As a creationist scientist, I wish to point out that creation-science scientists readily acknowledge that creation is not a scientific theory. The concept of creation lies beyond the limits of empirical science; it does not provide a testable theory, nor can it be disproved. (Duane Gish, "Letter to editor." THE SCIENCE TEACHER, 48 October 1981: 20). Although many believe special creation to be an absolute fact of history,they must believe this for theological, rather than scientific reasons.(Henry Morris, Scientific Creationism. San Diego: Creation-Life Publishers, Public School Edition, 1974, p. 9). "Creation-science" is the scientific evidence supporting abrupt appearance in complex form. That evidence includes the abrupt appearance of complex life in the fossil record, the systematic gaps between fossil categories, the genetic limits on possible change, and the vast information content of all living organisms. (W. Bird, Impact, August 1987). Theistic evolution has always been both unscriptural and unscientific, and now it is also illegal, . . . . . (W. Bird, Impact, August 1987). It is futile to continue discussion whether creationism is science or religion. The fact is that supernatural creation is truth, the basis of both true science and true religion, whatever an ill-formed court may say.(W. Bird, Impact, August 1987). Court Decisions Government is our democracy, state, and national, must be neutral in matters of religious theory, doctrine, and practice. It may not be hostile to any religion or to the advocacy of no-religion; and it may not aid, foster, or promote one religion or religious theory against another or even against the militant opposite. The First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion and nonreligion. (Epperson v. Arkansas, 393, U.S. 97,1968). Teachers of science in the public schools should not be expected to avoid the discussion of every scientific issue in which some religion claims expertise (Wright v. Houston Independent School District, 366, F. Supp. 1208,S.D. Texas, 1972). . . . the First Amendment does not permit the State to require that teaching and learning must be tailored to the principles or prohibition of any religious sect or dogma. (Daniel v. Waters, 515, F. 2d 485, 6th Cir., 1975). . . . not the business of government to suppress real or imagined attacks upon a particular religious doctrine. (Wright v. Houston Independent School District, 366, F. Supp 1208, S.D. Texas, 1972).

The two model approaches of the creationists is simply a contrived dualism which has no scientific factual basis or legitimate educational purpose. (McLean v. Arkansas). There is no way teachers can teach the Genesis account of creation in a secular manner . . . References to the pervasive nature of religious concepts in creation texts amply demonstrate why State entanglement with religion is inevitable under Act 590. Involvement of the State in screening texts for impermissible religion references will require State officials to make delicate religious judgments. (McLean v. Arkansas).

Evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology, and many courses in public schools contain subject matter relating to such varied topics as the age of the earth, geology and relationships among living things. Any student who is deprived of instruction as to the prevailing scientific thought on these topics will be denied a significant part of science education. (McLean v. Arkansas).

It is widespread practice in high school biology courses, for instance, to include discussions of Darwin's theory of evolution. The theory is offensive to some religious groups but it is not in itself religious. (Malnak v. Yogi,592, F. 2d 197, 4th Cir., 1979).

The goal of providing a more comprehensive science curriculum is not furthered either by outlawing the teaching of evolution or by requiring the teaching of creation science. (Edwards v. Aguillard, 1987). While the court is normally deferential to a states articulation of a secular purpose, it is required that the statement of such purpose be sincere and not a sham . . . It is clear from the legislative history that the purpose of the legislative sponsor, Senator Bill Keithy, was to narrow the science curriculum. (Edwards v. Aguillard, 1987).

. . . does not permit the state to require that teaching and learning must be tailored to the principles of prohibitions of any religious sect or dogma.(Edwards v. Aguillard, 1987).

The battle over whether to teach American children a little of the pernicious doctrine known as evolution has moved from the law courts back to the textbooks. The creationists' attempts to have "creation science" taught alongside evolution in state schools were thwarted by the Supreme Court, on the grounds that creationism is not science but religion and therefore its teaching is unconstitutional. They have been more successful in watering down any mention of evolution in biology textbooks. This year, the evolutionists are fighting back. California and Texas are choosing new textbooks from which to teach their children biology, as they do every six years for every subject. The size of these two states, and the fact that the same textbooks are chosen for the whole state, make them the markets to which publishers pay the most attention when editing the books. Formulating the guidelines for the textbooks becomes an intensely political business. American biology textbooks eschewed evolution almost entirely until the 1960s when, in the wake of Sputnik, a wave of reform swept science teaching. But since the early 1970s, the textbooks have been gradually reducing their coverage of evolution again, segregating it into a separate chapter in each book, and replacing it with euphemisms such as "origins," change" and "development." Successive editions grew vaguer and vaguer until any mention of the subject was hedged about with phrases such as "some scientists believe . . ." Scientists were allowed to be dogmatic about gravity, or atoms, but not about evolution, despite its more central and indispensable role in biology than those theories' roles in physics and chemistry.

By 1984, People for the American Way, an organization that fights censorship among much else, could find no mention at all of evolution in one-sixth of the biology textbooks used in schools. Under pressure from creationists, Texas had issued guidelines saying not only that alternative theories should be mentioned in textbooks but that evolution should be presented as "only" a theory. This is like insisting that flat earthism be taught alongside the only-a-theory that the earth is round. (Scientists use the word theory to mean a rather watertight and tested set of ideas;colloquially, people use it to mean the opposite--a top-of-the-head guess.) California's book-adoption board, under the influence of the state's energetic education superintendent, Mr. Bill Honig, has been rejecting this"dumbing down" since 1986. This year it drew tough guidelines for its biology textbooks: the discussion of creation, it ruled, belongs to religious books, not biology books.

Texas may now be plucking up courage to follow California's lead. In March it suggested that its biology books should include evolution. This made the creationists furious. One of them predicted that "it would plunge our schoolchildren into scientific darkness and make them act like animals" (this is a common argument: a Georgia judge in 1980 described the teaching of evolution as the direct cause of incest and adultery). After a campaign orchestrated by fundamentalists, Texas relented but not all the way; it now calls for the teaching of alternative theories to evolution "if any."

Creation scientists subscribe to a jumble of half-truths that they say prove Darwin wrong and Genesis right. Their "science" is not endorsed by any established church. The Pope has condemned it. A Lutheran priest testified against it in California last month, claiming that he represented most of mainline Christendom. But enough evangelical preachers (Pat Robertson, for instance, and Jimmy Swaggart) endorse it for most of Bible-belt American to confuse it with a belief in God--and therefore to like the idea.

Creation scientists say they can prove, scientifically, five things. All methods used to date the age of the earth are inaccurate (true). Life's complexity implies the existence of a creator (to many an attractive belief,but neither verifiable nor falsifiable). There are no transitional forms in the fossil record (nonsense). All fossils were created and deposited in one year following the Biblical flood (funny they ended up in such neat order all over the world). Finally, man and dinosaurs coexisted.

This last is the only proposition for which they offer conventional"proof." Their evidence for the other propositions consists mostly of obfuscation of the "there's life on Mars--they did an experiment on rats that proves it" variety. But in the Paluxy River in Texas, they claim to find fossil dinosaur tracks and fossil man tracks criss-crossing each other. This sounds convincing until you see the man tracks, which are blurred depressions that could have been made by anything from an ostrich to a hippo and were probably made by relatively small, three-toed dinosaurs of a type common in the area at the time.

These arguments emanate mostly from the Institute for Creation Science in California, where a few miscellaneous ex-scientists (none of them biologists) who believe in creationism present themselves as free-thinking researchers. The knots into which they tie themselves are illustrated by the case of Archaeopteryx, a fossil animal that was half-way between bird and small dinosaur, and thus a step in an evolution. Nonsense, said the creationists, it's just a bird with tail, teeth and claws: nothing reptilian about it. Then along came Sir Fred Hoyle with his (refuted) charge that the feathers were faked. Told you so, said the creationists, it's just a reptile: nothing bird-like about it. California has recently revoked the institute's license to grant science degrees, saying it teaches religion.

PEOPLE FOR THE AMERICAN WAY

Evolution is the central organizing principle of biology, and has fundamental importance in the other sciences as well. It is no more controversial in scientific circles than gravity or electricity is. Like gravitation and electricity, evolution is a fact, and it is also a theory. By this is meant that sufficient observations have led to the conclusion that evolution has occurred, and these observations and hypotheses testing them have formed a robust theory with strong explanatory power. As science, evolution raises no special ethical issues. However, certain religious groups have historically opposed the teaching of evolution because they feel it conflicts with their religious beliefs, and so it has become a controversial issue. Nevertheless,the weight of scientific evidence is clear. Certainly, there is health scientific debate about details of the patterns of processes of evolution,especially in regard to their relative roles and importance through the history of life. There is similar debate concerning the frontiers of gravitational theory and other vigorous, active research areas. But the weight of scientific evidence clearly indicates that evolution has occurred, and this evidence supports the general features of the theory of evolution. It has added immeasurably to our understanding of all branches of natural science,and to their connections to one another. Furthermore, it is a vital part of our understanding of history, culture, language, and even literature. Some students may be confused about evolution and its bearing on their personal religions. Teachers--and textbooks--should make it very clear that the understanding of evolution, and indeed of any scientific topic, is not germane to any individual's religious beliefs--Science is not theistic, nor is it atheistic. It simply does not presuppose religious explanations. Science is concerned with the mechanics, processes, patterns, and history of nature,not with the divinity, the supernatural, or ultimate causes. Moreover,science has no obligation to accommodate anyone's religious beliefs. Although personal beliefs should be respected at all times, the teaching of material in the science curriculum should not be suppressed or avoided on the grounds that it may be contrary to to an individual's religious beliefs. The way in which scientific understanding is related to religion is entirely a matter for each individual to resolve.

