Voices for Evolution, Third Edition (2008)

8/7/2019 Voices for Evolution, Third Edition (2008)

1/216

Voices for Evolution


2/216


3/216


Third edition edited by Carrie Sager

The National Center or Science Education, Inc.

Berkeley, CA


4/216

Library o Congress 2007943779

Voices or evolution

ISBN 978-0-6152-0461-1

2008 The National Center or Science Education, Inc.

All rights reserved. No part o this book may be reproduced

in any orm or by any means without written permission rom the publisher.

Cover design by Debra Turner.

Cover photographs:

American Toad, Red-legged Seriema, Sumatran Tiger, and Maned Wol photos by

Jon McRay, nikographer.blogspot.com.

Red Deer, Asian Short Clawed Otter and Indian Peacock photos by

Stuart Reynolds, [email protected].

Asian Elephant and Caliornia Sea Lion photos by suneko,

lickr.com/photos/suneko/. Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic.

Howler Monkey photo by dpunsun, lickr.com/photos/dpunsun/.

All statements are copyright by their author organizations and are reprinted with

permission. For reproduction rights, please contact the original organization.

Published by The National Center or Science Education, Inc.

P.O. Box 9477, Berkeley, Caliornia 94709.

Printed and bound in the United States.


5/216

table of contents

Foreword v

Acknowledgments vii

Part one: legal background

10 Significant Court Decisions Regarding Evolution/Creationism 2

McLean v. Arkansas (1982) 4

State o Tennessee, Ofice o the Attorney General (1988) 5

Webster v. New Lenox School District (1990) 7

Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District (1994) 8

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005) 9

Part two: scientif ic organi zations

Brie o Amici Curiae by 56 Scientific Organizations in Selman v. Cobb County 12

Alabama Academy o Science (1981) 16

Alabama Academy o Science (1994) 16

American Anthropological Association (1980) 16

American Anthropological Association (2000) 17

American Association or the Advancement o Science (1923) 20




American Association or the Advancement o Science Commission on Science Education 23

American Association o Physical Anthropologists 23

American Astronomical Society (1982) 24



American Chemical Society (1981) 26

American Chemical Society (2005) 27

American Geological Institute 27

American Geophysical Union 28American Institute o Biological Sciences 28

American Physical Society 29

American Psychological Association (1982) 30

American Psychological Association (2007) 30

American Society o Biological Chemists 32

American Society or Microbiology 32

American Society o Parasitologists 33

American Sociological Association 35

Association o Southeastern Biologists 36

Association or Women Geoscientists 37

Australian Academy o Science 37Biophysical Society 38

Botanical Society o America 39

Caliornia Academy o Sciences 42

Committee or the Anthropology o Science, Technology, and Computing 43

Committee or Scientific Investigation o Claims o the Paranormal 44

Ecological Society o America 44

Federation o American Societies or Experimental Biology 45


6/216

Genetics Society o America 46

Geological Society o America (1983) 47

Geological Society o America (2001) 48

Geological Society o Australia 49

Georgia Academy o Science (1980) 50



History o Science Society 52Idaho Scientists or Quality Science Education 53

InterAcademy Panel 54

Iowa Academy o Science (1986) 56

Iowa Academy o Science (2000) 57

Kansas Academy o Science 58

Kentucky Academy o Science 62

Kentucky Paleontological Society 64

Louisiana Academy o Sciences 65

National Academy o Sciences (1972) 65



New Mexico Academy o Science 72

New Orleans Geological Society 73

New York Academy o Sciences 75

North American Benthological Society 76

North Carolina Academy o Science 76

Ohio Academy o Science 77

Ohio Math and Science Coalition 78

The Paleontological Society 79

Pennsylvania Academy o Science 79

Pennsylvania Council o Proessional Geologists 80Philosophy o Science Association 81

Research!America 82

Royal Astronomical Society o Canada - Ottawa Centre 82

Royal Society 83

Royal Society o Canada 84

Royal Society o Canada, Academy o Science 85

Sigma Xi, Louisiana State University Chapter 86

Society or Amateur Scientists 86

Society or Integrative and Comparative Biology 87

Society or Neuroscience 88

Society o Physics Students 89Society or the Study o Evolution 89

Society o Systematic Biologists 90

Society o Vertebrate Paleontology (1986) 91

Society o Vertebrate Paleontology (1994) 91

Southern Anthropological Society 92

Tallahassee Scientific Society 93

Tennessee Darwin Coalition 94

Virginia Academy o Science 95

West Virginia Academy o Science 95


7/216

Part three : religious organi zations

Arican Americans or Humanism 98

American Humanist Association 98

American Jewish Committee 99

American Jewish Congress 100

American Scientific Afiliation 101

Center or Theology and the Natural Sciences 102Central Conerence o American Rabbis 102

Clergy Letter Project 103

Council or Democratic and Secular Humanism 103

Episcopal Bishop o Atlanta, Pastoral Letter 104

Episcopal Church, General Convention (1982) 106

Episcopal Church, General Convention (2006) 106

Humanist Association o Canada 107

Lexington Alliance o Religious Leaders 108

The Lutheran World Federation 109

National Council o Jewish Women 111

Presbyterian Church (USA), General Assembly 111

Rabbinical Council o America 112

Roman Catholic Church (1981) 113

Roman Catholic Church (1996) 113

Unitarian Universalist Association (1977) 116

Unitarian Universalist Association (1982) 116

United Church Board or Homeland Ministries 117

United Methodist Church 120

United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. (1982) 121

United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. (1983) 122

Part four : educ ational organi zations

American Association o Physics Teachers 128

American Association o University Proessors 128

American Association o University Women 129

Arkansas Science Teachers Association 129

Association o College and University Biology Educators 130

Association o Pennsylvania State College and University Biologists 130

Auburn University Faculty Senate (1981) 131

Auburn University Faculty Senate (1983) 132

Authors o Biology Textbooks 133Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (1971) 134

Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (1995) 136

Caliornia Science Teachers Association 137

Empire State Association o Two Year College Biologists (1998) 137

Georgia Citizens Educational Coalition 138

Idaho Science Teachers Association 139

Illinois Community College Faculty Association Delegate Assembly 141

Inter-University Council o Ohio 141

Iowa Council o Science Supervisors 143

Iowa Department o Public Instruction 144

Maryland Association o Science Teachers 147Michigan Science Teachers Association (1981) 148

Michigan Science Teachers Association (2003) 149



Michigan State Board o Education 152

National Association o Biology Teachers (1980) 153



8/216


National Council or the Social Studies (1981) 158

National Council or the Social Studies (2007) 159

National Education Association 161

National Science Education Leadership Association 161

National Science Teachers Association (1973, 1982) 162

National Science Teachers Association (1985) 162

National Science Teachers Association (2003) 163New Mexico Coalition or Excellence in Science and Math Education 167

New York State Education Department 168

New York State Science Supervisors Association 169

North Carolina Science Teachers Association 170

Oklahoma Science Teachers Association 170

Oklahoma State University Department o Zoology 171

Science Museum o Minnesota 172

Science Teachers Association o New York State 173

Society or College Science Teachers 174

Syracuse Parent-Teacher Association 175

University o Alabama at Huntsville Faculty Senate 176

University o Caliornia Academic Senate 176

University o New Mexico History Department 177

University o Oklahoma Department o Zoology 178

University o Queensland (Australia) Board o the Faculty o Science 179

University System o Georgia Biology Academic Advisory Committee 180

Utah Science Teachers Association 181

Utah State Board o Education 182

Wisconsin Department o Public Instruction 183

Part five: civil liberties organizations

American Civil Liberties Union 188

American Civil Liberties Union o Ohio 189

American Civil Liberties Union o Utah 190

Americans or Religious Liberty 192

Americans United or Separation o Church and State (1994) 192

Americans United or Separation o Church and State (2006) 193

Council o Europe 196

Freedom rom Religion Foundation 198

Institute or First Amendment Studies 199

National Committee or Public Education and Religious Liberty 199People or the American Way Foundation 203


9/216

foreword

Stephen Jay Gould once wrote, Evolution is not a peripheral subject but the

central organizing principle o all biological science. No one who has not read

the Bible or the Bard can be considered educated in Western traditions; so no

one ignorant o evolution can understand science. Yet the teaching o evolution in

the public schools o the United States is under constant attack. Voices for Evolution

is a vital part o the deense.

