Statements on Teaching Evolution
From Scienticity
Contents |
Science Professionals
Rush Holt
Rush Holt, US Congressional Representative and Physicist, 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
In August 2005, shortly after the President made a statement supportive of teaching "Intelligent Design" creationist doctrine in public schools, John H. Marburger III, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, 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.
Education Professionals
Robert E. Hemenway
In a "Dear Colleagues" Letter dated 27 September 2005, University of Kansas Chancellor Bob Hemenway reiterated his earlier position on the teaching of evolution[3], and wrote:
The University of Kansas is a major public research university, a scientific community. We are committed to fact-based research and teaching. As an academic, scientific community, we must affirm scientific principles. [...] The United States cannot accept efforts to undermine the teaching of science. Our focus should be to raise the level of scientific literacy among our citizenry because we face a critical shortage of scientists in the next two decades. As a public research university, we have a special mission to educate tomorrow's scientists and to support the science teachers who will inspire young people to become chemists, geologists, biologists and physicists.
Jack O’Connell
In a California Department of Education press release[4] dated 28 September 2005, Jack O'Connell, California State Superintendent of Public Instruction, is quoted as saying
The introduction of intelligent design theory in natural science courses would be a blow to the integrity of education in California. [...] [T]he domain of the natural sciences is the natural world. Science is limited by its tools — observable facts and testable hypothesis. Because religious beliefs are based on faith, and are not subject to scientific test and refutation, these beliefs should not be taught in the realm of natural sciences.
Public Figures
Jon Huntsman Jr
According to the story "Educators support teaching evolution", which appeared in the Deseret News [UT] on 3 September 2005, Utah Governor Jon Huntsman Jr.
...told reporters he believes intelligent design should not be taught in science classes and that the time to talk about other concepts comes largely at home or in religious settings.
"If it comes up in sociology or philosophy as differing views on creation, I think that's appropriate," Huntsman said. "But that doesn't happen until college or maybe later in high school."
Christoph Schoenborn
Only three months after publishing remarks harsly criticizing evolutionary theory[5], Austrian Cardinal Shoenborn, in a lecture at St. Stephen's Cathedral in Vienna on 2 October 2005, reportedly said[6]:
Without a doubt, Darwin pulled off quite a feat with his main work and it remains one of the very great works of intellectual history.
More in our article The Cardinal, The Astronomer, and Darwin.
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,[7] 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.
American Phytopathological Society
From their statement "On The Teaching of Evolution and Intelligent Design (ID)", released on 20 September 2005, the Society gives two reasons why they have endorsed the 2002 statement by the American Association for the Advancement of Science supporting the teaching of evolution:
First, evolution is the foundation for what we do daily as plant pathologists in our teaching, research, and outreach activities. Second, we are a society of scientists and, as such, we should speak publicly for science when an important need arises, as it has on this occasion. We have an obligation to see that science is portrayed correctly to the public and in particular to youngsters who are just learning about science.
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 Association of Biology Teachers
From the NABT's "Statement on Teaching Evolution" (originally from 1995[8]):
As stated in The American Biology Teacher by the eminent scientist Theodosius Dobzhansky (1973), “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” This often-quoted declaration accurately reflects the central, unifying role of evolution in biology. [...] Experimentation, logical analysis, and evidence-based revision are procedures that clearly differentiate and separate science from other ways of knowing. Explanations or ways of knowing that invoke non-naturalistic or supernatural events or beings, whether called “creation science,” “scientific creationism,” “intelligent design theory,” “young earth theory,” or similar designations, are outside the realm of science and not part of a valid science curriculum.
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.
Organizations
National Center for Science Education
The NCSE's "Project Steve" statement reads (in its entirety)[9]
Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.
More details on "Project Steve" and the NCSE are in our entry for National Center for Science Education.
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.
- ^ Robert E. Hemenway, "The Evolution of a Controversy in Kansas Shows Why Scientists Must Defend the Search for Truth", Autumn 1999.
- ^ "State Schools Chief Jack O'Connell Defencs California Science Standards: Opposes Intelligent Design Theory as Threat to Integrity of Teaching Natural Sciences", California Department of Education press release, 28 September 2005.
- ^ Cornelia Dean and Laurie Goodstein, "Cardinal: Evolution may conflict with Catholic beliefs", The San Diego Union-Tribune, 9 July 2005.
- ^ "Cardinal backs evolution and 'intelligent design' ", Reuters, 4 October 2005.
- ^ "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."
- ^ "Adopted by the NABT Board of Directors, 1995. Revised 1997, 2000, and May 2004. Endorsed by: The Society for the Study of Evolution, 1998; The American Association of Physical Anthropologists, 1998."
- ^ NCSE Project Steve, NCSE website.
