Creationism rebuttal

@misc{huxley1896mr43,
    author = "Huxley, T. H",
    title = "Mr. Gladstone and Genesis",
    year = "1896",
    howpublished = "The Nineteenth Century",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Huxley, T. H., 1896, Mr. Gladstone and Genesis: The Nineteenth Century.}"
}

@misc{lammerts1961personal45,
    author = "Lammerts, W",
    title = "Personal Communication to Dr. Henry M. Morris, in Whitcomb, J. C., and Morris, H. M., eds., The Genesis Flood",
    year = "1961",
    howpublished = "Philadelphia, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, p. 189-191",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Lammerts, W., 1961, Personal Communication to Dr. Henry M. Morris, in Whitcomb, J. C., and Morris, H. M., eds., The Genesis Flood: Philadelphia, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, p. 189-191.}"
}

@misc{lewontin1971the50,
    author = "Lewontin, R. C",
    title = "The yahoos ride again",
    year = "1971",
    howpublished = "Evolution, v. 25, p. 442",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Lewontin, R. C., 1971, The yahoos ride again: Evolution, v. 25, p. 442.}"
}

@misc{mayr1971evolution52,
    author = "Mayr, E",
    title = "Evolution vs. special creation",
    year = "1971",
    howpublished = "American Biology Teacher, v. 33, no. 1, p. 49-50",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Mayr, E., 1971, Evolution vs. special creation: American Biology Teacher, v. 33, no. 1, p. 49-50.}"
}

@misc{wilson1972crash78,
    author = "Wilson, C",
    title = "Crash Go the Chariots",
    year = "1972",
    howpublished = "New York, Lancer Books, 126 p",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Wilson, C., 1972, Crash Go the Chariots: New York, Lancer Books, 126 p.}"
}

@misc{ferre1973design23,
    author = "Ferre, F",
    title = "Design Argument, in Weiner, P. P., ed., Dictionary of the History of Ideas",
    year = "1973",
    howpublished = "New York, 1973, Charles Scribner's Sons, v. 1, p. 670- 677",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Ferre, F., 1973, Design Argument, in Weiner, P. P., ed., Dictionary of the History of Ideas: New York, 1973, Charles Scribner's Sons, v. 1, p. 670- 677.}"
}

@misc{fair1974the22,
    author = "Fair, C",
    title = "The New Nonsense",
    year = "1974",
    howpublished = "The End of Rational Consensus: New York, Simon and Schuster, 287 p",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Fair, C., 1974, The New Nonsense: The End of Rational Consensus: New York, Simon and Schuster, 287 p.}"
}

@misc{cloud1977scientific8,
    author = "Cloud, P. E",
    title = {Scientific creaetionism"--A new inquisition brewing?},
    year = "1977",
    howpublished = "The Humanist, v. 37, no. 1, p. 6-16",
    note = {talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Cloud, P. E., 1977, "Scientific creaetionism"--A new inquisition brewing?: The Humanist, v. 37, no. 1, p. 6-16.}}
}

@misc{galston1979the29,
    author = "Galston, A. W. and Slayman, C. L",
    title = "THe Not-So-Secret Life of Plants",
    year = "1979",
    howpublished = "American Scientist, v. 67, p. 337-344",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Galston, A. W., and Slayman, C. L., 1979, THe Not-So-Secret Life of Plants: American Scientist, v. 67, p. 337-344.}"
}

@misc{york1979pleochroic79,
    author = "York, D",
    title = "Pleochroic halos and geochronology",
    year = "1979",
    howpublished = "Eos, v. 60, no. 33, p. 618- 618",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {York, D., 1979, Pleochroic halos and geochronology: Eos, v. 60, no. 33, p. 618- 618.}"
}

@misc{fritz1980reinterpretation27,
    author = "Fritz, W. J",
    title = {Reinterpretation of the depositional environment of the Yellowstone "fossil forests},
    year = "1980",
    howpublished = "Geology, v. 8, p. 309-313",
    note = {talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Fritz, W. J., 1980, Reinterpretation of the depositional environment of the Yellowstone "fossil forests": Geology, v. 8, p. 309-313.}}
}

