Talking points for July 9, Texas Board of Education meeting

Talking Points for the Public Hearing
of the Texas State Board of Education
Prepared by the staff of the National Center for Science Education for use by citizens testifying before the Texas State Board of Education on July 9, 2003, in support of scientifically-accurate biology textbooks and opposed to the analysis of biology textbooks prepared by the staff of the Center for Science and Culture of the Discovery Institute. (July 5, 2003)

Addressing Attacks Against the Proposed Biology Textbooks
The Purpose of High School Texts is to Present Accepted Knowledge in the Field

Texas should adopt textbooks that provide state of the art scholarship, and this scholarship, according to university and professional scientists, must include evolution. Evolution should not be qualified in any way, for example presented as a "theory in crisis" or one which scientists are giving up on, but presented accurately, as scientists accept it, as the best scientific explanation for the diversity of living things. Textbooks should reflect this, and not present alternative views that are not accepted by scientists.

The National Science Teachers Association says, "Science textbooks shall emphasize evolution as a unifying concept. Publishers should not be required or volunteer to include disclaimers in textbooks concerning the nature and study of evolution" (The Teaching of Evolution," http://www.nsta.org/159&psid=10).

The Discovery Institute, home of the Intelligent Design think tank, has submitted a document to the Board that "reviews" the textbooks under consideration for adoption, "A Preliminary Analysis of the Treatment of Evolution in Biology Textbooks currently being considered for adoption by the Texas State Board of Education." It is full of misinformation, and the board should have this pointed out to them. Specifics on this document will be presented below.

The Discovery Institute lacks credibility within the scientific community

The DI has a reputation in the scientific community, as well as in the informed public, for employing dubious tactics to achieve their goals. A favorite tactic is "quote mining," wherein quotes from scientists are taken out of context and used to imply that their authors are critics of evolution. Arguments about how evolution occurs are used to imply there are serious arguments about whether evolution has occurred. You might summarize the following discussion, and then submit a fuller version as written testimony. It demonstrates this very well.

Analysis of the Discovery Institute tactics

On March 11, 2002, the Discovery Institute -- a Seattle, Washington, organization that seeks to promote "intelligent design" -- submitted its annotated "Bibliography of Supplementary Resources for Ohio Science Education" to the Ohio Board of Education. Although the publications listed in the Bibliography are valuable contributions to the scientific literature, the Bibliography itself is misleading. The staff of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) analyzed the Bibliography with the assistance of many of the authors of the publications listed in it, finding (1) that the Discovery Institute misrepresents the significance of the publications in the Bibliography, (2) that the Discovery Institute’s descriptions of the publications in the Bibliography are frequently inaccurate and tendentious, and (3) that the Discovery Institute fails to present any principled basis for the selection of the publications or any pedagogical rationale for their use in the classroom. NCSE concluded that the only purpose of the Discovery Institute’s Bibliography is to mislead the OBE and the public about the status of evolution.

NCSE sent a questionnaire to the authors of every publication listed in the Bibliography, asking them whether they considered their work (a) to have been accurately described by the Discovery Institute, (b) to provide scientific evidence for "intelligent design", (c) to provide scientific evidence against evolution, and (d) to be suitable for use in high school biology classes. (In the case of publications with multiple authors, NCSE sent a questionnaire to at least one of the authors.) There were 26 respondents, representing 34 of the 44 publications in the Bibliography. Here is a brief summary of their remarks; for details, consult http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3878_analysis_of_the_discovery_inst_4_5_2002.asp.

(a) More than half of the respondents to NCSE’s questionnaire considered the summaries in the Bibliography to be inaccurate and tendentious. For example, Eugene V. Koonin replied, "…the conclusion that this is ‘a hypothesis quite unexpected on neo-Darwinian (common ancestry) assumptions’ is (i) not taken from our paper and (ii) not at all compatible with the data or ideas presented in the paper." David P. Mindell wrote, "The words enclosed in quotation marks are accurate. However, the quotes are entirely misinterpreted and taken out of context. This is just as the scientific community, and at least some of the public, has come to expect from the Discovery Institute."

(b) None of the respondents agreed that their work provided any support for "intelligent design"; many were indignant at the suggestion. For example, Douglas H. Erwin, answered, "Of course not -- ['intelligent design'] is a non sequitur, nothing but a fundamentally flawed attempt to promote creationism under a different guise. Nothing in this paper or any of my other work provides the slightest scintilla of support for ‘intelligent design’. To argue that it does requires a deliberate and pernicious misreading of the papers." Several respondents even went so far as to say that their work constituted scientific evidence against "intelligent design".

(c) None of the respondents considered their work to provide scientific evidence against evolution. David M Williams, for example, simply remarked, "No, certainly not. How could it possibly?" Almost all of the respondents emphasized that their work provided scientific evidence for evolution. Kenneth Weiss, for example, remarked, "I state clearly that evolution is beyond dispute based on all the evidence I am aware of."

(d) Some of the respondents simply did not know whether their work was suitable for use in high school biology classes; others said that it was. But quite a few explained that their publications would be inappropriate for use in high-school biology classes, for a variety of reasons: several noted that their work was already outdated; several remarked that their publications were intended for a specialist audience; several thought that their work is as yet too speculative to be included in high-school biology classes.
The Discovery Institute’s Analysis of Textbooks
The following discussion refers specifically to the Discovery Institute’s "A Preliminary Analysis of the Treatment of Evolution in Biology Textbooks currently being considered for adoption by the Texas State Board of Education." This document evaluates textbooks on a set of four criteria selected from Jonathan Wells’s book, Icons of Evolution. (Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution: Why much of what we teach about evolution is wrong (Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, 2000)

These criteria are based on four topics often included in textbooks as illustrations of mechanisms of evolution, or for historical reasons. In Icons Wells presents them as being inaccurate, out of date, or downright fraudulent. Reviews of this book have shown how wrong he is, but nonetheless, these claims are being circulated. The "Analysis" document given to the Texas Board of Education is just one example.

Four topics considered:

Miller-Urey experiment

Cambrian explosion

Vertebrate embryos and Haeckel’s drawings

Peppered moths

What follows does not support, advocate, or defend any particular textbook. It comments on the Discovery Institute critique, which is based on Icons of Evolution.

Summary of Discovery Institute’s criteria

Each book is evaluated according to these four points. Each, predictably, is found wanting, largely because each book presents the standard scientific analysis of these topics, rather than the revisionism expected by Wells and the authors of the "Analysis."

In your testimony, you might want to point out that the evaluation of the textbooks is done on invalid criteria that are not acceptable to scientists, and that you would be happy to provide them additional information. You might choose one example from the four and briefly present its scientific shortcomings. You won’t have time for all four!

Miller-Urey experiment: They claim that the early earth atmosphere was greatly different from that used for original experiment, thus the Miller-Urey experiment is irrelevant and misleading to students. They claim that the origin of life "remains an impenetrable mystery." See below for flaws in this view.

Tree of life and Cambrian explosion: The theory of evolution says all organisms have descended from a common ancestor in the distant past. In Darwin’s Origin, this is made clear in the ‘tree of life’ diagram. They claim if evolution by natural selection were true, the pattern of emergence of different types of organisms would be slow and gradual, but because "most major phyla appear fully formed at the beginning of the geological period known as the Cambrian, with no fossil evidence that they branched off from a common ancestor" they claim that the fossils -- and the Cambrian explosion -- are a huge problem for evolution. See below for flaws in this view.

Vertebrate embryos and Haechel’s drawings: 19^th century biologist Ernst Haeckel’s drawings "misrepresent the evidence in three respects" and have been repeatedly pointed to as "frauds"; even textbooks which don’t recycle Haeckel’s drawings still mislead students by selective use of data which supports Darwin and by omitting evidence the theory has trouble explaining. See below for flaws in this view.

Peppered moths: peppered moths "don’t normally rest on tree trunks"; textbook photos are staged; photos are "false and misleading." See below for flaws in this view.

Each textbook is evaluated on these criteria, and given a D or F, in virtually every case. We believe that this hatchet job on the textbooks is intended to 1) ensure that the weakest books are chosen in Texas and 2) intimidate textbook publishers to reduce the coverage of evolution in their future books. For many reasons, these criticisms are scientifically flawed. As NCSE’s Executive Director, Dr. Eugenie C. Scott has said about Wells’s book in her review in Science, "Textbooks are, alas, far from perfect, but authors and publishers would do little to improve their wares by altering their texts to suit Wells. This is because Wells presents a systematically misleading view of evolution. Individual sentences in Icons are usually technically correct, but they are artfully strung together to take the reader off the path of real evolutionary biology and into a thicket of misunderstanding."

