“Class, we are going to study evolution over the next while. Now, please understand, this is not only a requirement but the state of the science. You need to know that I disagree with it, but on purely religious grounds. I’ll do my best not to let my bias show or enter into my teaching but keep it in mind. This is science, and important.”

That’s the reason why I disagree vehemently when people say that one can’t be religious and scientific at the same time; I’ve seen it done. It takes a lot of responsibility, introspection, and self-management, but people are fully capable of going “I believe this because it is true, I believe this because I want it to be true but this other is the accepted scientific truth.” Mostly people choose not to do it (or never even realize they have the choice and power to do it) because they are not taught to.

What my teacher believes, as long as he or she is honest about it, is irrelevant compared to what he or she teaches. Sadly, one is all too often identical to the other, but there are people out there who we should be applauding because they do their jobs and to them well despite their perhaps backwards beliefs.

I used to be an advisor for seniors in the Ole Miss Engineering School, typically guiding a group through their graduate projects. In such a role I got to meet a lot of the staff of the engineering and science departments. It was (and is) a hotbed for creationists and IDers.

It always struck me as peculiar when, for example, I’d be talking to a geology professor, and we happened to venture into a topic such as the age of the Earth, you could see him blink, shift gears, and put on his dogma hat as he pronounced with rapt, blank eyes that the Earth and the Universe were really 6000 years old.

Then he’d return to reality and talk about what he was supposed to be teaching the students. But there’d always be more than a hint of insincerity.

How such persons manage to exist with such dual/multiple personalities is beyond my ken. That they’re in positions where they’re “educating” our youth is ludicrous.

If the creationists wanted to explain G-d starting things, they should look at the Big Bang 14 GYA. But that’d require more math and hard science than they are comfortable with I reckon.

Everything you remember before that came factory installed for you.
You & Col. Tigh.

I found that the Ninth Grade Earth Science teacher had a small table in the front of the classroom covered in Young Earth Creationist tracts. They were never referred to in class, as far as I heard. But they were there!

http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/19150769.html

May want to try and contact the good folks at NCSE; they may have some resources for you.

“Run for your life!”

Ack, seriously, that’s a tough situation to be in.

I used to think Richard Dawkins was a bit extreme, but something
tells me by the time the dust settles on this matter, we will realize
he was not only right but had not been tough enough against these
fanatics.

Take a lesson from the Middle East about what happens when a
religious group takes over a nation. Peace and harmony? Yeah,
tell that to Iran and Afghanistan.

http://biology.plosjournals.org/archive/1545-7885/6/5/supinfo/10.1371_journal.pbio.0060124.sd001.pdf

The authors argue that the nonresponse rate is not worrisome, based on prior bibliography.

The main reason I have not pursued teaching is because I know that if I did and I was brought up against that sort of scrutiny, I would not back down. I would probably wind up penniless and on CNN because I’ve exhausted the legal system in a refusal to “go quietly.”

I think there are many scientists that would love to teach but are too worried about the consequences for their families. Other capable scientists avoid it because it’s not worth the hassle to constantly fight the muzzling for 35K a year.

And, honestly, who wants to be the guy/gal standing in the classroom saying, “Nope. Your folks/pastor/everyone you’ve ever known are wrong. Evolution is very real.” I’d have no problems doing that with kids older than 18, but 11-17 year olds is another story. Folks here would descend upon your home with torches and pitch forks.

In case you are wondering, I would have no support on the state level either. They showed Expelled in our state capitol rotunda.

http://www.gov.mo.gov/firstlady/gallery/040208Expelled.htm

Was the sample not self-selected?

These things remind me of a Heinlein story I read long ago in which there was a civilization on a planet where there were three suns. Astronomers predicted that one day all three would be below the horizon. When that day occurred the stars shown themselves for the first time to the people of the world who consequently went mad, burned down their houses and were on their way to burn the scientists for reasons of fear and treachery when the story ended.

That would be the Asimov short story Nightfall, later fleshed out into a full novel. Seven suns, as I recall. Well worth picking up a copy of the full version, if you haven’t already read it.

I think I expected it to be less than that.

One of the lessons here is that people react first and think later if they think at all and another derived lesson is that people will stick to their belief even when that belief is proven explicitly to be flawed. Most people acquire facts and the kind of intelligence needed to assemble their personality into a stable form and cannot grasp very well the logical tools that would enable themselves to think outside of themselves and to see the “other.” It seems to me that this is what science does so well. I would suggest that critical thinking skills be emphasized to a fare thee well as soon as the child can be weened from it’s mother’s milk.
Now that’s a real science fiction story!

So, the sample was self-selected?!

Also, the non-response rate is huge. More people declined to reply to the survey than those who complied.

Did you miss the detailed discussion of precisely that in the supplementary text?

Where was the option for the origin of human existence not being suitable material for public high schools, science or otherwise? Nobody ever takes the time to explain that…

Huh? How could you possibly think that the origin and development of any species, most impotantly our own, is not suitable for public high schools? That’s absurd. How can you make that argument and not make the same argument against teaching basic history?

Evolution is a fundamental concept of biology, and understanding it is crucial if you ever want to become a biologist, (or, ya know, just want to actually understand how the world around you works) and high school is where these fundamental concepts are taught, and should be taught, in all disciplines.

If you’d like to make a reasonable, rational case for not teaching origins of the human, or any other species, to high schoolers that doesn’t begin and end with “cause that answer’s already in the Bible”, then I’m willing to listen… but I think you can already see that I think that would be a monumental mistake. I’m interested in our kids getting smarter… we’re dumb enough as a population already, thanks, without removing fundamental scientific concepts from the curriculum.

“Between March 5 and May 1, 2007, 939 teachers participated in the study, either by mail or by completing an identical questionnaire online. Our overall response rate of 48% yielded a sample that may be generalized to the population of all public school teachers who taught a high school–level biology course in the 2006–2007 academic year [...]”

So, the sample was self-selected?!

Also, the non-response rate is huge. More people declined to reply to the survey than those who complied.

These are two very loud alarm bells.

Skepticism begins at home. The BA and PZ should be more critical of a survey with such a questionable design.

However, if you turn into a monster (and I mean that in the most derogatory way) like PZ, i can guarantee that you will lose many a reader.

BA would never do that, he’s too family oriented. PZ says it as he sees it, and I for one love the way he says it. He’s angry, and rightly so IMNSHO, that these IDiots are trying to take us back to the dark ages, or at least slow down our progress to greater enlightenment.

PZ reminds me of those TV preachers who rant and scream about the evils of homosexuality, or the dangers of sex–and who end up turning up at the gay bar in drag, or in a hotel room with an underage prostitute.

Does this mean that you think PZ sneaks out & teaches Creationism at night school classes?