@misc{weber1980the76,
    author = "Weber, C. G",
    title = "The fatal flaws of flood geology",
    year = "1980",
    howpublished = "Creation/Evolution, v. 1, p. 24-37",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Weber, C. G., 1980, The fatal flaws of flood geology: Creation/Evolution, v. 1, p. 24-37.}"
}

@book{awbery1981evolution1,
    author = "Awbery, F. T. and Thwaites, W. M",
    title = "Evolution Vs",
    year = "1981",
    publisher = "Creation. Aztec Lecture Notes. San Diego State University (San Diego, California., 92182) 77 pp",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Awbery, F. T., and Thwaites, W. M., 1981, Evolution Vs. Creation. Aztec Lecture Notes. San Diego State University (San Diego, California., 92182) 77 pp.}"
}

@misc{cole1981misquoted9,
    author = "Cole, J. R",
    title = "Misquoted Scientists Respond",
    year = "1981",
    howpublished = "Creation/Evolution, v. 6, p. 34-44",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Cole, J. R., 1981, Misquoted Scientists Respond: Creation/Evolution, v. 6, p. 34-44.}"
}

@misc{freske1981creationist26,
    author = "Freske, S",
    title = "Creationist Misunderstanding, Misrepresentation and Misuse of the Second Law of Thermodynamics",
    year = "1981",
    howpublished = "Creation/Evolution, v. 2, p. 8-16",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Freske, S., 1981, Creationist Misunderstanding, Misrepresentation and Misuse of the Second Law of Thermodynamics: Creation/Evolution, v. 2, p. 8-16.}"
}

@misc{godfrey1981an30,
    author = "Godfrey, L. R",
    title = "An analysis of the creationist film, Footprints in Stone",
    year = "1981",
    howpublished = "Creation/Evolution, v. 2, p. 23-30",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Godfrey, L. R., 1981, An analysis of the creationist film, Footprints in Stone : Creation/Evolution, v. 2, p. 23-30.}"
}

@misc{hammond1981farewell36,
    author = "Hammond, A. and Margulis, L",
    title = "Farewell to Newton, Einstein, Darwin",
    year = "1981",
    howpublished = "Science 81, v. 2, no. 10, p. 55-57",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Hammond, A., and Margulis, L., 1981, Farewell to Newton, Einstein, Darwin: Science 81, v. 2, no. 10, p. 55-57.}"
}

@misc{milne1981how57,
    author = "Milne, D. H",
    title = {How to debate with creationists - and "Win},
    year = "1981",
    howpublished = "American Biology Teacher, v. 43, no. 5, p. 235-245",
    note = {talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Milne, D. H., 1981, How to debate with creationists - and "Win": American Biology Teacher, v. 43, no. 5, p. 235-245.}}
}

@misc{ruse1981darwinism68,
    author = "Ruse, M",
    title = "Darwinism Defended",
    year = "1981",
    howpublished = "Dordrecht, Reidel",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Ruse, M., 1981, Darwinism Defended: Dordrecht, Reidel.}"
}

@article{zeisel1981letters80,
    author = "Zeisel, H",
    title = "Letters to editor",
    year = "1981",
    journal = "Science, v. 212, p. 873",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Zeisel, H., 1981, Letters to editor: Science, v. 212, p. 873.}"
}

Abusing Science is a manual for intellectual self-defense, the most complete available for presenting the case against Creationist pseudo-science. It is also a lucid exposition of the nature and methods of genuine science. The book begins with a concise introduction to evolutionary theory for non-scientists and closes with a rebuttal of the charge that this theory undermines religious and moral values. It will astonish many readers that this case must still be made in the 1980s, but since it must, Philip Kitcher makes it irresistibly and forcefully. Not long ago, a federal court struck down an Arkansas law requiring that Creationism be taught in high school science classes. Contemporary Creationists may have lost one legal battle, but their cause continues to thrive. Their efforts are directed not only at state legislatures but at local school boards and textbook publishers. As Kitcher argues in this rigorous but highly readable book, the integrity of science is under attack. The methods of inquiry used in evolutionary biology are those which are used throughout the sciences. Moreover, modern biology is intertwined with other fields of science--physics, chemistry, astronomy, and geology. Creationists hope to persuade the public that education in science should be torn apart to make room for a literal reading of Genesis. Abusing Science refutes the popular complaint that the scientific establishment is dogmatic and intolerant, denying academic freedom to the unorthodox. It examines Creationist claims seriously and systematically, one by one, showing clearly just why they are at best misguided, at worst ludicrous.

