Statements from Educational Organizations

Table of Contents:

American Association of Physics Teachers
American Association of University Women
Arkansas Science Teachers Association
Association of College and University Biology Educators (1999) *
Association of Pennsylvania State College And University Biologists
Authors of Biology Texts (1999, updated 2003) *
The BSCS Position on the Teaching of Biology
The Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (1995): Position on the Teaching Of Evolution for Voices for Evolution
California Science Teachers Association *
Iowa Department of Public Instruction
Iowa Council of Science Supervisors
Michigan Science Teachers Association
Michigan Science Teachers Association (2003) *
National Association of Biology Teachers (1980)
National Association of Biology Teachers (2000) *
National Association of Biology Teachers: Scientific Integrity
National Association of Biology Teachers: The Teaching of Evolution
National Conference on Teaching Evolution (2000) *
National Council for the Social Studies
National Education Association
National Science Supervisors Association
National Science Teachers Association (1973, 1982)
National Science Teachers Association (1985)
National Science Teachers Association (1997) *
New York State Science Supervisors Association
North Carolina Science Teachers Association
North Carolina Math and Science Education Network *
Oklahoma Science Teachers Association
Science Museum of Minnesota (1995)
Science Teachers Association of New York State (1980)
Syracuse Parent-Teacher Association
University of Alabama at Huntsville Faculty Senate
University of California Academic Council of the Academic Senate
The University of Queensland (Australia) Board of the Faculty of Science
Utah Science Teachers Association
Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction

* statement added since second edition (1995)

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF PHYSICS TEACHERS

The Council of the American Association of Physics Teachers opposes proposals to require "equal time" for presentation in public school science classes of the religious accounts of creation and the scientific theory of evolution. The issues raised by such proposals, while mainly focusing on evolution, have important implications for the entire spectrum of scientific inquiry, including geology, physics, and astronomy. In contrast to "Creationism," the systematic application of scientific principles has led to a current picture of life, of the nature of our planet, and of the universe which, while incomplete, is constantly being tested and refined by observation and analysis. This ability to construct critical experiments which can result in the rejection or modification of a theory is fundamental to the scientific method. While our association does not support the teaching of oversimplified or dogmatic descriptions of science, we also reject attempts to interfere with the teaching of properly developed scientific principles or to introduce into the science classroom religious or mystical concepts that have no logical connection with observed facts or with widely accepted scientific theories. We therefore strongly oppose any requirement for parallel treatment of scientific and non-scientific discussions in science classes. Scientific inquiry and religious beliefs are two distinct elements of the human experience. Attempts to present them in the same context can only lead to misunderstandings of both.

Approved by the Council of the American Association of Physics Teachers on 26 January 1982. Identical to the text of the statement of 15 December 1981 by the American Physical Society.

return to top

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY WOMEN

The American Association of University Women is committed to the pursuit of knowledge and access to that knowledge by all citizens. AAUW is also committed as a national organization to the doctrine of separation of church and state. We are concerned that the inclusion in the public schools of information on the creationist theory will open the door to rightful requests for equal time by the many individual faiths, thus creating an unmanageable situation. Decisions need to be made relating to questions such as:

Who is qualified to relay this information to students?

Who will decide what texts to recommend for further reading?

Which theories will be included for presentation?

AAUW recognizes that theory will not be taught in the classroom, but we have reservations as to how it will be presented. Is it not better to leave the responsibility of religious thought to individual churches? All knowledge is not gained in the public classroom. AAUW believes citizens have a protected right to avail themselves of education through many sources, and the primary source for religious education must be the church.

return to top

ARKANSAS SCIENCE TEACHERS ASSOCIATION (2001) *

Position Statement on Science Education

Arkansas Science Teachers Association (ASTA) members hold various personal views concerning the origin of the universe and of life. As a professional organization, ASTA is opposed to any religious view being taught in the public schools as science.

ASTA finds science and religion to be complementary rather than contradictory. Science strives to explain the nature of the cosmos while religion seeks to give the cosmos and the life within it a purpose. Human existence is enriched by a knowledge and understanding of both science and religion.

Religious explanations of the origin of the universe and of life are based on faith. Because these explanations vary among different religions, the views are best taught in the home or within the context of religious institutions.

Scientific explanations regarding the origin of the universe and of life are based on experimentation and may change, as new evidence is uncovered. The goal of science is to discover and investigate universally accepted natural explanations. This process of discovery and description of natural phenomena should be taught in public schools. Therefore, both curriculum and selection of instructional materials for public schools must reflect established scientific evidence.

return to top

ASSOCIATION OF COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY BIOLOGY EDUCATORS (1999) *

Resolutions of the 43rd Annual Meeting

Resolution:

Whereas the science of evolution stands as a well formed discipline which meets the rigorous standards of scientific theories and the application of scientific methods;

Whereas the states of Illinois, Kansas and Kentucky are promoting the false dilemma of religion versus the sciences and evolution

And whereas the states of Illinois, Kansas and Kentucky are blurring the lines between science and religion

Be it resolved that the Association of College and University Biology Educators, at its annual meeting publicly condemns the decisions of the legislatures and/or boards of education which have caused these states to weaken the public understanding of the sciences and we further urge these states to recognize that there may be further long-term consequences on their students from these decisions. We direct the secretary of ACUBE to send a letter to each of the Boards of Education in the aforementioned states.

Submitted by Malcolm Levin, Mary Haskins and others.

Meeting held at University of Wisconsin- River Falls, October 15-17, 1999.

return to top

ASSOCIATION OF PENNSYLVANIA STATE COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY BIOLOGISTS

Throughout the United States, "Scientific Creationism," a religious doctrine based upon the literal interpretation of the Bible, is being proposed as a valid scientific alternative to the Theory of Evolution. Creationists who represent this fundamentalist Christian religious movement are seeking "equal time" in science classrooms and science textbooks.

The Creationists' movement is an attempt to persuade, mislead, and pressure legislators, public school officials and the general public that since evolution is "only" a theory, implying opinion or conjecture, it is therefore open to any alternative. They propose that their alternative, the "Theory of Special Creation," is scientific and therefore is just as valid as the Theory of Evolution. Creationists reject the evolution of life from a single line of ancestors through chance mutation and natural selection and hold that the universe and all living things were divinely created beginning six to ten thousand years ago. They cite as their "scientific evidence" the biblical story of Genesis as written in the King James version of the Bible. Although Creationists are attempting to equate "Special Creation" as a scientific theory, they in fact claim absolute truth for their belief. Science, which does not deal with beliefs based on faith and does not claim absolute truth for its findings, utilizes an organized method of problem solving in an attempt to explain phenomena of our universe.

The Association of Pennsylvania State College and University Biologists together with other scientific associations such as the National Association of Biology Teachers, the National Academy of Science, the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the American Institute for Biological Sciences agrees that "Scientific Creationism" does not meet the criteria of science and cannot be considered a scientific theory. Scientists of these associations agree that Creationism can be neither verified nor refuted through scientific investigation, and the models or beliefs which involve the supernatural are not within the domain of science. However, to support the Theory of Evolution is not to be "antireligious" as Creationists propose. The majority of religions in America find no basic conflict between religion and science, and most accept the Theory of Evolution and reject Creationism. Throughout the U.S. scientists as well as clergy have opposed the Creationists' attempt to legislate the teaching of "Scientific Creationism" in science classrooms. During the December 1981 trial in Arkansas, in which a Creationist "equal time" law was contested and overturned, a great majority of witnesses in support of the Theory of Evolution were clergy of the Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish faiths.

The Theory of Evolution meets the criteria of science and the criteria of a scientific theory and is not based on faith, mere speculation or dogma. Evolution as a scientific theory is supported by a vast body of scientifically scrutinizable evidence coming from such sources as anatomy and physiology, biochemistry, genetics and the fossil record. To state, as Creationists do, that the Theory of Evolution is "only" a theory illustrates ignorance of science and the scientific method. The Theory of Evolution will be accepted and supported by the scientific community unless another theory which is based on science and the scientific method takes its place.

The Association of Pennsylvania State College and University Biologists recognizes that the move to equate a non scientific belief with science is a threat to the very integrity of science. APSCUB respects the religious beliefs held by Creationists and others pertaining to the origin and diversity of life and does not oppose the teaching of those concepts as religion or philosophy. However, APSCUB members as scientists and educators are in opposition to any attempt to introduce Creationism or any other nonscientific or pseudoscientific belief as science in the public school system in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. APSCUB further recommends the following:

1. All public school science teachers in the Commonwealth should reject science textbooks which treat Creationism as science. The inclusion of nonscientific material as science in a science textbook reflects on the credibility of the teacher who uses it. Textbooks which deal with the diversity of life but do not mention the Theory of Evolution or restrict its discussion should also be rejected.

2. Biology teachers in the public school system of Pennsylvania should teach the Theory of Evolution not as absolute truth but as the most widely accepted scientific theory on the diversity of life. Biology teachers of the Commonwealth should not be intimidated by pressures of the Creationists and simply avoid the issue by not teaching the Theory of Evolution. Avoiding established concepts in science is pseudoscience which also threatens the integrity and credibility of science. Avoiding the teaching of evolution is a victory for the Creationists.

