News Don't want your kid learning about the evils of evolution? Move to Missouri

[SixNein]

A few day's ago, the great state of Missouri passed Amendment 2 which has a clause that specifically states

that no student shall be compelled to perform or participate in academic assignments or educational presentations that violate his or her religious beliefs

http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2012ballot/fulltext_1.pdf

Along with other religiously inspired text that was mostly already covered under existing law.

 

[leroyjenkens]

In other words, if the student doesn't want to learn about evolution, the student doesn't have to.

What happens when a kid claims all of the subjects other than gym class violate his religious beliefs?

 

[Evo]

Well, there will be an ever widening gap between the educated and the uneducated.

How is a teacher supposed to teach a class if every student claims something is against their religion? Will classes be divided by religion now? "Fundamental Christian Earth myths 101? Or will the kids that have parents that oppose a subject have their kids excused from classes?

 

[Creel]

Ahh good, this goes way beyond Evolution and allows me to skip pretty much my entire Geology class, good deal!

Also, being able to round Pi to 3 is going to make Trig a snap!
1 Kings 7:23
"And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.

 

[leroyjenkens]

Also, being able to round Pi to 3 is going to make Trig a snap!

And any history beyond 6000 years ago can be dropped, since nothing existed before that.

This is what happens when you let people with an improper education make decisions on education.

Look at the wording of that thing. When they say students can worship "Almighty God", they're talking about a specific god. How hard is it to keep religion out of politics? Just say "their god" or something like that, why involve an obviously biased opinion into it?

 

[Dembadon]

...

This is what happens when you let people with an improper education make decisions on education.

...

The sad thing is there are still a substantial amount of educated¹ people who believe in fairy tales as well. I don't know what else to call it besides intentional delusion in an effort to avoid cognitive dissonance.

¹ read: degree-holding

 

[SixNein]

Well, there will be an ever widening gap between the educated and the uneducated.

How is a teacher supposed to teach a class if every student claims something is against their religion? Will classes be divided by religion now? "Fundamental Christian Earth myths 101? Or will the kids that have parents that oppose a subject have their kids excused from classes?

I'm curious if we aren't seeing an attempt to establish some kind of theocracy. There seems to be a great deal of theocratic sounding propaganda out there. Just look at the republican lineup this year and what it had to say.

 

[Evo]

How will these kids be able to pass the exit exam from High School? Common subjects rejected due to religion are the sciences, history, English Literature, even art and music.

 

[SixNein]

How will these kids be able to pass the exit exam from High School? Common subjects rejected due to religion are the sciences, history, English Literature, even art and music.

If they can opt out of a class, I don't see why they wouldn't be able to opt out of a test.

 

[AnTiFreeze3]

Let's look on the bright side of things: this means there will be less competition for me once I start applying for college.

 

[SixNein]

Let's look on the bright side of things: this means there will be less competition for me once I start applying for college.

And then you realize the consequences when this generation becomes a part of society.

 

[SixNein]

Well, there will be an ever widening gap between the educated and the uneducated.

How is a teacher supposed to teach a class if every student claims something is against their religion? Will classes be divided by religion now? "Fundamental Christian Earth myths 101? Or will the kids that have parents that oppose a subject have their kids excused from classes?

Perhaps Florida has a solution:

That amendment strikes a constitutional ban on funding for "sectarian" schools and adds new language prohibiting the government from denying "benefits of any program, funding, or other support" because of religious identity or belief.

Although it's called the "Religious Freedom" amendment, the ACLU and others say it would open the floodgates for taxpayer funding of religious social programs and schools.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-08-10/news/os-ballot-questions-big-bucks-20120808_1_religious-identity-or-belief-amendments-religious-freedom

 

[Windowmaker]

The arrogance of this forum astounds me. I'm done posting or frequenting here. Have a good day.

 

[SixNein]

The arrogance of this forum astounds me. I'm done posting or frequenting here. Have a good day.

