The following HTML text is provided to enhance online
readability. Many aspects of typography translate only awkwardly to HTML.
Please use the page image
as the authoritative form to ensure accuracy.
Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition
Punctuated equilibrium is neither a creationist idea nor even a non-Darwinian evolutionary theory about sudden change that produces a new species all at once in a single generation. Punctuated equilibrium accepts the conventional idea that new species form over hundreds or thousands of generations and through an extensive series of intermediate stages. But geological time is so long that even a few thousand years may appear as a mere "moment" relative to the several million years of existence for most species. Thus, rates of evolution vary enormously and new species may appear to arise "suddenly" in geological time, even though the time involved would seem long, and the change very slow, when compared to a human lifetime.
If humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes?
Humans did not evolve from modem apes, but humans and modem apes shared a common ancestor, a species that no longer exists. Because we share a recent common ancestor with chimpanzees and gorillas, we have many anatomical, genetic, biochemical, and even behavioral similarities with these African great apes. We are less similar to the Asian apes—orangutans and gibbons—and even less similar to monkeys, because we share common ancestors with these groups in the more distant past.
Evolution is a branching or splitting process in which populations split off from one another and gradually become different. As the two groups become isolated from each other, they stop sharing genes, and eventually genetic differences increase until members of the groups can no longer interbreed. At this point, they have become separate species. Through time, these two species might give rise to new species, and so on through millennia.
Why can't we teach creation science in my school?
The courts have ruled that "creation science" is actually a religious view. Because public schools must be religiously neutral under the U.S. Constitution, the courts have held that it is unconstitutional to present creation science as legitimate scholarship.
In particular, in a trial in which supporters of creation science testified in support of their view, a district court declared that creation science does not meet the tenets of science as scientists use the term (McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education). The Supreme Court has held that it is illegal to require that creation science be taught when evolution is taught (Edwards v. Aguillard). In addition, district courts have decided that individual teachers cannot advocate creation science on their own (Peloza v. San Juan Capistrano School District and Webster v. New Lennox School District).(See Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science, Appendix A. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C. 1998.)
Teachers' organizations such as the National Science Teachers Association, the National Association of Biology Teachers, the National Science Education Leadership Association, and many others also have rejected the science and pedagogy of creation science and have strongly discouraged its presentation in the public schools. In addition, a coalition of religious and other organizations has noted in "A Joint Statement of Current Law" that "in science class, [schools] may present