You are here
In a statement issued on October 4, 2005, the president of the University of Idaho, Timothy P. White, articulated the University's position on evolution. "As an academic scientific community and a research extensive land-grant institution," he wrote, "we affirm scientific principles that are testable and anchored in evidence." Hence only evolution, and not supposed "alternatives" to it, are taught in the university's science classes, he explained.
On September 29, 2005, Michigan House Bill 5251 was introduced and referred to the House Committee on Education.
Speaking at the Los Angeles Natural History Museum on September 28, 2005, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell declared that "intelligent design" was unwelcome in California's public school science classes. "The introduction of intelligent design theory in natural science courses would be a blow to the integrity of education in California," O'Connell said. "Our state has been recognized across the country and around the world for the quality and rigor of our academic standards.
In a letter to faculty, staff, and students at the University of Kansas, the university's chancellor Robert Hemenway reaffirmed that "Evolution is the central unifying principle of modern biology, and it must be taught in our high schools, universities and colleges." "On a personal level," he added, "I see no contradiction in being a person of faith who believes in God and evolution, and I'm sure many others at this university agree." Chancellor Hemenway's letter c
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