Science, evolution, and creationism.

O n December 20, 2005, John E. Jones III, federal judge for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, issued a 130-page-long decision (Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District) declaring that ‘‘The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID [intelligent design] is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory . . . ID is not supported by any peer-reviewed research, data, or publications.’’ In 1984, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) published Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences. A second edition was published in 1999. A third edition, sufficiently modified to deserve a new title, Science, Evolution, and Creationism, published on January 4, 2008 (1). Science and Creationism was prepared by a committee of the NAS in response to statutes passed by the legislatures of, first, the state of Arkansas, and shortly thereafter, the state of Louisiana, that required that ‘‘creation science’’ be taught in public schools together with evolution. The Louisiana ‘‘Creation Act’’ was appealed all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which in 1987 (Edwards v. Aguilard) concluded that the act’s ‘‘primary purpose was to change the public school science curriculum to provide persuasive advantage to a particular religious doctrine that rejects the factual basis of evolution in its entirety. Thus, the Act is designed either to promote the theory of creation science that embodies a particular religious tenet or to prohibit the teaching of a scientific theory disfavored by certain religious sects. In either case, the Act violates the First Amendment’’ (1, p. 45). Science and Creationism was made part of an ‘‘amicus brief’’ submitted to the Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguilard by the NAS, with the endorsement of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and other organizations.