Home » Culture, Humor » “We [Darwinists] Suck”, says Coyne after realizing 63% of nation’s biology teachers are “creationists”

“We [Darwinists] Suck”, says Coyne after realizing 63% of nation’s biology teachers are “creationists”

Jerry Coyne is exasperated with the findings of a scholarly publication that surveyed the beliefs of biology teachers. Coyne interprets the results of this survey as follows:

47% believe in Intelligent Design
28% in [godless] evolution
16% in creationism
9% no opinion

(See: We Suck and Selective Creationists)

He labels the 47% who believe in Intelligent Design (which is he equates with Theistic Evolution) as “Selective Creationists”. So combined with the 16% of traditional creationists, that’s 63% of the biology teachers who are in his view “creationists”.

But what would happen if the 47% of Theistic Evolutionist/Intelligent Design biology teachers realized that Darwin is being refuted by secular scientific literature with every passing day? Will they, as Coyne fears, join ranks with ID proponents? Coyne observes:

Nearly one in two teachers thinks that humans evolved but that God guided the process.

Can we count those 48% of “guided-by-Godders” 0n our side? I agree with P. Z.: the answer is NO. Yes, they do accept that our species changed genetically over time, but they see God as having pulled the strings. That’s not the way evolution works. The graph labels these 48% as believers in intelligent design, and that’s exactly what they are, for they see God as nudging human evolution toward some preconceived goal. We’re designed. These people are creationists: selective creationists.

In view of Coyne’s interpretation, I’d like to salute our “selective creationist” brothers at BioLogos. :-)

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

5 Responses to “We [Darwinists] Suck”, says Coyne after realizing 63% of nation’s biology teachers are “creationists”

  1. But, “selection” is good, isn’t it?

  2. Or, is it only selection-which-really-isn’t-selection, that is good? It gets so confusing!

  3. Maybe the reason “we suck” is that “we” having been trying to sell snake oil, and people are starting to figure that out, especially people who recognize the enormous sophistication of the technology found in living systems — like biology teachers.

  4. 4

    The good thing here is that students are being introduced to biology at the HS level by teachers who are more likely to present both sides of evolution – before they get to the university where it all gets churned up in a Darwinian soup.

    But this is sort of a revolving door.

    Most students will not get past a HS biology class to the university, so the dynamic contributes to the larger numbers among the non-scientist population, who reject Darwinism, but have had at least a HS education in biology. And clearly, those who have moved on to study biology in University are not all accepting it – at least that’s clear among HS teachers.

    The Darwin rejecters, then clearly see that the HS level is where they know they can have an impact. It may take a new generation of students to impact the university.

  5. It’s 1979 II: 20 years from now . . .

Leave a Reply