The first edition oVoices for Evolutionwas published just two years ater the

Supreme Courts decision in Edwards v. Aguillard(1987), ruling that teaching

creationism in the public schools violates the Establishment Clause o the First Amendment to the Constitution o the United States. Even though theEdwards

decision was a serious blow, creationism continued to evolve as creationists

regrouped in a number o ways.

Abandoning any hope o imposing creationism in the public schools, the fagship

organization o young-earth creationism, the Institute or Creation Research,

concentrated on the development o a creationist counterestablishment, complete

with conerences, journals, and even a graduate school. In the same vein, the young-

earth creationist ministry Answers in Genesis opened the doors o its twenty-seven-

million-dollar Creation Museum in the summer o 2007.

Meanwhile, a group o creationists not so closely allied with young-earthcreationism sought to repackage creationism in a way that would survive

constitutional scrutiny. The result was dubbed intelligent design and introduced

in Of Pandas and People (1989; second edition 1993).Kitzmiller v. Dover(2005),

however, revealed thatPandas began as a creationist textbook; creation and its

cognates had been hastily replaced with design and its cognates in the wake o

theEdwards decision.

Realizing that attempts to require or allow the teaching o creationismwhether

as creation science or intelligent designare likely to be ruled unconstitutional,

creationists also proposed various ways to attack evolution without mentioning

any creationist alternative. To their creationist advocates, such strategies oer the

promise o encouraging students to acquire or retain a belie in creationism while

not running aoul o the Establishment Clause.

Such allback creationist strategies include requiring disclaimers, oral or written,

about evolution (as in Alabama in 1996); taking steps to undermine the treatment o

evolution in science textbooks (as in Texas in 2003) and in state science standards

(as in Kansas in 1999 and 2005); and call ing or objectivity or balance or critical

analysis in the teaching o evolution (as in Ohio in 2002)all o which in practice

are intended to instill scientifically unwarranted doubts about evolution.

Moreover, not all creationist resistance to the teaching o education is explicit. In a

recent inormal survey among members o the National Science Teachers Association

(2005), a staggering 30% o respondents indicated that they experienced pressure

to omit or downplay evolution and related topics in their science curriculum,


10/216

i

while 31% indicated that they elt pressure to include nonscientific alternatives to

evolution in their science classrooms.

Amid the dizzying panoply o creationist activity, what is gratiyingly constant

is the thoughtul, balanced, and authoritative opposition rom the scientific,

educational, and civil liberties communities, as well as rom a considerable

portion o the aith community. Organizations small and large, local, national, and

international, have expressed their unfinching support or evolution education.Their statements are collected here, in Voices for Evolution.

When creationists claim that evolution is a theory in crisis, tottering on the verge

o extinction, ready or the dustbin o history, the scientific communityincluding

the most prestigious scientific organizations in the country, the National Academy o

Sciences and the American Association or the Advancement o Scienceis always

there to tell the truth. The contemporary theory o biological evolution is one o

the most robust products o scientific inquiry, the AAAS observes.

When creationists claim that evolution is intrinsically antireligious, a deadly threat

to aith and morals, a goodly portion o the aith communityCatholic, Protestant,

Jewish, and humanistis always there to demonstrate that there are people o aithwho regard their acceptance o evolution as compatible with, or even enriching,

their religious aith, and who reject any creationist attempts to portray a rejection

o evolution as essential to their aith.

And when creationists claim that it is unair not to teach creationism along

with evolution, or not to teach that evolution is in a precarious state, the rebuttal

is twoold. The science education communityincluding the National Association

o Biology Teachers and the National Science Teachers Associationis always there

to explain that compromising the integrity o science education in order to cater to

creationist ideology is not air to students or teachers.

For its part, the civil liberties communityincluding the American Civil LibertiesUnion, People or the American Way, and Americans United or Separation o Church

and Stateis always there to insist that or the government to promote creationism

or compromise the teaching o evolution to placate a creationist minority is not

air to the citizens o a republic in which a basic constitutional principle is the

governments religious neutrality.

Just as gratiying as the constancy o the opposition to the creationist assault is

the increase in the number o organizations oering it: The first edition o Voices

for Evolution contained 68 statements; the second edition, a round 100; the third

edition, which you are reading now, 176. The National Center or Science Education

is grateul to the organizations represented in Voices for Evolution or taking a

stand in deense o the teaching o evolution in the public schools.

NCSE is immensely grateul also to those intrepid people, across the country and

around the world, who have used these statements during controversies over the

teaching o evolution in their own communities. With the powerul support o the

statements contained in Voices of Evolution, they have tirelessly ought, and largely

prevailed, in the battle to deend the teaching o evolution in the public schools.

May this new edition oVoices for Evolution help you to do likewise.

Glenn BranchNational Center or Science Education


11/216

ii

You hold in your hands the third edition oVoices for Evolution, a book which

took twenty years and the work o many people to complete. For the origin

o the Voices project one must go back to 1984, when NCSE treasurer Ken

Saladin took on the task o assembling a comprehensive collection o position

statements on the creation/evolution issue or NCSE. The late Betty McCollister o

the Iowa Committee o Correspondence edited these position statements into the

first edition oVoices, diligently gathering permissions or reprinting statements.

The second edition, published in 1995, was edited by ormer NCSE Network

Project Director Molleen Matsumura, who expanded Voices not just with additionalstatements but with the addition o the sections or civil liberties organizations and

legal background. In addition to its practical use as support or the teaching o

evolution, the second edition has been widely cited by scholars studying this long-

term controversy.

In this third edition, special thanks go to Deputy Director Glenn Branch, whose

preternatural ability to find new statements ensured constant updates to our website

as well as giving us much o the new content in this edition.

The National Center or Science Education is unded by memberships, donations,

and grants rom a number o private oundations, so we are also grateul to all o

our members and supporting oundations or making the important work o NCSEpossible.

Carrie Sager

National Center or Science Education

acknowledgments


12/216


13/216

legal

background


part one


14/216


10 Sigific Cu Dcisis rgdig evlui/Ciism

1. In 1968, inEpperson v. Arkansas, the United States Supreme Court invalidated anArkansas statute that prohibited the teaching o evolution. The Court held the statute

unconstitutional on the grounds that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

does not permit a state to require that teaching and learning must be tailored to the

principles or prohibitions o any particular religious sect or doctrine (Epperson v.

Arkansas (1968) 393 U.S. 97, 37 U.S. Law Week 4017, 89 S. Ct. 266, 21 L. Ed 228).

2. In 1981, in Segraves v. State of California, the court ound that the CaliorniaState Board o Educations Science Framework, as written and as qualified by its

anti-dogmatism policy, gave suficient accommodation to the views o Segraves,

contrary to his contention that class discussion o evolution prohibited his and his

childrens ree exercise o religion. The anti-dogmatism policy provided that class

discussions o origins should emphasize that scientific explanations ocus on how,

not ultimate cause, and that any speculative statements concerning origins, bothin texts and in classes, should be presented conditionally, not dogmatically. The

courts ruling also directed the Board o Education to disseminate the policy, which

in 1989 was expanded to cover all areas o science, not just those concerning

evolution. (Segraves v. California (1981) Sacramento Superior Court #278978).

3. In 1982, in McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, a ederal court heldthat a balanced treatment statute violated the Establishment Clause o the U.S.

Constitution. The Arkansas statute required public schools to give balanced

treatment to creation-science and evolution-science. In a decision that gave a

detailed definition o the term science, the court declared that creation scienceis not in act a science. The court also ound that the statute did not have a secular

purpose, noting that the statute used language peculiar to creationist literature.

The theory o evolution does not presuppose either the absence or the presence

o a creator (McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education (1982) 529 F. Supp. 1255, 50

U.S. Law Week 2412).

4. In 1987, inEdwards v. Aguillard, the U.S. Supreme Court held unconstitutionalLouisianas Creationism Act. This statute prohibited the teaching o evolution

in public schools, except when it was accompanied by instruction in creation

science. The Court ound that, by advancing the religious belie that a supernaturalbeing created humankind, which is embraced by the term creation science, the act

impermissibly endorses religion. In addition, the Court ound that the provision o

a comprehensive science education is undermined when it is orbidden to teach

evolution except when creation science is also taught (Edwards v. Aguillard(1987)

482 U.S. 578).

5. In 1990, in Webster v. New Lenox School District, the Seventh Circuit Courto Appeals ound that a school district may prohibit a teacher rom teaching

creation science in ulfilling its responsibility to ensure that the First Amendments

establishment clause is not violated and that religious belies are not injected intothe public school curriculum. The court upheld a district court finding that the

school district had not violated Websters ree speech rights when it prohibited him

rom teaching creation science, since it is a orm o religious advocacy (Webster v.

New Lenox School District#122, 917 F. 2d 1004).


15/216

legal background

6. In 1994, in Peloza v. Capistrano School District, the Ninth Circuit Court oAppeals upheld a district court finding that a teachers First Amendment right to ree

exercise o religion is not violated by a school districts requirement that evolution

be taught in biology classes. Rejecting plainti Pelozas definition o a religion

o evolutionism, the Court ound that the district had simply and appropriately

required a science teacher to teach a scientific theory in biology class ( John E.

Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District, (1994) 37 F. 3rd 517).

7. In 1997, inFreiler v. Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education, the United StatesDistrict Court or the Eastern District o Louisiana rejected a policy requiring

teachers to read aloud a disclaimer whenever they taught about evolution, ostensibly

to promote critical thinking. Noting that the policy singled out the theory o

evolution or attention, that the only concept rom which students were not to be

dissuaded was the Biblical concept o Creation, and that students were already

encouraged to engage in critical thinking, the Court wrote that, In mandating this

disclaimer, the School Board is endorsing religion by disclaiming the teaching o

evolution in such a manner as to convey the message that evolution is a religious viewpoint that runs counter to ... other religious views. Besides addressing

disclaimer policies, the decision is noteworthy or recognizing that curriculum

proposals or intelligent design are equivalent to proposals or teaching creation

science (Freiler v Tangipahoa Board of Education, No. 94-3577 (E.D. La. Aug. 8,

1997). On August 13, 1999, the Fith Circuit Court o Appeals afirmed the decision;

on June 19, 2000, the Supreme Court declined to hear the School Boards appeal,

thus letting the lower courts decision stand.

8. In 2000, Minnesota State District Court Judge Bernard E. Borene dismissed the

case oRodney LeVake v. Independent School District 656, et al. (Order GrantingDeendants Motion or Summary Judgment and Memorandum, Court File Nr. CX-99-

793, District Court or the Third Judicial District o the State o Minnesota [2000]).

High school biology teacher LeVake had argued or his right to teach evidence both

or and against the theory o evolution. The school district considered the content

o what he was teaching and concluded that it did not match the curriculum, which

required the teaching o evolution. Given the large amount o case law requiring a

teacher to teach the employing districts curriculum, the judge declared that LeVake

did not have a ree speech right to override the curriculum, nor was the district

guilty o religious discrimination.

9. In January 2005, in Selman et al. v. Cobb County School District et al., U.S.District Judge Clarence Cooper ruled that an evolution warning label required in

Cobb County textbooks violated the Establishment Clause o the First Amendment

(Selman et al. v. Cobb County School District and Cobb County Board of

Education 390 F. Supp. 2d 1286, 1313 [N.D. Ga. 2005]). The disclaimer stickers

stated, This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not

a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached

with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.Ater the district

courts decision, the stickers were removed rom Cobbs textbooks. The schooldistrict, however, appealed to the 11th Circuit Court o Appeals and in May 2006

the Appeals Court remanded the case to the district court or clarification o the

evidentiary record. On December 19, 2006, the lawsuit reached a settlement; the

Cobb County School District agreed not to disclaim or denigrate evolution either

orally or in written orm.


16/216


10. On December 20, 2005, inKitzmiller et al. v. Dover, U.S. District Court JudgeJohn E. Jones III ordered the Dover Area School Board to rerain rom maintaining

an Intelligent Design Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District.

The ID policy included a statement in the science curriculum that students will be

made aware o gaps/problems in Darwins Theory and other theories o evolution

including, but not limited to, intelligent design. Teachers were also required to

announce to their biology classes that Intelligent Design is an explanation o theorigin o lie that diers rom Darwins view. The reerence bookOf Pandas and

People is available or students to see i they would like to explore this view in an

eort to gain an understanding o what Intelligent Design actually involves. As is

true with any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. In his 139-

page ruling, Judge Jones wrote it was abundantly clear that the Boards ID Policy

violates the Establishment Clause. Furthermore, Judge Jones ruled that ID cannot

uncouple itsel rom its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents. In reerence

to whether Intelligent Design is science Judge Jones wrote ID is not science and

cannot be adjudged a valid, accepted scientific theory as it has ailed to publish

in peer-reviewed journals, engage in research and testing, and gain acceptancein the scientific community. This was the first challenge to the constitutionality

o teaching intelligent design in the public school science classroom. (Tammy

Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al., Case No. 04cv2688)

McL v. akss (1982)

...The approach to teaching creation science and evolution science ound in Act

590 is identical to the two-model approach espoused by the Institute or Creation

Research and is taken almost verbatim rom ICR writings. It is an extension o Fun-

damentalists view that one must either accept the literal interpretation o Genesis

or else believe in the godless system o evolution....

In addition to the allacious pedagogy o the two model approach, Section 4(2)

lacks legitimate educational value because creation science as defined in that

section is simply not science. Several witnesses suggested definitions o science.

A descriptive definition was said to be that science is what is accepted by the

scientific community and is what scientists do. The obvious implication o this

description is that, in a ree society, knowledge does not require the imprimatur o

legislation in order to become science.

More precisely, the essential characteristics o science are:1. It is guided by natural law;

2. It has to be explanatory by reerence to natural law;

3. It is testable against the empirical world;

4. Its conclusions are tentative, i.e., are not necessarily the final word; and

5. It is alsifiable. (Ruse and other science witnesses).

Creation science as described in Section 4(a) ails to meet these essential charac-

teristics....

Creation science, as defined in Section 4(a), not only ails to ollow the canons

defining scientific theory, it also ails to fit the more general descriptions o what

scientists think and what scientists do. The scientific community consists oindividuals and groups, nationally and internationally, who work independently

in such varied fields as biology, paleontology, geology and astronomy. Their work

is published and subject to review and testing by their peers. The journals or

publication are both numerous and varied. There is, however, not one recognized


17/216

legal background

scientific journal which has published an article espousing the creation science

theory described in Section 4(a). Some o the States witnesses suggested that the

scientific community was close-minded on the subject o creationism and that

explained the lack o acceptance o the creation science arguments. Yet no witness

produced a scientific article or which publication had been reused. Perhaps some

members o the scientific community are resistant to new ideas. It is, however,

inconceivable that such a loose knit group o independent thinkers in all the variedfields o science could, or would, so eectively censor new scientific thought.

... The methodology employed by creationists is another actor which is indicative

that their work is not science. A scientific theory must be tentative and always

subject to revision or abandonment in light o acts that are inconsistent with, or

alsiy, the theory. A theory that is by its own terms dogmatic, absolutist and never

subject to revision is not a scientific theory.

The creationists methods do not take data, weigh it against the opposing

scientific data, and thereater reach the conclusions stated in Section 4(a). Instead,

they take the literal wording o the Book o Genesis and attempt to find scientific

support or it....The Court would never criticize or discredit any persons testimony based on

his or her religious belies. While anybody is ree to approach a scientific inquiry

in any ashion they choose, they cannot properly describe the methodology used

as scientific, i they start with a conclusion and reuse to change it regardless o the

evidence developed during the course o the investigation.

Excerpts from McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, 529 F. Supp. 1255

S f tss, offic f h ay Gl (1988)

public Schls this f oigis f Lif Ci Scic esblishm Clus

Question:

Whether a teacher in a public school in Tennessee can teach all theories o the ori-

gin o li e or the purpose o enhancing the eectiveness o science instruction?

Opinion:It is the opinion o this ofice that a public school teacher can teach any scientific

theory o the origin o lie, such as evolution. However, no theory o the origin o liewhich is religiously based can be taught in the public schools as part o the science

curriculum, because its teaching would violate the establishment clause o the First

Amendment o the United States Constitution.

Analysis:The establishment clause o the First Amendment o the United States Constitu-

tion provides that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment o reli-

gion.... Through the Fourteenth Amendment, the United States Supreme Court has

applied the establishment clause to the states. See Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S.

296 (1940). In determining whether there is a violation o the establishment clausein a particular situation, the Supreme Court, in the case oLemon v. Kurtzman, 403

U.S. 602, 612-613 (1971) announced the ollowing three-prong test:

First, the legislature must have adopted the law with a secular purpose. Second,

the statutes principal or primary eect must be one that neither advances nor


18/216


inhibits religion. Third, the statute must not result in an excessive entanglement

o government with religion.

It should also be noted that the establishment clause applies not only to statutes, but

to all actions by public employees and oficials which would result in a prohibited

promotion o religion. See Breen v. Runkel, 614 F. Supp. 355 (W.D. Mich. 1985)

(when acting in capacity as classroom instructors, teachers are state actors or

purpose o determining whether their praying in classrooms, reading rom theBible, and telling stories that have a biblical basis violates the establishment clause.);

Collins v. Chandler Unified School District, 644 F.2d 759, cert. denied, 454 U.S. 863

(1980) (where a high school principal, with the concurrence o their superintendent,

granted permission or a student council to recite prayers and Bible verses o their

choosing during school hours, there was a violation o the establishment clause).

With regard to your question, a recent decision by the United States Supreme Court

held a Louisiana statute that required the teaching o creation science in public

schools i evolution was taught to be violative o the establishment clause.Edwards v.

Aguillard, 107 S. Ct. 2573 (1987). In concluding that the statute was unconstitutional,

Justice William Brennan, writing or the majority, stated the ollowing with regard tocreation science as a scientific theory o the origin o lie:

The preeminent purpose o the Louisiana legislature was clearly to advance the

religious viewpoint that a supernatural being created human kind. The term

creation science was defined as embracing this particular religious doctrine by

those responsible or the passage o the Creationism Act. Senator Keiths lead-

ing expert on creation science, Edward Boudreaux, testified at the legislative

hearings that the theory o creation science included belie in the existence o

a supernatural creator.... The legislative history thereore reveals that the term

creation science as contemplated by the legislature that adopted this act, em-

bodies the religious belie that a supernatural creator was responsible or the

creation o human kind.

Id. at 2581-82. Thus, according to Justice Brennan, creation science, as understood

to include the concept o a supernatural creator, is religiously based and cannot be

taught in the public schools as part o the science curriculum without violating the

establishment clause.

Justice Brennans opinion was based upon the record o the legislative debates o

the Louisiana statute. No such record exists in this situation. However, the act that a

statute has not been passed in Tennessee requiring the teaching o creation science

or prohibiting the teaching o evolution unless creation science is taught, wouldnot render the actions o a teacher who taught creation science as part o the sci-

ence curriculum to be constitutional. Rather, the teaching o creation science, i it

is intended to include the belie that a supernatural creator was responsible or the

creation o lie, is an attempt to advance a particular religious view and is violative o

the establishment clause o the First Amendment o the United States Constitution.

On the other hand, there would appear to be no constitutional problem with pre-

senting the Biblical account o creation as part o a comparative religion course. See

Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 225 (1963) (Bible may constitu-

tionally be used in an appropriate study o history, civilization, ethics, or comparative

religion); Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980) (Ten Commandments cannot be postedon classroom walls but could be discussed in course on ethics).

Opinion no. 88149

August 18, 1988


19/216

legal background

Wbs v. nw Lx Schl Disic (1990)

I. Background*

A. FactsRay Webster teaches social studies at the Oster-Oakview Junior High School in New

Lenox, Illinois. In the Spring o 1987, a student in Mr. Websters social studies class

complained that Mr. Websters teaching methods violated principles o separationbetween church and state. In addition to the student, both the American Civil Liber-

ties Union and the Americans United or the Separation o Church and State object-

ed to Mr. Websters teaching practices. Mr. Webster denied the allegations. On July

31, 1987, the New Lenox school board (school board) through its superintendent,

advised Mr. Webster by letter that he should restrict his classroom instruction to the

curriculum and rerain rom advocating a particular religious viewpoint.

Believing the superintendents letter vague, Mr. Webster asked or urther

clarification in a letter dated September 4, 1987. In this letter, Mr. Webster also set

orth his teaching methods and philosophy. Mr. Webster stated that the discussion

o religious issues in his class was only or the purpose o developing an open mind

in his students. For example, Mr. Webster explained that he taught nonevolutionary

theories o creation to rebut a statement in the social studies textbook indicating

that the world is over our billion years old. Thereore, his teaching methods in

no way violated the doctrine o separation between church and state. Mr. Webster

contended that, at most, he encouraged students to explore alternative viewpoints.

The superintendent responded to Mr. Websters letter on October 13, 1987. The

superintendent reiterated that advocacy o a Christian viewpoint was prohibited,

although Mr. Webster could discuss objectively the historical relationship between

church and state when such discussions were an appropriate part o the curriculum.Mr. Webster was specifically instructed not to teach creation science, because

the teaching o this theory had been held by the ederal courts to be religious

advocacy.**

Mr. Webster brought suit, principally arguing that the school boards prohibitions

constituted censorship in violation o the first and ourteenth amendments. In

particular, Mr. Webster argued that the school board should permit him to teach a

nonevolutionary theory o creation in his social studies class.

B. The District Court

The district court concluded that Mr. Webster did not have a first amendment rightto teach creation science in a public school. The district court began by noting that,

in deciding whether to grant the school districts motion to dismiss, the court was

entitled to consider the letters between the superintendent and Mr. Webster be-

cause Mr. Webster had attached these letters to his complaint as exhibits. In particu-

lar, the district court determined that the October 13, 1987 letter was critical; this

letter clearly indicated exactly what conduct the school district sought to proscribe.

Specifically, the October 18 letter directed that Mr. Webster was prohibited rom

teaching creation science and was admonished not to engage in religious advocacy.

Furthermore, the superintendents letter explicitly stated that Mr. Webster could

discuss objectively the historical relationship between church and state.The district court noted that a school board generally has wide latitude in

setting the curriculum, provided the school board remains within the boundaries

established by the constitution. Because the establishment clause prohibits the

enactment o any law respecting an establishment o religion, the school board


20/216


could not enact a curriculum that would inject religion into the public schools. U.S.

Const. amend. I. Moreover, the district court determined that the school board had

the responsibility to ensure that the establishment clause was not violated.

The district court then ramed the issue as whether Mr. Webster had the right to

teach creation science. Relying onEdwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987), the

district court determined that teaching creation science would constitute religious

advocacy in violation o the first amendment and that the school board correctlyprohibited Mr. Webster rom teaching such material. The court urther noted:

Webster has not been prohibited rom teaching any nonevolutionary theories or

rom teaching anything regarding the historical relationship between church and

state. Martinos [the superintendent] letter o October 13, 1987 makes it clear that

the religious advocacy o Websters teaching is prohibited and nothing else. Since

no other constraints were placed on Websters teaching, he has no basis or his

complaint and it must ail.

Webster v. New Lenox School Dist., Mem. op. at 4-5 (N.D., Ill. May 25, 1989).

Accordingly, the district court dismissed the complaint....***

ConclusionFor the oregoing reasons, the judgment o the district court is afirmed.

Webster v. New Lenox School District #122, 917 F. 2d 1004*Introductory mater ial in Background section, preceding the summary o Facts, is omitted here.

