Assuming this is accurate (and I have no reason to believe it isn’t), it’s pretty shocking:

“
Should students have a choice to learn evolution or creationism in school or just be forced to learn evolution?

Lee Thé, BA Sociology UCLA;careers in advertising,teaching,publishing
Updated Apr 14, 2017

None of the answers here—pro or con—recognize the fundamental fallacy of the question. Namely that in reality around 2/3 of American high schools don’t teach evolution, according to a survey of high school biology teachers conducted by the National Council for Science Education (NCSE).

In most of those high schools the bio teacher would like to teach evolution but is prevented from doing so by the organized pressure of Christianist students and their parents.

Right wing political Christianity’s fight to teach their beliefs in science classes failed in the courts years ago, by and large, but they didn’t give up. Instead the movement made a strategic decision to fly under the national radar and simply force teachers to obey them wherever they dominate (i.e. in Red State America).
… “

https://www.quora.com/qemail/track_click?al_imp=eyJ0eXBlIjogMzMsICJoYXNoIjogIjkwNDA2MDY1MDg4NTc1ODU0fDF8MXw0MDM2MTA3NSJ9&al_pri=QuestionLinkClickthrough&aoid=VcOr1CxmIG7&aoty=2&aty=4&click_pos=1&ct=1580078333725382&et=2&id=17ce33ffd4f24cfb96e2f7863d7530b1&request_id=90406065088575854&source=1&src=1&st=1580078333725382&stories=1_MyTgL73XqxD%7C1_R2Wxwx8Pj96%7C1_YCTnYu1jvqa%7C1_1Pyiva90GpY%7C1_8IiRkeuobru%7C1_zr1vcoq4qkW%7C1_bcdZtnLj6Vr%7C1_zBZyUMF3HvU%7C1_X6sESw3ltYB%7C1_4erC4mjPAA&ty=1&ty_data=MyTgL73XqxD&uid=1KV8BNvh3WD&v=0

Does that mean that they don’t teach evolution, but are compelled to teach creationism? Or do they simply skip past the whole origin of life subject, teaching neither evolution ore creationism?

Biology must be a really easy exam in creationist school areas.

Go into exam room, write down ‘God did it’, hand in exam paper, guaranteed top-level pass.

captain_spalding said:

Does that mean that they don’t teach evolution, but are compelled to teach creationism? Or do they simply skip past the whole origin of life subject, teaching neither evolution ore creationism?

Biology must be a really easy exam in creationist school areas.

Go into exam room, write down ‘God did it’, hand in exam paper, guaranteed top-level pass.

From the article:

“Second, what’s in the textbook makes no difference. In the affected regions, if the textbook has an evolution chapter or sections, the teacher just skips or skims over it and doesn’t test for it.”

captain_spalding said:

Does that mean that they don’t teach evolution, but are compelled to teach creationism? Or do they simply skip past the whole origin of life subject, teaching neither evolution ore creationism?

Biology must be a really easy exam in creationist school areas.

Go into exam room, write down ‘God did it’, hand in exam paper, guaranteed top-level pass.

Not quite top level. You must also write Praise the Lord.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/how-many-creationists-are-there-in-america/

A bit if a breakdown.

I assume the quorist is referring to the Berkman and Plutzer paper from 2011 which found the following:
`

More promising data suggest that Amer- ica’s high schools contain thousands of out- standing, effective educators of evolution- ary biology. We estimate that 28% of all biology teachers consistently implement the major recommendations and conclusions of the National Research Council ( 7): They unabashedly introduce evidence that evolu- tion has occurred and craft lesson plans so that evolution is a theme that unifi es disparate topics in biology ( 2).

It’s not true to say two thirds of high schools in the US don’t teach evolution. Almost all do. The paper found that somewhat less than a third of high school biology teachers are effective teachers of evolution. Which is not great.

http://www.life.illinois.edu/evolutionworkshop/Evolution_Workshop/Day_1_files/Science-2011-Berkman-404-5.pdf

Here is the Berkman and Plutzer paper

dv said:

I assume the quorist is referring to the Berkman and Plutzer paper from 2011 which found the following:
`

More promising data suggest that Amer- ica’s high schools contain thousands of out- standing, effective educators of evolution- ary biology. We estimate that 28% of all biology teachers consistently implement the major recommendations and conclusions of the National Research Council ( 7): They unabashedly introduce evidence that evolu- tion has occurred and craft lesson plans so that evolution is a theme that unifi es disparate topics in biology ( 2).

It’s not true to say two thirds of high schools in the US don’t teach evolution. Almost all do. The paper found that somewhat less than a third of high school biology teachers are effective teachers of evolution. Which is not great.

These hyphenated words are a little off putting. Amer-ica’s, out-standing, evolution-ary, unifi es.

dv said:

I assume the quorist is referring to the Berkman and Plutzer paper from 2011 which found the following:
`

More promising data suggest that Amer- ica’s high schools contain thousands of out- standing, effective educators of evolution- ary biology. We estimate that 28% of all biology teachers consistently implement the major recommendations and conclusions of the National Research Council ( 7): They unabashedly introduce evidence that evolu- tion has occurred and craft lesson plans so that evolution is a theme that unifi es disparate topics in biology ( 2).

It’s not true to say two thirds of high schools in the US don’t teach evolution. Almost all do. The paper found that somewhat less than a third of high school biology teachers are effective teachers of evolution. Which is not great.

OK, so not as bad as the OP suggested, but as you say, certainly not great either.

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

I assume the quorist is referring to the Berkman and Plutzer paper from 2011 which found the following:
`

More promising data suggest that Amer- ica’s high schools contain thousands of out- standing, effective educators of evolution- ary biology. We estimate that 28% of all biology teachers consistently implement the major recommendations and conclusions of the National Research Council ( 7): They unabashedly introduce evidence that evolu- tion has occurred and craft lesson plans so that evolution is a theme that unifi es disparate topics in biology ( 2).

It’s not true to say two thirds of high schools in the US don’t teach evolution. Almost all do. The paper found that somewhat less than a third of high school biology teachers are effective teachers of evolution. Which is not great.

OK, so not as bad as the OP suggested, but as you say, certainly not great either.

The full text of the OP has an edited comment at the end that recognises that the quoted paper doesn’t exactly say what he said it says, although arguably still presenting lack of evolution teaching as being more widespread than it really is.

Also another link:
https://ncse.ngo/too-many-teachers-ignore-evolution

> in reality around 2/3 of American high schools don’t teach evolution, according to a survey of high school biology teachers conducted by the National Council for Science Education (NCSE).

Eek. Don’t know how unbiased the NCSE survey is, but still eek!

Charlies grandad was Erasmus, he was something of a polymath.
He could write a poem, long long poems, I’ll track some down and republish them here on this very forum.
And I’ve never heard of the Midlands Enlightenment.

“Erasmus Darwin was an English physician. One of the key thinkers of the Midlands Enlightenment, he was also a natural philosopher, physiologist, slave-trade abolitionist, inventor and poet. His poems included much natural history, including a statement of evolution and the relatedness of all forms of life.”

mollwollfumble said:

> in reality around 2/3 of American high schools don’t teach evolution, according to a survey of high school biology teachers conducted by the National Council for Science Education (NCSE).

Eek. Don’t know how unbiased the NCSE survey is, but still eek!

See dv’s comments and links.

we agree that evolution is fundamental to biology, and that fundamentalists oppose it, but we also agree that it is but a small part of what there is to learn about and do in biology

If the teaching of evolution can be ignored in favour of creationism then that’s quite a range of sciences called into question.

Cymek said:

If the teaching of evolution can be ignored in favour of creationism then that’s quite a range of sciences called into question.

You don’t need all that heathen science stuff if you have faith in the lord.

Tamb said:

Cymek said:

If the teaching of evolution can be ignored in favour of creationism then that’s quite a range of sciences called into question.

You don’t need all that heathen science stuff if you have faith in the lord.

It is like that isn’t it.