Evolution in state Republican party platforms, 2026 edition

It is instructive to examine state political party platforms every once in a while to see what, if anything, they say about the teaching of evolution. There wasn’t a lot of progress to be seen between 2006, when eight state Republican parties included antievolution planks in their platforms, and 2014, when the situation was similar, except that North Dakota replaced Oregon in the roster along with Alaska, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas. As of 2026, however, only four state Republican parties include antievolution planks in their platforms.

Minnesota

Minnesota 2004: “[W]e support ... protecting educators from disciplinary action for including discussion of creation science, adopting science standards that acknowledge the scientific controversies pertaining to the theory of evolution.”
Minnesota 2014: “We should continue to encourage the voluntary expression of religious beliefs and traditions of students. Specifically, educators who discuss creation science should be protected from disciplinary action and science standards should recognize that there is controversy pertaining to the theory of evolution.”
Minnesota 2022 (PDF): “Science standards should recognize the controversy over the theory of evolution.”

Although “creation science” fell by the wayside, 35 years after the Supreme Court’s decision in Edwards v. Aguillard, the idea of embedding “teach the controversy” in the state science standards is alive and well. Yet evolution is not misrepresented as scientifically controversial in Minnesota’s state science standards, based on the same framework on which the Next Generation Science Standards are based.

Missouri

Missouri (2004): “[T]he Missouri Republican Party SUPPORTS ... Empowering local school districts to determine how best to handle the teaching of creationism and the theory of evolution.”
Missouri (2014): “[T]he Missouri Republican Party SUPPORTS: … Empowering local school districts to determine how best to handle the teaching of creationism and the theory of evolution.”
Missouri (2024): “[T]he Missouri Republican Party SUPPORTS: … Empowering local school districts to determine how best to handle the teaching of creationism and the theory of evolution.”

There’s no change here. The plank isn’t, on its face, particularly committal. But in the context of the history of American resistance to the teaching of evolution, it’s impossible to read the plank as doing anything other than suggesting that local school districts decide for themselves whether to teach creationism or not — Supreme Court or no Supreme Court.

Oklahoma

Oklahoma 2004: “We believe that in public schools where evolution is taught, creationism should be taught as well. We support disclaimers on any state-funded science textbook that treats evolution as fact rather than theory.”
Oklahoma 2014: “We believe that the scientific evidence supporting Intelligent Design and Biblical creation should be included in Oklahoma public schools curricula. And where any evolution theory is taught both should receive equal funding, class time, and material. Teachers should have the freedom to cover creation science without fear of intimidation or reprimand.”
Oklahoma 2025 (PDF): “We believe Biblical creation and intelligent design must be taught and must receive equal funding, class time, and materials as other theories such as evolution.”

The 2025 plank drops the provision in the 2014 plank that teachers who “cover creation science” (but not “intelligent design”?) ought to be protected against reprisals, but otherwise appears to be intended merely to condense its predecessor. The removal of any reference to “scientific evidence” and the decapitalization of “intelligent design” are probably not significant.

Texas

Texas 2004: “The Party supports the objective teaching and equal treatment of scientific strengths and weaknesses of all scientific theories, including Intelligent Design — as Texas law now requires but has yet to enforce. The Party believes theories of life origins and environmental theories should be taught only as theories not fact; that social studies and other curriculum should not be based on any one theory.”
Texas 2014: “We support objective teaching and equal treatment of all sides of scientific theories. We believe theories such as life origins and environmental change should be taught as challengeable scientific theories subject to change as new data is [sic] produced. Teachers and students should be able to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these theories openly and without fear of retribution or discrimination of any kind.”
Texas 2024 (PDF): “In science, we support objective teaching of scientific method, practices, and theories including the complexity of life origins and the changing climate throughout geologic history. These concepts shall be taught as challengeable scientific theories subject to change as new data is [sic] produced. Teachers and students shall discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these theories openly, without fear of retribution or discrimination.”

The 2024 plank continues to suggest, misleadingly, that the topic of “the complexity of life origins” is taught dogmatically and that reprisals against teachers and students for their classroom discussions of evolution are common. Taken literally, “the complexity of life origins” and its predecessors would refer to the origin of life, but probably evolution in general is intended.

