I'm Eugenie Scott. I am the executive director of the National Center for Science Education.
We're in Oakland, California.
We're a membership organization. Most of our members are scientists, teachers,
people concerned about church and state separation.
We monitor the creationism and evolution controversy,
and we try to help teachers and school boards and legislatures and citizens
to cope with pressures against the teaching of evolution.
So, in the 25 years or so that we've been doing this, we have found that there are
3 arguments that pretty much any creationist contention can be put into.
If it's a video or a letter to the editor, a comment on a talk show, or whatever,
it'll pretty much fall into one of these three categories.
We call them the pillars of creationists.
I'd like to tell you a little about the pillars, and why they're important to recognize,
because you as a scientist or a citizen who enjoys science...
who is interested in science, I hope is concerned about what's going on
in American public schools, in the science classes there.
Because at NCSE, we hear a lot about pressures from school boards upon curriculum.
We hear pressures upon individual teachers by parents.
We hear about pressures from school boards or state legislatures
that trickle down to the classroom teachers as well.
And in all of these cases, there's been this continuing story for over thirty years
of people who don't want kids to learn evolution.
And even though there have been various ins and outs of the creation and evolution controversy,
and the creationists have always lost in court,
this is an evolving target because creationism morphs, shall we say,
in response to the legal environment. There's a natural selection going on here.
And, we have different forms of creationism, and the current form of creationism
that we're coping with...that we're monitoring at NCSE today
is perhaps the most difficult to fight, because it doesn't appear to be
the kind of thing you can challenge directly in court.
At any rate, I'll get to that in a moment.
So, let me tell you about the pillars of creationism
because, as a concerned citizen, as a scientist, I hope you'd be able to recognize them
and understand the refutations of the pillars, so that you can hopefully
contribute to your own community or state
and help to improve science education.
The first pillar is the pillar which challenges the science of evolution.
The claim is often made that evolution is a theory in crisis...
that scientists are giving up on evolution...
that more and more scientists are rejecting evolution as a failed theory.
That will come as a surprise to scientists, but this is the claim that is made,
and it's made very, very loudly on talk radios, on blogs,
on letters to the editor, and so forth.
The second pillar of creationism is an ideological pillar.
It's the religious ideology that evolution is incompatible with my religious views,
therefore evolution cannot be true.
And, this takes various forms. The strongest form is if an individual is a Biblical literalist
or a Quranic literalist. This point of view is present conservative Christians,
conservative Muslims, and conservative Jews...
the Middle Eastern model theisms, if you will.
The argument is made that my holy books... when I look at them, I see special creation.
God created everything specially, in its present form, over a short period of time, 6000 years ago,
therefore evolution cannot be true.
And indeed, evolution is incompatible with that particular religious view.
Some people reject evolution because of a human exceptionalism perspective...
that human beings are so superior to all other organisms, God must have created us specially.
There's a lot of ways that religion is used to oppose the teaching of evolution.
The third pillar is the fairness pillar... it's a cultural concept, really.
It's a pillar where the anti-evolutionists are tapping into
some very deeply held American cultural positions:
fairness, balance, free speech, letting everyone speak, town hall meetings, all that sort of thing.
And, these are really great cultural values, and there's nothing wrong with it.
It's just that they are misapplied, shall we say,
when it comes to how we decide what a kid should learn in school.
Now, how can you, as a concerned citizen, deal with these three pillars?
As I say, whatever argument you hear, you can probably fit it into one of these three.
So, if I could just give you the generic refutations, then you can go from there.
There's plenty of evidence for the particulars on various websites -- on NCSE's website and others.
The evolution is weak science pillar... let's take a look at that first.
Well, the best way to refute that is to help your audience.
Help the person you're talking to understand that, in fact,
the consensus in the scientific community...
supporting the idea that evolution has happened, the universe is old, etc...
it is enormously strong.
There have been many surveys of scientists... there's been a lot of survey research of scientists
showing upwards of the high 90%s of scientists accept the idea of evolution.
It's hard to get scientists to agree on whether it's raining outside,
but there's this really, really strong acceptance -- a consensus view
that evolution is valid science.