Here is more accurate information about each of the four criteria and why their application to the textbooks submitted in Texas are inappropriate. All of the following comments are by Dr. Alan Gishlick, Postdoctoral Scholar at the National Center for Science Education. They are condensed and rearranged from "ICONS OF EVOLUTION? Why much of what Jonathan Wells writes about evolution is wrong," available online at http://www.ncseweb.org/icons/.

For additional reviews of Icons of Evolution see: http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/9144_reviews_of_icons_of_evolution_10_31_2002.asp.

1. Miller-Urey experiment

Wells says that the Miller-Urey experiment should not be taught because the experiment used an atmospheric composition that is now known to be incorrect. Wells contends that textbooks don’t discuss how the early atmosphere was probably different from the atmosphere hypothesized in the original experiment. Wells then claims that the actual atmosphere of the early earth makes the Miller-Urey type of chemical synthesis impossible, and asserts that the experiment does not work when an updated atmosphere is used. Therefore, textbooks should either discuss the experiment as an historically interesting yet flawed exercise or not discuss it at all. Wells concludes by saying that textbooks should replace their discussions of the Miller-Urey experiment with an "extensive discussion" of all the problems facing research into the origin of life.

These allegations might seem serious; however, Wells’s knowledge of prebiotic chemistry is seriously flawed. First, Wells’s claim that researchers are ignoring the new atmospheric data, and that experiments like the Miller-Urey experiment fail when the atmospheric composition reflects current theories, is simply false. The current literature shows that scientists working on the origin and early evolution of life are well aware of the current theories of the earth’s early atmosphere and have found that the revisions have little effect on the results of various experiments in biochemical synthesis. Despite Wells’s claims to the contrary, new experiments since the Miller-Urey ones have achieved similar results using various corrected atmospheric compositions (Rode, 1999; Hanic et al., 2000). Further, although some authors have argued that electrical energy might not have efficiently produced organic molecules in the earth’s early atmosphere, other energy sources such as cosmic radiation (e.g., Kobayashi et al., 1998), high temperature impact events (e.g., Miyakawa et al., 2000), and even the action of waves on a beach (Commeyras, et al., 2002) would have been quite effective.

Under Wells’s criteria (Wells 2000:251-252), any textbook containing a picture of the Miller-Urey apparatus could receive no better than a C, unless the caption of the picture explicitly says that the experiment is irrelevant, in which case the book would receive a B. Therefore, the use of a picture is the major deciding factor on which Wells evaluated the books, for it decides the grade irrespective of the information contained in the text! A grade of D is given even if the text explicitly points out that the experiment used an incorrect atmosphere, as long as it shows a picture. Wells pillories Miller and Levine for exactly that, complaining that they bury the correction in the text. This is absurd: almost all textbooks contain pictures of experimental apparatus for any experiment they discuss. It is the text that is important pedagogically, not the pictures.

In order to receive an A, a textbook must first omit the picture of the Miller-Urey apparatus (or state explicitly in the caption that it was a failure), discuss the experiment, but then state that it is irrelevant to the origin of life. This type of textbook would be not only scientifically inaccurate but pedagogically deficient.

The Miller-Urey experiment represents one of the research programs spawned by the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis. Even though details of our model for the origin of life have changed, this has not affected the basic scenario of Oparin-Haldane. The first stage in the origin of life was chemical evolution. This involves the formation of organic compounds from inorganic molecules already present in the atmosphere and in the water of the early earth. This spontaneous organization of chemicals was spawned by some external energy source. Lightning (as Oparin and Haldane thought), proton radiation, ultraviolet radiation, and geothermal or impact-generated heat are all possibilities.

The Miller-Urey experiment represents a major advance in the study of the origin of life. In fact, it marks the beginning of experimental research into the origin of life. Before Miller-Urey, the study of the origin of life was merely theoretical. With the advent of "spark experiments" such as Miller conducted, our understanding of the origin of life gained its first experimental program. Therefore, the Miller-Urey experiment is important from an historical perspective alone. Presenting history is good pedagogy because students understand scientific theories better through narratives. The importance of the experiment is more than just historical, however. The apparatus Miller and Urey designed became the basis for many subsequent "spark experiments" and laid a groundwork that is still in use today. Thus it is also a good teaching example because it shows how experimental science works. It teaches students how scientists use experiments to test ideas about prehistoric, unobserved events such as the origin of life. It is also an interesting experiment that is simple enough for most students to grasp. It tested a hypothesis, was reproduced by other researchers, and provided new information that led to the advancement of scientific understanding of the origin of life. This is the kind of "good science" that we want to teach students.

Finally, the Miller-Urey experiment should still be taught because the basic results are still valid. The experiments show that organic molecules can form under abiotic conditions. Later experiments have used more accurate atmospheric compositions and achieved similar results. Even though origin-of-life research has moved beyond Miller and Urey, their experiments should be taught. We still teach Newton even though we have moved beyond his work in our knowledge of planetary mechanics. Regardless of whether any of our current theories about the origin of life turn out to be completely accurate, we currently have models for the processes and a research program that works at testing the models.

2. Tree of life, Cambrian explosion

Wells claims that the Cambrian Explosion "presents a serious challenge to Darwinian evolution" (Wells 2000:41) and the validity of phylogenetic trees. The gist of Wells’s argument is that the Cambrian Explosion happened too fast to allow large-scale morphological evolution to occur by natural selection ("Darwinism"), and that the Cambrian Explosion shows "top-down" origination of taxa ("major" "phyla" level differences appear early in the fossil record rather than develop gradually), which he claims is the opposite of what evolution predicts. He asserts that phylogenetic trees predict a different pattern for evolution than what we see in the Cambrian Explosion. These arguments are spurious and show his lack of understanding of basic aspects of both paleontology and evolution.

Wells mistakenly presents the Cambrian Explosion as if it were a single event. The Cambrian Explosion is, rather, the preservation of a series of faunas that occur over a 15-20 million year period starting around 535 million years ago (MA).

Finally, the "top-down" appearance of body-plans is, contrary to Wells, compatible with the predictions of evolution. The issue to be considered is the practical one that "large-scale" body-plan change would of course evolve before minor ones. (How can you vary the lengths of the beaks before you have a head?) The difference is that, many of the "major changes" in the Cambrian were initially minor ones. Through time they became highly significant and the basis for "body-plans." For example, the most primitive living chordate Amphioxus is very similar to the Cambrian fossil chordate Pikia. Both are basically worms with a stiff rod (the notochord) in them. The amount of change between a worm and a worm with a stiff rod is relatively small, but the presence of a notochord is a major "body-plan" distinction of a chordate. Further, it is just another small step from a worm with a stiff rod to a worm with a stiff rod and a head (e.g., Haikouella; Chen et al., 1999) or a worm with a segmented stiff rod (vertebrae), a head, and fin folds (e.g., Haikouichthyes; Shu et al., 1999). Finally add a fusiform body, fin differentiation, and scales: the result is something resembling a "fish". But, as soon as the stiff rod evolved, the animal was suddenly no longer just a worm but a chordate -- representative of a whole new phylum! Thus these "major" changes are really minor in the beginning, which is the Precambrian-Cambrian period with which we are concerned.

3. Haeckel’s embryos

It almost seems that Wells’s goal is to discredit the entire field of comparative embryology by proxy, employing a bait-and-switch between Haeckel and Darwin. Wells’s ploy is reminiscent of a child’s false logic proof. It goes like this: Darwin relied on Haeckel, Haeckel was a fraud, therefore Darwin is a fraud.

The charge that Ernst Haeckel intentionally "faked" his drawings is irrelevant. Regardless of his intent, the drawings that Haeckel made are incorrect, especially in what he labeled as the "first stage." But it really does not matter what Haeckel thought or whether his drawings are accurate: modern comparative embryology does not stand or fall on the accuracy of Haeckel any more than modern physics stands or falls on the accuracy of Kepler or Newton. Historically, Wells actively ignores the accurate work of many of Haeckel’s predecessors and contemporaries (such as William and Jeffrey Parker, Hans Gadow, Hans Selenka, Heinrich Rathke, Virgil Leighton, Hugo Schauinsland, Alfred Voeltzkow, to name a few). Haeckel and von Baer were not the only embryologists in nineteenth-century science, but you wouldn’t know that from reading Wells. Worse, Wells speciously extends his critique of Haeckel to the present day. Wells implies that textbooks misrepresent the study of developmental programs as evidence for evolution by accusing them of using Haeckel’s inaccurate drawings, in effect accusing textbooks that show any embryos of "mindlessly repeating" Haeckel. The important question is whether textbooks, and more importantly developmental biologists, still rely on Haeckel’s work. The answer is no, but that doesn’t stop Wells from acting as if they do.

