The Long Answer:
Good changes for science education:
Firstly, to dispel any notions that the ID movement wants to eliminate evolution from the curriculum, consider these two quotes by leaders in the ID movement--Michael Behe and Phillip Johnson--which summarize the position of many in the ID movement quite well:
(Michael Behe, "Teach Evolution and Ask Hard Questions;"New York Times, August 13, 1999, Friday, Page A21, Editorial Desk)
"What educators in Kansas and elsewhere should be doing is to "teach the controversy." Of course students should learn the orthodox Darwinian theory and the evidence that supports it, but they should also learn why so many are skeptical, and they should hear the skeptical arguments in their strongest form rather than in a caricature intended to make them look as silly as possible."
(Phillip Johnson, The Wedge of Truth, pg. 82)
Good scientists are spawned when they learn to think critically about evidence--to question, to dig deeper and ask "why do you claim that?" and to understand other scientific possibilities, and the difference between science and non-science. We believe that a policy most consistent with these ideals is found in the "Santorum Amendment," a resolution passed by the United States Senate while debating the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001:
"(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;
(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."
This is exactly the policy the U.S. Supreme Court wants to see implemented In the case Edwards. v. Aguillard, the Supreme Court majority provided a framework under which a legislature might pass an acceptable bill regarding the teaching of science:
In schools, we should teach science, and we need to teach all the scientific evidence that exists surrounding this crucial question of origins. For now, this at least includes both evidence for AND against evolution.
What is the current state of policy?
Ironically, evolutionists who (rightly) criticize those who want to remove evolution from the classroom often do not realize that today, many (if not most) school districts teach evolution "one-sidedly" and eliminate bona fide scientific evidence that doesn't support or questions evolutionary theory. This is equally bad science education. Today's public defenders of the teaching of evolution seek to insulate evolution from legitimate scientific critique. As seen, this goes against the ruling of the Supreme Court:
Much of the way evolution is taught one-sidedly is reviewed in the book Icons of Evolution. In the book, various lines of which supposedly support evolution are often contradicted by solid evidence from the could be easily presented with a one-paragraph blurb. This is the type of presentation of evolution that the IDEA Center would like to see in many textbooks and classrooms today--so that students learn the full range of evidence surrounding the teaching of evolution. Thus, the position of the IDEA Center (and most people in the ID movement) is not to teach less evolution -- like how Georgia removed the word 'evolution' from its curriculum, or how Kansas allegedly removed evolution from the curriculum -- but to teach more about evolution so that students can understand it better. Students need to learn the evidence both for and against evolution, but currently those who seek to ask for such a fair presentation are ridiculed and censored.
The IDEA Center believes that any legitimate scientific theory could be taught in a science classroom. Intelligent design is a legitimate scientific theory, but it is very new. Some aspects of intelligent design might be appropriate to teach now, but it would not hurt to wait to have intelligent design taught. Nonetheless, criticisms of evolution should be taught.
At the time of Scopes, very little evolution was taught, and scientists were advocating for something good--for more science (i.e. evolution) to be taught. Today, scientists are advocating for less science to be taught--that only the evidence that supports evolution can be taught. This is worse than before Scopes.
The best policy is that which the Senate adopted in the Santorum amendment where it implicitly decried censorship of evidence on these controversial issues and spoke in favor of educating--not indoctrinating students. That's why Senator Kennedy of Massachusetts said of the Santorum Amendment:
Unfortunately, many people mistakenly think that the ID movement seeks to ban evolution. This is probably because the press misreported that ID movement supporters banned the teaching of evolution in the State of Kansas in 1999. To be sure, some (not all) of the Board of Education members in Kansas who sought to change the curriculum were supporters of the ID movement. The mistake is that in reality, Kansas did not "ban" the teaching of evolution from schools nor did it argue that evolution "was no more 'provable than creationism." This is an unfortunately common misperception about what happened in Kansas that has been promulgated in the press. Many who believe this are not to blame, for the press almost universally mis-reported what really happened in Kansas. Phillip Johnson's well-documented account of the press's coverage of the Kansas controversy reveals what really happened:
Concerning evolution, the standards state (taken from http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/kansas99stds.htm
"Evolution: A scientific theory that accounts for present day similarity and diversity among living organisms and changes in non-living entities over time. With respect to living organisms, evolution has two major perspectives: The long-term perspective (macro-evolution) focuses on the branching of lineages; the short-term perspective (micro-evolution) centers on changes within lineages."