**Footnote in original reers to definition o creation science in Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578, 592 (1987)

***Footnote in original omitted here

plz v. Cis Uifid Schl Disic (1994)

...Charitably read, Pelozas complaint at most makes this claim: the school districts

actions establish a state-supported religion o evolutionism, or more generally o

secular humanism. See complaint at 2-4, 20. According to Pelozas complaint, all

persons must adhere to one o two religious belie systems concerning the origins

o lie and o the universe: evolutionism, or creationism. Id. at 2. Thus, the school

district, in teaching evolutionism, is establishing a state-supported religion.

We reject this claim because neither the Supreme Court, nor this circuit, has ever

held that evolutionism or secular humanism are religions or Establishment Clause

purposes. Indeed, both the dictionary definition o religion and the clear weight

o the caselaw are to the contrary. The Supreme Court has held unequivocally thatwhile the belie in a divine creator o the universe is a religious belie, the scientific

theory that higher orms o lie evolved rom lower orms is not. Edwards v. Aguillard,

482 U.S. 578, 96 L. Ed. 2d 510, 107 S. Ct. 2573 (1987) (holding unconstitutional,

under Establishment Clause, Louisianas Balanced Treatment or Creation-Science

and Evolution-Science in Public School Instruction Act).

Peloza would have us accept his definition o evolution and evolutionism and

impose his definition on the school district as its own, a definition that cannot be

ound in the dictionary, in the Supreme Court cases, or anywhere in the common

understanding o the words. Only i we define evolution and evolutionism

as does Peloza as a concept that embraces the belie that the universe came intoexistence without a Creator might he make out a claim. This we need not do. To

say red is green or black is white does not make it so. Nor need we or the purposes

o a 12(b)(6) motion accept a made-up definition o evolution. Nowhere does

Peloza point to anything that conceivably suggests that the school district accepts


21/216

legal background

anything other than the common definition o evolution and evolutionism. It

simply required him as a biology teacher in the public schools o Caliornia to teach

evolution. Peloza nowhere says it required more.

The district court dismissed his claim, stating:

Since the evolutionist theory is not a religion, to require an instructor to teach

this theory is not a violation o the Establishment Clause.... Evolution is a scientific

theory based on the gathering and studying o data, and modification o new data.It is an established scientific theory which is used as the basis or many areas o

science. As scientific methods advance and become more accurate, the scientific

community will revise the accepted theory to a more accurate explanation o lies

origins. Plaintis assertions that the teaching o evolution would be a violation o

the Establishment Clause is [sic] unounded.

Id. at 12-13. We agree....

John E. Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District, 37 F. 3d 517.

Footnotes in original are omitted here

Kizmill v. Dv a Schl Disic (2005)

ID [Intelligent Design] is not science. We find that ID ails on three dierent levels,

any one o which is suficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They

are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules o science by invoking and permit-

ting supernatural causation; (2) the argument o irreducible complexity, central to

ID, employs the same fawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation

science in the 1980s; and (3) IDs negative attacks on evolution have been reuted

by the scientific community. [I]t is additionally important to note that ID has

ailed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-re-viewed publications, nor has it been the subject o testing and research.

Notably, every major scientific association that has taken a position on the issue

o whether ID is science has concluded that ID is not, and cannot be considered as

such. Not a single expert witness over the course o the six week trial identified

one major scientific association, society or organization that endorsed ID as science.

What is more, deense experts concede that ID is not a theory as that term is defined

by the [National Academy o Sciences] and admit that ID is at best ringe science

which has achieved no acceptance in the scientific community.

ID is at bottom premised upon a alse dichotomy, namely, that to the extent

evolutionary theory is discredited, ID is confirmed. This argument is not broughtto this Court anew, and in act, the same argument, termed contrived dualism in

McLean, was employed by creationists in the 1980s to support creation science.

We do not find this alse dichotomy any more availing to justiy ID today than it

was to justiy creation science two decades ago.

ID proponents primarily argue or design through negative arguments against

evolution, as illustrated by Proessor Behes argument that irreducibly complex

systems cannot be produced through Darwinian, or any natural, mechanisms.

However, we believe that arguments against evolution are not arguments or design.

Expert testimony revealed that just because scientists cannot explain today how

biological systems evolved does not mean that they cannot, and will not, be able to

explain them tomorrow.

Despite the scientific communitys overwhelming support or evolution,

Deendants and ID proponents insist that evolution is unsupported by empirical


22/216

10 Voices for Evolution

evidence. Plaintis science experts, Drs. Miller and Padian, clearly explained how

ID proponents generally andPandas specifically, distort and misrepresent scientific

knowledge in making their anti-evolution argument.

The disclaimers plain language, the legislative history, and the historical context

in which the ID Policy arose, all inevitably lead to the conclusion that Deendants

consciously chose to change Dovers biology curriculum to advance religion. We have

been presented with a wealth o evidence which reveals that the Districts purpose was to advance creationism, an inherently religious view, both by introducing it

directly under the label ID and by disparaging the scientific theory o evolution, so

that creationism would gain credence by deault as the only apparent alternative to

evolution. Any asserted secular purposes by the Board are a sham and are merely

secondary to a religious objective. Deendants previously reerenced fagrant and

insulting alsehoods to the Court provide suficient and compelling evidence or us

to deduce that any allegedly secular purposes that have been oered in support o

the ID Policy are equally insincere.

[W]e first note that since ID is not science, the conclusion is inescapable that

the only real eect o the ID Policy is the advancement o religion. .... Second,the disclaimer read to students has the eect o implicitly bolstering alternative

religious theories o origin by suggesting that evolution is a problematic theory

even in the field o science. Third, reading the disclaimer not only disavows

endorsement o educational materials but also juxtaposes that disavowal with an

urging to contemplate alternative religious concepts implies School Board approval

o religious principles.

The eect o Deendants actions in adopting the curriculum change was to

impose a religious view o biological origins into the biology course, in violation o

the Establishment Clause.

The proper application o both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the acts o thiscase makes it abundantly clear that the Boards ID Policy violates the Establishment

Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question o

whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot

uncouple itsel rom its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.

The breathtaking inanity o the Boards decision is evident when considered

against the actual backdrop which has now been ully revealed through this trial.

The students, parents, and teachers o the Dover Area School District deserved

better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste o

monetary and personal resources.

Excerpts from Kitzmiller et al v. Dover Area School District et al, Case No.

04cv2688, John E. Jones, III, presiding. Footnotes in original are omitted here.


23/216

part two

SCientiF iC

OrganizatiOnS



24/216


Bief f amici Cuie

by 56 pfessinl Scienific ognizins

in Selmn v. Cbb Cuny

Semen f Inees f he pfessinl Scienific ognizins

The amiciare scientific organizations whose members are current and retired proes-sional scientists. They are seriously concerned about the low level o science literacy

in the United States and recognize that public school science education is a major way

through which the public gains basic knowledge o science.

When the nature and content o science are erroneously presented in the public

schools, the position o science in society is negatively aected, which directly aects

the interests o scientists. The technological innovations that drive our economy and

provide or our national security are dependent on sound scientific research. So too

are the breakthroughs that will provide or the improved health o our population, or

a dependable ood supply, and or increasingly needed new energy sources. At no

point in our nations history has American leadership in science, technology, and med-

icine been more important. As proessional scientists, the amicihave a direct stake in

sound science education.

Semen f he Issue

Whether there is any pedagogical or scientific merit to the Cobb County School Dis-

tricts requirement that biology textbooks carry a disclaimer that singles out evolution

as a theory.

agumen

Amiciproessional scientific organizations submit this brie or the limited purpose o

expressing the view o the scientific community regarding the status o evolution as

well-established science. The scientific community does not qualiy evolution, or any

other scientific theory, as theory not act; it is, thereore, unnecessary and misleading

to do so in the public schools.

I. The Disclaimer Misuses the Scientific Terms Theory and FactIn 2002, the Cobb County Board o Education required a sticker (hereater, the dis-

claimer) to be placed in biology textbooks that read:

This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a act,

regarding the origin o living things. This material should be approached with

an open mind, studied careully and critically considered.

In the view o the scientific community, which the amicirepresent, the disclaimer

employs the terms theory and act in a manner both incorrect and misleading.