@book{doi10106312915455,
    author = "Kitcher, Philip and Gladstone, Daniel",
    title = "Abusing Science--The Case against Creationism",
    year = "1982",
    booktitle = "Internet Archive (Internet Archive)",
    abstract = "Abusing Science is a manual for intellectual self-defense, the most complete available for presenting the case against Creationist pseudo-science. It is also a lucid exposition of the nature and methods of genuine science. The book begins with a concise introduction to evolutionary theory for non-scientists and closes with a rebuttal of the charge that this theory undermines religious and moral values. It will astonish many readers that this case must still be made in the 1980s, but since it must, Philip Kitcher makes it irresistibly and forcefully. Not long ago, a federal court struck down an Arkansas law requiring that Creationism be taught in high school science classes. Contemporary Creationists may have lost one legal battle, but their cause continues to thrive. Their efforts are directed not only at state legislatures but at local school boards and textbook publishers. As Kitcher argues in this rigorous but highly readable book, the integrity of science is under attack. The methods of inquiry used in evolutionary biology are those which are used throughout the sciences. Moreover, modern biology is intertwined with other fields of science--physics, chemistry, astronomy, and geology. Creationists hope to persuade the public that education in science should be torn apart to make room for a literal reading of Genesis. Abusing Science refutes the popular complaint that the scientific establishment is dogmatic and intolerant, denying academic freedom to the unorthodox. It examines Creationist claims seriously and systematically, one by one, showing clearly just why they are at best misguided, at worst ludicrous.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2915455",
    doi = "10.1063/1.2915455",
    openalex = "W1527175142"
}

@article{dutch1982a18,
    author = "Dutch, S. L",
    title = "A critique of creationist cosmology",
    year = "1982",
    journal = "Journal of Geological Education, v. 30, p. 27-33",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Dutch, S. L., 1982, A critique of creationist cosmology: Journal of Geological Education, v. 30, p. 27-33.}"
}

@article{dutch1982notes17,
    author = "Dutch, S. L",
    title = "Notes on the nature of fringe science",
    year = "1982",
    journal = "Journal of Geological Education, v. 30, p. 6-13",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Dutch, S. L., 1982, Notes on the nature of fringe science: Journal of Geological Education, v. 30, p. 6-13.}"
}

@misc{hildeman1982creative41,
    author = "Hildeman, W. H",
    title = {Creative Evolution." Letter to the Editor},
    year = "1982",
    howpublished = "Science, v. 215, p. 1182",
    note = {talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Hildeman, W. H., 1982, "Creative Evolution." Letter to the Editor: Science, v. 215, p. 1182.}}
}

@book{kitcher1982abusing44,
    author = "Kitcher, P",
    title = "Abusing Science",
    year = "1982",
    publisher = "The Case Against Creationism: Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press, 213 p",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Kitcher, P., 1982, Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism: Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press, 213 p.}"
}

@misc{lewin1982creationism46,
    author = "Lewin, R",
    title = "Creationism on the defensive in Arkansas",
    year = "1982",
    howpublished = "Science, v. 215, p. 33-34",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Lewin, R., 1982, Creationism on the defensive in Arkansas: Science, v. 215, p. 33-34.}"
}

@misc{lewin1982judges48,
    author = "Lewin, R",
    title = "Judge's ruling hits hard at Creationism",
    year = "1982",
    howpublished = "Science, v. 215, p. 381-384",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Lewin, R., 1982, Judge's ruling hits hard at Creationism: Science, v. 215, p. 381-384.}"
}

