National Science Teachers Association Reaffirms Position on Teaching of Evolution

Yahoo! Finance ^ | Thursday November 6 2003

[yonif]

ARLINGTON, Va., Nov. 6 /PRNewswire/ -- The National Science Teachers Association (NSTA), the largest science teacher organization in the world, has published an updated position paper to reaffirm its standpoint on the teaching of evolution. The statement upholds and reinforces the position of the Association that NSTA "strongly supports the position that evolution is a major unifying concept in science and should be included in the K-12 science education frameworks and curricula." "This new statement offers further support for science teachers, administrators, and textbook authors and publishers in their efforts to provide quality science instruction for the nation's students," said Gerry Wheeler, NSTA Executive Director.

The statement reaffirms the need to better support science teachers "against pressure to promote nonscientific views or to diminish or eliminate the study of evolution;" reaffirms the importance of evolution in bolstering scientific literacy; and reaffirms the recommendation that science textbook publishers "should not be required or volunteer to include disclaimers in textbooks that distort or misrepresent the methodology of science and the current body of knowledge concerning the nature and student of evolution."

NSTA, along with other major organizations of scientists and science educators, has concluded that evolution must be emphasized in the science curriculum if students are to develop the level of scientific literacy needed to understand the natural world and to be able to make informed decisions in today's society. NSTA also joins other organizations and scientists in concluding that so-called theories of intelligent design and creationism have no scientific credibility and will lead to many misconceptions about scientific concepts and the nature of science.

"Evolution is included in the science standards of the majority of states and, as a result, teachers are expected to emphasize this important concept. At the same time the misrepresentation of evolution and the ever-present pressures not to teach evolution persist," said Gerald Skoog, Paul Whitfield Horn Professor, College of Education, Texas Tech University and a member of the NSTA Review Committee for the position statement. "The new NSTA position statement provides concise background information that is invaluable in informing teachers, administrators, policymakers, and parents as they make decisions regarding the study of evolution in the nation's classrooms."

The NSTA position statement is published at a time when many states are facing misguided attempts to include non-scientific viewpoints in K-12 science instruction. In Texas, for example, the State Board of Education is being pressured by intelligent design proponents who want to weaken the coverage of evolution in science textbooks. The Board is scheduled to vote on November 7, 2003 to determine which biology textbooks to adopt. NSTA encourages the board to approve textbooks that emphasize evolution in a manner that is commensurate with its importance in understanding the natural world

The NSTA position statement on the Teaching of Evolution can be found on the NSTA web site at http://www.nsta.org/159&psid=10.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Source: National Science Teachers Association

[JmyBryan]

And away we go ...

[Joe Bonforte]

In a related move, the society also affirmed the teaching of Newton's three laws of motion and law of gravitation.

Followers of Aristotle insisted that the teachers provide equal time for the "crystal spheres" theory.

[RightWingAtheist]

Evolution by natural selection is a fact, and should be taught as such. What educators and science popularizers need to do is recognize the values of their audience, and teach it in a non-confrontational way, without disparaging their faith.

[Sloth]

Neither evolution nor creation nor 'intelligent design' have any place in a science class.

[TheGeezer]

I have to find the source article that I read regarding a meeting of biologists in Paris (I think in 1999) that issued a statement that asserted that the theory of evolution posited a logical progression of existing life into diverse species, but that since it cannot account for the origins of life, it should be discarded as an improbable hypothesis.

The statement summarized findings that calculated the chance for the accidental conglomeration of nonliving stuff into a primordial soup from which single-cell life might emerge.

It described the problems with a primordial soup hypothesis, for example, cell-wall destruction by chemical oxidants (now a well-known phenomenon). How might the precise balance of oxidant-antioxidant in the primordial solution attain a state in which a primitive cell wall could exist long enough to develop a metabolism that would permit the development of a means of reproduction? The odds were 10 raised to the 24th power against a random occurrence of such conditions. That probability compels the conclusion that random evolution is illogical, requiring of its proponents a bridge of faith that truly materialistic science cannot support.

The conclusion: intelligent design is a far better rationale for explanation of the source of life and its evolution thereafter. The problem with modernist and postmodernist science is, perhaps, its inability to couple God with its cosmological view?

[Lurking Libertarian]

Evolution thread ping.