The sample size is small, of course, and it would be unwise to infer any sweeping conclusion from the data. But in light of the fact that acceptance of evolution became, and remained, a majority position among the general U.S. population after 2014, according to a study on which I was a coauthor as well as Gallup’s polling data, it is tempting to speculate that Republicans involved with their state parties in Alaska, Iowa, Kansas, and North Dakota read the writing on the wall and composed their platforms accordingly. May their colleagues in Minnesota, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas follow their lead!

*****

Climate Change

With regard to climate change, a relatively new topic in American science education, the situation is unchanged since 2022, when I wrote, in a post for the blog of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, “At the state level, only two political party platforms contain statements hostile to climate change education: those of the Republican parties in Oklahoma and Texas” — states that are, interestingly, among the top producers of fossil fuel energy in the United States.

Oklahoma 2020: “We oppose the teaching of the theory of anthropogenic global warming without providing equal time for instruction in the complex systems of geo-physics [sic] that cause observable climate change, such as solar variations, plate tectonics, and volcanic eruptions.”
Oklahoma 2024 (PDF): “We oppose the teaching of the theory of anthropogenic global warming without providing equal time for instruction in the complex systems of geo-physics [sic] that cause observable climate change, such as solar variations, plate tectonics, and volcanic eruptions.”

Of course, the unchanged plank involves a false antithesis: it’s because we understand the natural forces at work in the climate system that we are able to identify human activities — especially the release of greenhouse gases through the burning of fossil fuels — as responsible for the current unprecedentedly rapid increase in average global temperature and the consequent changes to Earth’s climate.

Texas 2014: “We support objective teaching and equal treatment of all sides of scientific theories. We believe theories such as life origins and environmental change should be taught as challengeable scientific theories subject to change as new data is [sic] produced. Teachers and students should be able to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these theories openly and without fear of retribution or discrimination of any kind.”
Texas 2024 (PDF): “In science, we support objective teaching of scientific method, practices, and theories including the complexity of life origins and the changing climate throughout geologic history. These concepts shall be taught as challengeable scientific theories subject to change as new data is [sic] produced. Teachers and students shall discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these theories openly, without fear of retribution or discrimination.”

These planks are of course the same planks in which evolution is attacked: “environmental change” and “the changing climate throughout geologic history” are awkward code for climate change just as “life origins” and “the complexity of life origins” are awkward code for evolution. Unsurprisingly, the problems with the planks for climate change are the same as the problems for evolution.

Additionally, two Republican state party platforms denied the reality of anthropogenic climate change in general — Iowa’s (2024), which refers (PDF) to “alleged man-made global warming or climate change,” and West Virginia’s (2024), which declares (PDF), “We reject the notion of man-made climate change and do not submit to a radical climate agenda that seeks to weaken America” — while not offering any recommendations about climate change education in particular.

*****

A Mystery in South Dakota

The 2024 platform of the South Dakota Republican Party contains (PDF), in its section on Education and Cultural Affairs, the following plank: “The Scientific Method — We recognize that to ‘trust the science’ is inherently unscientific, and that proper science requires that science be questioned in accordance with the scientific method.”

A classic tactic of science denial is to misuse the fact that scientific understanding is open to revision in light of new evidence in order to deny that durable scientific results have been attained with regard to topics — such as human evolution or anthropogenic climate change — that are feared to threaten particular religious or political values.

The plank is clearly employing the tactic — but in response to what? A clue comes from the fact that the very same sentence (minus the first six words) previously appeared in South Dakota’s House Concurrent Resolution 6008 in 2023. The resolution was not passed — it was deferred to “the 41st legislative day,” and the legislature meets for only 40 legislative days per year.

The resolution’s prime sponsor was Phil Jensen (R–District 33), who opposed the adoption of new state science standards in 2014 because of their treatment of evolution and climate change and previously sponsored measures aimed at undermining both evolution education and climate change education, as NCSE previously reported.

But neither evolution nor climate change is mentioned in the resolution or in the platform. So whether the South Dakota Republicans who drafted and adopted their party’s platform share Jensen’s views on evolution and climate change education is unclear. Suggestively, though, Jensen is currently listed as a member of the South Dakota Republican Party’s Platform Committee.