Members of APSCUB will, when possible, give advice and support to teachers, legislators, public school officials, and the general public where matters of "Scientific Creationism" or other nonscientific beliefs concerning the diversity of life arise in their local community within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

Undated; 1982 or later.

return to top

AUTHORS OF BIOLOGY TEXTBOOKS (1999; UPDATED 2003) *

Statement on Evolution in Textbooks
by Authors of Biology Texts
March 26, 1999; updated September 8, 2003

Evolution and Science

The coverage of evolution in biology textbooks we have written reflects the broad consensus in the scientific community. As noted in a booklet issued by the National Academy of Sciences, "Evolution pervades all biological phenomena. To ignore that it occurred or to classify it as a form of dogma is to deprive the student of the most fundamental organizational concept in the biological sciences" (Science and Creationism, National Academy Press, 1985, p. 22).

Our textbooks are written from this point of view. Evolution occupies a prominent position, and is covered explicitly. Many sections use evolutionary concepts to explain the diversity of living and fossil organisms, the adaptations of organisms to their environments, and similarities of structure and function shared by related organisms. In this way, we present students with the understanding of biology shared by the overwhelming majority of working scientists in the United States and throughout the world.

What Do States Require of Biology Textbooks?

Although state requirements vary, the majority require that biology curricula must include extensive coverage of evolution. The few states where standards or curriculum guidelines do not mention evolution by name nonetheless require the coverage of evolutionary topics. If we omitted proper coverage of evolutionary facts and theories, we would not be in compliance with these and other curricula that require complete, accurate, up-to-date, and conceptually-based educational materials.

Our Message to Textbook Adopters

As scientists and teachers, we find it unacceptable that school districts considering our books for adoption would be encouraged to choose one book over another based on the perception that teachers should avoid the topic of evolution. We encourage school districts deciding among our books to use genuine scientific and educational criteria.

We also deplore the efforts made in some states and districts to require that evolution be disclaimed. Such disclaimers single out evolution from all other scientific ideas as somehow less reliable or less accepted by scientists, or as "only a theory." Evolution is a normal part of science, and should be treated the same way as all other scientific ideas. It does a disservice to students to mislead them about the important position that evolution holds in biological and other sciences.

Those who have joined in this statement do so as individuals. We do not speak on behalf of our publishers, but for ourselves, as biologists, authors, and educators.

LIST OF SIGNATORIES

PDF VERSION OF STATEMENT WITH SIGNATORIES

return to top

THE BSCS POSITION ON THE TEACHING OF BIOLOGY

Dr. Addison E. Lee, Professor of Science Education and Biology, and Director of the Science Education Center, The University of Texas at Austin, serves as Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study. His distinguished accomplishments as science educator and biologist enable him to write with authority in support of the BSCS position on the teaching of evolution. Dr. Lee's many publications as author or editor include Laboratory Studies in Biology and a monograph series entitled Research and Curriculum Development in Science Education.

The BSCS program began in 1959 amid considerable debate about the approach to be taken in the teaching of biology. Should it be molecular, organismal, developmental, ecological, or other? Should it include one textbook or several? How much and what kind of attention to laboratory work should be given? Amidst all these debates, however, it was an early consensus that certain themes should be included in all biology programs, no matter what approach is selected, and whatever attention may be given to various details. These themes were identified and have consistently pervaded the several approaches and different materials developed by the BSCS during the past twelve years. They are:

1. Change of living things through time: evolution

2. Diversity of type and unity of pattern in living things

3. The genetic continuity of life

4. The complementarity of organism and environment

5. The biological roots of behavior

6. The complementarity of structure and function

7. Regulation and homeostasis: preservation of life in the face of change

8. Science as inquiry

9. The history of biological conceptions

It should be noted that these unifying themes were identified and accepted by a large group of distinguished scientists, science teachers, and other educators. And although members of this group represented many interests, specialties, and points of view, there was and has continued to be general agreement concerning the importance, use, and nature of these themes.

It should also be noted that evolution is not only one of the major themes but is, in fact, central among the other themes; they are inter-related, and each is particularly related to evolution.

The position of the BSCS on the importance of evolution in teaching biology has been clearly stated in both the first (1963) and second (1970) editions of the Biology Teachers' Handbook:

It is no longer possible to give a complete or even a coherent account of living things without the story of evolution. On the other hand, many of the most striking characteristics of living things are "products" of the evolutionary process. We can make good sense and order of the similarities and differences among living things to the particular environments in which they live, their distribution over the surface of the earth, the comings and goings of their parts during development, even the chemistry by which they obtain energy and exchange it among their parts -- all such matters find illumination and explanation, in whole or in part, from the history of life on earth.

On the other hand, another great group of characteristics of living things can be fully understood only as the means and mechanisms by which evolution takes place. There are first, and conspicuously, the events of meiosis and fertilization, universal in sexual reproduction. It is only in terms of the contribution of these processes to the enhancement and sorting out of a vast store of heritable variations that we make sense of them. The same point applies to the complex processes that go under the name of mutation. Similarly, we see everywhere the action and consequences of natural selection, of reproductive isolation of populations, of the effects of size and change on intrabreeding groups.

Evolution, then, forms the warp and woof of modern biology...*

Evolution is a scientific theory in the sense that it is based on scientific data accumulated over many years and organized into a unifying idea widely accepted by modern biologists. The BSCS is concerned with any scientific theory relevant to the biological sciences that can be dealt with in terms of scientific data accumulated and organized. It is not, on the other hand, concerned with religious doctrines that are based only on faith or beliefs, nor does it consider them relevant to the teaching of biological science.

The BSCS program was carried through an extensive tryout period during its early development; feedback and input from hundreds of scientist and science teachers were used in the initial edition that was made available to biology teachers in the United States. A revised second edition of the three major textbooks produced has been published, and a revised third edition is nearing completion. In spite of efforts of various groups to force changes in the content of the texts by exerting pressures on textbook selection committees and on local and state governments, throughout the last twelve years the BSCS position on using the unifying themes of biology remains unchanged.

Footnote in original:

* BSCS, Biology Teachers' Handbook, Joseph J. Schwab (supervisor), John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1963. BSCS, Biology Teachers' Handbook, Second Edition, Evelyn Klinckmann (supervisor), John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1970.

return to top

THE BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES CURRICULUM STUDY (1995)

Position on the Teaching of Evolution for Voices for Evolution

BSCS, founded in 1958, was largely responsible for reintroducing evolution into the high school biology curriculum, following a four-decade period during which evolution virtually disappeared from high school biology textbooks. From its inception, BSCS has treated evolution as the central organizing theme of biology, listing it first, for example, among the biological principles that guided the development of all early BSCS programs.

The Biology Teachers' Handbook, published by BSCS in 1963, stressed the importance of concentrating on major principles in biology and gave special attention to evolution, stating: " It is no longer possible to give a complete or even a coherent account of living things without the story of evolution." The intervening three decades have affirmed that assertion, with progress in genetics, molecular biology, behavior, development, neuroscience, and other sub-disciplines reinforcing and expanding evolutionary perspectives originally based on gross morphological data.

The recent and rapid growth of knowledge in all areas of biology makes it ever more important -- and difficult -- to focus curriculum and teaching on major principles. To that end, BSCS recently published Developing Biological Literacy: A Guide to Developing Secondary and Post-secondary Biology Curricula (1993). This document identifies six unifying principles of biology that should pervade the teaching of biology, and it states the BSCS position on evolution quite clearly:

How can one simultaneously account of the extraordinary diversity and observable unity of living systems in the world today? The answer, in a word, is evolution. Evolution is the unifying theory of biology because it has played a role in the history and lives of all living organisms on Earth today -- and of those that are now extinct. Evolution is the major conceptual scheme of biology because it helps us understand relationships between organisms, past and present, and the many ways organisms have succeeded in different habitats.

We recognize that there are other ways of knowing, but ours is the scientific pursuit of knowledge. As BSCS approaches its fortieth anniversary of service to science education, it remains committed to the accurate and thorough representation of evolution as the conceptual keystone to our understanding of life on Earth. Furthermore, BSCS will continue to defend scientific integrity and will resist all attempts to influence its materials in ways that portray non-scientific explanations of life on Earth as scientifically valid.

Approved by the BSCS Board of Directors

January 1995

return to top

CALIFORNIA SCIENCE TEACHERS ASSOCIATION *

Policy Statement on the Teaching of Evolution
Adopted December 7, 2002

Our planet is billions of years old, and life has existed on it for a large part of that time. Through the eons, the Earth and its life have changed in an unending procession of new forms and vistas. This history and the mechanisms that bring about these changes are what is known as evolution.

Evolution occurred in the past and is still occurring today. To fully appreciate and acquire an understanding of life on Earth, one must know a great deal about present-day forms and their history. For this reason, evolution is a necessary part of everyone�s education. It makes as little sense for a biology teacher to present life on Earth as a collection of static entities as it would for a social studies teacher to present civics and geography without their historical contexts.

Biological evolution refers to the scientific understanding that living things share ancestors from which they have diverged � descent with modification. It is the consensus of the scientific community that evolutionary theory best explains the history of life and accounts for the similarities among living things, as well as life�s diversity. As living communities profoundly affect the composition of Earth�s atmosphere, weather, soils, and temperature, evolutionary theory also explains many features of the physical world in which we live. Evolutionary biology also contributes to society in more practical ways, including increased understanding of drug resistance by human pathogens, alternatives to pest controls, use of fossil fuels, and conservation.

Teaching evolution in our science classrooms is essential. As noted in Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science, issued by the National Academy of Sciences, �Evolution pervades all biological phenomena. To ignore that it occurred or to classify it as a form of dogma is to deprive the student of the most fundamental organizational concept in the biological sciences.� Evolution is identified as a unifying principle in the National Science Education Standards and is integral to the California Science Content Standards. The California Science Teachers Association endorses the teaching of evolution at all levels of our students� education. Furthermore, we do not endorse teaching the �evidence against evolution,� as there is no scientific evidence that evolution has not occurred. Nor can we condone teaching �scientific creationism,� �intelligent design,� or other non-scientific explanations as valid scientific theories. These beliefs ignore empirical data and fail to provide testable hypotheses. They should not be a part of the science curriculum.

return to top

IOWA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION

Creation, Evolution and Public Education: The Position of the Iowa Department of Public Instruction

The Controversy

In Iowa and other states, "creationism" has recently been advanced as an alternative to the theory of evolution. Attempts have been made to legislatively mandate "equal time" for creationist concepts in science classrooms, materials, and textbooks.

Interviews and surveys conducted by the Iowa Department of Public Instruction show that most Iowa religious leaders, science educators, scientists and philosophers contacted support the present patterns of teaching science in Iowa's schools. In addition, due to the nature of scientific and theological concepts, these authorities feel that the specifics of each discipline should be confined to their respective houses.

The National Academy of Science has stated that religion and science are "separate and mutually exclusive realms of human thought whose presentation in the same context leads to misunderstanding of both scientific theories and religious beliefs."1

Creationism

In America, religion is usually defined as the expression of man's belief in, and reverence for, a metaphysical power governing all activities of the universe. Where there is not belief in metaphysical power, religion is a concern for that which is ultimate. Generally, creationism is a religious concept. It proposes that all living things were created by a Creator. According to the creation model, "all living things originated from basic kinds of life, each of which was separately created."2

There are many versions of creation. Generally, creationists advocate that all permanent, basic life forms originated thousands of years ago through directive acts of a Creator -- independent of the natural universe. Plants and animals were created separately with their full genetic potentiality provided by the Creator. Any variation, or speciation, which has occurred since creation has been within the original prescribed boundaries. Since each species contains its full potentiality, nature is viewed as static, reliable and predictable. Based on alleged gaps in the geologic record, creationists reject the theory of the descent of plants and animals from a single line of ancestors arising through random mutation and successively evolving over billions of years. It is further alleged that, through analysis of geologic strata, the earth has experienced at least one great flood or other natural global disaster accounting for the mass extinction of many biological organisms. Following such extinctions there followed sudden increases in the number, variety and complexity of organisms.

Having all Biblical accounts of creationism placed in comparative theology courses with other religious accounts of origins will not placate ardent creationists. They require that creationism be presented as a viable scientific alternative to evolution.3 More zealous creationists argue that "it is only in the Bible that we can possibly obtain any information about the methods of creation, the order of creation, the duration of creation, or any other details of creation."4

Science

Science is an attempt to help explain the world of which we are a part. It is both an investigatory process and a body of knowledge readily subjected to investigation and verification. By a generally accepted definition, science is not an indoctrination process, but rather an objective method for problem solving. Science is an important part of the foundation upon which rest our technology, our agriculture, our economy, our intellectual life, our national defense, and our ventures into space.

The formulation of theories is a basic part of scientific method. Theories are generalizations, based on substantial evidence, which explain many diverse phenomena. A theory is always tentative. It is subject to test through the uncovering of new data, through new experiments, through repetition and refinements of old experiments, or through new interpretations. Should a significant body of contrary evidence appear, the theory is either revised or it is replaced by a new and better theory. The strength of a scientific theory lies in the fact that it is the most logical explanation of known facts, principles, and concepts dealing with an idea which does not currently have a conclusive test.

Evolution

The theory of evolution meets the criteria of a scientific theory. It can explain much of the past and help predict many future scientific phenomena. Basically, the theory states that modern biologic organisms descended, with modification, from pre-existing forms which in turn had ancestors. Those organisms best adapted, through anatomical and physiological modification to their environment, left more offspring than did non-adapted organisms. The increased diversity of organisms enhanced their ability to survive in various environments and enabled them to leave more progeny.

The theory of evolution is designed to answer the "how" questions of science and biological development; it cannot deal effectively with the "who" or "why" of man's origin and development. It is, however, an effective means of integrating and clarifying many otherwise isolated scientific facts, principles and concepts.

There have been alternatives proposed to the theory of evolution (i.e., creationism, exo-biology, spontaneous generation); however, none are supported by the amount of scientific evidence that presently supports the theory of evolution.

It is evident that the process of evolution occurs. Successful species of living organisms change with time when exposed to environmental pressures. Such changes in species have been documented in the past, and it can be confidently predicted that they will continue to change in the future. Evolution helps explain many other scientific phenomena: variations in disease, drug resistance in microbes, anatomical anomalies which appear in surgery, and successful methods for breeding better crops and farm animals. Modern biological science and its applications on the farm, in medicine, and elsewhere are not completely understandable without many of the basic concepts of evolution.

There are many things that evolution is not. It is not dogma. Although there is intense dispute among scientists concerning the details of evolution, most scientists accept its validity on the ground of its strong supporting evidence.

Department of Public Instruction Decision

Teaching religious doctrine is not the science teacher's responsibility. Teachers should recognize the personal validity of alternative beliefs, but should then direct student inquiries to the appropriate institution for counseling and/or further explanation. Giving equal emphasis in science classes to non-scientific theories that are presented as alternatives to evolution would be in direct opposition to understanding the nature and purpose of science.

Each group is fully entitled to its point of view with respect to the Bible and evolution; but the American doctrine of religious freedom and the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution forbid either group -- or any other religious group -- from pressing its point of view on the public schools. An Indiana court decision declared: "The prospect of biology teachers and students alike forced to answer and respond to continued demand for 'correct' Fundamentalist Christian doctrines has no place in public schools."5

The science curriculum should emphasize the theory of evolution as a well-supported scientific theory -- not a fact -- that is taught as such by certified science teachers. Students should be advised that it is their responsibility, as informed citizens, to have creationism explained to them by theological experts. They must then decide for themselves the merits of each discipline and its relevance to their lives.

The Iowa Department of Public Instruction feels that public schools cannot be surrogate family, church and all other necessary social institutions for students, and for them to attempt to do so would be a great disservice to citizens and appropriate institutions.

Released by the Iowa DPI in March 1980.

Footnotes in original:

1 Resolution adopted by the National Academy of Science and the Commission of Science Education of the American Academy [sic] for the Advancement of Science (Washington, D.C. 17 October 1972).

2 Bliss, R. B., Origins: Two Models: Evolution, Creation (San Diego: Creation Life Publishers, 1976), p. 31.

3 Morris, Henry M. , The Remarkable Birth of Planet Earth (San Diego: Creation Life Publishers, 1972).

4 National Association of Biology Teachers, A Compendium of Information on the Theory of Evolution and the Evolution-Creationism Controversy (June 1977).

5 Hendren vs Campbell, Supreme [sic] Court No. 5, Marion County, Indiana (1977), p. 20

return to top

IOWA COUNCIL OF SCIENCE SUPERVISORS

Because of the insistence that special creation be taught in Iowa science courses as an alternative concept to evolution, we, the Iowa Council of Science Supervisors, as representatives of the science educators in Iowa, make the following statement:

Science educators are responsible for interpreting the spirit and substance of science to their students. Teachers are bound to promote a scientific rationale based upon carefully defined and objective judgments of scientific endeavors. When conflicts arise between competing paradigms in science, they must be resolved by the scientific community rather than by the educators of science.

Based upon court decisions in Indiana and Tennessee, and in the creationists' own statements of beliefs, the Creation Research Society is premised upon the full belief in the Biblical record of special creation.

"The Bible is the Written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in all original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths."*

Science is tentative and denies an ultimate or perfect truth as claimed by scientific creationism. We suggest that creationists submit their creation theories and models to recognized science organizations such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) or their affiliated scientific societies. The claims of these paradigms should be substantiated with validated objective evidence. The scientific organizations would assume responsibility for analyzing the materials, making their findings available for national review through AAAS scientific journals.

Until "scientific creation" receives substantial support from such organizations as AAAS, American Anthropological Association, state academies of science, National Academy of Science, and national paleontological and geological associations, it is recommended that this organization and the science teachers of Iowa reject further consideration of scientific creationism as an alternative approach to established science teaching practices.

*Membership application forms for the Creation Research Society. Corrections of spelling and punctuation by editors.

return to top

MICHIGAN SCIENCE TEACHERS ASSOCIATION

Creation, Evolution, and Science Education

Scientific creation, special creation, and creation-science are terms used synonymously when referring to the thesis that the universe and all forms of life were brought into existence by sudden acts of a Divine Creator. Supporters of this thesis are creationists, some of whom are campaigning vigorously in favor of the inclusion of creation-science in the science classrooms of the nation's public schools. In effect, such inclusion would constitute a two-model approach to questions of origins. One of these models is the theory of evolution; the second model is creation-science.

The theory of evolution is the theory or model presented in the life sciences curricula of public school science classrooms. Evolution theory is taught because its existence as a developing network of observations, hypotheses, predictions, facts, principles, and sub-theories is the result of scientific inquiry free of any a priori design.

In comparison, the creation-science model is not an observation-hypothesis-prediction-fact-principle-accessory theory sequence. It does not encourage open-ended questioning because any raising of questions must produce answers that converge on the Divine Creator thesis. As a result, the creation-science model cannot generate information and ideas useful in the development of new areas of scientific investigation. Thus, creation-science is not acceptable as a scientific theory. Even so, the necessity exists for public school science educators to consider certain causal concerns of creationists. A major concern is that students from creationist backgrounds are exposed to theories regarding questions of origins not consonant with their religious training; a second concern is that many science teachers teach the theory of evolution as fact.

Therefore, in consequence of the creationists' concerns and in consequence of the need to maintain the integrity of science education, the Michigan Science Teachers Association adopts the following position with respect to the evolution/creation issue:

1. The Michigan Science Teachers Association affirms the necessity of rejecting the teaching of non-scientific theories in the science classrooms of Michigan's public schools.

2. The Michigan Science Teachers Association recommends that its professional development committee be responsible for the design of an inservice model for helping science teachers learn how to work sensitively and objectively with the evolution/creation concerns expressed by students, parents, and boards of education.

3. The Michigan Science Teachers Association reaffirms its goals of
(a) helping students acquire useful science knowledge and skills (b) helping students progress in the understanding and use of processes of scientific inquiry, and (c) helping students separate scientific thought and activity from thought rightfully the province of humankind's diverse ways of spiritual expression and responsiveness to the need for authoritarian guidance.

4. The Michigan Science Teachers Association recommends the establishment of procedures for the dissemination of the position expressed herein to Michigan Science teachers, to the Michigan Department of Education through its science specialist, and to Michigan Boards of Education and to science specialists of other states on request.

Approved on November 21, 1981, by the Board of Directors of the Michigan Science Teachers Association on behalf of the Michigan Science Teachers Association.

return to top

MICHIGAN SCIENCE TEACHERS ASSOCIATION POSITION STATEMENT (2003) *
Approved August 5, 2003

The Teaching of Evolution and Michigan House of Representatives Bills #4946 & #5005
In adopting the position statement of the National Science Teachers Association (1997) regarding the teaching of evolution, the Michigan Science Teachers Association (MSTA) supports the position that evolution is a major unifying concept of science and should be included as part of K-College science frameworks and curricula. The MSTA 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. Furthermore, teachers are being pressured to introduce creationism, creation "science", and other nonscientific views, which are intended to weaken or eliminate the teaching of evolution.

In accordance with the Michigan State Board of Education's March 10, 1982 resolution regarding the "Teaching of Religion and Creationism in Michigan Public Schools," the MSTA agrees with the position that the "...State Board of Education oppose the teaching, in public educational institutions, of any course in religion which is outside of the realm of a secular program of education and be it further resolved that the State Board of Education recommend that any school district currently teaching creationism or any course in religion in an attempt to indoctrinate toward any particular belief or disbelief cease and desist such teaching."

In recognition of the Michigan State Board of Education's resolution on the teaching of evolution and the MSTA adoption of the NSTA position statement on teaching evolution, the Michigan Science Teachers Association advocates that HB 4946 & HB 5005 be removed from any further consideration by the House of Representatives.

return to top

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BIOLOGY TEACHERS (1980)

The procedures and processes of science are well defined within the discipline. The facts and theories of science have been established through experiment and synthesis of subject, peer review, and acceptance for validity within the scientific community. Materials that do not meet the test of science or are not directly derivative from the accepted norms for the discipline should not be a part of the science curriculum.

Science deals with material things and the consequences of their application. As such, it is not in conflict with other means of knowing about the universe. There are those who see the facts and theories of science as a threat either to their belief systems or to their interpretations which may be at variance with scientific data. While science is moot on these issues, attempts are made to intercalate into the scientific enterprise conclusions neither based on scientific data nor verified by the scientific process. These conclusions, arising outside the field of science and resulting from ignoring or misinterpreting scientific data, have no place in the science classroom as a part of the body of scientific knowledge.

The NABT, through its obligation to biological education, will make every effort to educate the public as to the unscientific nature of efforts to equate non-science with the scientific enterprise. NABT will resist attempts to place non-scientific dogma into the classroom as science. Wherever such efforts are attempted, NABT should correct the record and provide adequate scientific evidence designed to allow decision-makers full access to the facts by means of which to judge the efforts to intercalate non-scientific material into science classrooms or to remove or change the data of science to accommodate a given set of conclusions derived from outside the scientific enterprise.

The credibility and usability of science depends on maintenance of the integrity of science as a discipline. While no feature in this policy is to be construed as preventing the full range of applications of science and the elucidation of its social and humanistic implications, there is an obligation to insure that the scientific data thus used is both accurate and derived within the accepted procedures of the discipline. Without the maintenance of the integrity of the initial data with which one works, any subsequent applications or derivations may be ill-conceived and of little service to the human enterprise.

NABT has an obligation to maintain the integrity of biology as a scientific discipline. To this end it must act to resist efforts to include in the science classroom materials derived outside the scientific process. It must insist that the data and concepts of science as presented to students meet the accepted standards of the discipline, and data which can best be described as para-scientific (creationism, astrology, anti-germ theory, etc.) cannot be condoned as science within classrooms

Adopted 23 October 1980. Published in The American Biology Teacher 14:445 (October 1982).

return to top

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BIOLOGY TEACHERS (2000) *

Statement on Teaching Evolution

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 assertion accurately illuminates the central, unifying role of evolution in nature, and therefore in biology. Teaching biology in an effective and scientifically-honest manner requires classroom discussions and laboratory experiences on evolution.

Modern biologists constantly study, ponder and deliberate the patterns, mechanisms and pace of evolution, but they do not debate evolution's occurrence. The fossil record and the diversity of extant organisms, combined with modern techniques of molecular biology, taxonomy and geology, provide exhaustive examples and powerful evidence for genetic variation, natural selection, speciation, extinction and other well-established components of current evolutionary theory. Scientific deliberations and modifications of these components clearly demonstrate the vitality and scientific integrity of evolution and the theory that explains it.

This same examination, pondering and possible revision have firmly established evolution as an important natural process explained by valid scientific principles, and clearly differentiate and separate science from various kinds of nonscientific ways of knowing, including those with a supernatural basis such as creationism. Whether called "creation science," "scientific creationism," "intelligent-design theory," "young-earth theory" or some other synonym, creation beliefs have no place in the science classroom. Explanations employing nonnaturalistic or supernatural events, whether or not explicit reference is made to a supernatural being, are outside the realm of science and not part of a valid science curriculum. Evolutionary theory, indeed all of science, is necessarily silent on religion and neither refutes nor supports the existence of a deity or deities.

Accordingly, the National Association of Biology Teachers, an organization of science teachers, endorses the following tenets of science, evolution and biology education:

The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an unpredictable and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies and changing environments.
Biological evolution refers to changes in populations, not individuals. Changes must be successfully passed on to the next generation. This means evolution results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations. In fact, evolution can be defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next.
Evolutionary theory is significant in biology, among other reasons, for its unifying properties and predictive features, the clear empirical testability of its integral models and the richness of new scientific research it fosters.
The fossil record, which includes abundant transitional forms in diverse taxonomic groups, establishes extensive and comprehensive evidence for organic evolution.
Natural selection, the primary mechanism for evolutionary changes, can be demonstrated with numerous, convincing examples, both extant and extinct.
Natural selection--a differential, greater survival and reproduction of some genetic variants within a population under an existing environmental state--has no specific direction or goal, including survival of a species.
Adaptations do not always provide an obvious selective advantage. Furthermore, there is no indication that adaptations--molecular to organismal--must be perfect: adaptations providing a selective advantage must simply be good enough for survival and increased reproductive fitness.
The model of punctuated equilibrium provides another account of the tempo of speciation in the fossil record of many lineages: it does not refute or overturn evolutionary theory, but instead adds to its scientific richness.
Evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics: producing order from disorder is possible with the addition of energy, such as from the sun.
Although comprehending deep time is difficult, the earth is about 4.5 billion years old. Homo sapiens has occupied only a minuscule moment of that immense duration of time.
When compared with earlier periods, the Cambrian explosion evident in the fossil record reflects at least three phenomena: the evolution of animals with readily-fossilized hard body parts; Cambrian environment (sedimentary rock) more conducive to preserving fossils; and the evolution from pre-Cambrian forms of an increased diversity of body patterns in animals.
Radiometric and other dating techniques, when used properly, are highly accurate means of establishing dates in the history of the planet and in the history of life.
Recent findings from the advancing field of molecular genetics, combined with the large body of evidence from other disciplines, collectively provide indisputable demonstration of the theory of evolution.
In science, a theory is not a guess or an approximation but an extensive explanation developed from well-documented, reproducible sets of experimentally-derived data from repeated observations of natural processes.
The models and the subsequent outcomes of a scientific theory are not decided in advance, but can be, and often are, modified and improved as new empirical evidence is uncovered. Thus, science is a constantly self-correcting endeavor to understand nature and natural phenomena.
Science is not teleological: the accepted processes do not start with a conclusion, then refuse to change it, or acknowledge as valid only those data that support an unyielding conclusion. Science does not base theories on an untestable collection of dogmatic proposals. Instead, the processes of science are characterized by asking questions, proposing hypotheses, and designing empirical models and conceptual frameworks for research about natural events.
Providing a rational, coherent and scientific account of the taxonomic history and diversity of organisms requires inclusion of the mechanisms and principles of evolution.
Similarly, effective teaching of cellular and molecular biology requires inclusion of evolution.
Specific textbook chapters on evolution should be included in biology curricula, and evolution should be a recurrent theme throughout biology textbooks and courses.
Students can maintain their religious beliefs and learn the scientific foundations of evolution.
Teachers should respect diverse beliefs, but contrasting science with religion, such as belief in creationism, is not a role of science. Science teachers can, and often do, hold devout religious beliefs, accept evolution as a valid scientific theory, and teach the theory's mechanisms and principles.
Science and religion differ in significant ways that make it inappropriate to teach any of the different religious beliefs in the science classroom.

Opposition to teaching evolution reflects confusion about the nature and processes of science. Teachers can, and should, stand firm and teach good science with the acknowledged support of the courts. In Epperson v. Arkansas (1968), the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a 1928 Arkansas law prohibiting the teaching of evolution in state schools. In McLean v. Arkansas (1982), the federal district court invalidated a state statute requiring equal classroom time for evolution and creationism.

Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) led to another Supreme Court ruling against so-called "balanced treatment" of creation science and evolution in public schools. In this landmark case, the Court called the Louisiana equal-time statute "facially invalid as violative of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, because it lacks a clear secular purpose." This decision--"the Edwards restriction"--is now the controlling legal position on attempts to mandate the teaching of creationism: the nation's highest court has said that such mandates are unconstitutional. Subsequent district court decisions in Illinois and California have applied "the Edwards restriction" to teachers who advocate creation science, and to the right of a district to prohibit an individual teacher from promoting creation science, in the classroom.

Courts have thus restricted school districts from requiring creation science in the science curriculum and have restricted individual instructors from teaching it. All teachers and administrators should be mindful of these court cases, remembering that the law, science and NABT support them as they appropriately include the teaching of evolution in the science curriculum.

References and Suggested Reading

Aguillard, D. (1999). Evolution education in Louisiana public schools: a decade following Edwards v. Aguillard. The American Biology Teacher, 61, pp. 182-188.

Brack, A. (Ed.). (1999). The Molecular Origins of Life: Assembling Pieces of the Puzzle. Cambridge: Camnbridge University Press.

Futuyma, D. (1986). Evolutionary biology, 2nd ed. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, Inc.

Futuyma, D. (1995). Science on Trial. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, Inc.

Gillis, A. (1994). Keeping creationism out of the classroom. Bioscience, 44, pp. 650-656.

Gould, S. (1994, October). The evolution of life on earth. Scientific American, 271, pp. 85-91.

Gould, S. (1995). Dinosaur in a Haystack. Reflections in Natural History. New York: Harmony Books.

Kiklas, K. (1997). The Evolutionary Biology of Plants. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Matsumura, M. (Ed.). (1995). Voices for Evolution. Berkeley, CA: The National Center for Science Education.

Mayr, E. (1991). One Long Argument: Charles Darwin and the Genesis of Modern Evolutionary Thought. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Moore, J. (1993). Science as a Way of Knowing--The Foundations of Modern Biology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Moore, R. (1999). Creationism in the United States: VII. The Lingering Threat. The American Biology Teacher, 61, pp. 330-340. See also references therein to earlier articles in the series.

National Academy of Sciences. (1998). Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Academy of Sciences. (1999). Science and creationism�-A View from the National Academy of Sciences. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Center for Science Education. P.O. Box 9477, Berkeley, CA 94709. Numerous publications such as Bartelt, K. (1999), A Scientist Responds to Behe's Black Box.

National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Pennock, R.T. (1999). Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Weiner, J. (1994). The Beak of the Finch--A Story of Evolution in our Time. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Wilson, E. (1992). The Diversity of Life. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.

Adopted by the Board of Directors March 15, 1995. Revised October 1997 and August 2000. Endorsed by: The Society for the Study of Evolution, June 1998. The American Association of Physical Anthropologists, July 1998.

return to top

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BIOLOGY TEACHERS: Scientific Integrity

The ongoing procedures and processes of science are well defined within each scientific discipline, including biology. The principles and theories of science have been established through repeated experimentation and observation and have been refereed through peer review before general acceptance by the scientific community. Acceptance does not imply rigidity or constraint, or denote dogma. Instead, as new data become available, scientific explanations are revised and improved, or rejected and replaced. Materials, methods, and explanations that fail to meet these ongoing tests of science are not legitimate components of the discipline and must not be part of a science curriculum.

Science may appear to conflict with other ways of knowing about the universe, unfortunately leading some groups to see selected theories of science as a threat to their belief systems. This is not the case; science does not, in fact cannot, study, explain, or judge non-scientific issues or supernatural belief systems.

Science is but one way of making sense of the world, with internally-consistent methods and principles that are well described. Among these principles is the notion that proposed causes and explanations must be naturalistic. Any attempt to mix or contrast supernatural beliefs and naturalistic theories within science misrepresents the scien, tific enterprise and debases other, non-scientific, ways of knowing. These attempts, which commonly result from a misunderstanding of the nature of science itself, have no place in science, or in the science classroom or laboratory.

The credibility and utility of science, and therefore biology, depend on maintaining its integrity. NABT has a special obligatio, , n, to promote this integrity in life science education. The data, concepts, and theories of science presented to students must meet the accepted standards of the discipline. To this end, NABT will not support efforts to include in the science classroom materials or theories derived outside of the scientific processes. Nonscientific notions such as geocentricism, flat earth, creationism, young earth, astrology, psychic healing and vitalistic theory, therefore, cannot legitimately be taught, promoted, or condoned as science in the classroom.

Revision adopted by the Board of NABT, 3/15/95

return to top

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BIOLOGY TEACHERS: The Teaching of Evolution

As stated in The American Biology Teacher (1973) by the eminent scientist Theodosius Dobzhansky, "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." This often quoted assertion accurately illuminates the central, unifying role of evolution in nature, and therefore in biology. Teaching biology in an effective and scientifically honest manner requires classroom discussions and laboratory experiences on evolution.

Modern biologists constantly study, ponder, and deliberate the patterns, mechanisms and pace of evolution, but they do not debate evolution's occurrence. The fossil record and the diversity of extant organisms, combined with modern techniques of molecular biology, taxonomy and geology, provide exhaustive examples and powerful evidence for genetic variation, natural selection, speciation, extinction and other well-established components of current evolutionary theory. Scientific deliberations and modifications of these components clearly demonstrate the vitality and scientific integrity of evolution and the theory that explains it.

This same examination, pondering and possible revision has firmly established evolution as an important natural process explained by valid scientific principles, and clearly differentiates and separates science from various kinds of non-scientific ways of knowing, including those with a supernatural basis such as creationism. Whether called "creation science, scientific creationism, intelligent-design theory, young-earth theory" or some other synonym, creation beliefs have no place in the science classroom. Explanations employing non-naturalistic or supernatur, al events, whether explicit reference is made to a supernatural being or not, are outside the realm of science and are not part of a valid science curriculum. Evolutionary theory, indeed all of science, is necessarily silent on religion and neither refutes or supports the existence of a deity or deities.

Accordingly, the National Association of Biology Teachers, an organization of science teachers, endorses the following tenets of science, evolution and biology education:

The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an unpredictable and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies and changing environments.
Evolutionary theory is significant in biology, among other reasons, for its unifying properties and predictive features, the clear empirical testability of its integral models and the richness of new scientific research it fosters.
The fossil record, which includes abundant transitional forms in diverse taxonomic groups, establishes extensive and comprehensive evidence for organic evolution.
Natural selection, the primary mechanism for evolutionary changes, can be demonstrated with numerous, convincing examples, both extant and extinct.
Natural selection -- a differential, greater survival and reproduction of some genetic variants within a population under an existing environmental state -- has no specific direction or goal, including survival of a , s, pecies, . , <, br>
Adaptations do not always provide an obvious selective advantage. Furthermore, there is no indication that adaptations -- molecular to organismal -- must be perfect; adaptations providing a selective advantage must simply be good enough for survival and increased reproductive fitness.
The model of punctuated equilibrium provides another account of the tempo of speciation in the fossil record of many lineages: it does not refute or overturn evolutionary theory, but instead adds to its scientific richness.
Evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics; producing order from disorder is possible with the addition of energy, such as from the sun.
Although comprehending deep time is difficult, the earth is about 4.5 billion years old. Homo sapiens has occupied only a minuscule moment of that immense duration of time.
When compared with earlier periods, the Cambrian explosion evident in the fossil record reflects at least three phenomena: the evolution of animals with readily fossilized, hard-body parts; a Cambrian environment (sedimentary rock) more conducive to preserving fossils; and the evolution from pre-Cambrian forms of an increased diversity of body patterns in animals.
Radiometric and other dating techniques, when used properly, are highly accurate means of establishing dates in the history of the planet and in the history of life.
In science, a theory is not a guess or an approximation but an extensive explanation developed from well-documented, reproducible sets of experimentally-derived data and from repeated observations of natural processes.
The models and the subsequent outcomes of a scientific theory are not decided in advance, but can be, and often are, modified and improved as new empirical evidence is uncovered. Thus science is a constantly self-correcting endeavor to understand nature and natural phenomena.
Science is not teleological: the accepted processes do not start with a conclusion then refuse to change it, or acknowledge as valid only those data that support an unyielding conclusion. Science does not base theories on an untestable collection of dogmatic proposals. Instead, the processes of science are characterized by asking questions, proposing hypotheses and designing empirical models and conceptual frameworks for research about natural events.
Providing a rational, coherent and scientific account of the taxonomic history and diversity of organisms requires inclusion of the mechanisms and principles of evolution.
Similarly, effective teaching of cellular and molecular biology requires inclusion of evolution.
Specific textbook chapters on evolution should be included in biology curricula, and evolution should be a recurrent theme throughout biology textbooks and courses.
Students can maintain their religious beliefs and learn the scientific fo, u, ndations of evolution.
Teachers should respect diverse beliefs, but contrasting science with religion, such as belief in creationism, is not a role of science. Science teachers can, and often do, hold devout religious beliefs, accept evolution as a valid scientific theory and teach the theory's mechanisms and principles.
Science and religion differ in significant ways that make it inappropriate to teach any of the different religious beliefs in the science classroom.

Develop outreach efforts that build off the momentum that will be generated by the fall, 2001 release of the WGBH television series Evolution.
Emphasize evolution at annual and regional meetings by holding symposia focusing on evolution, teacher workshops, short courses, incentives for student research in evolution, etc.
Provide information and crash-courses for journalists who write about evolution.
Link web pages related to evolution education across scientific disciplines and among scientific and educational organizations.
Partner among scientists and educators to develop teaching modules and resources that have an evolutionary theme.
Provide useful informational resources to members who want to help with local efforts to support the teaching of evolution.
Reach out to scientific, educational, political, governmental, religious, philanthropic, and private sector partners to accomplish the goals of support the teaching of evolution.

The participants endorsed the overall principle that societies should expand their knowledge base and inform each other of their activities. They realized that this may involve putting time, effort, and dollars into actions, and that societies need to work together for the long-term common good.

NCTE was organized by the Paleontological Society, the Society for the Study of Evolution, and the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. For more information please visit the website: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/ncte/.

return to top

NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR THE SOCIAL STUDIES

Resolution Regarding Pressure Groups, submitted by Religion in Schools Committee and supported by Science and Society Committee

Whereas public schools and legislatures nationwide are being pressured to give "equal time" to the scientific creationism interpretation of creation in science and social studies courses; and

Whereas the pressures are perceived as part of a much larg- er problem;

Be it resolved that the NCSS affirms that, although community values should be an integral consideration in the establishment of the goals of education, curriculum decision-making regarding instructional method and specific content ultimately should be the responsibility of certificated personnel; and

Be it further resolved that NCSS affirms that through- out the curriculum, educators should make explicit the foundations from which conclusions about the world are drawn, including religious, philosophical, and other ideological systems, as well as the basic assumption underlying the academic disciplines themselves; and

Be it further resolved that the NCSS reaffirms that social studies is a logical curricular area in which to examine the societal issues which arise when persons have different world views and sets of assumptions about life; and

Be it further resolved that NCSS commit itself to use existing programming and publishing vehicles to provide professional development opportunities to better enable social studies educators to deal with these issues.

November 1981

return to top

NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION

Statement in Support of the Teaching of Evolution

The National Education Association (NEA) was founded in 1857, two years before Charles Darwin published The Origin of Species. Although these two events remain unrelated, Darwinism and evolution came to play prominent roles over the next fifty years in the science curricula in our nation's public schools.

But like so many scientific theories that challenge established orthodoxy, evolution is still being contested. The issue of evolution versus creationism, unresolved by the weight of case law, is still the subject of debate.

NEA's position in this debate has been firm. Most recently, our 1982 Representative Assembly made clear that NEA opposes all efforts to alter the science curricula in any way that would place the teaching of scientific creationism on an equal footing with the teaching of evolution.

While the National Education Association believes that educational materials should accurately portray the influence of religion in our nation and throughout the world, we also believe that for American education to flourish, religious dogma must neither guide nor hamper the pursuit of knowledge by students and teachers in our public schools.

1994

return to top

NATIONAL SCIENCE SUPERVISORS ASSOCIATION

The Teaching of Creationism in the Science Curriculum

The National Science Supervisors Association is opposed to the teaching of "creationism" in the science curricula of the nation's schools. Creationism, and other pseudo-sciences, are premised upon supernatural explanations of natural phenomena and therefore are outside the realm of science.

We therefore stand with such organizations as the National Association of Biology Teachers, the Council of State Science Supervisors, the National Science Teachers Association, the National Academy of Sciences, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science in opposing the inclusion of such pseudo-sciences in the science curricula of the schools of the nation.

Adopted 5 April, 1990. The National Science Supervisors Association has since changed its name to National Science Education Leadership Association Permission to print the National Science Education Leadership Association's position paper, "The Teaching of Creationism in the Science Curriculum," is given with the expressed written consent of NSELA.

return to top

NATIONAL SCIENCE TEACHERS ASSOCIATION (1973,1982)

Inclusion of Nonscience Theories in Science Instruction

Throughout recorded history, man has been vitally concerned in finding out all that he can about his universe. He has explored it in many ways, raised questions about it, designed methods by which he could increase and organize his knowledge, and developed systems to aid him in understanding and explaining his origin, and nature, and his place in the universe. Among these systems are philosophy, religion, folklore, the arts, and science.

Science is the system of knowing the universe through data collected by observation and controlled experimentation. As data are collected, theories are advanced to explain and account for what has been observed. The true test of a theory in science is threefold: (1) its ability to explain what has been observed; (2) its ability to predict what has not yet been observed; and (3) its ability to be tested by further experimentation and to be modified as required by the acquisition of new data.

The National Science Teachers Association upholds the right and recognizes the obligation of each individual to become informed about man's many endeavors, to understand and explain what each endeavor has contributed to mankind, and to draw his own conclusions in each area.

The National Science Teachers Association also recognizes its great obligation to that area of education dealing with science. Science education cannot treat, as science, those things not in the domain of science. It cannot deal with, as science, concepts that have been developed in other than scientific ways. Moreover, the National Science Teachers Association vigorously opposes all actions that would legislate, mandate, or coerce the inclusion in the corpus of science, including textbooks, of any theories that do not meet the threefold criteria given above.

return to top

NATIONAL SCIENCE TEACHERS ASSOCIATION (1985)

Inclusion of Nonscience Tenets in Science Instruction

People have always been curious about the universe and their place in it. They have questioned, explored, probed, and conjectured. In an effort to organized their understandings, people have developed various systems that help them explain their origin, e.g., philosophy, religion, folklore, the arts, and science.

Science is the system of exploring the universe through data collected and controlled by experimentation. As data are collected, theories are advanced to explain and account for what has been observed. Before a theory can be included in the system of science, it must meet all of the following criteria: (1) its ability to explain what has been observed, (2) its ability to predict what has not yet been observed, and (3) its ability to be tested by further experimentation and to be modified as required by the acquisition of new data.

NSTA recognizes that only certain tenets are appropriate to science education. Specific guidelines must be followed to determine what does belong in science education. NSTA endorses the following tenets:

1. Respect the right of any person to learn the history and content of all systems and to decide what can contribute to an individual understanding of our universe and our place in it.

2. In explaining natural phenomena, science instruction should only include those theories that can properly be called science.

3. To ascertain whether a particular theory is properly in the realm of science education, apply the criteria stated above, i.e., (1) the theory can explain what has been observed, (2) the theory can predict that which has not yet been observed, (3) the theory can be tested by further experimentation and be modified as new data are acquired.

4. Oppose any action that attempts to legislate, mandate, or coerce the inclusion in the body of science education, including textbooks, of any tenets which cannot meet the above stated criteria.

return to top

NATIONAL SCIENCE TEACHERS ASSOCIATION (1997) *

An NSTA Position Statement

The Teaching of Evolution

Introductory Remarks

The National Science Teachers Association supports the position that evolution is a major unifying concept of science and should be included as part of K�College science frameworks and curricula. NSTA 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.

Furthermore, teachers are being pressured to introduce creationism, creation "science," and other nonscientific views, which are intended to weaken or eliminate the teaching of evolution.

Within this context, NSTA recommends that:

� Science curricula and teachers should emphasize evolution in a manner commensurate with its importance as a unifying concept in science, and its overall explanatory power.

� Policy makers and administrators should not mandate policies requiring the teaching of creation science, or related concepts such as so-called "intelligent design," "abrupt appearance," and "arguments against evolution."