But, the public doesn't know this.
In the few surveys that have been done where members of public have been asked,
"Do you think scientists agree that evolution has happened?"
the difference between what the public thinks scientists believe and what scientists actually believe
is like 20-30%. It's really a big disconnect.
So, help the public understand that evolution is valid science.
The second pillar -- the religion pillar -- is best dealt with by
helping people understand that there's a very wide diversity of opinion
within the Christian community.
I often joke that I think more evolution is taught
in Catholic parochial school than in public schools
because the Catholic church accepts something called theistic evolution,
which is, of course evolution happened,
but it was the way that God chose to bring about the world according to his plan.
There's varieties of theistic evolution out there, but it's basically an idea.
It's a Christian theological idea that is fully compatible with what science shows us
about living things evolving through time.
Catholics and mainstream Protestants official theology is, in fact, theistic evolution.
So, it is not the case that if you are Christian, you have to reject evolution.
Some Christian views, absolutely, but not all Christian views.
Most people think there is a dichotomy.
On one side is atheist evolution, on the other side is Christian creationism, but that's false.
That's just empirically wrong.
It's not a dichotomy. It's a continuum.
The third pillar -- the fairness pillar -- is the most difficult one to deal with
because it is so strongly rooted in American cultural traditions.
The fairness pillar is best dealt with by helping the public
think about this a little bit more carefully.
Obviously, we want debate in our society about a lot of things.
People should be free to express opinions.
People should be free to argue vehemently about one position or another, one opinion or another,
but that's not really what we're talking about.
What we're really talking about is a much more narrow issue.
We're really talking about what you teach in high school science class.
Because that is where these policies that come to school boards
or the pressure that comes upon teachers really come to.
What you should teach in high school science class is -- no surprise -- science.
And, a high school science teacher has the very important job of picking
from the huge array of subject matter in biology, or physics, or chemistry, or whatever.
That smaller range of topics that is essential for young learners
who are just building an understanding of that particular scientific field.
And in biology, one of those core principles is evolution --
that living things are related genetically
in this huge genealogical tree of living creatures through time.
So, help the public understand that we're not talking about inhibiting anybody's free speech.
We're not talking about science being dogmatic and forcing views upon the students.
We're talking about doing the same thing in high school biology class as we do in physics,
chemistry, or for that matter, mathematics, English literature, and geography.
We teach the consensus view of the field.
Now, if the creationists or the intelligent design people,
or anybody else who challenges evolution
wants to make the argument that they have valid science
that deserves to be taught in the public school classroom,
knock yourself out.
But, your job is to convince the scientific community first.
What is happening is that, because of the politicized nature of American education,
curriculum decisions are made by elected officials,
and elected officials are looking over their shoulders at who votes,
as opposed to necessarily paying attention to what's the best curriculum.
Because American education is politicized,
there are pressures upon teachers outside of science to change the curriculum one way or the other.
They should be protected from that.
Students should not be the platform upon which we fight the culture wars.
Let the creationists, or the intelligent design people, or the anti-evolutionists
demonstrate to the scientific community that they have valid views,
that evolution is either weak science, or that they've got a better alternative,
and it'll trickle down to the high school if it makes it into the consensus.
They argue fairness. Frankly, to teach students that something is not valid
when there's such a strong scientific consensus about it
is about the most unfair thing you can do.
I would hope that being familiar with the refutations of the three pillars
would give you more confidence
in standing up for good science in your community.
If you hear of a school board issue, or some state legislation, or some school board legislation,
or if you even hear a word that one of your local teachers
is reluctant to teach evolution because
she or he feels that there's pressure from the community,
I hope that you will stand up for good science.
And the first thing you can do is contact us at NCSE.com.
We can put you in touch with people in your community who feel likewise,
we can give you the ammunition, shall we say, the arguments that you can use,
and the methods that you can use to make a good argument to your local decision makers.
Because teachers need help.
We get calls every week from teachers who want some advice, who want some support
to teach good science. And they deserve all the support
that we as scientists and concerned citizens can give them.
Thank you.