The topic can effect America for generations. I don't think it's arrogant to challenge the merit of this power grab currently underway by the christian-right.

 

[Evo]

The topic can effect America for generations. I don't think it's arrogant to challenge the merit of this power grab currently underway by the christian-right.

Apparently he agrees with throwing education out.

 

[Dembadon]

The arrogance of this forum astounds me. I'm done posting or frequenting here. Have a good day.

I'm not sure how you've come to the conclusion that this entire forum is arrogant, especially if your conclusion is based only on the posts in this thread.

 

[SixNein]

Apparently he agrees with throwing education out.

Well, the topic is a political hot potato because it involves religion; however, I brought it up because the trend is causing me a great deal of concern.

To quote Max Planck...

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.

Suppose the christian right doesn't have to win these arguments; instead, it controls the education of the next generation.

 

[Filip Larsen]

I'm not sure how you've come to the conclusion that this entire forum is arrogant, especially if your conclusion is based only on the posts in this thread.

In the absence of a reply from Dembadon to indicate the contrary, it seems hard not to conclude that it must have been something that ran against his religious beliefs and, if so, that by making the whole forum accountable he more or less proves the point about a "gap" being present in regarding the ability to make a rational models and arguments.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

And any history beyond 6000 years ago can be dropped, since nothing existed before that.

Prehistory. But then, I'm pretty arrogant. Perhaps he meant me.

 

[phinds]

I'm not sure how you've come to the conclusion that this entire forum is arrogant, especially if your conclusion is based only on the posts in this thread.

See, your problem here is that you are attempting to use logic with someone who apparently is a religious fundamentalist. It doesn't work.

 

[Haborix]

Hello everyone,

I want to defend how this conversation may seem arrogant. I won't speculate on Windowmaker's personal reasons.

To give this perspective, I'm a libertarian.

For a small group of individuals (state officials, federal officiales, etc.) to decide what everyone under their control will learn is an elitist notion. This, of course, goes for the "Christian right" as someone named it earlier. More than likely, I suspect you all are doing this for what you feel is the "common good".

For me this is a debate on political philosophy and not on education. Your education is what you make of it. I'm sure my perspective won't sit well with many.

 

[phinds]

Hello everyone,

I want to defend how this conversation may seem arrogant. I won't speculate on Windowmaker's personal reasons.

To give this perspective, I'm a libertarian.

For a small group of individuals (state officials, federal officiales, etc.) to decide what everyone under their control will learn is an elitist notion. This, of course, goes for the "Christian right" as someone named it earlier. More than likely, I suspect you all are doing this for what you feel is the "common good".

For me this is a debate on political philosophy and not on education. Your education is what you make of it. I'm sure my perspective won't sit well with many.

Personally, I don't find your point of view an any way offensive, just totally off point. The discussion here, as I see it, is NOT about the general concept of big govenment at all, it is a discussion about utterly moronic nature of the SPECIFIC regulation being discussed.

 

[lisab]

Personally, I don't find your point of view an any way offensive, just totally off point. The discussion here, as I see it, is NOT about the general concept of big govenment at all, it is a discussion about utterly moronic nature of the SPECIFIC regulation being discussed.

I don't find it offensive either. But I have no problem with "a small group of individuals" saying what's appropriate in science education, provided the individuals are scientists...and that's the sticking point, isn't it? There are plenty of folks who would have no problem with that small group all being young-Earth creationists.

 

[Haborix]

I've never understood why the leaders of the believers of 'god created everything', have not simply embraced the idea that god's plan includes evolution.
The 'Big Bang' theory is easily translated to 'and god created the Universe'.
Let there be light ... understatement ... Let there be ALL THAT IS.
But we mere humans have not figured out how?

Is there a problem with this that creates a paradox?
The Vatican reluctantly admitted that the Earth revolves around the Sun, and can just as easily admit that the 'seven day' thing is a timing issue and fifteen billion years is just an accounting error.