The grading scheme employed by Wells is designed for failure. This is because Wells assumes all drawings to be "redrawn" from Haeckel and gives any book with a drawing an F. Wells does not explain how one would determine whether they are simply redrawn from Haeckel; in any case none of the books appear to contain redrawn figures. Using more accurate pictures only earns a book a D. In order to earn a C or higher, a book must not use "misleading drawings or photos." This amounts to complaining that textbooks shouldn’t allow students to be misled by reality! Wells does not specify what kind of drawings or photos would not be misleading. Thus Wells apparently thinks that all visual presentations of embryos are misleading, whether they are accurate or not.

Despite changes in how we view the role of developmental programs as reflections of evolutionary history, we can still see how the same embryonic structures develop into different adult structures. We observe the unity of developmental plan in all vertebrates. This is what we see, and no amount of wishful thinking on the part of evolution detractors can change that. There is no reason to let their baseless complaints and character assassination dissuade biology teachers from presenting the evidence to students.

4. Peppered moths

Wells disagrees with the results of the research on industrial melanism in the peppered moth, and manipulates the literature and the data to fit his views. He points out that the "problem" of the peppered moths is far from simple. His discussion centers on three points where he believes textbooks are in error, alleging that (1) the daytime resting places of peppered moths invalidates Kettlewell’s experimental results; (2) the photos of the moths are "staged"; and (3) the recovery patterns of populations dominated by light moths after the levels of pollution were reduced do not fit the "model," although he is unclear as to what the "model" is. All three of these objections are spurious. They are distractions from the general accuracy of the story and its value in showing the effects of natural selection on genetic variability in natural populations.

First, Wells argues that the story is seriously flawed because "peppered moths in the wild don’t even rest on tree trunks" (Wells, 2000:138). He repeats this point throughout the chapter. However, it is both false and irrelevant, and only serves as a distraction to lead the reader away from the actual story of the moths. Contrary to Wells’s assertions, data given by Majerus (1998:123) indicate that the moths do indeed rest on the trunks of trees 25% of the time. The rest of the time moths rest in branches (25%) or at branch-trunk junctions (50%). The facts have been pointed out repeatedly to Wells; his response has been mostly to claim that moths don’t rest on "exposed" tree trunks (Wells, 2002 web posting). But this is not what he said in the text of Icons, which remains flatly wrong. Moths are found all over trees, which is not a surprise (Clarke et al., 1994) and it is mentioned in the references that Wells cites.

To clear up any confusion, no researcher doubts that the peppered moth rests in trees (Clarke et al. 1994; Majerus 1998), which means that the resting substrate is bark. Entire trees are stained by pollution -- the leaves, twigs, branches, trunks, and the surrounding ground (Kettlewell, 1973) -- and so the colors of the moths are relevant no matter where on the tree they rest -- trunks, trunk-branch junctions, branches, twigs, and even the leaves. Wells’s argument implies that predatory birds can only see moths that are on exposed trunks. By making this argument, however, Wells shows an apparent ignorance of the ecology of birds and woodland ecosystems. If you walk into any forest, you can see that the birds fly from tree to tree, branch to branch, and hunt at all levels of the forest. Woodland species of birds that prey on moths and other insects live and hunt in the canopy (the leafy part of the trees). These birds are not hunting from outside, soaring above the trees like hawks, as Wells’s argument would require.

In his second objection, Wells ties the Kettlewell experiments to textbooks by constantly repeating the statement that the illustrative photos were "staged" (Wells, 2000:150); the important issue here is not how the photos were made, but rather their intent. Wells implies that the photos purport to show a "lifelike" condition to prove that moths rest on trunks. This is not the case. The photos are meant to demonstrate the visibility of the different forms of the moth on polluted and unpolluted trees. It is absurd to expect a photographer to just sit around and wait until two differently colored moths happen to alight side by side. Further, how the photos were produced does not change the actual data. Birds eat moths and they eat the ones that they see more easily first. The textbook photos never claim to depict a real-life situation, and it is improper to imply otherwise.

