The Undermining of Science

"The data reveal a pervasive reluctance of teachers to forthrightly explain evolutionary biology" the authors Berkman and Plutzer reveal. "The data further expose a cycle of ignorance in which community antievolution attitudes are perpetuated by teaching that reinforces local community sentiment" Rhetoric? No. Just the results of a recent study in Science (2011, vol. 331, p. 404-405) where biology teachers wherewithal's come under scrutiny. As one would expect, in a survey of the practices of biology teachers, there are the extreme ends of what biology teachers teach. It is no surprise that 28% of those surveyed follow consistently the (U.S.) National Science Education Standards, where evolution not only is taught, but "unabashedly" so. And in this era of blatant, hard right fundamentalism, that 13% surveyed "explicitly advocate creationism or intelligent design" in their biology classroom. But the focus of the authors wonderment is the group in the middle: the nearly 60% who really don't care one way or another, or, who are unable, and untrained to deal with the impending questions that evolution brings to the classroom.
These teachers deal with the issue in three ways; some teach evolution as only applicable to molecular biology (in absence of macroevolution of species), or as a necessary evil in teaching, or, and is more often the case, they teach "all positions - scientific or not." Remember, this is a biology classroom, not after school religious club meeting. Because of this lack of gumption and authority "The cautious 60%" the authors maintain "may play a far more important role in hindering scientific literacy in the United States than the smaller number of explicit creationists."
Its really no surprise that those teachers who have taken evolutionary biology classes are more likely, statistically, to favor teaching the subject. Those who haven't had the classes are more apt to be in the fence-straddling 60% group. "Many nonresearch institutions lack the resources to offer a stand-alone evolution course regularly, however, and such institutions educate many high school science teachers [emphasis added]." By improving the requirements for the teachers, like evolution, is essential to improving high school biology. Though the teaching of the potential teacher is not the be-all, end-all either. In the U.S., there are several national science organizations that provide resources to teachers on issues like evolution. Making a stronger connection between the teacher and the recent advances in evolutionary studies is imperative.
But maybe we should just let the kids decide, our 15-17 year old. They can explore on the Internet, have the skill set and maturity to sift through the good, the bad, and the really ugly science. They should have some say on whats being taught. Oh, wait. They are students, not teachers.