This way the believers can go ahead and explore the wonders of the universe without any problem.

I have wondered the same thing. I think the explanation lies in being associated with a group. For example, how many people say they are part of the Republican party because they want smaller government? I would say a fair amount. Yet, the reality is that the Republicans aren't a small government party. In essence people have picked a team and they aren't willing to pick a different one.

With regards to your comment lisab, I stated in my first post that the same standard should be held for the "Christian right". The natural response is then who decides. People decide. If there is a need for scientific and logic-minded people then schools will be created to fill such needs. I say if people want schools where no evolution is taught, no history past 6000 years is taught, and no questioning of doctrine then let's them be started. People should be free to choose. Until people become homogeneous, public education will always have these problems.

---Edited for my inability to spell---

 

[Alfi]

As a side thought.

If we isolate members, as in, some members feel the need to quit a discussion or this forum, or quit classes in school.
I think this is a problem.

Is there a way to educate, that does not segregate religion from science?

 

[SixNein]

Hello everyone,

I want to defend how this conversation may seem arrogant. I won't speculate on Windowmaker's personal reasons.

To give this perspective, I'm a libertarian.

For a small group of individuals (state officials, federal officiales, etc.) to decide what everyone under their control will learn is an elitist notion. This, of course, goes for the "Christian right" as someone named it earlier. More than likely, I suspect you all are doing this for what you feel is the "common good".

For me this is a debate on political philosophy and not on education. Your education is what you make of it. I'm sure my perspective won't sit well with many.

Should the child have the right to decide for his or her self?

 

[SixNein]

As a side thought.

If we isolate members, as in, some members feel the need to quit a discussion or this forum, or quit classes in school.
I think this is a problem.

Is there a way to educate, that does not segregate religion from science?

Science and religion have a fundamental conflict. Religion explains the world through divine intervention, and science explains the world through the scientific method. These are two very different viewpoints about how our world works. And religion without divine intervention is no longer a religion; instead, it's a philosophy of life. By and large, the domain of divine intervention is the unknown. As science progresses, the domain for divine intervention shrinks.

 

[thorium1010]

Evolution is a time scale thing. I have no problem with long time ( 4.5 BILLION years )
In that belief, I can see evolution as inevitable.

when did science become a belief ?. Science is either correct or not correct.

 

[AnTiFreeze3]

I am glad to see that they have the ever-growing problem of religion-specific molestation covered. However, I am disappointed to see that nobody ever taught them about run-on sentences; they managed to fit their entire new proposal (the bolded sections) in one sentence.

The proposal was 31 lines long...

 

[phinds]

Is there a way to educate, that does not segregate religion from science?

No. Reread post #31

 

[Bobbywhy]

"will this transformation cause an intellectual collapse in the nation?"

SixNein, You raise important issues about the quality of the education our students are getting. My first impression is that your characterization of the problem as a potential “intellectual collapse” is not an exaggeration. Our USA students are lagging behind many other countries in proficiency:

“Fifteen-year-olds in the U.S. ranked 25th among peers from 34 countries on a math test and scored in the middle in science and reading, while China’s Shanghai topped the charts, raising concern that the U.S. isn’t prepared to succeed in the global economy.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-07/teens-in-u-s-rank-25th-on-math-test-trail-in-science-reading.html

At the national level:
“About a third of eighth-graders who took a national science exam in 2011 were proficient, according to results released Thursday, a statistic called "unacceptable" by a teachers association leader.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...cational-progress-science-test_n_1504537.html

And this, dated 11 August 2012:
“In recently released rankings of how states' primary education systems are preparing students for careers in engineering, Massachusetts, Minnesota and New Jersey top the list. Mississippi trails as the worst in the country, following West Virginia and Louisiana.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/11/state-education-rankings-_n_894528.html

The comment from the first source above, “raising concern that the U.S. isn’t prepared to succeed in the global economy” is especially worrisome to me. How can the United States of America expect to compete in this “globalized” economic system when its students are not adequately prepared in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)? My answer is: The US cannot expect to be a successful international competitor if it continues to graduate unprepared and uneducated citizens.