"Millions of species of microorganisms, animals, and plants are alive today. Animals and plants vary in body plans and internal structures. Over time, genetic variation acted upon by natural selection has brought variations in populations. This is termed microevolution. A structural characteristic or behavior that helps an organism survive and reproduce in its environment is called an adaptation. When the environment changes and the adaptive characteristics or behaviors are insufficient, the species becomes extinct."
"Instruction needs to be designed to uncover and prevent misconceptions about natural selection. Natural selection can maintain or deplete genetic variation but does not add new information to the existing genetic code. Using examples of microevolution, such as Darwin’s finches or the peppered moths of Manchester, helps develop understanding of natural selection. Examining fossil evidence assists the student’s understanding of extinction as a natural process that has affected Earth’s species."
"Understand that microevolution, the adaptation of organisms - by changes in structure, function, or behavior - favors beneficial genetic variations and contributes to biological diversity." "Understand that natural selection acts only on the existing genetic code and adds no new genetic information."
"Biologists recognize that the primary mechanisms of genotypic change are natural selection and random genetic drift. Example: Natural selection includes the following concepts: 1) heritable variation exists in every species; 2) some heritable traits are more advantageous to reproduction and/or survival than are others; 3) there is a finite supply of resources required for life; not all progeny survive; 4) individuals with advantageous traits generally survive; 5) the advantageous traits increase in the population through time. "
Getting Religion Philosophy out of the Science Classroom:
The IDEA Center also wants to see ONLY science in the science classroom. Unfortunately, much of evolution is based upon philosophically naturalistic assumptions--it assumes there were no intelligent causes involved in shaping life. Naturalism is the idea that there is nothing other than matter or energy, and the laws of nature, which has any bearing upon the workings of the natural world. It is well substantiated that science is based upon naturalism. Here are quotes from evolutionists discussing this fact:
(Science and Creationism, A View from the National Academy of Sciences, 2nd Edition (1999), emphasis added)
“The statements of science must invoke only natural things and processes. ... The theory of evolution is one of these explanations.”
(Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science, National Academy Press, 1998, pg. 42, emphasis added)
“It was Darwin’s greatest accomplishment to show that the directive organization of living beings can be explained as the result of a natural process, natural selection, without any need to resort to a Creator or other external agent...[Darwin’s] mechanism, natural selection, excluded God as the explanation...”
(Francisco Ayala [evolutionist scientist], “Darwin’s Revolution,” in Creative Evolution?!, eds. J. Campbell and J. Schopf (Boston, Mass.: Jones and Bartlett Publishers, 1994), pp. 4-5, emphasis added)
"Science, fundamentally, is a game. It is a game with one overriding and defining rule. Rule No. 1: Let us see how far and to what extent we can explain the behavior of the physical and material universe in terms of purely physical and material causes, without invoking the supernatural."
(Richard E. Dickerson [evolutionist scientist]: "The Game of Science." Perspectives on Science and Faith (Volume 44, June 1992), p. 137, emphasis added)
“Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations. The theory of evolution by natural selection explains the adaptedness and diversity of the world solely materialistically.”
(“Darwin’s Influence on Modern Thought” E. Mayr [evolutionist scientist], Scientific American, pg. 82-83, (July 2000), emphasis added)
“[F]or many evolutionists, evolution has functioned as something with elements which are, let us say, akin to being a secular religion ... [A]t some very basic level, evolution as a scientific theory makes a commitment to a kind of naturalism, namely, that at some level one is going to exclude miracles and these sorts of things come what may.” ("Nonliteralist Antievolution," Ruse, Michael [evolutionist philosopher of science], AAAS Symposium: "The New Antievolutionism," February, 1993, Boston, MA., emphasis added)
"[W]e have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations…that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”
(Lewontin, Richard [evolutionist scientist], "Billions and Billions of Demons", New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997, p. 28., emphasis added)
“If there is one rule, one criterion that makes an idea scientific, it is that it must invoke naturalistic explanations for phenomena … it’s simply a matter of definition—of what is science, and what is not.”
(Eldredge, Niles, 1982, The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism, Washington Square Press)
“…any statement concerning the existence, nonexistence, or nature of a creator or creators is not science by definition and has no place in scientific discussion.”
(Pine, R.H., 1984, “But Some of Them Are Scientists, Aren’t They?” Creation/Evolution, Issue XIV, pp. 6-18)
Political / Educational FAQs:
Philosophical / Religious / Theological FAQs: