The National Center for Science Education is the only national organization that specializes in defending the teaching of controversial issues (such as evolution and climate change) in public schools.

Because of our special expertise and experience, NCSE is often contacted by members of the press who are writing about the evolution/creationism controversy or about the teaching of global warming and other climate science issues that have come under political attack. Our staff can provide reliable information about creationism, evolution, climate change, and the state of science education in the United States.

If you need information, background, comments, or referrals to other sources, don't hesitate to contact us at media@ncse.com.

12.28.2005

The Kentucky Academy of Science expressed its opposition to "attempts to equate 'scientific creationism' or 'intelligent design' with evolution as a scientific explanation of events" in a press release (see page 6) dated December 22, 2005. "Teaching faith-based models implies that these views are equivalent alternatives among scientists.

+ read
12.27.2005

Barbara Forrest appeared on Talk of the Nation's Science Friday on December 23, 2005, to discuss the decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover. Forrest, who testified on the history of the "intelligent design" movement on behalf of the plaintiffs, told the show's host Ira Flatow, "I'm very happy about the judge's ruling.

+ read
12.22.2005

The decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover -- the first challenge to the constitutionality of teaching "intelligent design" in the public school science classroom -- was issued on December 20, 2005, and the plaintiffs were victorious. In his detailed 139-page decision, Judge John E.

+ read
12.20.2005

On December 20, 2005, the decision (139-page PDF) in Kitzmiller v. Dover was issued, and the plaintiffs triumphed. In his 139-page decision, Judge John E. Jones III concluded, "The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board's ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause.

+ read
12.17.2005

Writing in the Washington Post (December 17, 2005) on the topic of what "intelligent design" textbooks would actually teach, Douglas Baynton discusses textbooks from the nineteenth century.

+ read
12.16.2005

Oral arguments in the appeal in Selman v. Cobb County were heard by a three-judge panel in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, Georgia, on December 15, 2005. At issue is a decision issued by a lower court in January 2005, holding that the policy requiring evolution warning labels to be affixed to the biology textbooks used in Cobb County's public schools violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

+ read
12.16.2005

In a statement released on December 6, 2005, the National Council of Jewish Women expressed its opposition to "the current campaign to add intelligent design to public school curricula and classrooms and to denigrate the teaching of evolution." NCJW is a volunteer organization, inspired by Jewish values, that works to improve the quality of life for women, children, and families and to ensure individual rights and freedoms for all through its network of 90,000 members, supporters, and volunteers nationwi

+ read
12.14.2005

Three news stories published on December 11, two in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, and one in the Washington Post, highlight the case Selman et al v. Cobb County School District and Board of Education. The appeal in the lawsuit over anti-evolution warning labels formerly required in science textbooks in Cobb County, Georgia is on the docket for the United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit for December 15.

+ read
12.12.2005

by Nick Matzke
+ read
12.07.2005

The Thomas B. Fordham Institute's report The State of State Science Standards -- the first comprehensive review of state science standards since 2000 -- was released on December 7, 2005. According to the Fordham Institute's description:

Science education in America is under attack, with "discovery learning" on one flank and the Discovery Institute on the other. That's the core finding of our just-released comprehensive review of state science standards, the first since 2000. Written by pre-eminent biologist Paul R.
+ read
12.06.2005

Writing on the space.com website (December 1, 2005), Seth Shostak of the SETI Institute debunks a common claim of the "intelligent design" movement: that "intelligent design" uses the same methodology, and thus is as scientifically credible, as the search for extraterrestrial intelligence.

+ read
12.06.2005

The trial in Kitzmiller v. Dover -- the first legal challenge to the constitutionality of teaching "intelligent design" in the public schools -- was one of the five biggest stories in Bioscience for 2005, in the view of The Scientist (December 5, 2005). NCSE's Eugenie C.

+ read
12.06.2005

In a provocatively titled column in the December 4, 2005, issue of The New York Times, Laurie Goodstein considers whether "Intelligent Design Might Be Meeting Its Maker." Although "intelligent design" might seem to be making headway in the headlines, she writes, "intelligent design as a field of inquiry is failing to gain the traction its supporters had hoped for." The scientific productivity of the "intelligent design" movement is meager, she notes, and "[o]n college campuses, the moveme

+ read
12.02.2005

Writing in the December 2005 issue of Virtual Mentor, the on-line ethics journal of the American Medical Association, Paul Costello reviews the ongoing controversy over creationism in the public schools, commenting, "I'm afraid we live in loopy times.

+ read
12.01.2005

As a lawsuit against the University of California system wends its way through the legal system -- with a hearing on a motion to dismiss the complaint to be heard in federal court in Los Angeles on December 12, 2005 -- the media is taking notice of it again. The suit charges the University of California system with violating the constitutional rights of applicants from Christian schools whose high school coursework is deemed inadequate preparation for college.

+ read
12.01.2005

In the seemingly endless stream of articles on challenges to evolution education from across the country, recent stories from California Schools, New York's Newsday, the Chicago Tribune, and the Baltimore Sun especially deserve a read.

+ read
11.30.2005

Lord May of Oxford, the president of the Royal Society of London, criticized "intelligent design" -- which he described as a "disguised variant" of creationism -- in the course of his fifth and final anniversary address to the Society on November 30, 2005. His address was webcast [Link broken] and also posted in PDF form on the Royal Society's website. In the published version of his address, he wrote (pp.

+ read
11.29.2005

On November 5, 2005, the Biophysical Society adopted a new statement on the teaching of evolution and "intelligent design." "What distinguishes scientific theories from these theological beliefs ["intelligent design" and biblical creationism] is the scientific method, which is driven by observations and deductions, leads to testable predictions, and involves the formulation of hypotheses that can be refuted," the statement says.

+ read
11.25.2005

 

A photograph of Charles Darwin in his old age adorns the cover of the November 28, 2005, issue of Newsweek, with the headline "The Real Darwin: His Private Views on Science & God." Within the magazine, in his article "Charles Darwin: Evolution of a Scientist," Jerry Adler takes the opening of the American Museum of Natural History's new exhibit on Darwin (on display from November 19, 2005, through May 2

 

+ read
11.23.2005

Utah state senator Chris Buttars is at it again.

+ read
11.18.2005

"Intelligent design" is the target of Charles Krauthammer's op-ed column "Phony Theory, False Conflict" in the Washington Post (November 18, 2005), and no punches are pulled.

+ read
11.17.2005

Between the tide of expert reports, depositions, testimony, articles, and editorials produced in the course of the trial in Kitzmiller v.

+ read
11.17.2005

The November 8, 2005, vote of the Kansas state board of education to adopt a set of state science standards that systematically impugn the scientific status of evolution is, unsurprisingly, receiving criticism from all over.

+ read
11.10.2005

At its November 8, 2005, meeting in Topeka, the Kansas state board of education voted 6-4 to adopt the draft set of state science standards that were rewritten, under the tutelage of local "intelligent design" activists, to impugn the scientific status of evolution.

+ read