Teaching of creationism in US public school science classes has dropped over past 12 years

[essentialsaltes]

Of course, teaching creationism (as the term is usually understood in this context) in public high school science classes is not just unscientific, but unconstitutional as a matter of law. As a matter of practice, however, we know it slips through the cracks here and there in places where no one complains.

Recently, the results of study surveying biology teachers at hundreds of public schools was published, replicating a similar study done in 2007. The Christian Post's take (and a link to the study itself):

A new study suggests there's been “substantial reductions in overtly creationist instruction” in United States public high schools in the last 12 years while there’s been a spike in the time teachers “devote to human evolution and general evolutionary processes.”

The new report titled “Teaching evolution in U.S. public schools: a continuing challenge” was released last week by Evolution: Education and Outreach, a peer-reviewed journal that promotes comprehensive teaching of evolutionary theory.

The study indicates that the average number of class hours devoted to the teaching of human evolution in U.S. public schools rose by 60% from 2007 to 2019 while the percentage of teachers who didn’t cover Creationism or Intelligent Design at all increased by 7%.

The study also finds that 82% of teachers didn’t teach Creationism or Intelligent Design at all in 2019, an increase from 75% of teachers who said the same thing in 2007.

The survey suggests that there was a drop — 8.6% in 2007 to 5.6% in 2019 — in teachers who reported "exclusively emphasizing creationism as a 'valid scientific alternative.'"

---

A summary of the shift shows gains in science being taught as science and reductions in all of the avoidant or actively antiscience teaching styles.

 

[ZNP]

Sad because the statistical probability of evolution through random mutation accounting for the genesis of a new species is calculated as 1 out of 1 with 40 zeros after it.

It is straightforward problem to calculate the probability of a mutation in DNA accounting for a new functional protein composed of 140 amino acids in a chain, with there being 20 different amino acids to chose from for each of those 140 slots. Recently scientists were able to calculate how many different arrangements of these amino acids would result in a functioning protein, we know how many proteins you might need in a species, and there you go, simply math problem to figure out the odds. What the odds say is there is absolutely, positively no way all the species that show up at the Cambrian explosion could have evolved due to random mutations.

 

[Strathos]

staff ed.

Science classes have to be neutral about the topic of religion. So it's up to each pupil to interpret what they learn about evolution as fitting into a framework of theism or not.it

 

[AV1611VET]

Creationism does not belong in science class; it belongs in history class.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Creationism does not belong in science class;

I'll take that as a win.

it belongs in history class.

Fortunately, I can nudge my spouse who has a PhD in history. You lose again.

 

[Hank77]

Fortunately, I can nudge my spouse who has a PhD in history. You lose again.

Since when does history not include culture and culture not include religious beliefs? My grandson's freshman World History class covered the basic beliefs of all the world's main religions.

 

[VirOptimus]

Sad because the statistical probability of evolution through random mutation accounting for the genesis of a new species is calculated as 1 out of 1 with 40 zeros after it.

It is straightforward problem to calculate the probability of a mutation in DNA accounting for a new functional protein composed of 140 amino acids in a chain, with there being 20 different amino acids to chose from for each of those 140 slots. Recently scientists were able to calculate how many different arrangements of these amino acids would result in a functioning protein, we know how many proteins you might need in a species, and there you go, simply math problem to figure out the odds. What the odds say is there is absolutely, positively no way all the species that show up at the Cambrian explosion could have evolved due to random mutations.

....

You dont understand the ToE or how probability works.

 

[AV1611VET]

Fortunately, I can nudge my spouse who has a PhD in history. You lose again.

Pwned by a PhD?

I consider than an honor.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It is straightforward problem to calculate the probability of a mutation in DNA accounting for a new functional protein composed of 140 amino acids in a chain, with there being 20 different amino acids to chose from for each of those 140 slots. Recently scientists were able to calculate how many different arrangements of these amino acids would result in a functioning protein, we know how many proteins you might need in a species, and there you go, simply math problem to figure out the odds. What the odds say is there is absolutely, positively no way all the species that show up at the Cambrian explosion could have evolved due to random mutations.

A citation or reference would help, but calculations of this type are often flawed, whether it's implicitly assuming a specific goal, ignoring cumulative change, ignoring changes in gene regulation, or - as seems to be the case in your example - underestimating the likelihood of random mutations resulting in useful functionality - this article explains how that might be: The Strange Inevitability of Evolution.

 

[ZNP]

....

You dont understand the ToE or how probability works.

I understand both quite well.

To see random mutations making small changes has been proved, look at the differentiation we see with dogs. It demonstrates how amazing is the potential differentiation in the genome of a species.

But to get a whole new species, virtually every major phyla appeared during a 15 million period known as the Cambrian explosion. You can't do that with minor little changes. Darwin said the same thing, he said that we would find missing links that would explain the Cambrian explosion, we never have.

 

[ZNP]

A citation or reference would help, but calculations of this type are often flawed, whether it's implicitly assuming a specific goal, ignoring cumulative change, ignoring changes in gene regulation, or - as seems to be the case in your example - underestimating the likelihood of random mutations resulting in useful functionality - this article explains how that might be: The Strange Inevitability of Evolution.

Yet the question that remains is: Why does the space of evolutionary options have this essential, robust structure? “We simply don’t know why genotype networks are interwoven the way they are,” admits Wagner.

Yes, where did this robust structure come from? That is the question.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Yet the question that remains is: Why does the space of evolutionary options have this essential, robust structure? “We simply don’t know why genotype networks are interwoven the way they are,” admits Wagner.

Yes, where did this robust structure come from? That is the question.

The hypothesis is that they evolved to be that way - less robust structures were less successful. The 'why' question is really a matter of discovering the details of how that structure developed; we don't know yet because it's only recently been discovered, so the research is yet to be done.

 

[ZNP]

The hypothesis is that they evolved to be that way - less robust structures were less successful. The 'why' question is really a matter of discovering the details of how that structure developed; we don't know yet because it's only recently been discovered, so the research is yet to be done.

Yes, true, but also the mechanism of random mutations cannot be how because there are way too many mutations that have to take place all at the same time to get a viable species. The odds against this happening are astronomically high, by comparison winning the lottery would be a "sure bet". To make it even more impossible a whole bunch of phyla all appear in the span of 15 million years.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, true, but also the mechanism of random mutations cannot be how because there are way too many mutations that have to take place all at the same time to get a viable species. The odds against this happening are astronomically high, by comparison winning the lottery would be a "sure bet". To make it even more impossible a whole bunch of phyla all appear in the span of 15 million years.

Indeed.

" According to the theory of evolution, taken in the broad sense, living matter arose at some point in the past from non-living matter by ordinary chemical and physical processes. This is called abiogenesis. Creationists often attempt to calculate the probability of this occurring, which is difficult to do. However, it is possible to give an estimate based on reasonable assumptions. Amino acids and nucleic acids are the building blocks of life, and they come in two forms, which spiral left and right. All life consists of only one of these forms. Since both forms are generated equally by inorganic chemical processes, it seems hard to imagine that life could have originated having only one of these forms. Recently it has been claimed that meteorites have an excess of one form over another. But due to racemization, these forms tend to equalize over time, so we can expect that in a primitive earth, there would have been essentially equal numbers of both forms.

Biologists currently estimate that the smallest life form as we know it would have needed about 256 genes. (See Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Volume 93, Number 19, pp. 10268-10273 at http://journals.at-home.com/get_doc/1854083/8551). A gene is typically 1000 or more base pairs long, and there is some space in between, so 256 genes would amount to about 300,000 bases of DNA. The deoxyribose in the DNA ``backbone'' determines the direction in which it will spiral. Since organic molecules can be generated in both forms, the chance of obtaining all one form or another in 300,000 bases is one in two to the 300,000 power. This is about one in 10 to the 90,000 power. It seems to be necessary for life that all of these bases spiral in the same direction. Now, if we imagine many, many DNA molecules being formed in the early history of the earth, we might have say 10 100 molecules altogether (which is really much too high). But even this would make the probability of getting one DNA molecule right about one in 10 to the 89,900 power, still essentially zero. And we are not even considering what proteins the DNA generates, or how the rest of the cell structure would get put together! So the real probability would be fantastically small.

Biologists are hypothesizing some RNA-based life form that might have had a smaller genome and might have given rise to a cell with about 256 genes. Until this is demonstrated, one would have to say that the problem of abiogenesis is very severe indeed for the theory of evolution. "

SOURCE

 

[VirOptimus]

Okay, wrong. Next.

No, that is true.

Intelligent design - Wikipedia

Learn the basics.

 

[VirOptimus]

I understand both quite well.

To see random mutations making small changes has been proved, look at the differentiation we see with dogs. It demonstrates how amazing is the potential differentiation in the genome of a species.

But to get a whole new species, virtually every major phyla appeared during a 15 million period known as the Cambrian explosion. You can't do that with minor little changes. Darwin said the same thing, he said that we would find missing links that would explain the Cambrian explosion, we never have.

Yes, you really really dont understand the ToE or probability.

Try to learn the basics.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Yes, true, but also the mechanism of random mutations cannot be how because there are way too many mutations that have to take place all at the same time to get a viable species. The odds against this happening are astronomically high, by comparison winning the lottery would be a "sure bet". To make it even more impossible a whole bunch of phyla all appear in the span of 15 million years.

Again, without a citation, I can't be more specific than what I said above - except to say that speciation has been observed many times both in the lab and in the wild - but more generally, the idea that major changes require vast numbers of mutations is mistaken; minor changes in the regulation of gene expression during development can produce major body changes, either in in particular body areas or over the whole body.

For example, the remarkable similarity between modern bird morphology and that of therapod dinosaur juveniles suggests that birds are paedomorphic, i.e. they retain many juvenile features of their dinosaur ancestors into adulthood. Such a large morphological change would involve relatively few changes in the regulation of gene expression during development. The ostrich takes this a step further, retaining the down feathers of nestlings into adulthood.

 

[ZNP]

Again, without a citation, I can't be more specific than what I said above - except to say that speciation has been observed many times both in the lab and in the wild - but more generally, the idea that major changes require vast numbers of mutations is mistaken; minor changes in the regulation of gene expression during development can produce major body changes, either in in particular body areas or over the whole body.

For example, the remarkable similarity between modern bird morphology and that of therapod dinosaur juveniles suggests that birds are paedomorphic, i.e. they retain many juvenile features of their dinosaur ancestors into adulthood. Such a large morphological change would involve relatively few changes in the regulation of gene expression during development. The ostrich takes this a step further, retaining the down feathers of nestlings into adulthood.

You have evidence of one species evolving into another? Where?

 

[AV1611VET]

staff edit

That's why I think ID can take a hike.

I prefer Creationism.

The one that describes names, places, events; and even who the eyewitnesses were.

 

[ZNP]

Some random guy says no, parroting a lawyer in a black robe, because it corresponds to his feelings.

Science!

If you have a particular objection to the ID FAQ previously posted, state your specific argument.

The specific argument is that it goes against their religion, it is blasphemous to the Atheist religion.