The document discusses the concept of "teaching the controversy" regarding evolution education. It notes that while there are scientific controversies about evolutionary processes that can be taught, it is inappropriate to present the validity of evolution itself as controversial among scientists. The document examines arguments for teaching alternative views in the name of fairness but argues this could mislead students about the scientific consensus. It recommends teachers check scientific literature and consensus statements to understand what ideas have credible scientific support.

1. Controversies, scientific
and otherwise
Josh Rosenau
National Center for Science Education

2. What is a scientific
controversy?

3. CORE
Frontier

4. CORE
Frontier

5. CORE
Frontier
Fringe

6. Are these controversies?

7. Are these controversies?
Gravity

8. Are these controversies?
Gravity
String theory

9. Are these controversies?
Gravity
String theory
Alchemy

10. Are these controversies?
Gravity
String theory
Alchemy
Group selection/kin selection

11. Are these controversies?
Gravity
String theory
Alchemy
Group selection/kin selection
Evolution

12. Are these controversies?
Gravity
String theory
Alchemy
Group selection/kin selection
Evolution
Global warming

13. Opinion TRENDS in Ecology and Evolution Vol.18 No.10 October 2003 499
Evolution: what’s wrong with
‘teaching the controversy’
Eugenie C. Scott1 and Glenn Branch1
1
National Center for Science Education, PO Box 9477, Berkeley CA 94709-0477 USA
A new slogan in the fight against evolution education in biological evidence as they see why it matters to a big
the USA and elsewhere is ‘teach the controversy’. question’ [3]. The thought does not originate with the
Although there are scientific controversies about the ‘intelligent design’ movement, however. The Institute for
patterns and processes of evolution that are appropri- Creation Research (ICR), the oldest major antievolutionist
ate topics for the science classroom, and there is a con- organization in the USA, recommends that students and
tinuing social controversy in certain circles about the teachers be ‘encouraged to discuss the scientific infor-
validity of evolution, it is scientifically inappropriate mation that supports and questions evolution and its
and pedagogically irresponsible to teach that scientists underlying assumptions, to promote the development of
seriously debate the validity of evolution. critical thinking skills’ (emphasis in original) [4]. The
intent is not to have students investigate controversies
Antievolutionists swarmed out of the woodwork recently, about patterns and processes within evolutionary theory,
as Ohio prepared to adopt new statewide science education but to debate whether evolution occurred.
standards – guidelines that specify what scientific knowl- Presenting all sides of a controversial issue appeals to
edge and abilities students in the state’s public schools are popular values of fairness, openness and equality of
expected to acquire – that accorded a central place to opportunity. It thus plays well with the public. But it is
evolution. The situation in Ohio is not unusual for the important to examine any such appeal carefully, because it
USA. Although there is no serious dispute among
Eugenie C. Scott and Glenn Branch,
is easy to abuse the public’s willingness to be swayed by
scientists about the scientific credentials of evolutionary such a call. Consider the following appeal: ‘students should
TRENDS in Ecology and Evolution 18(10):499-502
biology, a significant proportion of the American public be encouraged to investigate the […] controversy the same

14. When to
“teach the controversy”

15. When to
“teach the controversy”
Of interest to audience

16. When to
“teach the controversy”
Of interest to audience
Primarily scientific

17. When to
“teach the controversy”
Of interest to audience
Primarily scientific
Equal availability of information on all sides

18. When to
“teach the controversy”
Of interest to audience
Primarily scientific
Equal availability of information on all sides
Equal quality of materials on all sides

19. When to
“teach the controversy”
Of interest to audience
Primarily scientific
Equal availability of information on all sides
Equal quality of materials on all sides
Understandable by audience

20. When to
“teach the controversy”
Of interest to audience
Primarily scientific
Equal availability of information on all sides
Equal quality of materials on all sides
Understandable by audience
Scientific equivalency of all sides

23. 136 co-authors!
Plus 17 authors of
4 other letters,
all rebutting
Nowak et al. … 2 more pages!

25. Evo-Devo

26. Evo-Devo

27. Synthia
Evo-Devo

28. Synthia
Evo-Devo
Evolving
RNA
enzymes

29. Synthia
Evo-Devo
Artificial biochemistry
Evolving
RNA
enzymes

30. Darwin, 1837

32. So why do people call
evolution controversial?

33. Tennessee

34. Tennessee

35. Tennessee

36. Check the literature!
Consensus statements
from scientific bodies

37. Pubmed
Check the literature!
Consensus statements
from scientific bodies

38. Pubmed
Google Scholar
Check the literature!
Consensus statements
from scientific bodies

39. Pubmed Well-sourced
Google Scholar
Check the literature!
Consensus statements
from scientific bodies

40. Pubmed Well-sourced
Wikipedia entries
Google Scholar
Check the literature!
Consensus statements
from scientific bodies

41. Pubmed Well-sourced
Wikipedia entries
Google Scholar (Check the references
Check the literature!
Consensus statements
from scientific bodies

42. Pubmed Well-sourced
Wikipedia entries
Google Scholar (Check the references
and the Talk page)
Check the literature!
Consensus statements
from scientific bodies

43. Pubmed Well-sourced
Wikipedia entries
Google Scholar (Check the references
and the Talk page)
Check the literature!
Credible science blogs Consensus statements
from scientific bodies

44. Pubmed Well-sourced
Wikipedia entries
Google Scholar (Check the references
and the Talk page)
Check the literature!
Credible science blogs Consensus statements
(Who do they link, and from scientific bodies

45. Pubmed Well-sourced
Wikipedia entries
Google Scholar (Check the references
and the Talk page)
Check the literature!
Credible science blogs Consensus statements
(Who do they link, and from scientific bodies
what do people linking

46. Pubmed Well-sourced
Wikipedia entries
Google Scholar (Check the references
and the Talk page)
Check the literature!
Credible science blogs Consensus statements
(Who do they link, and from scientific bodies
what do people linking
to them say?)

48. Scientific Organizations
Brief of Amici Curiae by 56 Scientific Organizations in Selman v. Cobb County
Alabama Academy of Science (1981)
Alabama Academy of Science (1994)
American Anthropological Association (1980)
American Anthropological Association (2000)
American Association for the Advancement of Science (1923)
American Association for the Advancement of Science (1972)
American Association for the Advancement of Science (1982)
American Association for the Advancement of Science (2002)
AAAS Commission on Science Education
American Association of Physical Anthropologists
American Astronomical Society (1982)
American Astronomical Society (2000)
American Astronomical Society (2005)
American Chemical Society (1981)
American Chemical Society (2005)
American Geological Institute

51. http://ncse.com/voices

52. Federation of American Societies for
Experimental Biology
“While there may be some disagreement about
the details of evolution, it is not a controversial
theory among scientists. Rather, there is
overwhelming scientific consensus that
evolution is a valid explanation for the
development of species. Although students
should be encouraged to think critically about
all ideas, introducing false controversy
into science classes will ultimately
impair science education.”

53. Columbia Journalism Review, 2005

55. What can we do?

56. Make political
controversy
political

57. Resist false balance

59. Opinions don’t differ on
the shape of the Earth.

60. Shift to a real debate
(Neutralism vs. adaptationism,
not evolution vs. creationism)

61. http://ncse.com
http://facebook.com/evolution.ncse
http://twitter.com/ncse