NPR on the State of Science Education

NPR has, on its blog, a post lamenting the recent findings that many high school biology teachers are not adhering to the established curriculum of teaching evolution. In a post titled “Speaking in Defense of Science,” Marcelo Gleiser writes:

Now, many will say that they are not anti-science per se, just against the science that clashes with their religious beliefs. So, antibiotics are fine, but the theory of evolution is not. If only they'd take the time to learn about how antibiotics work and about how over-prescribing can result in germ mutations that render some antibiotics ineffective. It's is a real-time illustration of the theory of evolution at work.

It is one of so many examples of how evolution works in our lives. I just finished up a CFSI post that delves into the evidence from pseudogenes and ERVs that is dang near impossible to explain using an ID or YEC framework. If we live in a God-created universe that works on principles established by Him billions of years ago and that behaves in an orderly, knowable fashion, then what we know is that science is real.

“High school biology teachers reluctant to endorse evolution in class”

So reads the headline from PhysOrg. The story, out of Penn State University, reads in part:

"Considerable research suggests that supporters of evolution, scientific methods, and reason itself are losing battles in America's classrooms," write Michael Berkman and Eric Plutzer, professors of political science at Penn State, in today's (Jan. 28) issue of Science.

The researchers examined data from the National Survey of High School Biology Teachers, a representative sample of 926 public high school biology instructors. They found only about 28 percent of those teachers consistently implement National Research Council recommendations calling for introduction of evidence that evolution occurred, and craft lesson plans with evolution as a unifying theme linking disparate topics in biology.

I think that a lot of teachers are running scared because of the shift in political climate in the country and the increasing prevalence of “academic freedom” legislation that has been passed. It is easier to not make waves then to risk the ire of a parent that doesn't agree with the teaching of evolution. The principle problem is, however worse:

[Authors] Berkman and Plutzer conclude that “the cautious 60 percent fail to explain the nature of scientific inquiry, undermine the authority of established experts, and legitimize creationist arguments.” As a result, “they may play a far more important role in hindering scientific literacy in the United States than the smaller number of explicit creationists.”

This allows students to graduate from high school without the necessary biological science understanding without being challenged until they get to college. As a result, the overall level of scientific knowledge of the discipline declines every year.

----------------
Now playing: Enya - Portrait
via FoxyTunes

Teacher Resigns in Connecticut

A school teacher in Connecticut, Mark Tangarone, has resigned his position, effective at the end of the year, rather than retire in two years, as was his plan. Why, you ask? As Patricia Gay writes in the Weston Forum:

Mr. Tangarone, a 17-year veteran of the Weston school system, claims that a program he wanted to teach about Charles Darwin and Abraham Lincoln was rejected by the school administration because it involved teaching evolution — the scientific theory that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor.

“I find it hard to believe that in this day and age that a teacher such as myself can be ordered to eliminate the teaching of Darwin’s work and the theory of evolution,” he said.

The response of the school administrator, Mark Ribbens, is astounding:

“While evolution is a robust scientific theory, it is a philosophically unsatisfactory explanation for the diversity of life. I could anticipate that a number of our parents might object to this topic as part of a TAG project, and further, parents who would object if evolution was part of a presentation by a student to students who do not participate in the TAG program.”

Philosophically unsatisfactory explanation for the diversity of life? If it is a scientifically satisfactory explanation for the diversity of life, and it is being taught as science, what difference does it make how philosophically unsatisfactory it is? Is that how we are to treat all scientific disciplines? There are, doubtless, those who would treat modern astronomy's explanation of the origins of the cosmos as "philosophically unsatisfactory." Should we not teach it on that basis? Should we not teach modern geology? It conflicts with flood geology, which many people find philosophically satisfactory, even if it has no scientific merit.

Those who let philosophical predilections hijack their duty to teach good science have no business in the education field and should step down or, as in the case of Don McLeroy, be voted out of office.

Hat tip to BioLogos.

----------------
Now playing: Peter Gabriel - Red Rain
via FoxyTunes