If I wanted to hire folks for my company I would direct my Human Resources Manager to use that map in the last source above, showing individual state rankings. I would not hire youngsters educated in those “below average” and “far below average” states and conversely, and would give preference to students educated in those states that excelled. This is simply because I want the best educated employees at my firm. Who would want to hire an ignoramus? It is a sad commentary that here in the USA some religious groups prefer to educate their children based on Iron Age myths and fantastic stories of miracles. This not only threatens our country’s competitive chances internationally, but is grossly unfair for those students left ignorant and in the dark. In my opinion, it borders on criminal neglect.

 

[phinds]

No. Reread post #31

UH ... somebody messed with this thread and the "post #31" that I referenced seems to be gone.

 

[Vanadium 50]

If I wanted to hire folks for my company I would direct my Human Resources Manager to use that map in the last source above, showing individual state rankings. I would not hire youngsters educated in those “below average” and “far below average” states

That's foolish.

First, this is a statement about preparation, not about outcomes. This says nothing about an engineer who graduated college despite coming from a far below average state being any worse than one who came from another state.

Second, this is a statement about averages, not about individuals.

Third, despite the fact that there are numbers, this is a subjective score. Why should 8th grade standardized test scores get the same weight as AP Calculus scores? In this index, if you had one state who did poorly in 8th grade and caught up in high school, they still can't wash the taint of poor grades four years ago. Is this what we want the index to do? Maybe, maybe not.

Finally, there is the opposite of the Lake Wobegon Effect here. 12 states are in the three above average categories, and 14 in the two below average categories.

 

[SixNein]

"will this transformation cause an intellectual collapse in the nation?"

SixNein, You raise important issues about the quality of the education our students are getting.

I'm just coming from the perspective that the attack on science education has real world consequences. We can't teach kids fairy tails instead of science without risking an intellectual collapse in the nation. Eventually, the generation currently in school graduates, and it takes a place in society and global society.

Our USA students are lagging behind many other countries in proficiency:

The PISA results you cite are the most important. There is a huge skill gap in the global economy and here at home in America.

If your a company, where are you going to go to try and fill that gap? PISA may very well be an important indicator of the future US economy.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I don't think we'll make any progress on this topic. If we were to even try we would have to agree on what harassment means.

Use the word coercion instead, it works wonders on kids (and adults for that matter). "Do you want an ice cream?" "Yes!" "Right then sit up here and do your ten times tables" or in other cases "Stop playing with your toys and go to bed or else we won't go to the playground tomorrow".

The reason children don't make decisions for themselves is that in many cases they are not capable of making informed decisions. Because of this we give responsibility for their decisions partly to parents/guardians with oversight from the legal system. The reasoning behind all this is mostly solid but has many grey areas, many under 18s can make informed decisions on a wide variety of topics but aren't allowed and many over 18s can't make informed decisions but are allowed. Because we find it hard to draw a line between the two extremes of definitely can't and definitely can we choose a roughly arbitrary line and say "after this point the person is an adult and is responsible for themselves". This should be an obvious thing and it's interesting that you don't see it that way.

One last point though; the decisions people take inevitably affect others. It's at this point that others have a say on those people's actions. If an anti-intellectual movement is not challenged then there will be a detriment to society at large as a larger portion of people have a lack of education. It might be all well and good to be proud that you live in a country where there is no societal or legal problem with people hiding their kids from the facts about the world until one of those kids is your doctor and he can't treat your antibiotic-resistant infection because he doesn't believe it's possible.

 

[Skrew]

The public education system is as much about indoctrination as it is about education. I would be OK with just the facts being presented along with differeing viewpoints but that's not how it goes. This isn't even considering the massive behavior problems the kids at public schools have.

Homeschooling or private schools are what I will do with my future children.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

The public education system is as much about indoctrination as it is about education.

Indoctrination of what?

I would be OK with just the facts being presented along with differeing viewpoints

Why on Earth would you be OK with that? Why not the facts and the demonstrably rational conclusions based on those facts? Otherwise you'll just end up with scientific theory taught alongside theological evolution, intelligent design, Raëlism, the Omphalos hypothesis etc etc.

 

[chemisttree]

I would like somebody, for once, to demonstrate a correlation between the teaching of creationism, religion, or creation myths of any type (Christian, Native American, Mayan, Inuit, etc...) with a general decline in education excellence.

Private schools (80% of those students attend religious-based schools) outperform public schools in science. How is the exclusive teaching of evolution correlated with academic excellence? Aren't there other much more significant factors that drive the numbers?

Does anyone here really believe that the potential religious opt out in Missouri will result in some schools teaching 'fairy tails' [sic] instead of science?

 

[Evo]

Private schools (80% of those students attend religious-based schools) outperform public schools in science.

A piece from the "voice of America's private schools"?

That has nothing to do with strictly religious schools that don't teach real science, history, etc...

Does anyone here really believe that the potential religious opt out in Missouri will result in some schools teaching 'fairy tails' [sic] instead of science?

Absolutely.

 

[chemisttree]

That has nothing to do with strictly religious schools that don't teach real science, history, etc...

Could you tell me more about these schools? Where are they in the US, how many of them and what are their scores? I think you are all tilting at windmills again...

 

[AnTiFreeze3]

I would like somebody, for once, to demonstrate a correlation between the teaching of creationism, religion, or creation myths of any type (Christian, Native American, Mayan, Inuit, etc...) with a general decline in education excellence.

Private schools (80% of those students attend religious-based schools) outperform public schools in science. How is the exclusive teaching of evolution correlated with academic excellence? Aren't there other much more significant factors that drive the numbers?

Does anyone here really believe that the potential religious opt out in Missouri will result in some schools teaching 'fairy tails' [sic] instead of science?

Correlation does not imply causation. That is something that I'm sure you have heard on more than one ocassion, and it fits into this situation perfectly.

Sift through your fallacies on your own, because it's late here, and I don't have the patience nor time to point them out to you. If you are confused, I will gladly steer you in the right direction when I can find the time to do so.

 

[chemisttree]

Correlation does not imply causation. That is something that I'm sure you have heard on more than one ocassion, and it fits into this situation perfectly.

Sift through your fallacies on your own, because it's late here, and I don't have the patience nor time to point them out to you. If you are confused, I will gladly steer you in the right direction when I can find the time to do so.

You took the time to respond to a post to tell me you won't respond in a meaningful way. Typical. Causation? I'm not asking about causation... just correlation. A much easier test to pass, I'm sure you will agree. So, do you think that teaching evolution only vs. evolution plus creationism or any other myth of your choosing has any measurable effect on science scores? Just answer that one question... if you can. Otherwise you sound like you have no clue what you are talking about. I'm open to any information that you may have to support your position but absent any data, information, measurable outcome, etc... your argument has no more weight than any other 'faith'. Show me your numbers. Let's get science involved here!

Fallacies? I only asked questions. The fallacies are your 'creation'.

 

[Dembadon]

I would like somebody, for once, to demonstrate a correlation between the teaching of creationism, religion, or creation myths of any type (Christian, Native American, Mayan, Inuit, etc...) with a general decline in education excellence.

Private schools (80% of those students attend religious-based schools) outperform public schools in science. How is the exclusive teaching of evolution correlated with academic excellence? Aren't there other much more significant factors that drive the numbers?

Does anyone here really believe that the potential religious opt out in Missouri will result in some schools teaching 'fairy tails' [sic] instead of science?

The issue is that children, or their parents, will be able to "opt-out" of courses that are against their religious beliefs, which includes more than just a course in evolutionary biology. I don't think it takes much thought to see why this is a bad thing for education.

