You are here
In a position statement issued on September 20, 2005, the American Phytopathological Society endorsed the American Association for the Advancement of Science's "Board Resolution on Intelligent Design Theory" (issued in 2002), which declared that "the lack of scientific warrant for so-called 'intelligent design theory' makes it improper to include as a part of science education." The APS explained, "There are two reaso
American Astronomical Society Supports the Teaching of Evolution in United States Science Classes and States that "Intelligent Design" is Non-Scientific and Should not be Taught to the Nation's Children
Chris Mooney and Matthew C. Nisbet's "Undoing Darwin" -- the cover story of the September/October 2005 issue of Columbia Journalism Review -- is essential reading for anyone bemused by the spate of media coverage of the creationism/evolution controversy.
At its meeting on September 2, 2005, the Utah state board of education unanimously adopted a position statement that described evolution as "a major unifying concept in science and appropriately included in Utah's K-12 Science Core Curriculum." The statement, according to the Deseret Morning News (September 3, 2005), was prepared at the behest of board chairman Kim Burningham "by a group of 22 scientists, professors and community members, including members of the Coalition of Minoritie
A major three-part series in The New York Times, running August 21-23, 2005, was devoted to the ongoing evolution/creationism struggle in the political, the scientific, and the religious sphere. Accompanying the series in addition were a William Safire "On Language" column investigating the etymology of "intelligent design" and "neo-creo" and a marvelous editorial column by Verlyn Klinkenborg on deep time and evolution.
In a press release issued on August 15, 2005, the 2005 executive committees of the American Society of Agronomy (ASA), the Crop Science Society of America (CSSA), and the Soil Science Society of America (SSSA), announced a shared position statement on the teaching of evolution, adopted on August 11.
Three broadcast reports on reactions to "Finding Design in Nature" -- the July 7, 2005 op-ed in The New York Times by the Roman Catholic cardinal archbishop of Vienna, Christoph Schoenborn -- are available on-line.
In "Finding Design in Nature," published on the op-ed page of the July 7, 2005, issue of The New York Times, Christoph Schönborn, the Roman Catholic cardinal archbishop of Vienna, undertook to refute "defenders of neo-Darwinian dogma [who] have often invoked the supposed acceptance -- or at least acquiescence -- of the Roman Catholic Church when they defend their theory as somehow compatible with Christian faith." On the contrary, he argued, in the Catholic view, "[e]volution in the
In a press release issued on June 20, 2005, the American Chemical Society released a statement [Link broken] in support of teaching evolution, adopted by the ACS board of directors on June 5. The statement reads, in its entirety:
In a press release issued on June 17, 2005, the American Association of University Professors announced that at its June 11, 2005, meeting, it adopted a statement in support of teaching evolution. The statement reads, in its entirety:
The theory of evolution is all but universally accepted in the community of scholars and has contributed immeasurably to our understanding of the natural world.