APA Council of Representatives Resolution Rejecting Intelligent Design as
Scientific and Reaffirming Support for Evolutionary Theory
The science, practice, and application of psychology depend on science education and
the culture of evidence and critical thought to which it contributes. Evolutionary theory is
one of the most powerful elements of contemporary science. With due diligence in
repudiating misappropriations of evolution to justify social injustices, scholars informed by
evolutionary theory can unify scientific knowledge and serve public interests in invaluable
ways. Proponents of Intelligent Design (ID) present ID theory as a viable alternative
scientific explanation for the origins and diversity of life. However, ID has not withstood
the scrutiny of scientific peer review of its empirical, conceptual, or epistemological bases
and thus is not properly regarded as a scientific theory.
WHEREAS Intelligent Design Theory poses a threat to the quality of science
education in the United States, and recognizing the urgency pressed
upon it by the endorsement of teaching ID alongside evolutionary theory
by some political leaders; (Baker & Slevin, 2005; Santorum, 2005)
WHEREAS Evolutionary theory is a major unifying force in contemporary science;
(Gould, 1994; National Science Teachers Association, 2003; Wilson,
1998)
WHEREAS The bases of continuity and variation that follow from evolutionary theory
inform, explicitly or implicitly, the work of many psychologists with
humans and other animals; (Caporael, 2001; Crawford, 1989; Gray,
1996)
WHEREAS ID proponents dismiss contemporary evolutionary theory as scientifically
invalid; (Discovery Institute, n.d., Wells, 2000/2001)
WHEREAS ID proponents promulgate their theory as science in the absence of
empirical evidence or, indeed, a means of testing it that passes scientific
muster; (Young & Edis, 2004) and
WHEREAS The teaching of ID as science would seriously undermine both the vitality
of psychological science and the science literacy so essential to an
informed, responsible citizenry; (Gray, 1996; Lombrozo, Shtulman, &
Weisberg, 2006; National Science Teachers Association, 2003)

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that APA applauds the consistent repudiation by
federal courts of Creationism, Creation Science, and now ID as a part of science
education; (Edwards v. Aguillard, 1987; Kitzmiller et al v. Dover Area School District,
2005; McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, 1982; Peloza v. Capstriano Unified
School District, 1994; Webster v. New Lennox School District, 1990)
THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the APA reaffirms earlier relevant
resolutions (APA, 1982 & 1990) and joins other leading scholarly organizations
including American Association for the Advancement of Science (2002), American
Astronomical Society (2005), American Society of Agronomy (2005), Federation of
American Societies of Experimental Biology (2005), and National Association of
Biology Teachers (2005) in opposing the teaching of Intelligent Design as a scientific
theory.References
American Association for the Advancement of Science (2002) Resolution on intelligent
design theory. Retrieved May 9, 2006 from
http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtml
American Astronomical Society (2005) Statement on the teaching of evolution. Retrieved
May 9, 2006 from http://www.aas.org/governance/council/resolutions.html
American Psychological Association. (1982). APA Council of Representatives resolution
on creationism. Retrieved May 9, 2006 from
http://www.apa.org/about/division/cpmscientific.html
American Psychological Association. (1990). APA Council of Representatives
endorsement of American Association for the Advancement of Science resolution on
the use of animals in research, testing, and education. Retrieved May 9, 2006 from
http://www.apa.org/about/division/cpmscientific.html
American Society of Agronomy (2005). Position statement in support of teaching of
evolution (2005) Retrieved May 9, 2006 from http://www.asa-cssasssa.org/pdf/intdesign_050815.pdf
Baker, P. & Slevin P. (2005, August 3). Bush remarks on “Intelligent design” theory fuels
debate. The Washington Post. Retrieved May 10, 2006, from
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2005/08/02/AR2005080201686_pf.html
Caporael, L. R. (2001). Evolutionary psychology: Toward a unifying theory and a hybrid
science. Annual Reviews of Psychology, 52, 607-628.
Crawford, C. B. (1989). The theory of evolution: Of what value to psychology? Journal of
Comparative Psychology, 103(1), 4-22.
Discovery Institute (n.d.) A scientific dissent from Darwinism. Retrieved May 4, 2006 from
http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/
Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987).
Gray, P. (1996). Incorporating evolutionary theory into the teaching of psychology.
Teaching of Psychology, 23, 207-214.
Gould, S. (1994). The evolution of life on earth. Scientific American, 271, 85-91.
Lombrozo, T., Shtulman, A., Weisberg, M. (2006). The Intelligent Design controversy:
Lessons from psychology and education. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(2), 56-57.
Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District. 400 F. Supp. 2d 707 (MD Pa. 2005).
McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, 529 F. Supp. 1255 (ED Ark. 1982).
National Association of Biology Teachers (2000). Statement on teaching evolution.
Retrieved May 9, 2006 from
http://www.nabt.org/sub/position_statements/evolution.asp
National Science Teachers Association. (2003). Position statement on the teaching of
evolution. Retrieved May 4, 2006 from http://www.nsta.org/159&psid=10
Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District, 37 F.3d 517 (9th Cir. 1994).
Santorum, R. (2005). Teaching the controversy. Retrieved May 10, 2006 from
http://santorum.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAct...egion_id=0&Issue_id=0&CFID
=1399365&CFTOKEN=28056303
Webster v. New Lennox School District #122, 917 F.2d 1003 (7th Cir. 1990).
Wells, J. (2000/2001) Survival of the fakest. The American Spectator, Dec 2000/Jan
2001.
Wilson, E. O. (1998). Consilience: The unity of knowledge. New York: Knopf.
Young, M., & Edis, T. (Eds.) (2004). Why intelligent design fails: A scientific critique of the
new creationism. Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University Press.