AGU Position Statement on Teaching Creationism as Science

Adopted by Council December 1981
Reaffirmed in May 1990, May 1994, and May 1998.

The Council of the American Geophysical Union notes with concern the continuing efforts by creationists for administrative, legislative, and juridical actions designed to require or promote the teaching of creationism as a scientific theory.

The American Geophysical Union is opposed to all efforts to require or promote the teaching of creationism or any other religious tenets as science.


From AGU's Homepage at http://www.agu.org/

President Knauss has appointed a panel to revise AGU's current position opposing the teaching of creationism as science. Working under the AGU advocacy procedures, the panel has been asked to consider a statement that emphasizes the centrality of evolution in science and in the understanding of our planet. Comments from members can be directed to the panel via pfolger@agu.org.

Panel to Consider a Position Statement on the Importance of Teaching Evolution

EOS, Vol 80, No 38, p 311 (July 13, 1999)

AGU President John Knauss has authorized a panel to revise the existing AGU position statement, which opposes the teaching of creationism or any other religious tenet as science. The current statement, first adopted in December 1981, and most recently reaffirmed in May 1998, is as follows:

"The Council of the American Geophysical Union notes with concern the continuing efforts by creationists for administrative, legislative, and juridical actions designed to require or promote the teaching of creationism as a scientific theory. The American Geophysical Union is opposed to all efforts to require or promote the teaching of creationism or any other religious tenet as science."

The panel is asked to start from AGU's current position and to consider a statement that emphasizes the centrality of evolution in science and in understanding our planet. Members of the panel are: John Geissman, David Applegate, Richard Barber, Brent Dalrymple, Robert Hazen, Margo Kingston, Steven Stanley, and Mary Lou Zoback. The panel welcomes comments on the subject from the AGU membership. Address comments to the panel in care of Peter Folger, AGU, 2000 Florida Ave, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20009 USA; E-mail: pfolger@agu.org

Author

Peter Folger, Public Affairs Manager
AGU Headquarters, Washington D.C., USA.

Kansas Strikes Evolution From School Standards

Eos, Vol 80, No 33, p 366 (Aug 17, 1999)

On August 11, the Kansas State Board of Education voted 6-4 in favor of science standards for grades K-12 that omit nearly all meaningful reference to Darwin's theory of evolution. A majority of school board members rejected an alternative set of standards, crafted over 13 months by the Kansas Science Education Writing Committee, that contain evolutionary principles like natural selection and descent with modification from a common ancestor. The rejected standards closely follow recommendations in the National Research Council's National Science Education Standards and the American Association for the Advancement of Science's Project 2061: Benchmarks for Science Literacy, both of which include biological eveolution as an important part of life sciences.

See next week's Eos for more news on this issue.

Author

Peter Folger, Public Affairs Manager
AGU Headquarters, Wash. D.C., USA

Note to the reader

I just took a look at "Project 2061", and under the topic "The Scientific World View", they had the disturbing statement:
A scientific world view is not something that working scientists spend a lot of time discussing. They just do science. But underlying their work are several beliefs that are not always held by nonscientists. One is that by working together over time, people can in fact figure out how the world works. Another is that the universe is a unified system and knowledge gained from studying one part of it can often be applied to other parts. Still another is that knowledge is both stable and subject to change.
Little is gained by presenting these beliefs to students as dogma. For one thing, such beliefs are subtle....

Wow, sounds like an attempt to avoid the very debate I outline above! Any one care to explain why?

Here is an excerpt from the Science Education Standards:
Students have difficulty with the fundamental concepts of evolution. For example, students often do not understand natural selection because they fail to make a conceptual connection between the occurrence of new variations in a population and the potential effect of those variations on the long-term survival of the species. One misconception that teachers may encounter involves students attributing new variations to an organism's need, environmental conditions, or use. With some help, students can understand that, in general, mutations occur randomly and are selected because they help some organisms survive and produce more offspring. Other misconceptions center on a lack of understanding of how a population changes as a result of differential reproduction (some individuals producing more offspring), as opposed to all individuals in a population changing. Many misconceptions about the process of natural selection can be changed through instruction.

BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION

Email to r*bs@rbsp.info
(Because of spamming, delete asterisk.)