Science is the fuel that drives the innovation that feeds our economy, and if we do not act soon to strengthen science education in the United States, our nation will lose our competitive edge in science, medicine and technology.

The job market of the present and future is technically demanding, and the scientifically illiterate may end up on the outside looking in.

As we move to improve science education, professional scientists and educators must speak plainly: Evolution is the foundation of the biological sciences. Teaching evolution is an essential component of a rigorous scientific education and a shining example of the power and objectivity of the scientific method.

To weaken the teaching of evolution is to erode the teaching of science itself.

Some oppose the teaching of evolution or support the teaching of alternative explanations for the diversity and distribution of life on Earth, including "intelligent design." This view is largely based on misconceptions of evolution and the nature of the scientific method. Evolution is not a belief, it is not a philosophy and it is not an opinion. Evolution is the name given to a natural process that was discovered by man, not an idea invented by man. No other scientific explanation has been posited or tested that can explain the mountain of observed and experimental evidence that supports evolution.

The teaching of evolution is not a religious issue, as there is no inherent conflict between the two. Evolution does not deny or confirm the existence of God. Evolution is a scientific explanation for a natural process, while religion is an expression of faith. Many religious people (including Christians, Muslims, and Jews) fully accept evolution, and those who accept evolution need not deny their faith.

Theodosius Dobzhansky (a devout Christian) and Ernst Mayr (a firm atheist) collaborated as two of the architects of our modern understanding of evolution. They saw no conflict between their personal beliefs and their common search for scientific truth. Unfortunately, the currently repeated but misguided characterization of evolution as a threat to faith has misled many people and inadvertently put our nation's scientific future in jeopardy.

The teaching of evolution is also not a political issue. There are no Republican/conservative scientific conclusions or Democratic/liberal scientific conclusions. There are only conclusions based on methodical, objective and rigorous examination of data. Again, some have co- opted evolution as a "lightning rod" issue for political gain, but this is a complete misuse of science.

The partisan and political arguments that have passed for discourse are self-defeating and distracting, and our children's education is the casualty. Our science classrooms must be places where the very best science is taught, not battlegrounds for invented ideological conflicts in some sort of cultural war. The discussion should be about the scientific process, the application of that process to evolution and the power of applying our understanding of evolution to influence fields as diverse as cancer research and ecology.

An example of presenting non-scientific beliefs as science is "intelligent design," which is based on a certain religious viewpoint and as such is perfectly suited to religious or philosophical discussions. However, because intelligent design proposes a supernatural explanation, an idea that is not testable and most probably not observable, it violates two fundamental requirements of the scientific method. If we teach intelligent design as a scientifically acceptable alternative to evolution, we undermine the very essence of the scientific method. Students that leave school with this distorted view of science will utterly fail to compete when faced with a world where facts and objectivity count.

The teaching of evolution is a science issue, an education issue and an economic issue.

Regarding science, we must base our decisions on what to teach our students on the very best scientific conclusions, not on outside agendas or misrepresentations.

Regarding education, we cannot afford to arbitrarily remove this foundation of scientific endeavor from our classrooms simply because it makes some people uncomfortable.

Economically, we must understand that if we fail to teach evolution, we weaken science education across the board and we hamstring the ability of our state and nation to compete in a world that demands technological and scientific innovation.

Scientists can no longer afford to stay quiet. There is too much at stake, and for too long the discussion has been dominated by extreme and largely uninformed voices. I am a cofounder of the Colorado Evolution Response Team, a group of scientists, educators and interested citizens dedicated to protecting and promoting the teaching of evolution (www.evolutionarygenomics.com/CERT/CERT.html).

We urge all who are interested to become involved in the discussion by supporting efforts to promote rigorous scientific education standards at all levels. Find out what your local school board members are planning and urge them to engage scientists in the discussion. As scientists, we are called not only to discover, but to communicate those discoveries, to support and inform the public and to pass on our knowledge to all our children.

Jeffrey S. Kieft