@misc{lewin1982molecules49,
    author = "Lewin, R",
    title = "Molecules come to Darwin's aid",
    year = "1982",
    howpublished = "Science, v. 216, p. 1091-1092",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Lewin, R., 1982, Molecules come to Darwin's aid: Science, v. 216, p. 1091-1092.}"
}

@misc{lewin1982where47,
    author = "Lewin, R",
    title = "Where is the science in Creation science?",
    year = "1982",
    howpublished = "Science, v. 215, p. 142- 146",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Lewin, R., 1982, Where is the science in Creation science?: Science, v. 215, p. 142- 146.}"
}

@misc{mattill1982three51,
    author = "Mattill, A. J",
    title = "Three Cheers for the Creationists!",
    year = "1982",
    howpublished = "Free Inquiry, v. 2, no. 2, p. 17-18",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Mattill, A. J., 1982, Three Cheers for the Creationists!: Free Inquiry, v. 2, no. 2, p. 17-18.}"
}

@misc{miller1982answers56,
    author = "Miller, K. R",
    title = "Answers to the Standard Creationist Arguments",
    year = "1982",
    howpublished = "Creation/ Evolution, v. 3, p. 1-13",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Miller, K. R., 1982, Answers to the Standard Creationist Arguments: Creation/ Evolution, v. 3, p. 1-13.}"
}

@misc{overton1982memorandum62,
    author = "Overton, J. W. R",
    title = "Memorandum on Rev",
    year = "1982",
    howpublished = "Bill McLean et al. LR C 81 322",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Overton, J. W. R., 1982, Memorandum on Rev. Bill McLean et al. LR C 81 322.}"
}

@misc{petto1982the66,
    author = "Petto, A. J",
    title = "The turtle",
    year = "1982",
    howpublished = "Evolutionary dilemma or creationist shell game?: Creation/Evolution, v. 3, p. 20-29",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Petto, A. J., 1982, The turtle: Evolutionary dilemma or creationist shell game?: Creation/Evolution, v. 3, p. 20-29.}"
}

@misc{thwaites1982as75,
    author = "Thwaites, W. M. and Awbery, F. T",
    title = "As the world turns",
    year = "1982",
    howpublished = "Can creationists keep time?: Creation/Evolution, v. 3, p. 18-22",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Thwaites, W. M., and Awbery, F. T., 1982, As the world turns: Can creationists keep time?: Creation/Evolution, v. 3, p. 18-22.}"
}

@misc{weber1982answers77,
    author = "Weber, C. G",
    title = "Answers to creationist attacks on Carbon-14 dating",
    year = "1982",
    howpublished = "Creation/ Evolution, v. 3, p. 23-29",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Weber, C. G., 1982, Answers to creationist attacks on Carbon-14 dating: Creation/ Evolution, v. 3, p. 23-29.}"
}

@misc{bambach1983response3,
    author = "Bambach, R. K",
    title = "Response to creationism",
    year = "1983",
    howpublished = "Science, v. 220, p. 851-853",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Bambach, R. K., 1983, Response to creationism: Science, v. 220, p. 851-853.}"
}

@misc{brush1983ghosts7,
    author = "Brush, S. G",
    title = "Ghosts from the Nineteenth Century",
    year = "1983",
    howpublished = "Creationist Arguments for a Young Earth, in Godfrey, L. R., ed., Scientists Confront Creationism: New York, Norton, p. 49-84",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Brush, S. G., 1983, Ghosts from the Nineteenth Century: Creationist Arguments for a Young Earth, in Godfrey, L. R., ed., Scientists Confront Creationism: New York, Norton, p. 49-84.}"
}

@misc{dietz1983gishs13,
    author = "Dietz, R. S",
    title = "Gish's Law",
    year = "1983",
    howpublished = "Geotimes, v. 28, no. 8, p. 11-12",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Dietz, R. S., 1983, Gish's Law: Geotimes, v. 28, no. 8, p. 11-12.}"
}

