Passport Initiative fosters applied science.

M. Baltzley's letter “Institutionalizing creationism” (10 June, p. [1285][1]) incorrectly argues that the Interstate Passport Initiative institutionalizes creationism in the undergraduate science curriculum. As members of the faculty team that developed the Passport's natural science content area, we strongly disagree. The Interstate Passport Initiative is a mechanism for the transfer of lower-division general education, based not on specific courses but on the student's demonstrated competency in key subject areas. Students do so by satisfying content-specific learning outcomes through completion of class assignments (proficiency criteria) identified for that purpose. The Passport's natural science learning outcomes and proficiency criteria were developed—independent of the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, in contrast to Baltzley's implication otherwise—by a multistate team of science faculty from accredited institutions. They center on scientific reasoning, literacy, and application in society. Students are expected to meet each of the learning outcomes. Baltzley's criticism stems from the inclusion of student analysis of the Ham-Nye debate among the coursework examples supporting the following learning outcome: “Students shall recognize the proper use of scientific data, principles, and theories to assess the quality of stated conclusions, and demonstrate an ability to gather, comprehend, apply and communicate credible information on scientific and technical topics” ([ 1 ][2]). Accompanying proficiency criteria address topics commonly misconstrued by the public, including the vaccinationautism controversy and climate change. One proficiency criterion makes use of the Ham-Nye evolution-creation debate as a tool by which students evaluate the proper use of scientific reasoning and data ([ 1 ][2]). Analysis of the arguments presented by both sides in the debate does not validate creationism as a science, as implied by Baltzley's commentary. The Passport natural science team does not support the teaching of creationism or “creation science” within the science classroom. To the contrary, like the National Center for Science Education, we believe the classroom is where students should learn to challenge the false claims of ideas such as young earth creationism and intelligent design ([ 2 ][3]). Moreover, proficiency criteria such as the Ham-Nye debate are examples of coursework some faculty now use to meet the learning outcomes; they are not intended to be required assignments. 1. [↵][4]Interstate Passport, “Faculty handbook: Constructing your institution's Passport block” (2016); p. 43; [www.wiche.edu/files/info/Faculty%20HB-CYIPB%20March%202016%20%28REV%204-08-16%29.pdf][5]. 2. [↵][6]National Center for Science Education, The Creationism/Evolution Continuum ([https://ncse.com/library-resource/creationevolution-continuum][7]). [1]: pending:yes [2]: #ref-1 [3]: #ref-2 [4]: #xref-ref-1-1 "View reference 1 in text" [5]: http://www.wiche.edu/files/info/Faculty%20HB-CYIPB%20March%202016%20%28REV%204-08-16%29.pdf [6]: #xref-ref-2-1 "View reference 2 in text" [7]: http://ncse.com/library-resource/creationevolution-continuum