Occasionally, evidence claimed to be scientific that appears to falsify or contravene the theories of evolution, geologic dating, the fossil record, and other related knowledge, may be brought to the attention of the teacher. Criticisms of scientific evidence and theory on scientific grounds are part of science. However, teachers should be aware that the vast majority of such criticisms that find their way into popularly circulated publications have not been validated scientifically, and in all cases so far have been evaluated and rejected by the scientific community. Teachers should consider carefully the sources of such criticism before accepting or deciding whether they are worth consideration. The Math/Science Unit of the State Department of Education can assist teachers and administrators in this regard. With respect to such "creation science" or "scientific creationism,"educators should be aware that the U.S. Supreme Court found that "the term 'creation science' . . . embodies the religious belief that a supernatural creator was responsible for the creation of humankind" (Edwards v. Aguillard) [1987] 55 Law Week 4860). Thus, a Louisiana law forbidding the teaching of evolution unless accompanied by instruction in "creation science" was held to be unconstitutional. This ruling has no bearing on the validity of any religious faith; it merely affirms that such "creation science" has an explicitly religious purpose and basis, and in this respect is not valid as science. Therefore, according to review of pertinent legal cases by Counsel for the State Board of Education, "equal time" for its consideration is not appropriate and may be unconstitutional (see section F).

Animal experimentation. This is very difficult, emotionally charged issue. Students and communities are very sensitive to uses of animals that can be portrayed in some lights as abuse. There are many legitimate feelings that certain experiments may be unnecessary to carry out or to repeat, and that the good that comes form such work does not sufficiently counterbalance in discomfort to the experimental subjects. It is easy to transmute distress at such conditions into dismay or disgust with the scientific community for allowing such practices to continue. Students need to learn how important it is to scientists, too, that unnecessary experimentation be avoided at all costs. Cost-benefits analyses must be considered in carrying out research. Concerning scientific and medical issues, one thing is clear: The use of lab animals saves lives, and not just human lives. If animal experimentation were forbidden, we could not test vaccines and life-saving medicines. We could not develop new surgical techniques. We could hardly fight epidemics of diseases. And we would be reduced to using other humans as test subjects at all stages of research. (Apart form the obvious ethical considerations, it is worth noting we would have to wait an average of 25 years for the first results of experiments on genetic effects, as opposed to a few weeks for mice or a few months for rabbits.) And we could not effectively train new physicians, surgeons, and veterinarians.

It is sometimes difficult to conceive of how our lives would be different if animal experimentation were forbidden. But one has only to look at the changes in disease and death rates of infectious childhood illnesses in our century to realize how much we take for granted the advances that have been built on responsible experimentation with animal subjects. This does not mean, of course, that every animal experiment saves lives, nor that laboratory animals are always kept in the best possible conditions. Public awareness of this issue must be able to contribute both to the maintenance of strict human standards in laboratories and to the public appreciation of what such experimentation means to public health and medicine. These goals should be important to all science educators in presenting to students this complex and emotional issue.

These and other scientific or scientifically-related issues may raise controversy in the science classroom. But controversy should not be a stranger in the classroom. The task of the science teacher is to guide students in the development of their abilities to approach controversial subjects coolly and rationally, with clear and critical understanding of what is clearly understood, what is uncertain and to what degree, what is scientific and what is not, and how the scientific and technological factors bear on the controversy. The teacher is ethically and professionally bound to confine science instruction to the facts, hypotheses, and theories of science. School boards, administrators, and parents must support the teaching of rigorous science. They must support the teaching of rational, unemotional approach to the application of science to broader issues in which science plays a part, and a careful study of the ethical issues raised by scientific and technological activities themselves. Teachers must stress that science as a system of knowledge is based on empirical knowledge rather than on belief. While the teacher must try to make every student feel comfortable in class, accommodation must not be made at the expense of sound science or sound pedagogy. Science instruction should respect the private beliefs of students; on the other hand, the teaching of science cannot be suppressed because individuals disagree with it on religious or philosophical grounds.

On January 13, 1989, the State Board of Education adopted the following Policy Statement on the Teaching of Natural Sciences. This statement supersedes the Board's 1972 Antidogmatism Statement that was printed in the 1984 Science Framework Addendum and distributed statewide in 1981. To this new policy statement is appended some standard scientific dictionary definitions of several scientific terms, to emphasize their meanings in scientific contexts.

