Creationism vs. Evolution in the Classroom

I'm not following what is interesting about that particular comment?  Seems like what one would expect. 

Teachers tend to teach what they know?

If there's a ban on teaching creationism as science, and teachers are still teaching it, it sounds like a disciplinary issue.

Looks like an underhanded comment to me.  In essence those who teach creationism in addition to evolution are weaker science teachers?  I would like to see where they drew this conclusion from.

as a moderate republican and a christian (I'm not a "conservative christian" or an "evangelical" I do not believe thar creationism should be taught in science classes, it simply isn't science, it's theology.  A great read on the issue is Judge Jones opinion in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Dist. Judge Jones is a G.W. Bush appointee and I find his opinion on the matter very compelling.

Additionally, I don't want someone else teaching my child my theology.  Teaching such personal beliefs is up to me and my wife.  Also, given the state of the education system there is barely enough time to teach the basics, so why muddy the waters with sneaking in theology into a science course.  If we would like our daughter to have religious instruction we will either do it at home, send her to a religious based school or let her take a comparative religion class.

Amen...uh, I mean...I agree  Seriously, agreed- I don't have kids, but yeah (I am also not conservative or evangelical) - it's the church's job (meaning church as the body which includes you and your wife, your pastor, sunday school teachers, etc.) to teach theology and if that means a Christian school, then that's up to you and rightly so.

I don't think that comment itself necessarily implied that, but I do agree that teachers who teach creationism and evolution are weaker science teachers, as they aren't teaching science. 

Science teachers who don't teach science are, by definition, weaker science teachers than those who do. Creationism is not science, it's theology. Therefore, wasting science class teaching time lecturing on theology is weaker science teaching.

If I were a math teacher who spent my classroom time teaching poetry, I would be a weaker math teacher than one who spent the same time teaching math, wouldn't I?

Why is this even a question?

The quote says that they have weaker science backgrounds, not that they are weak teachers. As written, it means they've taken fewer relevant course

The article implied that all the teachers were teaching evolution, but that some also devoted time to creationism.  I don't see how knowledge of both theories indicates a weaker science background.  They didn't really expand on how they drew that conclusion.

Just a thunk:

How about the schools teach the biology.....evolution, and the churches teach creation, then let people decide for themselves which they choose to believe.

Or perhaps we were created in God's image and then evolved, therefore God looks like monkey.  I type that with all confidence that God has a sense of humor...or at least understands mine.

Here's a link to the actual article that the ABC news report references

http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.0060124&ct=1

Tryuing to make any actual sense out of most news organizations reports about scholarly articles is often an exercise in frustrtion.

nb. I have not read the whole articel.

They said that teachers who teach creationism tend to have not taken evolutionary biology. Having taken an evoloution course equates to a stronger background for a teacher teaching evolution.

Why do they have to be mutually exclusive?  That man *evolved* from a monkey or crawled out of the bog is not an absolute fact; that man was created is also not an absolute fact.

Many scientists who are also Christians and vice-versa believe that both disciplines can co-exist in harmony.

To some of the original points, I've got no problem with evolution being taught, as long as it stops before claiming that man *evolved* as noted above.  And at this point, the caveat could be added that says some people claim, based upon certain observations, that man evolved from xyz and other people claim that man was created by an omnipotent being.  And leave it at that.

So many people claim that the earth started as a result of the "Big Bang," yet when pressed on the issue vis-a-vis the question "OK, fine, from where did the singularity come that preceded the Bang?"  The usual answer is "I don't know" or "It just was always there." Well, this obviously assumes A LOT and leaves science not necessarily able to provide any more evidence that creationists can provide.

Just to add to this, a couple of interesting reads:

"The Language of God" - by Dr. Francis Collins, the guy who headed the Human Genome project. He became a believer in his 20's, while he was studying science. (He is not a huge fan of intelligent design, for specific reasons - and he is a Bible-believing Christian). Very interesting guy, VERY intelligent and well-spoken without sounding pedantic. I read the book, but I also heard him give a talk about it recently at a local church - he lives in the DC area.  

"The Case for a Creator" - by Lee Strobel. Same guy who wrote "The Case for Christ" and "The Case for Faith". I've read all three and like "Creator" the least, as I personally think some of his "findings" are a little bit stretched and not as well-supported as I would have liked. But it may just be the way it came across in the book. But still an interesting read and brings up some interesting points.

I think it's fine to introduce creationsism/intelligent design theories in science class only if ALL alternative intelligent design theories are introduced and discussed, including the Pastafarian belief system, which is actually science-based, and not theology. This letter was sent to the Kansas state school board making such a request, which sparked the Pastafarian movement worldwide, which I am proud to be a member and believer.

Carbo Diem. RAmen.

Agreed 100%.  Also with the post that if one religious based system is going to be taught, then we should address them all, not just the Christian based system.   If we are going to have well rounded children, then let them be well rounded.  It's funny to me because I went to a Catholic school  for elementary and while we had a religion class and a science class, we didn't focus on creationism in science class at all.  It's funny that now, it's an issue in public schools. 

There are a variety of courses that could contribute to one's knowledge of the evolution theory.  How can you just compare one course, and conclude a teacher's knowledge based on just one course?  Perhaps that teacher took a geology or botany course that also touched on the theories of evolution.

I am just saying that drawing a conclusion based on insufficient information is misleading.

Have you read the actual article?

Coming at this from a slightly different angle... (first admission -- I haven't read the article, and I guess my comments really don't address that article so much as addressing opinions expressed in this thread)

I've read the comments that "evolution is science, creation is theology", and to me I see them both as theories. Why can they not both be presented as possibilities? The real crux of the matter is "which is fact".

"Science" with the stance presented here so far would really look stupid if creation was eventually proven as fact.

I guess, though, I'm more of the intelligent design, or "directed evolution" camp -- I don't see these theories as being mutually exclusive.

Yes.

I know - my catholic high did not teach creationism at all - my science classes were science (and I am now a geologist).  My only presentation of creationism in science class was in 8th grade (public school) it was given a mention and the teacher told us to decide for ourselves.

As a scientist, my judgement is that a teacher who teaches creationism in a science class is a weeker science teacher.