Bibles in Biology Class Continued...
The survey showed only 28 percent of the 926 teachers surveyed took an adamantly pro-evolution stance, following the National Research Council and National Academy of Sciences recommendations to cite scientific evidence that evolution occurred. Thirteen percent of those polled in the National Survey of High School Biology openly advocated creationism, the belief that God created Earth and humans, as told in the Bible's Book of Genesis or intelligent design. The majority of teachers, meanwhile, didn't take any clear stand on evolution. They are dubbed the "cautious 60 percent." Can you see where the United States is on the table to the left? There it is all the way at the bottom just above Turkey. The U.S. is lagging behind the rest of the world in the acceptance of evolution as a viable solution to the question "where did we come from?" Granted this is a old survey, but I'm almost positive that these numbers haven't changed much. For a country that prizes its self on education, we are sure behind the rest of the modern world in this respect.
The promotion of creationism (intelligent design) in schools is a hotly debated political topic. Proponents of intelligent design seek to "teach the controversy"; discrediting evolution by emphasizing perceived flaws in the theory of evolution, or disagreements within the scientific community. They encourage teachers and students to explore non-scientific alternatives to evolution, or to critically analyze evolution and the controversy surrounding the teaching of evolution.
The world's largest general scientific society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, has stated that "There is no significant controversy within the scientific community about the validity of evolution." and that "Evolution is one of the most robust and widely accepted principles of modern science." The ruling in the Dover trial, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, where the claims of intelligent design proponents were considered by a United States federal court, stated that "evolution, including common descent and natural selection, is 'overwhelmingly accepted' by the scientific community."
One strategy creationists use, is to declare that evolution is a religion, and therefore it should not be taught in the classroom either, or that if evolution is a religion, then surely creationism as well can be taught in the classroom. Now this statement is completely false, evolution is neither a ideology or a religion. Religion is defined as, a collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that establishes symbols that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, moral values. Evolution neither defines moral values or involves human spirituality in anyway. So what is evolution then? It is fact, it has been accepted by the intellectual community and science as a whole. All someone has to do is google evolution, and they will find a myriad of scientific documents and definitions to support it.
Some Americans think that both creationism and evolution should be taught in science class skeptically, allowing the students to pick which they want to believe. Although, in science, they will always teach fact regardless of whether one finds one or both sides offensive. Lets say a person believes that the earth is flat, whether or not you want to accept the fact that the earth is round, it the earth will always be round. Reality does not bend to the will of what one want to believe. So this fictional person would find it offensive to teach the Earth is round in class, but does that mean you should teach that the Earth is round and flat? Sounds ridiculous right. That's what teaching both creationism and evolution is like. Bottom line being in science class, only factual science should be taught. If theology must be taught, although I may not agree with it, then it should be taught in a seminary or talked about in a philosophy class.
Ideas of creationism taught in class gives students a false impression of what biology and science is. Two creatures, of any species, do not have enough genetic diversity to create a populous without horrible genetic defects created through incest. In fact, in biology class they discuss the genetic repercussions of incest and how it is detrimental to the survival of species. Creationism also points you away from the scientific method. Which is the basis for all modern luxuries such as TV, Internet, cars, etc. It teaches you to draw a conclusions first, and then find facts to support it. Instead of the other way around, such as the scientific method, teaching you to find facts to support a idea then draw conclusions from the evidence.
Now here we are, what are we going to do about what is taught in science class? I recommend we should stop talking about Creationism as an equal argument to evolution. You can believe what you want, but "teaching Creationism in our public schools not only violates the U.S. Constitution, but infringes on a student's right to learn objective, research-based, state-of-the-art science." I believe that one way we can solve the issue is to have teachers require more training and education on the subject of evolution so that they are able to better present it in the classroom. Although this may help, it all comes down to the teachers and how they present it in class. So teachers must keep their religious biases out of class and remain objective. Whether the teacher believes it or not they are there to perform a job and that is to educate their students and stimulate them intellectually.
Facts are facts, and they should be taught in science class. Educated speculation is all right, but theology and creationism should be kept where it is meant to be: church, seminary, or philosophy classes. In conclusion, like I said previously you can believe whatever you want, but when it comes to a science classroom keep those beliefs to yourself and stick to the curriculum.
The promotion of creationism (intelligent design) in schools is a hotly debated political topic. Proponents of intelligent design seek to "teach the controversy"; discrediting evolution by emphasizing perceived flaws in the theory of evolution, or disagreements within the scientific community. They encourage teachers and students to explore non-scientific alternatives to evolution, or to critically analyze evolution and the controversy surrounding the teaching of evolution.
The world's largest general scientific society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, has stated that "There is no significant controversy within the scientific community about the validity of evolution." and that "Evolution is one of the most robust and widely accepted principles of modern science." The ruling in the Dover trial, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, where the claims of intelligent design proponents were considered by a United States federal court, stated that "evolution, including common descent and natural selection, is 'overwhelmingly accepted' by the scientific community."
One strategy creationists use, is to declare that evolution is a religion, and therefore it should not be taught in the classroom either, or that if evolution is a religion, then surely creationism as well can be taught in the classroom. Now this statement is completely false, evolution is neither a ideology or a religion. Religion is defined as, a collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that establishes symbols that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, moral values. Evolution neither defines moral values or involves human spirituality in anyway. So what is evolution then? It is fact, it has been accepted by the intellectual community and science as a whole. All someone has to do is google evolution, and they will find a myriad of scientific documents and definitions to support it.
Some Americans think that both creationism and evolution should be taught in science class skeptically, allowing the students to pick which they want to believe. Although, in science, they will always teach fact regardless of whether one finds one or both sides offensive. Lets say a person believes that the earth is flat, whether or not you want to accept the fact that the earth is round, it the earth will always be round. Reality does not bend to the will of what one want to believe. So this fictional person would find it offensive to teach the Earth is round in class, but does that mean you should teach that the Earth is round and flat? Sounds ridiculous right. That's what teaching both creationism and evolution is like. Bottom line being in science class, only factual science should be taught. If theology must be taught, although I may not agree with it, then it should be taught in a seminary or talked about in a philosophy class.
Ideas of creationism taught in class gives students a false impression of what biology and science is. Two creatures, of any species, do not have enough genetic diversity to create a populous without horrible genetic defects created through incest. In fact, in biology class they discuss the genetic repercussions of incest and how it is detrimental to the survival of species. Creationism also points you away from the scientific method. Which is the basis for all modern luxuries such as TV, Internet, cars, etc. It teaches you to draw a conclusions first, and then find facts to support it. Instead of the other way around, such as the scientific method, teaching you to find facts to support a idea then draw conclusions from the evidence.
Now here we are, what are we going to do about what is taught in science class? I recommend we should stop talking about Creationism as an equal argument to evolution. You can believe what you want, but "teaching Creationism in our public schools not only violates the U.S. Constitution, but infringes on a student's right to learn objective, research-based, state-of-the-art science." I believe that one way we can solve the issue is to have teachers require more training and education on the subject of evolution so that they are able to better present it in the classroom. Although this may help, it all comes down to the teachers and how they present it in class. So teachers must keep their religious biases out of class and remain objective. Whether the teacher believes it or not they are there to perform a job and that is to educate their students and stimulate them intellectually.
Facts are facts, and they should be taught in science class. Educated speculation is all right, but theology and creationism should be kept where it is meant to be: church, seminary, or philosophy classes. In conclusion, like I said previously you can believe whatever you want, but when it comes to a science classroom keep those beliefs to yourself and stick to the curriculum.