Is it possible for someone to graduate from high school and still have no clue what science is all about? Unfortunately, it's not just possible, it's probable.

Here are the results of a recent Gallup Poll. To guage public opinion on the evidence for evolution, Gallup asked, "Do you think that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is

[A] a scientific theory that has been well-supported by evidence,

[B] just one of many theories and one that has not been well-supported by evidence, or

[C] don't you know enough about it to say?"

(letters added)

35% of the respondents went with option [A].
35% of the respondents went with option [B].
29% of the respondents went with option [C].
1% of the respondents expressed no opinion.

I will not address the flaws in this poll question, except to say there are many. Sadly, the results confirm what I have reluctantly come to accept about scientific literacy in America: most Americans don't know jack about science. Apparently, at least 64% of the American public doesn't know enough about evolution to give it the recognition it rightfully deserves. According to 35% of the respondents to the Gallup poll, evolution is "just one of many theories." As a science teacher, these results make me want to find a new profession.

How is it that people can complete the basic minimum of science courses required for high school graduation (usually at least 2 full years) and still manage to equate "scientific theory" with "cockamamie theory?"

Most of the blame, I believe, should be placed on science teachers. In my opinion, most science teachers focus too much on the specific content they are required to teach and spend little time, if any, on developing scientifically literate citizens. Why?

Consider the following example. I recently received an email from a parent who was upset about some comments I made in one of my Biology classes. The parent was concerned that I had "abused the power I have over students" by sharing these "alternative textbook disclaimers" with the class. I brought this up in an attempt to point out the misconceptions held by the members of the school board responsible for creating the original disclaimer.

Apparently, my comments were "unprofessional, inappropriate and offensive." According to the parent, evolution "simply is not a fact in the same way that gravity is a measurable observance" and "evolution and creationism are theories that can both be proven or disproven, depending on your point of view." One of the parent's proposed solutions to this issue was for me to repectfully acknowledge to my class that "gravity and evolution are not the same."

Unknowingly, this parent has asked me to lie to my class. Evolutionary theory is a comprehensive explanation that ties together an immense collection of observations relating to living things. Gravitational theory is a comprehensive explanation that ties together an immense collection of observations relating to objects that have significant mass. In this sense, evolution and gravity are the same. Both are scientific explanations intended to make sense out of a set of related observations. This is the meaning of "theory" to which I was referring when I brought up the textbook disclaimers in class. My students are familiar with this (I hope). Apparently, most adults are not.

Dealing with issues like this is not fun for science teachers. At the very least, it is time-consuming. Personally, I welcome the discussion because I see it as an opportunity to reach some of those parents who were "left behind" by our current system of science education. However, it quickly becomes clear why so many science teachers would rather avoid the topic of evolution altogether. Simply mentioning it stirs up so many misconceptions that it can be seen as "unprofessional, inappropriate and offensive."

At this point, I am prepared to accept the fact that most Americans are scientifically illiterate. However, I will not allow those in my sphere of influence to remain that way, no matter how much extra work it requires.