First, the phrasing o the disclaimer implies that a theory is a speculative or unsub-

stantiated proposition. This is undamentally incorrect. In codified bodies o scientific

knowledge such as textbooks, the word theory is reserved or our most well-substan-

tiated and comprehensive explanations. The National Academy o Sciences, an organi-

zation o leading scientists in every field which advises the administration and Con-

gress on scientific aairs, defines the synonym or theory as explanation:

In science, a well-substantiated explanation o some aspect o the natural world

that can incorporate acts, laws, inerences, and tested hypotheses. Natl Acad. o

Sciences., Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sci-

ences, 2 (2d ed. 1999).


25/216

SCientiFiC OrganizatiOnS 13

This definition also makes it clear that scientific theories out-rank acts by sub-

suming acts and laws within them. Well-known scientific theories include the atomic

theory, the general theory o relativity, the theory o gravitation, the germ theory o

disease, and the gene theory o heredity.

Even well-established scientific theories may be, and usually are, incomplete. Atom-

ic theory, or example, expresses the general understanding that matter is composed

o atoms. It does not mean that physicists ully understand everything about atoms;there are gaps in our knowledge o atomic theory. Nonetheless, no reputable scien-

tist doubts the basic proposition that matter is made o atoms or that atomic theory is

a powerul ramework or understanding natural phenomena.

Not only does the disclaimer use theory incorrectly, it also employs the word

act in a misleading way. In a non-scientific context, the word act implies certainty,

finality, and immutability; acts are permanent and unproblematic. In science, however,

everything including what we take to be acts is in principle revisable in the light

o more accurate instrumentation, urther evidence, or changes in theory that cause

us to look dierently at phenomena.1 By speciously opposing theory and act, the

disclaimer misleads its reader about the scientific use o those terms, and does so insuch a way as to deprecate evolution.

Scientists do not doubt the basic proposition that living things share common an-

cestry. By using the terms act and theory wrongly and misleadingly, the disclaimer

serves to propagate an incorrect view o science and o evolution. Certainly, there is

no valid pedagogical or scientific reason or using scientific terms incorrectly and

thereby thwarting the purpose o science education.

II. The Disclaimer Incorrectly Defines EvolutionIn its broadest sense, evolution is the idea that the universe has had a history, that as-

tronomical, geological, biological and anthropological phenomena have changedthrough time, although dierent sciences may invoke dierent underlying mecha-

nisms in their explanations. Biological evolution is a subset o this larger idea: it holds

that living things have descended with modification rom common ancestors. Bio-

logical evolution incorporates the idea that species are genealogically related: com-

mon ancestry is the key to understanding biological evolution.2

Evidence or common ancestry comes rom many dierent scientific disciplines,

including comparative anatomy, developmental biology, genetics, biogeography, bio-

chemistry, and paleontology. Evolutionary biology includes the study o the patterns

o evolution how the tree o lie has branched through time and the various pro-

cesses that aect or bring about evolution.Thus, the Cobb County disclaimer does not use the term evolution correctly

when it defines evolution as regarding the origin o living things. That definition is

either too narrow or simply mistaken. Evolution in the broad sense is a complex topic

studied by a number o disparate scientific disciplines and is not limited to the origin

o living things. I the disclaimer means to reer only to biological evolution, as seems

likely by its presence only in biology textbooks, it makes another error by using the

phrase origin o living things, the disclaimer confates the question o the evolution

o living things with the very dierent question o the origin o lie.


26/216


III. The Disclaimer Erroneously Implies that Biological Evolution isNot Well-Established ScienceBecause it selects only evolution as a subject to be critically considered, the dis-

claimer implies that evolution is in special need o critical consideration. This is

incorrect. Evolution is a well-established scientific theory with empirical validation

and explanatory orce. Not only is biological evolution the only scientific explana-

tion or the presence and diversity o living things, the evidence or it is overwhelm-ing. The National Academy o Sciences has written:

The concept o biological evolution is one o the most important ideas ever

generated by the application o scientific methods to the natural world. The

evolution o all the organisms that live on Earth today rom ancestors that lived

in the past is at the core o genetics, biochemistry, neurobiology, physiology,

ecology, and other biological disciplines. It helps to explain the emergence o

new inectious diseases, the development o antibiotic resistance in bacteria, the

agricultural relationships among wild and domestic plants and animals, the com-

position o Earths atmosphere, the molecular machinery o the cell, the similari-

ties between human beings and other primates, and countless other eatures othe biological and physical world. Natl Acad. o Sciences,supra, at viii.

Because o its importance in science, evolution is taught matter-o-actly, without

qualification or compromise, in secular universities and in prestigious religiously-

afiliated universities such as Brigham Young, Baylor, and Notre Dame. The view o

the scientific community is that evolution should not be singled out or special

qualification and should be taught matter-o-actly at the secondary level, without

qualification.

Opponents o evolution typically claim that evolution is weak or poorly-supported

science, citing debates over the detailed pattern o lies history and the role and inter-actions o various mechanisms o evolution. In reality, scientific debates about the

details o the patterns and processes o evolution confirm the overwhelming consen-

sus among scientists that living things have, indeed, evolved.3

By emphasizing that evolution but no other scientific theory is a theory, not a

act, the Cobb County school district disclaimer draws a distinction that the scientific

community does not make. The implication o the disclaimer is that evolution, among

all other scientific principles, is particularly weak, controversial, or unsubstantiated.

This is simply wrong. 4

Cnclusin:Discliming Evluin Seves N Vlid Scienific pedggicl puse

The Cobb County disclaimer displays a serious lack o understanding o the nature

o science and o biological evolution. By using the terms act, theory, and evo-

lution wrongly and misleadingly, the disclaimer serves to propagate an incorrect

view o the status o scientific theories in general and o evolution in particular. No

scientific or educational purpose is served by treating evolution dierently rom

other theories. Rather, the disclaimer gives scientifically unwarranted support to

religious opponents o evolution.

Given the great importance o evolution as a undamental, uniying, explanatory

theory and its well-established place in science education, there can be no valid peda-gogical or scientific reason to disclaim or qualiy its validity in public school science

textbooks. For all o the above reasons, the amiciproessional scientific organizations

urge the court to uphold the District Courts decision.


27/216


Dated: June 9, 2005Amicus Curiae filed in Selman v. Cobb Countyby the following professional scientific associations:Academy o Science o St. LouisAmerican Anthropological AssociationAmerican Association or the Advancement o ScienceAmerican Association o AnatomistsAmerican Association o Physics TeachersAmerican Association o Physical AnthropologistsAmerican Astronomical SocietyAmerican Crystallographic AssociationAmerican Geological InstituteAmerican Geological UnionAmerican Institute o Biological SciencesAmerican Institute o ChemistsAmerican Institute o PhysicsAmerican Physical SocietyAmerican Physiological SocietyAmerican Society or Biochemistry and Molecular BiologyAmerican Society or Bone and Mineral ResearchAmerican Society or Investigative PathologyAmerican Society o AgronomyAmerican Society o Human GeneticsAmerican Society o Ichthyologists and HerpetologistsAmerican Society o Plant BiologistsAmerican Society o Plant TaxonomistsAssociation o American GeographersAssociation o Anatomy, Cell Biology and Neurobiology ChairsAssociation o College & University Biology EducatorsAssociation o Southeastern BiologistsAssociation or Women in ScienceThe Biophysical SocietyBotanical Society o AmericaClay Minerals SocietyCrop Science Society o AmericaFederation o American Societies or Experimental BiologyFoundation or Neuroscience and SocietyGeological Society o AmericaGeorgia Academy o ScienceIndiana Academy o ScienceIowa Academy o ScienceThe Kentucky Academy o ScienceNational Academy o SciencesNebraska Academy o SciencesNew Mexico Academy o ScienceNew York Academy o SciencesOhio Academy o SciencePaleontological SocietyPhi Sigma: The Biological Honors SocietyPhycological Society o AmericaSigma Xi The Scientific Research SocietySociety o Economic GeologistsSociety or Industrial and Applied MathematicsSociety or Developmental BiologySociety or Integrative and Comparative BiologySociety or Sedimentary GeologySociety or the Study o EvolutionSociety or Systematic BiologistsSoil Science Society o America


28/216


1 Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and or all practical purposes is accepted as true.Truth in science, however, is never final, and what i s accepted as a act today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.Natl Acad. O Sciences., supra, at 2.

2 Biological evolution concerns changes in living things during the history o lie on Earth. It explains that living thingsshare common ancestors. Over time, biological processes such as natural selection give rise to new species. Darwin calledthis process descent with modification, which remains a good definit ion o biological evolution today. Natl Acad. o Sci-ences, supra, at 27.

3 The Brie o Amici Curiae Biologists rom the Discovery Institute incorrectly claims that a valid scientific debate is ragingover whether evolution occurred. On the contrar y, debate occurs over the details o evolution, not over whether evolution

occurs. (D.I. Br. at 9). Typical is a statement rom the American Institute o Biological Sciences: As a community, biologistsagree that evolution occurred and that the orces driving the evolutionary process are still active today. This consensus isbased on more than a century o scientific data gathering and analysis. Voices or Evolution, 33 (M. Matsumura, Natl Ctr.or Sci. Educ., ed., rev. ed. 2004).

4 See e.g., Voices or Evolution, supra (reporting statements o scientific organizations, such as the Association o Southeast-ern Biologists: [We strongly oppose attempts to undermine or compromise the teaching o evolution, whether by eliminat-ing the word evolution rom state science standards, requir ing textbook disclaimers that misleadingly describe evolutionas merely a theory, or by encouraging scientifically unwarranted cr iticism o evolution under the guise o analysis, objec-tivity, balance, or teaching the controversy. Such tactics are clearly intended to leave the a lse impression that evolutionis scientifically precar ious and will thus deprive students o a sound scientific education.).

albm acdemy f Science (1981)

The Executive Committee o the Alabama Academy o Science hereby records its op-position to legislation to introduce scientific creationism into the Alabama class-

room. Furthermore, the Executive Committee o the Alabama Academy o Science

believes that the introduction o classroom subject content through the political

process not only violates the academic reedom o the subject specialist to deter-

mine relevant and scientifically sound concepts, but also represents an inappropri-

ate and potentially dangerous precedent or American education.

Adopted by a vote of 24 in favor to 7 opposed; copy hand-dated 1981.

albm acdemy f Science, Inc. (1994)

The Executive Committee o the Alabama Academy o Science strongly deplores e-

orts to insert into the Course o Study or Science or the public schools o this state

theories and hypotheses which do not meet the cardinal criteria o the hypotheses,

theories and laws o science: that they be based on acts and that they be capable o

being proven alse. To be scientific, hypotheses, theories and laws must be in accord

with the results o repeatable controlled experiments or be ormulated as the result

o consistent and verifiable observations.

Adopted by the Executive Committee October 29, 1994

ameicn anhlgicl assciin (1980)

Whereas evolutionary theory is the indispensable oundation or the understanding o

physical anthropology and biology;

Whereas evolution is a basic component o many aspects o archeology, cultural

anthropology, and linguistics;

Whereas evolution is a basic component o allied disciplines such as the earth sci-

ences and a cornerstone o 20th century science in general;

Whereas a century o scientific research has confirmed the reality o evolution asa historical process, and the concept o evolution, in all its diversity, has explained the

scientifically known evidence and successully predicted ruitul paths o urther re-

search; and

Whereas local and national campaigns by so-called scientific Creationists and

other antievolutionists nevertheless challenge the right o public schools to teach


29/216


evolutionary theory without giving scientific credence or equal time to Creationist

and other antievolutionist explanations o the origin and development o lie;

Be it movedthat the American Anthropological Association afirms the necessity

o teaching evolution as the best scientific explanation o human and nonhuman

biology and the key to understanding the origin and development o lie, because

the principles o evolution have been tested repeatedly and ound to be valid accord-

ing to scientific criteria;The Association respects the right o people to hold diverse religious belies, in-

cluding those which reject evolution, as matters o theology or aith but not as te-

nets o secular science;

Eorts to require teaching Creationism in science classes, whether exclusively,

as a component o science curricula, or in equal-time counterpoint to evolution, are

not based on science but rather are attempts to promote unscientific viewpoints in

the name o science without basis in the record o scientific research by generations

o anthropologists and other scholars;

The subject o lie origins is addressed in tremendous diversity among the worlds

religions, and eorts to promote particular Judeo-Christian creation accounts inpublic schools are ethnocentric as well as unscientific.

Be it urther moved that the Association shall communicate this motion upon

passage to the public news media, to commissioners o education or equivalent

oficials in each o the 50 states, and to other oficials and organizations deemed ap-

propriate by the Executive Board or Executive Director.

Be it urther moved that members o the Association are encouraged to promote

these points o proessional concern in their home communities among educators,

parents, and students and in appropriate public orums beyond the boundaries o

traditional, proessional, and academic disciplines.

Passed at 1980 annual meeting in Washington, DC.

ameicn anhlgicl assciin (2000)

Semen n Evluin nd Ceinism

Affirmation

The Executive Board of the American Anthropological Association affirms that:

Evolution is a basic component o many aspects o anthropology (including

physical anthropology, archeology, cultural anthropology, and linguistics)

and is a cornerstone o modern science, being central to biology, geology, and

astronomy;

The principles o evolution have been tested repeatedly and ound to be valid

according to scientific criteria. Evolution should be part o the pre-college cur-

riculum; it is the best scientific explanation o human and nonhuman biology

and the key to understanding the origin and development o lie;

Religious views are an important part o human cultures, and deserve a place in

the pre-college curriculum, provided that they are not presented dogmatically

or in a proselytizing context. A comparative, anthropological study o religionwould not violate the Constitutional requirement o religious neutrality in the

classroom. An anthropological understanding o religion would be helpul in

resolving some o the perceived confict between creationism and evolution;


30/216


The Association respects the right o people to hold diverse religious belies, in-

cluding those who reject evolution as matters o theology or aith. Such belies should

not be presented as science, however;

Teachers, administrators, school board members and others involved in pre-college

education are under pressure to teach creationism as science and/or eliminate or

downgrade evolution, to the detriment o public scientific literacy. Many succumb to

this pressure, or lack o expressed support rom scientists and other communitymembers;

Therefore anthropologists are encouraged to use their knowledge both o evolu-

tion and o human social and cultural systems to assist communities in which evolu-

tion and creationism have become contentious. Anthropologists should help the pub-

lic and public oficials understand that good science education requires that evolution

be presented in the same manner as other well-supported scientific theories, without

special qualifications or disclaimers, and that an understanding o religion and other

cultural systems should be part o the education o each child.

Background InformationAnthropologists study human beings both at the present time and as they were in

the past, thereore the creationism and evolution dispute is o particular interest to

members o the American Anthropological Association. We are sensitive to social,

cultural, religious, and political dierences among citizens, and we also appreciate

(and contribute to the understanding o) the long evolutionary history o our spe-

cies. Anthropologys cultural, biological, linguistic, and archaeological perspectives

are especially relevant or helping to understand this controversy.

Anthropologists are aware o diversity within cultures, including our own. It is

empirically incorrect to describe creation and evolution controversies as simplistic

dramas o undamentalism versus atheism. Evolution is not equivalent to atheism;studies demonstrate that those who accept evolution hold a variety o religious be-

lies. Similarly, Christian creationist thought spans a range o positions, rom biblical

literalism to progressive creationismand many non-Christian orms o creationism

exist among the worlds peoples.

In contrast to this diversity o religious views, the single general idea o biological

evolution is that species share common ancestors rom which they have diverged.

