State GOP Platforms on Evolution and Climate Change Education Evolution

In recent years, the discourse surrounding the teaching of evolution in U.S. state political party platforms has seen notable shifts. Back in 2006, eight state Republican parties had antievolution planks, a situation that remained largely unchanged in 2014. However, by 2026, this number had decreased to just four states: Minnesota, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas.

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.”

Despite the absence of “creation science” in recent years, the idea of teaching the controversy persists in Minnesota’s standards. However, the state’s science standards, based on the Next Generation Science Standards, do not treat evolution as scientifically controversial.

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.”

Missouri’s stance remains unchanged, advocating local decision-making on teaching evolution and creationism, despite historical resistance to evolution education in the U.S., signaling a preference for district-level discretion.

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.”

Oklahoma’s recent platform condenses previous language but maintains the call for equal treatment of creationism alongside evolution, dropping mentions of “scientific evidence” for these teachings.

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.”

Texas continues to promote the idea that “the complexity of life origins” and climate change should be taught as debatable topics, suggesting they are subject to frequent revision, despite this being misleading.

The number of state platforms with antievolution planks has decreased, and it’s worth noting the rise of evolution’s acceptance among the broader U.S. public. A study and polling data indicate a majority acceptance of evolution since 2014, reflecting a shift that some states have yet to adopt.

Climate Change

On the front of climate change education, the landscape remains similar to 2022. Only Oklahoma and Texas have platforms opposing climate change education, likely influenced by their roles as major fossil fuel producers.

• 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.”

These statements reflect a misunderstanding of climate science, which identifies human activity, especially fossil fuel combustion, as a major factor in recent climate changes.

• 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 issues with these platforms on climate change mirror those related to evolution, as they use similar language to question established scientific consensus.

Moreover, Iowa and West Virginia’s platforms have dismissed anthropogenic climate change entirely, framing it as a myth without specific recommendations for educational policy.

A Mystery in South Dakota

South Dakota’s 2024 Republican platform intriguingly includes a statement on the scientific method: “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.”

This statement echoes a common tactic in science denial, suggesting that questioning established scientific conclusions undermines their validity, a technique often applied to contentious topics like human evolution and climate change.

The origins of this plank trace back to a 2023 House Concurrent Resolution, which failed to pass. The resolution was spearheaded by Phil Jensen, known for opposing science standards that address evolution and climate change, but neither topic is explicitly mentioned in the resolution or the platform.