 

[micromass]

You took the time to respond to a post to tell me you won't respond in a meaningful way. Typical. Causation? I'm not asking about causation... just correlation. A much easier test to pass, I'm sure you will agree. So, do you think that teaching evolution only vs. evolution plus creationism or any other myth of your choosing has any measurable effect on science scores? Just answer that one question... if you can. Otherwise you sound like you have no clue what you are talking about. I'm open to any information that you may have to support your position but absent any data, information, measurable outcome, etc... your argument has no more weight than any other 'faith'. Show me your numbers. Let's get science involved here!

Fallacies? I only asked questions. The fallacies are your 'creation'.

Since when do science scores have something meaningful to say about the competence in science? Sure, science scores are supposed to gauge the science knowledge. But what things are supposed to do and what things are actually doing are very different things.

You can get decent science scores by just memorizing everything, and many people do get good scores like that. That doesn't imply an understanding of the fundamentals of science. Things like the scientific method are rarely tested.

Schools are now trying to teach that the Loch Ness monster is a proof that the Earth is 6000 years old. You're not going to tell me that this contributes in any way to a good understanding of science. Sure, the science scores may be high, but their understanding of science is still rubbish.

 

[chemisttree]

The issue is that children, or their parents, will be able to "opt-out" of courses that are against their religious beliefs, which includes more than just a course in evolutionary biology. I don't think it takes much thought to see why this is a bad thing for education.

Opt out of courses? What are you talking about? The Amish in PA can OPT OUT OF HIGH SCHOOL! Do you have any evidence that anyone other than the Amish in PA opt out of courses in public school based on religious belief?

 

[Dembadon]

Opt out of courses? What are you talking about? The Amish in PA can OPT OUT OF HIGH SCHOOL! Do you have any evidence that anyone other than the Amish in PA opt out of courses in public school based on religious belief?

I'm talking about the document that is linked in the OP: lines 21 and 22. I've been sharing my opinions about potential issues should its contents be enforced.

I'm well aware that, in general, students aren't allowed to opt-out of classes due to religious beliefs; discretion is left to the public schools on whether to honor such requests. However, I made no claims about opt-outs in the current system, so I'm not sure why you're asking me for evidence.

Edit: My verb tense in the last sentence of my previous post could be confusing. It should be "I don't think it takes much thought to see why this would be a bad thing for education."

 

[chemisttree]

Since when do science scores have something meaningful to say about the competence in science? Sure, science scores are supposed to gauge the science knowledge. But what things are supposed to do and what things are actually doing are very different things.

What utter nonsense! Test scores mean nothing? What's the point of this discussion then? Perhaps you would declare our US students superior to students in Asia or the EU based on your 'faith' in their abilities? Or would your argue that they are inferior based on your 'faith' in their inability?

You can get decent science scores by just memorizing everything, and many people do get good scores like that. That doesn't imply an understanding of the fundamentals of science. Things like the scientific method are rarely tested.

An indefensible belief on your part. Prove it! Here are some example questions from the NAEP science test. You are saying that students memorize this?

[Schools are now trying to teach that the Loch Ness monster is a proof that the Earth is 6000 years old. You're not going to tell me that this contributes in any way to a good understanding of science.

No, I'm not. I'm still trying to find that reference for myself but unless I buy a book I can't. I've seen it reported much but not discussed much. Still, it doesn't seem to adversely affect science scores from those schools that use the book in question (PACE Biology 1099). Perhaps you have access to some deeper insight than I do about this? I'm all ears.

Sure, the science scores may be high, but their understanding of science is still rubbish.

This is such a ludicrous statement that I have no words to respond. Well, maybe this... what the heck are you talking about? How do you measure 'understanding of science' absent test scores? Again, I'm all ears.

 

[chemisttree]

I'm talking about the document that is linked in the OP: lines 21 and 22. I've been sharing my opinions about potential issues should its contents be enforced.

OK then. Here is what the new law states, "...that no student shall be compelled to perform or participate in academic assignments or educational presentations that violate his or her religious beliefs;" How does that allow anyone to opt out of class? Are you saying that a student not being required to "participate in academic assignments" or "educational presentations" means opting out of class?

I'm well aware that, in general, students aren't allowed to opt-out of classes due to religious beliefs; discretion is left to the public schools on whether to honor such requests. However, I made no claims about opt-outs in the current system, so I'm not sure why you're asking me for evidence.

Only because Missouri isn't unique in this aspect. School districts across the country accommodate religious exemptions based on content as well. http://www.fcps.edu/hr/oec/relcal/guidelines.shtml in VA.

If parents ask to have their child excused from specific instructional activities that they feel violate their religious beliefs, teachers and principals should consult with curriculum specialists in the Instructional Services Department (ISD) to determine alternatives. Then the principal and teacher should discuss the proposed alternatives with the parents. Religious accommodations cannot include excusing students completely from courses, testing, or other activities required by state law for graduation. Requests to remove instructional materials or activities from an entire class of students must be presented according to the procedures outlined in Regulation 3009, Challenged Materials.

1.Students may express their religious beliefs in homework, artwork and other oral and written assignments, subject to nondiscriminatory academic standards regarding substance, relevance, and other legitimate pedagogical concerns...

Since learning about 'biological evolution' is a state requirement in VA and school districts allow students to be absent for 'specific instructional activities', I was sure that you would have a litany of examples either in VA or throughout the country of exemptions being either granted or denied and how that led to the downfall or 'salvation' of science education in those cases. Any information here? Or are we tilting at windmills... AGAIN?

Of course in Missouri it isn't clear to me that knowledge of evolution or creationism is a required skill (or faith) for graduation. What I found regarding the Missouri 'Show Me Standards' in Science follows:

In Science, students in Missouri public schools will acquire a solid foundation which includes knowledge of

1. properties and principles of matter and energy
2. properties and principles of force and motion
3. characteristics and interactions of living organisms
4. changes in ecosystems and interactions of organisms with their environments
5. processes (such as plate movement, water cycle, air flow) and interactions of earth’s biosphere, atmosphere, lithosphere and hydrosphere
6. composition and structure of the universe and the motions of the objects within it
7. processes of scientific inquiry (such as formulating and testing hypotheses)
8. impact of science, technology and human activity on resources and the environment

Perhaps evolution or creationism is taught relative to requirement #4 of this list. Who knows? What is known is that private schools in Missouri do no worse than public schools in science education.

Perhaps if we knock over a few windmills things will improve.

 

[Ibix]

Private versus state education is not a fair comparison unless the effects of selection are accounted for. State schools cannot get rid of clueless or disruptive pupils in the way that selective schools can; they can be expected to have worse results even if all else were equal.

As I recall, faith-based state schools in the UK do get better exam results than non-faith schools. However, a study by the London School of Economics concluded that the difference was entirely due to selection effects (faith schools in the UK can select; other state schools cannot), using postcode as a proxy.

I am afraid I don't have the study at my fingertips and am about to go offline for a few days, so I am only able to present this as an unsupported recollection. Might be interesting to track down if you can, though.

 

[CDTOE]

There are countries in which high school students are taught that biological diversity exists because of god's will and wisdom. They admit that adaptation occurs but only because god created the structures and characteristics that enable different organisms to adapt to their respective environments.

In my third year high school biology textbook, two pages, at the end of the biological diversity chapter, are exclusively made to mention the evils of the theory of evolution. They support their nonsensical writing by the well-known out of context quotes, with religious verses that show the wisdom of god's creation, all in a tearful and conspiracy-themed context that blame the theory for atheism and materialism.

I must tell you that it's not really for the sake of the religion, but for political reasons; to keep young generations think from one social and political perspective. I experienced something that can prove it, but it's not suitable to expand on this here.