Like the grading schemes for the other "icons," this one is stacked against the textbooks as well. Even books that have more extensive discussions of the problems and details (such as Miller and Levine) can at best earn a D. Like the grading schemes for Miller-Urey and Haeckel’s embryos, it is based largely on the presence or absence of pictures. In order to get an A or B, a book must contain pictures of moths in "natural" resting places. Given Wells’s explanation that these are unknown, presenting those would be impossible. How can textbooks be expected to do that? A C would be awarded to a textbook that (1) used "misleading" pictures, but (2) referred to them as "staged" and (3) stated that the results of the experiment are in doubt. Any standard textbook discussion of the issue, even if it mentions that the story is more complicated, is given a D. So as usual, this is a "no win" situation. This falls into Wells’s pattern of requiring the books to "criticize" their examples, although the criticisms he insists on are largely fallacious.

None of the major scientific organizations have endorsed ID, and the largest scientific organization in the world, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, has even written a resolution urging the public school systems to reject it. They write, "individual scientists and philosophers of science have provided substantive critiques of ‘intelligent design,’ demonstrating significant conceptual flaws in its formulation, a lack of credible scientific evidence, and misrepresentations of scientific facts."
Arguments Against Intelligent Design
It may be the case that some speakers may propose that Intelligent Design "theory" be added to the curriculum. Given the laws of the state of Texas, the Board of Education can't require the textbook publishers to add Intelligent Design to their books, but Board members may nonetheless be lobbied to require teachers somehow to include it. It may be necessary to try to blunt the idea that Intelligent Design is a "new scientific model," the teaching of which would put Texas on the cutting edge. The following points might be helpful.

Why ID does not belong in the classroom.

Before a subject is taught at the high school level, it must be accepted in the scientific community. Intelligent Design has been rejected by the scientific community. The burden of proof is on Intelligent Design proponents to demonstrate that they have a valid, scientific position. They have failed to do this.

Intelligent Design "theory" does not appear in the scientific literature

As documented by a scientist (Dr. George Gilchrist), a search of five major computerized databases that catalog scientific periodicals produced not a single article demonstrating an experimental application of ID to further our understanding of the natural world. (http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/2083_the_elusive_scientific_basis_o_3_16_2001.asp)

There is no evidence that Intelligent Design is being used as a research program to further our understanding of the natural world.

For additional critiques of ID see: http://www.ncseweb.org/article.asp?category=10.

Statement from the American Association for the
Advancement of Science on Intelligent Design
AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE (2002)
AAAS Board Resolution on Intelligent Design Theory

The contemporary theory of biological evolution is one of the most robust products of scientific inquiry. It is the foundation for research in many areas of biology as well as an essential element of science education. To become informed and responsible citizens in our contemporary technological world, students need to study the theories and empirical evidence central to current scientific understanding.

Over the past several years proponents of so-called "intelligent design theory," also known as ID, have challenged the accepted scientific theory of biological evolution. As part of this effort they have sought to introduce the teaching of "intelligent design theory" into the science curricula of the public schools. The movement presents "intelligent design theory" to the public as a theoretical innovation, supported by scientific evidence, that offers a more adequate explanation for the origin of the diversity of living organisms than the current scientifically accepted theory of evolution. In response to this effort, individual scientists and philosophers of science have provided substantive critiques of "intelligent design," demonstrating significant conceptual flaws in its formulation, a lack of credible scientific evidence, and misrepresentations of scientific facts.

Recognizing that the "intelligent design theory" represents a challenge to the quality of science education, the Board of Directors of the AAAS unanimously adopts the following resolution:

Whereas, ID proponents claim that contemporary evolutionary theory is incapable of explaining the origin of the diversity of living organisms;

Whereas, to date, the ID movement has failed to offer credible scientific evidence to support their claim that ID undermines the current scientifically accepted theory of evolution;

Whereas, the ID movement has not proposed a scientific means of testing its claims;

Therefore Be It Resolved, that the lack of scientific warrant for so-called "intelligent design theory" makes it improper to include as a part of science education;

Therefore Be Further It Resolved, that AAAS urges citizens across the nation to oppose the establishment of policies that would permit the teaching of "intelligent design theory" as a part of the science curricula of the public schools;

Therefore Be It Further Resolved, that AAAS calls upon its members to assist those engaged in overseeing science education policy to understand the nature of science, the content of contemporary evolutionary theory and the inappropriateness of "intelligent design theory" as subject matter for science education;

Therefore Be Further It Resolved, that AAAS encourages its affiliated societies to endorse this resolution and to communicate their support to appropriate parties at the federal, state and local levels of the government.

Approved by the AAAS Board of Directors on 10/18/02

For more statements from scientific, education, religious and civil liberties organizations, please see NCSE’s Voices for Evolution at: http://www.ncseweb.org/article.asp?category=2