� Science teachers should not advocate any religious view about creation, nor advocate the converse: that there is no possibility of supernatural influence in bringing about the universe as we know it. Teachers should be nonjudgmental about the personal beliefs of students.

� Administrators should provide support to teachers as they design and implement curricula that emphasize evolution. This should include inservice education to assist teachers to teach evolution in a comprehensive and professional manner. Administrators also should support teachers against pressure to promote nonscientific views or to diminish or eliminate the study of evolution.

� Parental and community involvement in establishing the goals of science education and the curriculum development process should be encouraged and nurtured in our democratic society. However, the professional responsibility of science teachers and curriculum specialists to provide students with quality science education should not be bound by censorship, pseudoscience, inconsistencies, faulty scholarship, or unconstitutional mandates.

� Science textbooks shall emphasize evolution as a unifying concept. Publishers should not be required or volunteer to include disclaimers in textbooks concerning the nature and study of evolution.

NSTA offers the following background information:

The Nature of Science, and Scientific Theories

Science is a method of explaining the natural world. It assumes the universe operates according to regularities and that through systematic investigation we can understand these regularities. The methodology of science emphasizes the logical testing of alternate explanations of natural phenomena against empirical data. Because science is limited to explaining the natural world by means of natural processes, it cannot use supernatural causation in its explanations. Similarly, science is precluded from making statements about supernatural forces, because these are outside its provenance. Science has increased our knowledge because of this insistence on the search for natural causes.

The most important scientific explanations are called "theories." In ordinary speech, "theory" is often used to mean "guess," or "hunch," whereas in scientific terminology, a theory is a set of universal statements that explain the natural world. Theories are powerful tools. Scientists seek to develop theories that

� are internally consistent and compatible with the evidence

� are firmly grounded in and based upon evidence

� have been tested against a diverse range of phenomena

� possess broad and demonstrable effectiveness in problem-solving

� explain a wide variety of phenomena.

The body of scientific knowledge changes as new observations and discoveries are made. Theories and other explanations change. New theories emerge and other theories are modified or discarded. Throughout this process, theories are formulated and tested on the basis of evidence, internal consistency, and their explanatory power.

Evolution as a Unifying Concept

Evolution in the broadest sense can be defined as the idea that the universe has a history: that change through time has taken place. If we look today at the galaxies, stars, the planet Earth, and the life on planet Earth, we see that things today are different from what they were in the past: galaxies, stars, planets, and life forms have evolved. Biological evolution refers to the scientific theory that living things share ancestors from which they have diverged: Darwin called it "descent with modification." There is abundant and consistent evidence from astronomy, physics, biochemistry, geochronology, geology, biology, anthropology and other sciences that evolution has taken place.

As such, evolution is a unifying concept for science. The National Science Education Standards recognizes that conceptual schemes such as evolution "unify science disciplines and provide students with powerful ideas to help them understand the natural world," and recommends evolution as one such scheme. In addition, the Benchmarks for Science Literacy from the American Association for the Advancement of Science 's Project 2061, and the NSTA s Scope, Sequence, and Coordination Project as well as other national calls for science reform, all name evolution as a unifying concept because of its importance across the discipline of science. Scientific disciplines with a historical component such as astronomy, geology, biology, and anthropology, cannot be taught with integrity if evolution is not emphasized.

There is no longer a debate among scientists over whether evolution has taken place. There is considerable debate about how evolution has taken place: the processes and mechanisms producing change, and what has happened during the history of the universe. Scientists often disagree about their explanations. In any science, disagreements are subject to rules of evaluation. Errors and false conclusions are confronted by experiment and observation, and evolution, as in any aspect of science, is continually open to and subject to experimentation and questioning.

Creationism

The word "creationism" has many meanings. In its broadest meaning, creationism is the idea that a supernatural power or powers created. Thus to Christians, Jews, and Muslims, God created; to the Navajo, the Hero Twins created. In a narrower sense, "creationism" has come to mean "special creation": the doctrine that the universe and all that is in it was created by God in essentially its present form, at one time. The most common variety of special creationism asserts that

� the Earth is very young

� life was originated by a creator

� life appeared suddenly

� kinds of organisms have not changed

� all life was designed for certain functions and purposes.

This version of special creation is derived from a literal interpretation of Biblical Genesis. It is a specific, sectarian religious belief that is not held by all religious people. Many Christians and Jews believe that God created through the process of evolution. Pope John Paul II, for example, issued a statement in 1996 that reiterated the Catholic position that God created, but that the scientific evidence for evolution is strong.

"Creation science" is an effort to support special creationism through methods of science. Teachers are often pressured to include it or synonyms such as "intelligent design theory," "abrupt appearance theory," "initial complexity theory," or "arguments against evolution" when they teach evolution. Special creationist claims have been discredited by the available evidence. They have no power to explain the natural world and its diverse phenomena. Instead, creationists seek out supposed anomalies among many existing theories and accepted facts. Furthermore, creation science claims do not provide a basis for solving old or new problems or for acquiring new information.

Nevertheless, as noted in the National Science Education Standards "Explanations on how the natural world changed based on myths, personal beliefs, religious values, mystical inspiration, superstition, or authority may be personally useful and socially relevant, but they are not scientific." Because science can only use natural explanations and not supernatural ones, science teachers should not advocate any religious view about creation, nor advocate the converse: that there is no possibility of supernatural influence in bringing about the universe as we know it.

Legal Issues

Several judicial rulings have clarified issues surrounding the teaching of evolution and the imposition of mandates that creation science be taught when evolution is taught. Th First Amendment of the Constitution requires that public institutions such as schools be religiously neutral; because special creation is a specific, sectarian religious view, it cannot be advocated as "true," accurate scholarship in the public schools. When Arkansas passed a law requiring "equal time" for creationism and evolution, the law was challenged in Federal District Court. Opponents of the bill included the religious leaders of the United Methodist, Episcopalian, Roman Catholic, African Methodist Episcopal, Presbyterian, and Southern Baptist churches, and several educational organizations. After a full trial, the judge ruled that creation science did not qualify as a scientific theory (McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, 529 F. Supp. 1255 (ED Ark. 1982)).

Louisiana s equal time law was challenged in court, and eventually reached the Supreme Court. In Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987) the court determined that creationism was inherently a religious idea and to mandate or advocate it in the public schools would be unconstitutional. Other court decisions have upheld the right of a district to require that a teacher teach evolution and not to teach creation science (Webster v. New Lennox School District #122, 917 F.2d 1003 (7th Cir. 1990); Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District, 37 F.3d 517 (9th Cir. 1994)).

Some legislatures and policy makers continue attempts to distort the teaching of evolution through mandates that would require teachers to teach evolution as "only a theory," or that require a textbook or lesson on evolution to be preceded by a disclaimer. Regardless of the legal status of these mandates, they are bad educational policy. Such policies have the effect of intimidating teachers, which may result in the de-emphasis or omission of evolution. The public will only be further confused about the special nature of scientific theories, and if less evolution is learned by students, science literacy itself will suffer.

---Adopted by the NSTA Board of Directors in July, 1997

References

Aldridge, Bill G. (Ed.). (1996). Scope, Sequence, and Coordination: A High School Framework for Science Education. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association (NSTA).

American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), Project 2061. (1993). Benchmarks for Science Literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.

Daniel v. Waters, 515 F.2d 485 (6th Cir. 1975).

Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987).

Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968).

Laudan, Larry. (1996). Beyond Positivism and Relativism: Theory, Method, and Evidence. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, 529 F. Supp. 1255 (ED Ark. 1982).

National Research Council. (1996). The National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Science Teachers Association (NSTA). (1993). Scope, Sequence, and Coordination of Secondary School Science. Vol. 1. The Content Core: A Guide for Curriculum Designers (Rev. ed). Arlington, VA: Author.

Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District, 37 F.3d 517 (9th Cir. 1994).

Ruse, Michael. (1996). But Is It Science: The Philosophical Question in the Creation/Evolution Controversy. Amherst, NY: Prometheus.

Webster v. New Lennox School District #122, 917 F.2d 1003 (7th Cir. 1990).

Copyright � 1997 National Science Teachers Association
Questions or comments? E-mail handbook@nsta.org.

return to top

NEW YORK STATE SCIENCE SUPERVISORS ASSOCIATION

Position Statement

The New York State Science Supervisors Association concurs with the position taken by the Science Bureau of the State Education Department concerning the teaching of evolution. The study of supernatural accounts of origins by science teachers in science classrooms as part of the science curriculum is not a recommended procedure. Questions related to scripture, revelation and the supernatural should be directed to the religious authorities.

Published in the NYSSSA Newsletter, VI:3, Summer 1981.

return to top

NORTH CAROLINA SCIENCE TEACHERS ASSOCIATION

The North Carolina Science Teachers Association stands for and supports the cause of science education. It opposes attempts by individuals or groups to offer, advocate, or require non-scientific explanations of natural phenomena in science classes in North Carolina Public Schools.

The primary goal of science teaching is to produce scientifically literate citizens. Science is both a process and a body of knowledge. It is pragmatic, observational, experimental and replicable. To be acceptable as science, explanations, statements, and theories must be capable of test by observation and experiment. Science is used in an attempt to explain the world about us. Courses in science should be concerned only with scientific knowledge and theories.

Attempts are being made by individuals and groups to have included in the public school science curriculum non-scientific explanations of the origin and development of living organisms. Efforts are being made to have special creation (Biblical accounts) presented in science classes as scientific accounts of creation. These efforts are an attempt to counteract or replace the teaching of the evolutionary theory of the origin and development of living organisms.

In general, creationism is a religious concept. Religion is based on one's belief or faith, not on scientific evidence. Evolution is a scientific theory based on scientific data accumulated over many years and organized, by logic and reason, into a unifying idea. The theory of evolution is, as all theories are, tentative in that it cannot produce a conclusive answer.

Religion and science are two important and exclusive realms of human thought. Efforts to present both in the same context lead to misunderstanding of both. Therefore, science instruction and materials in our public schools should be limited to matters of science.

The NCSTA recommends that the theory of evolution be taught as a scientific theory -- not a fact -- in our public schools by teachers certified in science. The NCSTA is sensitive to, and understanding of, the various religious beliefs of students and in no way wishes to change their religious beliefs. The theory of evolution should be taught, primarily, for awareness and understanding and for use in further scientific study -- not for acceptance.

September 1981

return to top

NORTH CAROLINA MATH AND SCIENCE EDUCATION NETWORK *

Science Instruction and the Theory of Evolution
A Position Statement

Introduction

The UNC Mathematics and Science Education Network's position on the theory of evolution is that it is indeed a valid scientific theory substantiated by irrefutable evidence. The theory of evolution should therefore be supported and taught as a major unifying concept of science within all North Carolina K-12 science frameworks and curricula.

Scientific Theory

Human beings are engaged in a constant search for explanations as to the nature of the universe and their place within it. Out of this quest for reason and order the process of science was developed - a set of controlled, replicable guidelines allowing for the accumulation of hard data as evidence to support or reject a hypothesis. Hypotheses are proposed and tested repeatedly over time by numbers of scientists. When evidence in support of a hypothesis has accumulated, hypotheses are then elevated to scientific theories. Scientific theories are then logical constructs widely accepted as factual among the scientific community. As were the theories of gravity and the atom, the theory of evolution has been formulated in the described manner. The overall consensus of the scientific community is that evolution is indeed a valid theory.

Evidence for Evolution

Science as we know it today is a dynamic process... a body of knowledge based on observable, testable, pragmatic evidence. Scientific theories are therefore never irrevocably proven; they are only increasingly or decreasingly supported by evidence. The theory of evolution is continuously subject to further experimentation, investigation and question, much like any other scientific theory. Yet, it remains the responsibility of scientific endeavor to continue to rely on what is now known as scientific method to construct, test, support or debunk all scientific theories or hypotheses.

While today's scientists may utilize the scientific method to debate the pace and patterns of evolution, they do not debate evolution's occurrence. The fossil record and the diversity of existing organisms, combined with modern techniques of molecular biology, taxonomy and geology, provide exhaustive example and powerful evidence for the well established components of current evolutionary theory.

Evolution and the Science Curriculum

The primary goal of science teaching is to produce a scientifically competent citizenry, one which knows how to distinguish between theories substantiated with sound evidence and theories which cannot be substantiated through evidence. Evolution is identified as being the central unifying role in the biological sciences. If we teach our students that the theory of evolution is not accepted fact, we also put into question scientific advancement in chemistry, physics, astronomy, and all other related fields, as all of these disciplines are built according to similar intellectual stratagems.

School curricula should therefore be determined, not by the political mood of the moment, but by scholarly and academic consensus. North Carolina students deserve an engaging, enriching science curriculum based on the process of the scientific method. Any action opposing the tenets which honor the methodologies of scientific investigation should be viewed as a disservice to North Carolina students and science educators.

For more information please refer to the website: www.unc.edu/depts/msen

Adopted 4/30/97. September 1981

return to top

OKLAHOMA SCIENCE TEACHERS ASSOCIATION

The scientific content of science courses should be determined by scientists and science educators and not by political directives. In particular, science teachers should not be required to teach, as science, ideas, models and theories that are clearly extra-scientific. An extra-scientific hypothesis, as such, might legitimately be discussed in a science class when examination of its logical construction and criteria for acceptance would illuminate the corresponding features of a scientific hypothesis and scientific method. Any requirement for equal time for such hypotheses is not justifiable.

Scientific hypotheses have a number of distinguishing properties, the foremost of which is that one should be able to deduce, from the basic postulates, logical consequences that can be tested against observation. Attention should be paid to the possible kinds of evidence that would falsify the hypothesis, rather than just the evidence that might confirm it. Other properties include:

1. The hypothesis should have more general consequences than those observations which initially suggested it. Thus it should be independently testable and not ad hoc.

2. It should be fruitful, suggesting new lines of research to pursue, raise new questions to by investigated by future research.

3. It should be logically consistent.

4. It should be consistent with the general scientific philosophy that the observed phenomena of the universe are real and that nature is consistent and understandable, that is, describable and explainable in terms of laws and theories.

Hypotheses that postulate miracles or supernatural events are falsified scientifically because they explicitly admit they cannot explain phenomena within their sphere of application. Furthermore, they are extra-scientific and non-explanatory because those phenomena are declared to be beyond human understanding. Thus they can not be considered alternate explanation to any scientific hypothesis because, by their very nature, they are anti-explanatory, seeking only to establish and perpetuate a mystery or mysteries.

All such hypotheses, models and theories that claim to be scientific should be required to meet the same criteria as do those hypotheses commonly considered to be scientific by the scientific community at large.

Adopted October 15, 1981 (later adopted by the Oklahoma Academy of Sciences)

return to top

SCIENCE MUSEUM OF MINNESOTA* (1995)

As an institution whose mission is to invite learners of all ages and backgrounds to experience the world through science, this museum must be consistent in the meaning given to "science". By definition, science is knowledge derived from observation, study, and experimentation. Science encompasses a wide variety of disciplines. Each discipline has a characteristic focus but all are united by use of the scientific method, and all are affected by censorship.

There are few areas of life in which one will not encounter a degree of censorship. But since each of the various disciplines of science is bound indissolubly to the others, if one topic is omitted through censorship, the ability to study any of them is inhibited. While the study of biology focuses on organisms, it is forever dependent on chemistry, chemistry on physics, physics on mathematics, and so on. All scientific disciplines are united in demonstrating the evolution of life on this planet.

In every area of scientific research and education, one strives to remain consistent in vocabulary. "Theory" is just one of many words that has a different meaning in the world of science from the meaning it has in daily life. In daily life, one definition of "theory" is, "a mere guess at something." However, a scientific theory reflects an enormous amount of study that has gone into accounting for some natural phenomenon, and in science the word "theory" is not used lightly. As for the theory of evolution, it is widely accepted within the scientific community that evolution itself is fact. It is theory about the mechanisms of evolution that continues to be refined.

The Science Museum of Minnesota is currently undergoing the process of developing internal policies concerning discussion of evolution. Appropriate information is provided for staff in order to educate them and allow them to conduct informed discussions on the topic. In instances where creationists visit the museum, they are not discouraged providing they are not disruptive to the staff or other visitors. Leafleting of any kind is not allowed within this institution. Following is a list of critical issues scientific institutions must decide upon when striving to fulfill their missions in research, practice and education.

The Age of the Earth

In order to carry on consistent conversations on a variety of topics, scientiststs must agree on the age of the earth. An educational institution cannot seriously discuss topics such as geology, biodiversity, human biology, embryology, ecology, paleontology, anthropology, and so forth, without first establishing a timeline of events. Since creationist doctrine provides a myriad of options as to the age of the earth, it does not lend itself to this process and therefore cannot be used. Based on current research, scientists generally agree that the age of the earth is approximately 4.5 billion years. An institution of scientists and science educators are obliged to use this date until further study finds otherwise.

Educational Objectives

Being true to educational objectives requires honesty. If science educators are to compare the enormous variety of life forms which have inhabited the planet, they must account for both the similarities and differences in those animals. Evolution is the framework within which these topics can be discussed. In addition, evolution applies to all life forms, not just some. It is the scientific institution's responsibility to the public not to negate pertinent information on the basis that it may not be acceptable to all.

Speaking Freely about Science

If an institution is bound by censorship of topics fundamental to its work, it is of little use in either the educational or the scientific arena. If instead, the bounds of censorship are lifted, the quality of information that can be provided to the public becomes unlimited. Evolution is fundamental in the scientific discussion of life on earth and of the earth itself.

Providing Clear Guidelines to Staff

An institution owes its staff clear guidelines on controversial topics so that they may convey the institution's position. However, it must also respect the rights of its staff to live by whatever ideology or doctrine they choose. An institutional policy statement does not prevent controversy, but since front line staff are the ones most likely to encounter difficulties, institutional support will aid in their handling of situations that arise. Staff are not required to agree with evolution, but they are expected to be able to provide direct answers to the public as to why the institution supports evolution. Staff should not be expected to defend their personal beliefs to visitors.

Being Honest with Visitors

An institution has a responsibility to its visitors to provide a simple, concise and unbiased explanation as to why it accepts the evidence for evolution. While some visitors may disagree, they will not be led astray or told untruths. In an institution of science, visitors should expect