Faculty Senate Executive Committee
Statement on Evolution (October 2006)
(modified from the Department of Zoology statement)
Biological evolution, defined as genetic change in species over
time, is easily observed in the world around us; for example insects evolve
resistance to pesticides and new diseases arise when viruses evolve the ability
to invade new hosts. Humans even create new species in the laboratory using the
same mechanisms that produce species naturally. The theory of evolution explains the mechanisms (e.g. non-random natural
selection acting on random mutation) by which organisms change over time
(microevolution), become more complex, and diversify into new species
(macroevolution).
In popular speech, the word 'theory' means 'a guess', or
‘hypothesis’. However, in science, 'theory' refers to an explanation supported
by facts. A well-tested hypothesis rises to the level of theory when it has
been tested repeatedly without being falsified. Thus, a theory is as close to
the truth as science can come. This is because scientific theories are
rigorously subjected to the test of new knowledge, often gained by advances in
technology that were unavailable when the explanation was first proposed.
Hence, even the most successful theories are, by definition, never proven,
although any scientific theory can be refuted by facts that are at odds with
its predictions. It is this quality that most distinguishes a scientific
concept from a non-scientific one.
Evolutionary theory is the central unifying theory of biology,
supported by independent evidence from paleontology, geology, genetics,
molecular biology and genomics, developmental biology, biogeography and
behavioral ecology. Even though new information from nearly every field of
science has been applied, attempts to falsify evolutionary theory using the
scientific method have failed. As is true for any active science, the details
of the theory are continually debated as new data are collected. However, there
is overwhelming support among the scientific community about the fact of evolution, namely that organisms
are observed to change genetically over time and can evolve into new species.
Because science relies only on explanations that have the
property that they can be falsified by testing, other kinds of explanations are
beyond the scope of science because they cannot be falsified by empirical
data. For example, Intelligent Design
creationism is not science and is not a viable alternative to the theory of
evolution because it offers no testable
mechanisms that explain how species are formed, change, or diversify. To
introduce ID creationism as an alternative so that 'both sides' of the issue
are taught is to advocate that non-science be legitimized as science. In an
expanding global economy that is increasingly driven by science and technology,
it is essential that our children receive a first-class science education.
We thus oppose any attempt to weaken scientific standards with
respect to evolution, to redefine the scientific process so as to exclude the
requirement that explanations be falsifiable, or to broaden the science
curriculum to include non-scientific explanations. In this, we stand with our
colleagues in the National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the
Advancement of Science, and other scientific organizations.
Useful resources:
· American Association for the Advancement of
Science
· American Institute of Biological Sciences
· National Academy of Sciences
· National Association of Biology Teachers
· National Center for Science Education
· National Science Teachers Association
· Oklahomans for Excellence in Science Education
· Evolution, Science, and Society - white
paper supported by major biology societies