There is much debate over the details, but descent with modification itsel is no lon-

ger debated by scholars. As the National Academy o Sciences has said,

The scientific consensus around evolution is overwhelming. Those opposed tothe teaching o evolution sometimes use quotations rom prominent scientists

out o context to claim that scientists do not support evolution. However, ex-

amination o the quotations reveals that the scientists are actually disputing

some aspect o how evolution occurs, not whether evolution occurred.1

Such debates about the mechanisms and details o evolution are a normal part o

the scientific process, and gradually have led to a consensus about the history o lie

on Earth. The ability to alter explanations when new evidence or theory is encoun-

tered is one o the strengths o a scientific way o knowing. Religious or philosophical

interpretations should be distinguished rom scientific knowledge per se, to the ex-

tent that it is possible to delineate such distinctions. Science describes and explainsthe natural world: it does not prove or disprove belies about the supernatural.

The study o the evolution o humans is a scientific enterprise. Good scientific

knowledge possesses these eatures:

1. it explains natural phenomena in terms o natural laws and processes, with-

out reerence to overt or covert supernatural causation;


31/216


2. it is empirically grounded in evidence rom observations and experiments;

and

3. it is subject to change as new empirical evidence arises.

Because humans are part o nature, the study o human evolution can be conduct-

ed within these parameters.

With these thoughts in mind, the ollowing summarizes a consensus o anthropo-logical judgments regarding human evolution:

1. The ancestors o humans extend back in time or several million years. This

consensus o anthropological judgment is derived rom reliable scientific meth-

ods that are well accepted in geology, paleontology and archaeology, including

(a) a series o absolute dating methods based on radiometric techniques that

independently afirm the dates o hominid ossils, plus (b) the stratigraphy-

based principles o relative chronology, including superposition, association,

and cross-dating. Together these methods constitute our best indicators o the

ages o past events.

2. Human anatomy has changed over time in response to natural selection and

other evolutionary processes. This consensus o anthropological judgment is

derived rom anatomy, paleoanthropology, paleoecology, taphonomy, paleoeth-

nobotany, and related fields.

3. Human evolution is an on-going process. Our species remains subject to evo-

lutionary mechanisms, including natural selection and non-Darwinian evolu-

tion. This consensus is derived rom unctional anatomical studies as well as

discoveries in medicine and medical anthropology.

4. Humans are more closely related to primates than to other mammals, and

within the primates, are more closely related to the Arican great apes. Our spe-cies shares some common ancestors with other primates and mammals. This

consensus is derived rom primatology, the ossil record, comparative anatomy,

and genetics.

5. Evolutionary assumptions and methods provide persuasive explanations or

the great variety o Earths living things, including human beings. Evolutionary

concepts tie together such natural phenomena as genetic diversity, environ-

mental change, adaptation, dierential reproductive success, and speciation,

thereby making evolution the central organizing principle o the lie sciences.

This consensus o scientific opinion is derived rom biology, geology, paleontol-ogy, primatology, and archaeology. As is the case with other scholars, our goals

in teaching evolution are to instruct, not to indoctrinate. Anthropologists seek

to inculcate a critical understanding o how scientists and other scholars think

and work, so that our students will be able to employ anthropological reason-

ing and methods in their own thinking and research. All students, regardless o

religious belie, as a matter o scientific literacy should understand basic prin-

ciples o anthropology and other sciences relevant to evolution.

Submitted April 29, 2000, by the Ad-Hoc Committee on Evolution:

Francis Harrold, [email protected]

Eugenie C. Scott, [email protected] Toumey, [email protected]

Linda Wole, [email protected]

Adopted by the AAA Executive Board, April, 20001 1999 Science and Creationism. National Academy Press, Frequently Asked Questions


32/216


ameicn assciin f he advncemen f Science (1923)

a Semen n he pesen Scienific Sus f he they f Evluin

Inasmuch as the attempt has been made in several states to prohibit in tax-supported

institutions the teaching o evolution as applied to man, and

Since it has been asserted that there is not a act in the universe in support o thistheory, that it is a mere guess which leading scientists are now abandoning, and that

even the American Association or the Advancement o Science at its last meeting in

Toronto, Canada, approved this revolt against evolution, and

Inasmuch as such statements have been given wide publicity through the press

and are misleading public opinion on this subject,

Therefore, the council o the American Association or the Advancement o Science

has thought it advisable to take ormal action upon this matter, in order that there may

be no ground or misunderstanding o the attitude o the association, which is one o

the largest scientific bodies in the world, with a membership o more than 11,000 per-

sons, including the American authorities in all branches o science. The ollowing state-ments represent the position o the council with regard to the theory o evolution.

1) The council o the association afirms that, so ar as the scientific evidences

o the evolution o plants and animals and man are concerned, there is no

ground whatever or the assertion that these evidences constitute a mere

guess. No scientific generalization is more strongly supported by thoroughly

tested evidences than is that o organic evolution.

2) The council o the association afirms that the evidences in avor o the evo-

lution o man are suficient to convince every scientist o note in the world, and

that these evidences are increasing in number and importance every year.

3) The council o the association also afirms that the theory o evolution is one

o the most potent o the great infuences or good that have thus ar entered

into human experience; it has promoted the progress o knowledge, it has os-

tered unprejudiced inquiry, and it has served as an invaluable aid in humanitys

search or truth in many fields.

4) The council o the association is convinced that any legislation attempting to

limit the teaching o any scientific doctrine so well established and so widely

accepted by specialists as is the doctrine o evolution would be a proound

mistake, which could not ail to injure and retard the advancement o knowl-

edge and o human welare by denying the reedom o teaching and inquiry

which is essential to all progress.

Resolution adopted 1923


Whereas the new Science Framework or Caliornia Public Schools prepared by the

Caliornia State Advisory Committee on Science Education has been revised by theCaliornia State Board o Education to include the theory o creation as an alternative

to evolutionary theory in discussions o the origins o lie, and

Whereas the theory o creation is neither scientifically grounded nor capable o

perorming the roles required o scientific theories, and


33/216


Whereas the requirement that it be included in textbooks as an alternative to evo-

lutionary theory represents a constraint upon the reedom o the science teacher in

the classroom, and

Whereas its inclusion also represents dictation by a lay body o what shall be con-

sidered within the corpus o a science,

Thereforewe, the members o the Board o Directors o the American Association

or the Advancement o Science, present at the quarterly meeting o October 1972,strongly urge that the Caliornia State Board o Education not include reerence to the

theory o creation in the new Science Framework or Caliornia Public Schools and

that it adopt the original version prepared by the Caliornia State Advisory Committee

on Science Education.22 October 1972


Fced teching f Ceinis Beliefs in public Schl Science EducinWhereas it is the responsibility o the American Association or the Advancement o

Science to preserve the integrity o science, and

Whereas science is a systematic method o investigation based on continuous ex-

perimentation, observation, and measurement leading to evolving explanations o

natural phenomena, explanations which are continuously open to urther testing, and

Whereas evolution ully satisfies these criteria, irrespective o remaining debates

concerning its detailed mechanisms, and

Whereas the Association respects the right o people to hold diverse belies about

creation that do not come within the definitions o science, and

Whereas Creationist groups are imposing belies disguised as science upon teach-ers and students to the detriment and distortion o public education in the United

States

Therefore be it resolved that because Creationist Science has no scientific validity

it should not be taught as science, and urther, that the AAAS views legislation requir-

ing Creationist Science to be taught in public schools as a real and present threat to

the integrity o education and the teaching o science, and

Be it further resolvedthat the AAAS urges citizens, educational authorities, and

legislators to oppose the compulsory inclusion in science education curricula o be-

lies that are not amenable to the process o scrutiny, testing, and revision that is indis-

pensable to science.

The above resolution was passed by the AAAS Board of Directors on

4 January 1982 and submitted to the Council as a proposed joint

resolution of the Board and Council. It was passed by Council on

7 January, and published in Science 215:1072 on 26 February.


34/216



aaaS Bd resluin n Inelligen Design they

The contemporary theory o biological evolution is one o the most robust products

o scientific inquiry. It is the oundation or research in many areas o biology as well

as an essential element o science education. To become inormed and responsiblecitizens in our contemporary technological world, students need to study the theo-

ries and empirical evidence central to current scientific understanding.

Over the past several years proponents o so-called intelligent design theory, also

known as ID, have challenged the accepted scientific theory o biological ev

Voices for Evolution, Third Edition (2008)

Documents

Transcript of Voices for Evolution, Third Edition (2008)