1. The domain of the natural sciences is the natural world. Science is limited by its tools--observable facts and testable hypotheses.

2. Discussions of any scientific fact, hypotheses, or theory related to the origins of the Universe, the Earth, and of life (the "how") are appropriate to the science curriculum. Discussions of divine creation, ultimate purposes, or ultimate causes (and "why") are appropriate to the History/Social Science and English/Language Arts curricula.

3. Nothing in science or any other field of knowledge shall be taught dogmatically. A dogma is a system of beliefs that is not subject to scientific test and refutation. Compelling beliefs is inconsistent with the goal of education; the goal is to encourage understanding.

4. To be fully informed citizens, students do not have to accept everything that is taught in the natural sciences curriculum, but they do have to understand the major strands of scientific thought, including its methods,facts, hypotheses, theories, and laws.

5. A scientific fact is an understanding based on confirmable observations and is subject to test and rejection. A scientific hypothesis is an attempt to frame a question as a testable proposition. A scientific theory is a logical construct based on facts and hypotheses that organizes and explains a range of natural phenomena. Scientific theories are constantly subject to testing,modification, and refutation as new evidence and new ideas emerge. Because scientific theories have predictive capabilities, they essentially guide further investigations.

6. From time to time, natural science teachers are asked to teach content that does not meet the criteria of scientific fact, hypotheses, and theory as these terms are used in natural science and defined in this policy. As a matter of principle, science teachers are professionally bound to limit their teaching to science and should resist pressure to do otherwise. Administrators should support teachers in this regard.

7. Philosophical and religious beliefs are based, at least in part, on faith,and are not subject to scientific tests and refutation. Such beliefs should be discussed in the social science and language arts curricula. The Board's position has been state in the Board's adopted policy, "Moral and Civic Education and Teaching About Religion" (1988), and in the History/Social Science Framework (1988). If a student should raise a question in a natural science class that the teacher determines is outside the domain of science,the teacher should treat the question with respect. The teacher should explain why the question is outside the domain of natural science and encourage the student to discuss the question further with his or her family and clergy.

Definitions from Hammond Barnhart Dictionary of Science, Maplewood, NJ: Hammond, Inc., 1986.

Law, n. 1. a statement of what always occurs under certain conditions;description of a relation or sequence of phenomena invariable under the same conditions: The laws of motions, Mendel's laws.

Hypothesis, n. 1. a proposition assumed as a basis for reasoning and often subjected to testing for its validity.

Theory, n. 1. an explanation or model based on observation,experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena: the theory of evolution. . . . Theory, hypothesis as terms in science mean a generalization reached by inference from observed particulars and proposed as an explanation of their cause, relations, or the like. Theory implies a large body of tested evidence and a greater degree of probability. .

Science education can be effective only it is is enjoyable. The enjoyment of science is open to everyone, of every age. It can be as thrilling as the experience of a five-year-old on seeing Tyrannosaurus Rex for the first time,or a cerebral as the esthetic appreciation of a beautiful new idea set forth by a masterful physicists such as Stephen Hawking. Science is a source of enjoyment much as music is. It is not only virtuosi who enjoy and benefit from playing a musical instrument. Even those who don't play an instrument can enjoy listening to music. The appreciation of science, like the appreciation of music, is likely to increase as the audience becomes more knowledgeable about the workings of the discipline. Science educators want their students to take this message to heart: If you like some aspect of science, you should consider pursuing science as a career. It doesn't matter if your taste runs to physics instead of pharmacology, any more then if you prefer piccolos to pianos.

Los Angeles Times, Wednesday July 19, 1989

"I think all hell's going to break lose if the board buy it," said Robert Excellence in education. "It will mean kids are going to go out of those science classes totally brainwashed."

He argued that the proposed framework by asserting evolution as "accepted fact" mandates a dogmatic presentation of the evolutionary theory in direct violation of the board's policy.

"We don't want to see the science classroom used as a platform to evangelistically crusade for Christianity; neither do we want it to be used to tear down a child's faith by talking about evolution as fact," he said.

Stage said that while there are competing scientific theories within evolution which must be presented to students, "there's no dispute about the overall process."

Susan Lange, a spokesman for Honig, said the school chief was surprised by the new interpretation of the policy and is preparing to challenge it before the board.

The new policy was promoted by Honig as part of an effort to improve the teaching of science in California. Scientists argued that the previous policy was so vague that textbook publishers and science teachers often simply avoided controversial subjects such as evolution.

In California, new textbooks are adopted every seven years through a laborious process that begins with the establishment of the policy and follows with the adoption of a detailed framework. Using the framework as a guide, textbooks are next written and submitted for approval. The board then draws up a list of accepted books, from which local school districts make their selections.