New Survey in Science Shows That Evolutionary Propaganda Isn’t As Effective As Some Had Hoped

The journal Science recently reported on the results of The National Survey of High School Biology Teachers.1 This survey studied the teaching habits 926 public high school biology instructors that are supposed to be representative of the nation as a whole. The results cause alarm in some and hope in others.

The “take home” result is that 13% of the teachers surveyed spend at least one hour teaching either creationism or intelligent design in a positive light. In contrast, 28% of teachers are strong advocates of evolutionary biology, stressing it as a unifying theme in the life sciences. The majority (roughly 60%), however, advocate neither position. In fact, many of them spend as little time as possible on the subject of origins.

The authors of the article, of course, find these results appalling. To them, evolution is something that should never be questioned. It is scientific dogma, and you should never question the dogma. While they obviously are upset at the teachers who dare to teach against the dogma, they actually heap the most scorn on teachers who have the audacity to teach all sides of the subject. They state:


There are so many things wrong with this tiny paragraph that it is hard to know where to begin. Nevertheless, I will give it a try. First, they use the phrase “all positions—scientific or not” in an attempt to imply that any view other than the evolutionary view is “not science.” Tell that to the more than 700 PhD or MD scientists who are willing to publicly state they are skeptical that evolution can explain life as we know it today. Or tell that to the more than 3,000 academics who are known to be skeptical of Darwinism.

Next, they imply the teachers are naive in believing that 15-year-old students can actually think for themselves. As someone who has spent a great deal of time educating students in this age group, I can state categorically that most of them can, indeed, think for themselves. In fact, some of them can out-think me and several other scientists I know. Indeed, the most intellectually intimidating person I ever met was one of my high-school-aged students!

I expect that the authors (and many in the evolutionary biology community) specifically don’t want these young people thinking for themselves. When students think for themselves, useless scientific paradigms eventually fall. I applaud those teachers for their confidence in their students’ abilities, and they are probably doing more for science education than either the ones who promote creationism or the ones who promote evolutionism.

The authors also imply that rejecting evolution means rejecting thousands of peer-reviewed papers. Of course, they are quite wrong about that. Rejecting evolution has nothing to do with rejecting peer-reviewed papers. It has everything to do with rejecting various authors’ opinions about what the data in their peer-reviewed papers mean.

This seems to be one of the major things the authors of the article fail to grasp. The authors imply that there is a difference between debating common ancestry and debating personal opinions. They fail to grasp the fact that common ancestry itself is a personal opinion about what the data mean. Most of the data I have seen promoted as evidence for common ancestry is much better understood as evidence for common design. To claim that common ancestry is “well-established” just because the majority of scientists think it is true is simply using the argument from authority, one of the most insidious logical fallacies found in science.

The authors stress that people must work harder to make sure that evolution is taught as a unifying theme in all biology courses across the U.S. The problem is that many people have been working hard at this for many years, but these survey results specifically show that the effort is just not making headway. The reason, of course, is simple. Rather than trying to promote a scientific discussion of evolution, people like the authors of this article have been trying to promote pro-evolution propaganda. While propaganda might be effective in some areas, it is not effective in science, because science is based on the data. As long as the data do not support evolution as a unifying theme in biology, there will be many scientists and science educators who do not support the propaganda.

So I do find hope in the results of this survey. Despite the fact that the evolutionary propaganda machine has been working for several decades, there are still many teachers out there who are interested in making sure their students are exposed to real science. Please note that I am not necessarily talking about the teachers who portray creationism or intelligent design positively. I am talking about the teachers upon which the authors heap their scorn – those who have the audacity to believe that their students can think for themselves.

To the teachers out there who show their students multiple sides of the evolution controversy, you have my heartfelt thanks. Science will progress only when it facilitates critical inquiry. While many evolutionary propagandists wish to squash such inquiry when it comes to certain areas of science, it is heartening to see that there are teachers out there promoting it!


1. Michael B. Berkman and Eric Plutzer, “Defeating Creationism in the Courtroom, But Not in the Classroom,”Science, 331:404-405, 2011.
Return to Text


  1. Kathy says:

    After completing your Biology text, son #2 signed up for the SAT subject test for Biology. I bought a test study guide, so we’d see what type of questions would be asked. Besides sample tests, the study guide had lot of notes and short review articles. I was expecting to “learn” something of what was taught in schools about evolution. Basically, the book had nothing except a little history about Darwin. Scott remembers there being one question about Darwin. I remember the following question:

    A group of frogs splits into two groups. One group goes to live over the mountains. After a few generations, the frogs reunite, but group #1 can’t breed with group #2. Why is that? The answer was that they’d changed their mating habits! I guess the key to this question was a “few” generations. I was surprised that with all the “talk” about teaching evolution, the SAT study guide/test, which is supposed to cover evolution, didn’t even touch the subject.

    I believe Scott got a 750 on the test. He went on to get a 790 on the Chemistry test and an 800 on the Physics test. He used your texts! Thanks!

    1. jlwile says:

      Kathy, thanks so much for your comment. Those are fantastic scores! The mean biology score is 591 for the “e” test and 630 for the “m” test. Either way, Scott’s score is well over a standard deviation above the mean! His chemistry score is near perfect, and is 1.5 standard deviations above the mean. Then there is his physics score. Wow! I don’t recall ever seeing a perfect score on a subject test before. Please tell Scott that I am VERY impressed.

      I think the SAT subject tests don’t stress evolution because they are designed to test high-school-level proficiency, and as the survey indicates, many high school students don’t get a lot of exposure to evolution. The AP and CLEP biology tests are more evolution-oriented, since they test university-level proficiency.

  2. Josiah says:

    You know, while one can always point to the individual anecdote case of a teen who would best their teachers hands down in terms of raw mental ability, they are few and far between. I agree that in principle people should be exposed to every side of an issue, but the vast majority probably don’t care to know.

    1. jlwile says:

      Josiah, I agree that the vast majority probably don’t care to know, but those same people don’t care to be educated. As a result, it doesn’t matter how education affects them. Education is for those who actually care to be educated, and most of them are able to think for themselves, much to the chagrin of the high priests of evolution.

  3. Shannon Sanderson says:

    I am a homeschool parent, so I have the freedom to choose how I teach my child, more so than some teachers I’m sure.
    But-it’s always nice to know that those more educated than I am, appreciate my efforts to teach them to think for themselves.

    I really enjoy your blog!

    1. jlwile says:

      Thank you, Shannon – not only for your comment, but especially for teaching your children to think for themselves!

%d bloggers like this: