to main

Info

email PZ Myers
Search
Archives
UMM—America's best public liberal arts college