In 1983, The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) was founded to promote excellence in science education, improve public understanding of evolution, and defend evolution education from sectarian attacks. In 1987, when the Supreme Court struck down a Louisiana anti-evolution law, many observers thought the "creation science" controversy had been put to an end. Instead, it returned to the local level, where new strategies appeared in countless communities; eventually, the problem re-appeared at the state level as well. More and more parents, teachers, and citizens are looking for guidance in coping with the evolution/creation controversy in their communities. Here are descriptions of strategies that are commonly used in attempts to force "creation science" into public schools, and suggestions on how to respond:

1) Proposals to teach "creation science" may be disguised by euphemisms such as "arguments against evolution" or "alternative theories", "balanced treatment," "intelligent design theory", "abrupt appearance theory", "irreducible complexity." In 1987, the Supreme Court ruled in Edwards v Aguillard that it was unconstitutional for the state of Louisiana to require that "creation science" must be taught whenever evolution was taught. By avoiding the term "creation science" and calling instead for "alternatives to evolution", anti-evolutionists hope to avoid legal entanglements.

Response: These phrases are code words for an attempt to bring non-scientific, religious views into the science curriculum; no matter what it’s called, it is illegal for public schools to advocate religious views of any kind. Districts that do so are risking expensive law suits that would divert funds from important educational programs. Different members of the public will respond to different kinds of information. Use many approaches, including: (a) Inviting local scientists to explain why "arguments against evolution" (by any name) are not scientific (NCSE can help); (b) calling upon local clergy to expose the underlying religious motivations of this approach; (c) reminding Boards of Education to obtain legal advice when considering such policies; (d) providing Board members and administrators with information about the applicable laws (NCSE can provide a flyer summarizing relevant Court decisions, and local law libraries or the NCSE can provide copies of complete texts of decisions); (e) using authoritative statements by scientific, educational, religious, and civil liberties organizations, whose position papers have been compiled in Voices for Evolution ( available at http://www.aaas.org/SPP/DSPP/DBSR/Voices/voicetoc.htm).

2) Legislation or curriculum proposals that call for teaching evolution as "theory, not fact": These proposals use the ordinary definition of "theory" as "hunch," or "guess," claiming that evolution is "only a theory".

Response: Discuss what does constitute a scientific theory. The goals are both to make sure that the public and policy makers understand the issues, and to assure that correct definitions appear in curriculum and policy statements. The California State Board of Education Policy on the Teaching of Natural Sciences quotes this good, concise definition from the 1986 edition of the Hammond Barnhart Dictionary of Science: "Theory... an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena...."

More information, including a flyer discussing "What’s Wrong with ´Theory, Not Fact´ Policies on Teaching Evolution?" is available from NCSE.

3) A very effective argument is that fairness requires teaching "both sides of the issue," meaning both evolution and some form of "creation science".

Response: Point out that "fairness" has different requirements in different contexts. In our election process, we expect our news media to insure fairness by representing all viewpoints. Elections are fairer when voters can cast secret ballots.

In court, fairness is guaranteed by an undemocratic process: attorneys on both sides and all the jurors must obey rules of evidence enforced by the judge. In the same way, science is a fair process, but not democratic: Scientists don’t decide what is valid by taking votes, but by presenting and examining evidence. The process is fair because a variety of views may be presented -- but that does not mean they are all accepted. Only those theories (explanations) that work are accepted. In addition, explanations that have been proven wrong -- such as the notion that disease is caused by demonic possession, or that the known universe suddenly appeared all at once -- are not given space in scientific journals and conferences.

A fair science curriculum is one that teaches children the most up-to-date, accurate information that is accepted in the scientific community -- not one that is determined by pressure groups. A good curriculum also requires science teachers and students to use scientific standards of evidence and inference in classroom discussions, rather than dogma and unsupported opinions.

4) Claims that critical thinking skills are enhanced by teaching both evolution and "creation science" (or one of its synonyms):

Response: Teaching critical thinking doesn’t mean presenting irrelevant and ill-founded "alternatives" to basic knowledge that we want all students to understand. Students learning basic concepts about chemistry and physics aren’t taught "alternative theories of matter" such as the medieval four elements. Also, while students discuss alternative interpretations of evidence in many contexts (for example, how to interpret the motivations of characters in a novel), we still don’t "balance" valid knowledge with unsupported claims or poor evidence (for example, teaching students in a European history class "evidence that the Holocaust never happened"). In the context of science education, it would be appropriate to discuss genuine disagreements within the scientific community -- for example, scientific discussions about the pace at which evolution occurred.

Another problem is that teachers discussing "evidence against evolution" would logically be expected to discuss evidence against "scientific creationism." Yet it is impossible to do so without criticizing religious beliefs, which they should not do.

5) Proposals to use disclaimers, and other approaches treating evolution as a "controversial issue": Efforts to have school boards adopt evolution disclaimers have become very popular; it may be suggested that a printed disclaimer be inserted in textbooks, or that teachers be required to read aloud a disclaimer. In 1984, Texas rescinded a disclaimer policy when the state attorney-general announced that it was unconstitutional. Since then, there have been no legal decisions on the issue until August, 1997, when a Federal Court struck down a Louisiana school district’s regulation requiring teachers to read a disclaimer to students before presenting any information about evolution.

Response: It is unconstitutional to exclude any topic from the curriculum solely to avoid religious objections. Point out that it is illegal to single out evolution for special treatment, and also that evolution isn’t scientifically controversial. When school boards or administrators are being pressured to take action (for example, by a parental complaint), they may simply need support in continuing to teach good curricula or use good materials. Many problems can be avoided if the district develops a broad policy statement on how teachers should handle a whole range of controversial issues. Such a statement should be written separately from curricula; it should apply to a variety of issues, not singling out evolution; it should not take the form of "disclaimers" to be read aloud or pasted in textbooks. Such statements should be developed with staff participation and appropriate review procedures. NCSE can provide examples.

6) Claims that evolution education violates children’s religious beliefs, or parents’ right to raise children according to those beliefs, accompanied by demands for alternate assignments or release from the classroom ("opting out").

Response: It is dangerous to set a precedent of permitting "opting out" and alternative assignments on a case-by-case basis; too many excusals undermine the practical task of providing an education, since many, many topics and texts could become grounds for complaint, fragmenting what is taught in the classroom. Teachers and administrators need to make responses that don’t undermine curriculum goals. The first step is always to study applicable laws and policies. Different states have different regulations -- California’s Education Code, for example, severely restricts alternate assignments and released time.

In addition, every school district needs a general review procedure for curriculum complaints. Part of the review procedure should be to determine whether "objectionable" material has simply been misinterpreted. The community should be made aware that teachers can present information neutrally, students can learn it and, if necessary, their parents and religious communities can help them put the information in perspective. (For example: In a history class, teachers and textbooks can describe the historical significance of the Crusades without asserting that either side was "right". In science classes, teachers can discuss the genetic basis of blood-typing without denigrating religious objections to transfusions, and describe human anatomy without criticizing religious objections to autopsies.)

7) Claims that evolution is "religious," and that requiring teachers to teach evolution violates the First Amendment.

Response: Cite Federal and Supreme Court decisions that clearly differentiate science (including evolution) from religion. Other decisions specifically uphold school districts’ right to require the teaching of evolution. If necessary, give copies of these decisions to school administrators or school board members. (Both summaries and complete texts of these decisions are available from NCSE.)

8) Suggestions to change specific "sensitive" terms in curriculum standards: For example "adaptation," "natural selection" and "evolution," terms which have specific scientific meanings, are sometimes targeted as "controversial." Eliminating them or substituting "more neutral" phrasing makes terminology inaccurate and can weaken the presentation of crucial concepts.

Response: Point out that substitute terminology reduces clarity and still may not defuse controversy. For example, words like "change," "change over time," or "how organisms change" in place of "evolution" could mean "how individual organisms change," or could refer to short time frames. They don’t tell teachers whether they should present topics like the change of hormone levels during the "fight or flight" response, or the relation between environmental changes and natural selection. While key terms like "evolution" do not have to be used every time the underlying concepts are discussed, make sure they are included in curriculum documents, and that the underlying concepts are presented clearly and accurately.

9) Questionable "alternate" or "supplementary" books are donated to school districts or proposed for classroom use. Donations in particular can be a problem because it seems impractical to refuse gifts, and school personnel may not wish to seem ungrateful.

Response: Given the limitations on library and classroom space, books offered as gifts should meet the same criteria as books that would be purchased. Contact NCSE for scientific evaluations of the proposed books and if they are sub-standard, follow your district’s procedures for requesting a review of curriculum materials. You can distribute copies of scientific evaluations to the reviewers and, if necessary, obtain additional help from NCSE.

Attacks on evolution have been part of the American educational scene for decades, and as quickly as one strategy is defeated, another appears. While this summary gives you much of the information you need to recognize and respond to anti-evolution in your community, it is possible that you will have to cope with a whole new approach. If that happens, or you simply need more information, never hesitate to call the National Center for Science Education. We’re here to help.