Evolution Diary

Introduction

The growing strength of the movement to discredit evolution and promote the teaching of intelligent design and other non science-based views of biological diversity in public science classrooms is of great concern. Please see the UCS position statement on this alarming trend. UCS has not developed a comprehensive program or set of actions on this topic—there are already extensive and excellent resources available. Instead, these materials provide a primer on the scientific theory, evolution, and intelligent design, along with discussions of why intelligent design is not science, why it should not be part of the science curriculum, and the broader implications anti-evolution efforts can have on society.

Promoting a fundamental understanding of the nature of scientific inquiry is an incredibly effective way to prevent the misuse of science in the classroom and in all sectors of society. We encourage further exploration of the topic and of actions that can be taken by teachers, scientists, and the general public to promote understanding of science. Click on the topics above for summary text and links to resources. We hope you find these materials useful.

 

Section 1: Science as a Way of Knowing
Section 2: Science and Society
Section 3: Evolution, Creationism, and Intelligent Design
Section 4: Why Intelligent Design is not Science
Section 5: Science Education and Intelligent Design
Section 6: Fairness and Balance in the Classroom and Beyond

 

Section 1: Science as a Way of Knowing 

 

Science is a powerful “way of knowing” based on experimentation and observations of the natural world. We depend on science for unbiased and verifiable information to make important decisions about our lives. Although there are other ways of knowing that may be important in our personal and cultural lives, they rely on opinion, belief, and other factors rather than on evidence and testing.

 

The scientific method utilizes a series of facts, hypotheses, laws, and theories to explain observations in the natural world. Everyday use of these terms is different than in the scientific context, leading to unintentional and intentional confusion. Theory is one of the most important—yet most misunderstood—terms. While theory is commonly used to mean a “hunch” or “opinion,” in science, a theory is an extremely strong statement that provides an explanation of a natural phenomenon based on a wealth of well-documented evidence. A theory must include the following criteria:

• It must be tested by experimentation and observation of the natural world.

• It must be falsifiable (i.e. experiments must exist that could prove it false).

• It cannot be proven, only confirmed or disconfirmed.

• It is subject to revision and change.

Section 2: Science and Society

We continue to reap the technological, medical, agricultural, environmental, and cultural benefits of scientific discovery. Although science and scientists are highly respected in society, there is a lack of public understanding of some of the most basic concepts in science, including evolution. Anti-evolution groups make good use of this confusion to attempt to discredit the scientific basis of evolution and support their own views.

 

For many scientists there is no conflict between science and religion —science explores how things work while religion and philosophy ask why. They can coexist as separate areas of inquiry and even lead to enlightening discussions. Indeed, some mainstream religions —such as the Roman Catholic Church—support the theory of evolution as an explanation of how humans and other organisms arose on Earth. Recent attempts to incorporate religion-based alternatives to evolution in the science classroom have elicited strong reactions by many of these groups.

 

Our policy makers rely on independent scientific information to make informed decisions that protect our health, safety, and the environment. Unfortunately, a growing level of political and ideological interference threatens the integrity of science  in public decision making, with wide-ranging repercussions for our social, economic, and environmental future.

Section 3: Evolution, Creationism, and Intelligent Design 

 

Modern evolutionary theory provides a robust explanation for how life on earth evolved over time through the passing on of traits from one generation to the next. It is one of the most studied, tested, and accepted theories in science. Creationist attempts to challenge evolution have been common over the last 100 years, but recent and dangerous challenges have come mainly from the intelligent design movement.

 

Intelligent design is based on the concept of “irreducible complexity”: an idea that some structures found in nature are too complex to be explained by natural selection and are best explained by some intelligent cause. The focus of the movement is on mandating that intelligent design be taught as an alternative to evolution in the science classroom. To do this, it relies on creating false controversy and misconceptions about science—especially evolution. The movement has been successful at gaining support from many community leaders, including politicians and school board members.

 

A particularly disturbing element of the intelligent design movement is the attempt to circumvent laws protecting separation of church and state by claiming that it is a scientific theory not a religious belief.

 

Section 4: Why Intelligent Design is not Science 

 

The intelligent design movement is exceptionally good at creating false controversies and misconceptions. Yet their basic claims are easily debunked.

• There is scientific controversy over evolution: There is no debate about evolution among the vast majority of scientists, and no credible alternative scientific theory exists. Debates within the community are about specific mechanisms within evolution, not whether evolution occurred.

• Structures found in nature are too complex to have evolved step-by-step through natural selection [the concept of “irreducible complexity”]:  Natural selection does not require that all structures have the same function or even need to be functional at each step in the development of an organism.

• Intelligent design is a scientific theory : A scientific theory is supported by extensive research and repeated experimentation and observation in the natural world. Unlike a true scientific theory, the existence of an “intelligent” agent can not be tested, nor is it falsifiable.

• Intelligent design is based on the scientific method : Intelligent design might base its ideas on observations in the natural world, but it does not test them in the natural world, or attempt to develop mechanisms (such as natural selection) to explain their observations.

• Most scientists are atheists and believe only in the material world: Such accusations are neither fair nor true. The scientific method is limited to using evidence from the natural world to explain phenomena. It does not preclude the existence of God or other spiritual beliefs and only states that they are not part of science. Belief in a higher being is a personal, not a scientific, question.

Section 5: Science Education and Intelligent Design 

Good science education is the key to the innovation and creativity needed for the U.S. to maintain its world leadership in science and technology. At a time when we are placing so much attention on improving math and science skills, it is particularly disturbing that science education is under attack.

The success of the intelligent design movement in convincing the public and policy makers that it is has a legitimate place in the science classroom is causing increasing alarm. Many teaching, scientific, and religious associations have circulated statements opposing the teaching of intelligent design as science. Good web resources for teachers and others opposing creationism and intelligent design in the classroom are growing rapidly.

Recent legal challenges to attempts to mandate intelligent design in the science curriculum have been fairly successful. Rulings such as those in Dover County, Pennsylvania and in Kansas concluded that intelligent design is based on religion and not science and should not be taught as an alternative to evolution. But new anti-evolution efforts are gaining ground across the country at an alarming rate.

There are a number of excellent websites with resources for teachers, scientists, policy makers, and concerned citizens. We have included a few in the Suggested Resources section below.

Suggested Resources

Statements by Scientific and Education Societies

• National Center for Science Education - “Voices for Evolution,” a project of NCSE, provides an extensive list of statements from education, scientific, religious, and civil liberties groups supporting the teaching of evolution in public schools.

Resources for Teachers

• American Institute for Biological Science - An extensive set of materials on evolution-related issues for educators.
• American Institute for Biological Science and the National Center for Science Education list serve - A list serve for scientists, teachers, and others to communicate about, and provide support for the teaching of evolution and the rapid response to attempts to bring anti-evolution policies into schools.
• Talk Design - Provides links to state-based organizations supporting science education.
• National Academy of Sciences - Provides links to books, articles, position statements, and education resources on evolution.
• National Center for Science Education - Articles and essays on teaching evolution.
• “25 Ways to support science education” - A list of actions that can be taken by teachers and the public.

Legal Aspects of Intelligent Design in Science Education

• National Academy of Sciences and National Science Teachers Association - A 2002 joint statement rejecting copyright permission for the use of their publications in the Kansas Science Education Standards. The statement describes concerns about changes to the Kansas standards including revision of the definition of science and the singling out of evolution as “controversial.”
• Judge Jones opinion in Kitzmiller v. the Dover Area School District - The complete Memorandum Opinion in the Dover case finding that the proposed policy to include intelligent design in the public school science curriculum does not pass the Lemon Test and that intelligent design is a religious view not a scientific theory.  The document provides a good review of the legal and historical context of creationism versus evolution in schools. See the articles at MSNBC and ACLU on the Dover trial.
• National Center for Science Education - Provides an overview and links to important past court decisions regarding evolution/creation issues. It does not include recent decisions including Kansas and Dover.
• Award to Alton Lemon from the Freedom From Religion Foundation - A presentation of an award to Alton Lemon that provides a succinct description of the Lemon Test and its history.
  

Section 6: Fairness and Balance in the Classroom and Beyond 

Our culture is based on the right to express opinions and provide access to all sides of a debate. So why not teach intelligent design as an alternative to evolution in our public school science classrooms? Science is not a place for everyone’s ideas to be given equal weight. It is a process in which ideas are accepted and discarded based on a rigorous set of rules and tests. While discussion of intelligent design and creationism might have a place in the philosophy curriculum, it does not belong in the science classroom. The focus of science education has to be on developing the scientific skills and knowledge needed to provide students with tools for their future success.

We all have reason for concern about the potential implications if intelligent design and other non-science beliefs are accepted as science.

• Will an ill-prepared work force be able to maintain and expand our knowledge in bio-medicine, physics, ecology, technology, and other disciplines?
• What will the basis for individual and public decisions be if the ability required to distinguish between evidence and speculation is lost in our complex world?
• Will we end up with a feedback loop of poorly taught students making future decisions about education?
• What social, economic, and environmental consequences will we face if the integrity of science is lost to ideology and political interests?
• What will the repercussions be if First Amendment rights of the separation of church and state are compromised?

Original Article with footnotes and references links available at Union of Concerned Scientists