nrcresearchpress/doi/full/10.1139/g11-046?src=recsys&#.VFWrcbsVkji biology.mcmaster.ca/singh/ See: Neo-Darwinists want to indoctrinate biologists, proponents of intelligent design. Despite the lack of evidence on the evolution they organize them the educational courses of evolutionary biology. Every biologist alone is able to analyze the value of Icons of evolution. This is a sophisticated personal attacks. Biologists, who are supporters of ID are accused of ignorance :) news.psu.edu/story/161218/2011/01/27/high-school-biology-teachers-reluctant-endorse-evolution-class University Park, Pa. -- The majority of public high school biology teachers are not strong classroom advocates of evolutionary biology, despite 40 years of court cases that have ruled teaching creationism or intelligent design violates the Constitution, according to Penn State political scientists. A mandatory undergraduate course in evolutionary biology for prospective teachers, and frequent refresher courses for current teachers, may be part of the solution, they say. Considerable research suggests that supporters of evolution, scientific methods, and reason itself are losing battles in Americas classrooms, write Michael Berkman and Eric Plutzer, professors of political science at Penn State, in the 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. In contrast, Berkman and Plutzer found that about 13 percent of biology teachers explicitly advocate creationism or intelligent design by spending at least one hour of class time presenting it in a positive light. Many of these teachers typically rejected the possibility that scientific methods can shed light on the origin of the species, and considered both evolution and creationism as belief systems that cannot be fully proven or discredited. Berkman and Plutzer dubbed the remaining teachers the cautious 60 percent, who are neither strong advocates for evolutionary biology nor explicit endorsers of nonscientific alternatives. Our data show that these teachers understandably want to avoid controversy, they said. [......] sciencemag.org/content/331/6016/404 Just over 5 years ago, the scientific community turned its attention to a courtroom in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Eleven parents sued their Dover, Pennsylvania, school board to overturn a policy explicitly legitimizing intelligent design creationism. The case, Kitzmiller v. Dover, followed a familiar script: Local citizens wanted their religious values validated by the science curriculum; prominent academics testified to the scientific consensus on evolution; and creationists lost decisively. Intelligent design was not science, held the court, but rather an effort to advance a religious view via public schools, a violation of the U.S. Constitutions Establishment Clause (1). Many scientists cheered the decision, agreeing with the court that the school board displayed “breathtaking inanity” [p. 765 (1)]. We suggest that the cheering was premature and the victory incomplete. sciencemag.org/content/331/6016/404
Posted on: Sun, 02 Nov 2014 21:53:51 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015