Statements on Teaching Evolution
From Scienticity
Contents |
Science Professionals
Rush Holt, US House of Representatives
Rush Holt wrote[1]in September 2005 about what is good science, what should be taught about science, and why it should be taught. Some short excerpts:
...public school science classes are not the place to teach concepts that cannot be backed up by evidence and tested experimentally.
A scientifically literate nation would not permit Intelligent Design to be presented and treated as a scientific theory. Science education is necessary for all students, especially for those who are not going to become professional scientists. We must not lose the important American characteristic - hard, practical thinking.
Understanding sciences brings order, harmony, and balance to our lives. The sciences teach us that the world is intelligible and not capricious. They give us the skills for lifelong learning, for creating progress itself.
John H Marburger III, Director, White House Office of Science & Technology Policy
In August 2005, shortly after the President made a statement supportive of teaching "Intelligent Design" creationist doctrine in public schools, John H. Marburger III responded publically to a question on the subject by saying[2]
Evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology.
Intelligent design is not a scientific theory.
Professional Societies
American Astronomical Society
From the "AAS Statement on the Teaching of Evolution", 20 September 2005:
The American Astronomical Society supports teaching evolution in our nation’s K-12 science classes. Evolution is a valid scientific theory for the origin of species that has been repeatedly tested and verified through observation, formulation of testable statements to explain those observations, and controlled experiments or additional observations to find out whether these ideas are right or wrong. A scientific theory is not speculation or a guess -- scientific theories are unifying concepts that explain the physical universe. [...] Since “Intelligent Design” is not science, it does not belong in the science curriculum of the nation’s primary and secondary schools.
The AAS also made an earlier statement, by resolution on 10 January 1982, against the teaching of creationist doctrine (at that time known as "Creation Science"). For more information, see our entry on the American Astronomical Society.
American Geophysical Union
In the press release "President Confuses Science and Belief, Puts Schoolchildren at Risk", dated 2 August 2005, AGU Executive Director Fred Spilhaus is quoted as saying:
'Intelligent design' is not a scientific theory. [...] Scientific theories, like evolution, relativity and plate tectonics, are based on hypotheses that have survived extensive testing and repeated verification. [...] Ideas that are based on faith, including 'intelligent design,' operate in a different sphere and should not be confused with science.
American Physical Society
From the press release "Physics Society President Says Intelligent Design Should Not be Taught as Science", of 4 August 2005:
Marvin Cohen,[3] president of the American Physical Society (APS), has stated that only scientifically validated theories, such as evolution, should be taught in the nation’s science classes. He made this statement in response to recently reported remarks of President Bush about intelligent design, which is a type of creationism.
That same release notes that "[t]he APS governing Council has long expressed its opposition to the inclusion of religious concepts such as intelligent design and related forms of creationism in science classes", having issued two previous statements concerning the teaching of creationist doctrine. For more information, see our article on the American Physical Society.
ASA-CSSA-SSSA
From the press release "Scientific Societies Support Teaching Evolution":
In Support of Teaching Evolution
Position Statement by the Executive Committees of the American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, Soil Science Society of America, adopted August 11, 2005
Intelligent design is not a scientific discipline and should not be taught as part of the K-12 science curriculum. Intelligent design has neither the substantial research base, nor the testable hypotheses as a scientific discipline. There are at least 70 resolutions from a broad array of scientific societies and institutions that are united on this matter.
National Science Teachers Association
From the introduction to a Position Statement (which contains additional declarations and recommendations) adopted by the NSTA Board of Directors in July 2003:
The National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) strongly supports the position that evolution is a major unifying concept in science and should be included in the K-12 science education frameworks and curricula. [...] NSTA also recognizes that evolution has not been emphasized in science curricula in a manner commensurate to its importance because of official policies, intimidation of science teachers, the general public's misunderstanding of evolutionary theory, and a century of controversy. In addition, teachers are being pressured to introduce creationism, "creation science," and other nonscientific views, which are intended to weaken or eliminate the teaching of evolution.
Notes
- ^ Rush Holt, "Intelligent Design: It's Not Even Wrong", TPMcafe, 8 September 2005.
- ^ Quoted in: Eisabeth Bumiller, "Bush Remarks Roil Debate over Teaching of Evolution", New York Times, 3 August 2005, archived at truthout.org.
- ^ "APS President Marvin L. Cohen, is University Professor of Physics at the University of California, Berkeley. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences, and received the National Medal of Science from President Bush in 2002."
