The Indiana and Oklahoma Academies of Science endorse the teaching of evolution and oppose that of Intelligent Design in science classes

The National Center for Science Education reports on official statements released yesterday by the Indiana and Oklahoma Academies of Science in which unequivocally supported the exclusive teaching of evolution as the only scientific and evidentially-justified explanation of life. I guess Denyse O’Leary, Bill Dembski and all the other IDiots will be incorporating these two state agencies into their international conspiracy theory behind the suppression of ID.

Here are excerpts from the Indiana and Oklahoma statements, respectively:


Whereas science is defined as and limited to explanations based on natural, observable and testable phenomena and, therefore, is explicitly distinguished from other types of explanations that depend on concepts relating to the supernatural (for example,” intelligent design”, “creation science”, and” informed debate” paradigms); and
Whereas, learning and inquiry are severely inhibited if teachers are placed in a position where they may feel pressured to alter their teaching of the fundamental concepts of science in response to demands external to scientific disciplines; and,
Whereas, evolution theory is fundamental to a thorough understanding of biological concepts as reflected in the Indiana teaching standards,
Therefore be it resolved that the Indiana Academy of Science, as a part of its commitment to educational excellence in science instruction, opposes any restriction or imposition on the teaching of biological and cosmic evolution in the curricula of Indiana’s educational institutions.

And Oklahoma:

“The Oklahoma Academy of Science strongly supports thorough teaching of evolution in biology classes. Evolution is one of the most important principles of science. A high school graduate who does not understand evolution is not prepared for college or for life in a technologically advanced world, in which the role of biology and biotechnology will continue to grow. … There is no credible scientific evidence that the earth came into being recently or that evolution is not the best explanation of the origins of living organisms.”

“‘Creationism’ and ‘Intelligent Design’ are not science because they do not conform to the testable and falsifiable criteria of science. It is not appropriate for science textbooks or science teachers to teach creation as science. Creation and other matters of faith are topics for religion, philosophy, and humanities courses.”

The Oklahoma statement goes on to assert that evolution and religion are compatible. This is ridiculous, as what evolution does is allow for the explanation of great complexity from simpler beginnings, with no need for hypothesizing a God. If the Oklahoma board was insistent on asserting this compatibility, the honest thing to do (in order to make up for the initial dishonesty/ignorance of declaring such compatibility) would have been to say that just as belief in God is compatible with evolution, so too is belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster god theory.

5 Responses to “The Indiana and Oklahoma Academies of Science endorse the teaching of evolution and oppose that of Intelligent Design in science classes”
  1. Joe says:

    And in other news, the Pope is Catholic. *wink*

  2. Stoobs says:

    I believe that creationism absolutely should be dealt with in science classes. The teacher should begin by instructing the students in the scientific method, and then should spend some time on each theory. The students should be given each of the hypothesis – evolution, creationism, anything else people think should be covered – and instructed to come up with falsifiability criteria for each of them, determining which hypothesis are ad hoc and unworthy of further study, and which are falsifiable. They should then go on to perform experiments attempting to falsify evolution.

    This is how science is done, and if science classes focused more on methodology and epistemology, and less on listening to and believing whatever the teacher says, we would not now be in this fix.

    Creationism doesn’t have a leg to stand on if approached scientifically, and if science classes are done right, letting it into the classroom can only be bad for creationists.

  3. ronbrown says:

    Yeah, the only way I’d want creationism in the science class is as a demonstration of popular nonscience masquerading as science. It should not be presented as respectable scientific thinking.

  4. abstractionreaction says:

    Love the comments. Finally something positive on the ID front. Have you heard about Florida? They’re thinking of including evolution in science class as a mandatory subject… they’re the ones that had trouble with the “chads” in the 2000 presidential election right?

  5. ronbrown says:

    AbstractionReaction: Yep, Florida has evolution in their new curriculum. Just finalized it yesterday. However, due to faith-based pressures they’re merely teaching the historical fact of evolution as the scientific theory of evolution. See here (I also clarify the fact/theory issue in the post, too):

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: