Study Says Texas Science Professors Don’t Want Creationism Taught Because It’s Embarrassing
18 November 2008, 5:00 PM. By Daniel Mauser
According to a survey done by University of Texas-Arlington, 95% of science professors at public or private Texas universities do not believe weaknesses in the theory of evolution should be mandatory teaching at public schools. Why? Good question!
Most study respondents said they believe any focus on the weaknesses of evolution theory and on alternative theories would harm students’ college readiness and their ability to compete for jobs.
No mention of the irrefutable nature of Evolution. No mention, even, of the word Creationism. Just the mention that a student bringing up the possibility of a weakness in evolution theory is going to be laughed at and rejected by job interviewers. So, talking about Creationism is sort of like talking about Scientology. You’re a great person until you try to seriously discuss it, at which point you’re just a crazy person who needs to be quarantined. [Ed. note: And we're no Creationists, but scientists are just as stubborn in their beliefs as religious fanatics.]
This particular study was done on behalf of the “Texas Freedom Network,” which often opposes social conservatives. Says the TFN’s president Kathy Miller:
“This survey leaves no doubt that the political crusade against evolution and other attempts to dumb down our public school science curriculum are deeply misguided.”
Ms. Miller apparently seems to forget that she’s crusading against Creationism—nay, weaknesses in evolution theory—and misguidance is entirely relative. Were our Texas elementary school teachers misguided for teaching us the correct spelling of “ya’ll”? If we can learn that “we” lost the Civil War and still manage to socially interact with “Northerners”, then we can learn about the missing link and the work that goes into creating Jurassic Fight Club.
(5) 
Post Your Comment
Did you know you can now share a link, image or video?
Click to submit your own notas.
While it may seem “scientists are just as stubborn in their beliefs as religious fanatics,” isn’t there a HUGE amount of difference between a “belief” based on faith and one based on an interpretation of evidence compiled and analyzed according to a generally accepted method in dialogue with all other findings by that same method?
We can certainly have a serious discussion of Creationism, and we should. It’s just not going to be a scientific discussion, because Creationism isn’t science. Note I’m not saying it’s WRONG, though I might be able to convince you of that too, just that it’s not science because it’s not based on observation of the physical world.
If I were hiring for a position where understanding the essence of science was part of the job, then yes, an applicant who thought Creationism was science would be disqualified.
And thanks for showing me how to spell ya’ll.
um, i always thought “y’all” was “y’all” because it’s a conjugation of “you” + “all.”
“ya’ll”? really? what was your teacher’s reasoning for that? not as embarrassing as admitting evolution might have some cracks in their theory. where’s xenu to settle this debate once and for all?!
ya’ll = ya + all
Texans say “ya” not “you”
creationism/intell.design = una mendacidad