1. In 1987, the Supreme Court of the United States held:
Moreover, requiring the teaching of creation science with evolution does not give schoolteachers a flexibility that they did not already possess to supplant the present science curriculum with the presentation of theories, besides evolution, about the origin of life. “Edwards, Governor of Louisiana et al. v. Aguillard et al.,” Supreme Court of the United States, No. 85–1513, argued 10 December 1986, decided 19 June 1987, p. 1. Also see the first paragraph of page 8.
u On 13 June 2001, the United States Senate passed the following resolution by a vote of 91 to 8.
It is the sense of the Senate that—
(1) good science education should prepare students to distinguish the data or testable theories of science from philosophical or religious claims that are made in the name of science; and
(2) where biological evolution is taught, the curriculum should help students to understand why this subject generates so much continuing controversy, and should prepare the students to be informed participants in public discussions regarding the subject. Senator Rick Santorum, Congressional Record, Vol. 147, No. 82, 13 June 2001, pp. 1–2. See also Constance Holden, “Senate Gives Nod to Creationists,” Science, Vol. 292, 29 June 2001, p. 2429.
u “Several benefits will accrue from a more open discussion of biological origins in the science classroom. First, this approach will do a better job of teaching the issue itself, both because it presents more accurate information about the state of scientific thinking and evidence, and because it presents the subject in a more lively and less dogmatic way. Second, this approach gives students greater appreciation for how science is actually practiced. Science necessarily involves the interpretation of data; yet scientists often disagree about how to interpret their data. By presenting this scientific controversy realistically, students will learn how to evaluate competing interpretations in light of evidence—a skill they will need as citizens, whether they choose careers in science or other fields. Third, this approach will model for students how to address differences of opinion through reasoned discussion within the context of a pluralistic society.” David DeWolf, as quoted by Senator Rick Santorum, Congressional Record, 13 June 2001. p. 2.
u “I think, too often, we limit the best of our educators by directing them to avoid controversy and to try to remain politically correct. If students cannot learn to debate different viewpoints and to explore a range of theories in the classroom, what hope have we for civil discourse beyond the schoolhouse doors? Scientists today have numerous theories about our world and its beginnings. I, personally, have been greatly impressed by the many scientists who have probed and dissected scientific theory and concluded that some Divine force had to have played a role in the birth of our magnificent universe. These ideas align with my way of thinking. But I understand that they might not align with someone else’s. That is the very point of this amendment—to support an airing of varying opinions, ideas, concepts, and theories. If education is truly a vehicle to broaden horizons and enhance thinking, varying viewpoints should be welcome as part of the school experience.” Senator Robert Byrd, Congressional Record, 13 June 2001, p. 6.
2. Richard Alexander, evolutionist and professor of zoology and curator of insects at the University of Michigan, proposed a similar idea.
No teacher should be dismayed at efforts to present creation as an alternative to evolution in biology courses; indeed, at this moment creation is the only alternative to evolution. Not only is this worth mentioning, but a comparison of the two alternatives can be an excellent exercise in logic and reason. Our primary goal as educators should be to teach students to think and such a comparison, particularly because it concerns an issue in which many have special interests or are even emotionally involved, may accomplish that purpose better than most others. Richard D. Alexander, “Evolution, Creation, and Biology Teaching,” American Biology Teacher, Vol. 40, February 1978, p. 92.
u “We who teach introductory physics have to acknowledge, if we are honest with ourselves, that our teaching methods are primarily those of propaganda. We appeal—without demonstration—to evidence that supports our position. We only introduce arguments or evidence that support the currently accepted theories, and omit or gloss over any evidence to the contrary. We give short shrift to alternative theories, introducing them only in order to promptly demolish them—again by appealing to undemonstrated counter-evidence. We drop the names of famous scientists and Nobel prizewinners to show that we are solidly on the side of the scientific establishment. ... Of course, we do all this with the best of intentions and complete sincerity.” Mano Singham, “Teaching and Propaganda,” Physics Today, June 2000, p. 54.
3. Analytical skills in science include observing; classifying; measuring; explaining; predicting; applying mathematics; designing investigations and experiments; collecting and analyzing data; drawing conclusions; identifying assumptions; contrasting alternative explanations; formulating definitions, questions, hypotheses, and models; and retracting prior conclusions when the evidence warrants it.