[Lysander]

Creationism should be taught in science class as much as evolution should be taught in the study of the OT. Then maybe Billy Bob would know a little more about what he is preachin' agin'after he clumbs down out o' his truck to answer the callin'

[Lurking Libertarian]

I have to find the source article that I read regarding a meeting of biologists in Paris (I think in 1999) that issued a statement that asserted that the theory of evolution posited a logical progression of existing life into diverse species, but that since it cannot account for the origins of life, it should be discarded as an improbable hypothesis.

The theory of evolution, strictly speaking, says nothing about the origin of life. It explains how--once living things began to reproduce-- they developed into different species.

The theory of evolution is supported by mountains of evidence and is supported by virtually all biological scientists. The question of where the first life form came from is not, however, answered by the theory of evolution. (Charles Darwin wrote, on the last page of The Origin of Species, that the first life form was created by God, a belief I share.) There are hypotheses of how the first life form arose, but the evidence supporting them is sketchy at best.

[GulliverSwift]

There is no harm in teaching evolution so long as you also tell the students that there are other points of view. It has not been regarded as a fact in scientific circles and there is still debate about it, particularly since it doesn't account for life's origins.

Biology classes can be structured to allow for taxonomy w/o advancing Darwinian evolution, especially since the guy who invented the system, Carolus Lynnaeus (sp) believed in creation.

There really shouldn't be so much desire on either side to silence the "enemy."

[StonyBurk]

Clearly this proves from th efossil record that Science
teachers who belong to this union did come from monkeys.

[Nebullis]

The conclusion: intelligent design is a far better rationale for explanation of the source of life and its evolution thereafter.

Intelligent design has no explanatory power whatsoever. It provides a non-scientific cop-out. The origin of life may never be explained because there isn't enough evidence of the process remaining. That doesn't mean that what we do know about, life, that is evolution, should be thrown out.

[Dimensio]

I have to find the source article that I read regarding a meeting of biologists in Paris (I think in 1999) that issued a statement that asserted that the theory of evolution posited a logical progression of existing life into diverse species, but that since it cannot account for the origins of life, it should be discarded as an improbable hypothesis.

And gravity posits a logical chain of interaction of matter, but it cannot account for the origins of matter, thus it should also be discarded as an improbable hypothesis.

Whomever wrote that article is an idiot. Evolution doesn't account for the ultimate origins of life because the ultimate origins of life is beyond its scope of observation. Evolution can only occur when life exists (and can replicate). The process that brought life forms to earth intially involved, in at least one step, a point at which there was no life in existence. As such, evolution cannot be used to explain it. Some process made life exist on earth. Evolution happened after that process. Criticizing evolution because it doesn't try to extend itself into the proces is reaching for an excuse.

[Dimensio]

There is no harm in teaching evolution so long as you also tell the students that there are other points of view.

There are no other scientific points of view, however. That should be stressed (though that does not mean that there is no possible way for another scientific view to come about)

It has not been regarded as a fact in scientific circles and there is still debate about it,

There is debate about every theory in science. That's the nature of science.

particularly since it doesn't account for life's origins.

Why would this be a point of contention? Gravity doesn't account for matter's origins, but no one tries to attack gravitaitonal theory based on that.

[Right Wing Professor]

Whomever wrote that article is an idiot

The meeting was in Paris. What do you expect?

[WackyKat]

There is no harm in teaching evolution so long as you also tell the students that there are other points of view. It has not been regarded as a fact in scientific circles and there is still debate about it, particularly since it doesn't account for life's origins

Public schools should not be required to teach religious rebuttals to scientific theories; that's what Sunday School is for.

And evolution is regarded as a fact in credible and relevant scientific circles. Kent Hovind excepted, of course.

[js1138]

whatever placemarker.

[Right Wing Professor]

It is good to hate the frogs placemarker.

[Elsie]

And evolution is regarded as a fact in........

---

"If you call a dog's tail a leg; how many legs does he have?"

4.... Calling his tail a leg don't MAKE it a leg: just like calling evolution a 'fact' don't make it so.

It's still, and always WILL be, a theory.

[Elsie]

.........has concluded that evolution must be emphasized in the science curriculum if students are to develop the level of scientific literacy needed to understand the natural world and to be able to make informed decisions in today's society.

Oh..... WHY?

---

How does believing that some four footed beast spent WAY too much time in the water eons ago, forcing his foot to turn into a flipper, will 'help' the student in ANY way?