@book{dolphin1983a15,
    author = "Dolphin, W. D",
    title = "A Brief Critical Analysis of Scientific Creationism, in Wilson, D. B., ed., Did the Devil Make Darwin Do It? Modern Perspectives on the Creation/Evolution Controversy",
    year = "1983",
    publisher = "Ames, Iowa, Iowa State University Press, p. 19-36",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Dolphin, W. D., 1983, A Brief Critical Analysis of Scientific Creationism, in Wilson, D. B., ed., Did the Devil Make Darwin Do It? Modern Perspectives on the Creation/Evolution Controversy: Ames, Iowa, Iowa State University Press, p. 19-36.}"
}

@misc{edwords1983an20,
    author = "Edwords, F",
    title = "An answer to Dr. Geisler--from the perspective of philosophy",
    year = "1983",
    howpublished = "Creation/Evolution, v. 4, p. 6-12",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Edwords, F., 1983, An answer to Dr. Geisler--from the perspective of philosophy: Creation/Evolution, v. 4, p. 6-12.}"
}

@book{eldredge1983the21,
    author = "Eldredge, N",
    title = "The Monkey Business",
    year = "1983",
    publisher = "A Scientist Looks at Creationism: New York, Washington Square Press",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Eldredge, N., 1983, The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism: New York, Washington Square Press.}"
}

@misc{frye1983is28,
    author = "Frye, R. M",
    title = "Is God a Creationist? The Religious Case Against Creation- Science",
    year = "1983",
    howpublished = "New York, Scribner's",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Frye, R. M., 1983, Is God a Creationist? The Religious Case Against Creation- Science: New York, Scribner's.}"
}

@misc{godfrey1983creationists32,
    author = "Godfrey, L. R",
    title = "Creationists and Gaps in the Fossil Record, in Godfrey, L. R., ed., Scientists Confront Creationists",
    year = "1983",
    howpublished = "New York, W.W. Norton, p. 193-218",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Godfrey, L. R., 1983, Creationists and Gaps in the Fossil Record, in Godfrey, L. R., ed., Scientists Confront Creationists: New York, W.W. Norton, p. 193-218.}"
}

@misc{godfrey1983scientists31,
    author = "Godfrey, L. R",
    title = "Scientists Confront Creationism",
    year = "1983",
    howpublished = "New York, W.W. Norton, 324 p",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Godfrey, L. R., 1983, Scientists Confront Creationism: New York, W.W. Norton, 324 p.}"
}

@article{milne1983dinosaur59,
    author = "Milne, D. H. and Schafersman, S. D",
    title = "Dinosaur tracks, erosion marks and midnight chisel work (but no human footprints) in the Cretaceous limestone of the Paluxy River bed, Texas",
    year = "1983",
    journal = "Journal of Geological Education, v. 31, p. 111-123",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Milne, D. H., and Schafersman, S. D., 1983, Dinosaur tracks, erosion marks and midnight chisel work (but no human footprints) in the Cretaceous limestone of the Paluxy River bed, Texas: Journal of Geological Education, v. 31, p. 111-123.}"
}

@misc{moore1983the61,
    author = "Moore, R. A",
    title = "The Impossible Voyage of Noah's Ark",
    year = "1983",
    howpublished = "Creation/Evolution, v. 4, p. 1-43",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Moore, R. A., 1983, The Impossible Voyage of Noah's Ark: Creation/Evolution, v. 4, p. 1-43.}"
}

@misc{patterson1983thermodynamics64,
    author = "Patterson, J. W",
    title = "Thermodynamics and Evolution, in Godfrey, L. R., ed., Scientists Confront Creationism",
    year = "1983",
    howpublished = "New York, W.W. Norton \& Co., p. 99-116",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Patterson, J. W., 1983, Thermodynamics and Evolution, in Godfrey, L. R., ed., Scientists Confront Creationism: New York, W.W. Norton \& Co., p. 99-116.}"
}

@article{soroka1983physical70,
    author = "Soroka, L. G. and Nelson, C. L",
    title = "Physical constraints on the Noachian Deluge",
    year = "1983",
    journal = "Journal of Geological Education, v. 31, p. 135-139",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Soroka, L. G., and Nelson, C. L., 1983, Physical constraints on the Noachian Deluge: Journal of Geological Education, v. 31, p. 135-139.}"
}

@article{strahler1983toward72,
    author = "Strahler, A. N",
    title = "Toward a broader perspective in the creation-evolution debate",
    year = "1983",
    journal = "Journal of Geological Education, v. 31, p. 87-94",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Strahler, A. N., 1983, Toward a broader perspective in the creation-evolution debate: Journal of Geological Education, v. 31, p. 87-94.}"
}

@misc{thwaites1983an74,
    author = "Thwaites, W. M",
    title = "An Answer to Dr. Geisler - From the Perspective of Biology",
    year = "1983",
    howpublished = "Creation/Evolution, v. 4, p. 13-20",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Thwaites, W. M., 1983, An Answer to Dr. Geisler - From the Perspective of Biology: Creation/Evolution, v. 4, p. 13-20.}"
}

@inproceedings{awbery1984evolutionists2,
    author = "Awbery, F. T. and Thwaites, W. M",
    title = "Evolutionists Confront Creationists",
    year = "1984",
    booktitle = "San Francisco, California, American Association for the Advancement of Science, v. 1, Part 3, 213 p.; Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Pacific Division",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Awbery, F. T., and Thwaites, W. M., 1984, Evolutionists Confront Creationists: San Francisco, California, American Association for the Advancement of Science, v. 1, Part 3, 213 p.; Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Pacific Division.}"
}

@inproceedings{doolittle1984some16,
    author = "Doolittle, R. F",
    title = "Some Rebutting Comments to Creationist Views on the Origin of Life, in Awbery, F. T., and Thwaites, W. M., eds., Evolutionists Confront Creationists",
    year = "1984",
    booktitle = "San Francisco, Ca., American Association for the Advancement of Science, v. 1, Part 3, p. 153-163; Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Pacific Division",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Doolittle, R. F., 1984, Some Rebutting Comments to Creationist Views on the Origin of Life, in Awbery, F. T., and Thwaites, W. M., eds., Evolutionists Confront Creationists: San Francisco, Ca., American Association for the Advancement of Science, v. 1, Part 3, p. 153-163; Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Pacific Division.}"
}

@book{ebert1984science19,
    author = "Ebert, J. D. [C. and on Science, Committee and Creationism]",
    title = "Science and Creationism",
    year = "1984",
    publisher = "A View from the National Academy of Sciences: Washington, D.C., National Academy Press, 28 p",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Ebert, J. D. [C., Committee on Science and Creationism]., 1984, Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences: Washington, D.C., National Academy Press, 28 p.}"
}

@misc{fezer1984editors24,
    author = "Fezer, K. D",
    title = "(Editor's comments)",
    year = "1984",
    howpublished = "Creation/Evolution Newsletter, v. 4, p. 4-5",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Fezer, K. D., 1984, (Editor's comments): Creation/Evolution Newsletter, v. 4, p. 4-5.}"
}

@book{hardin1984scientific37,
    author = "Hardin, G",
    title = {Scientific Creationism"--marketing deception as truth, in Montagu, A., ed., Science and Creationism},
    year = "1984",
    publisher = "New York, Oxford University Press, p. 159-166",
    note = {talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Hardin, G., 1984, "Scientific Creationism"--marketing deception as truth, in Montagu, A., ed., Science and Creationism: New York, Oxford University Press, p. 159-166.}}
}

@article{jr1984review,
    author = "Jr., Thomas R. Koballa",
    title = "Review: Scientists Confront Creationism, by Laurie R. Godfrey",
    year = "1984",
    journal = "The American Biology Teacher",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.2307/4447906",
    doi = "10.2307/4447906",
    number = "8",
    openalex = "W4243186914",
    pages = "460-461",
    volume = "46"
}

@article{kennedy1984physical,
    author = "Kennedy, Kenneth A. R.",
    title = "Physical: Scientists Confront Creationism. Laurie R. Godfrey",
    year = "1984",
    journal = "American Anthropologist",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1984.86.1.02a00370",
    doi = "10.1525/aa.1984.86.1.02a00370",
    number = "1",
    openalex = "W2131822047",
    pages = "172-174",
    volume = "86"
}

@misc{mcgowan1984in53,
    author = "McGowan, C",
    title = "In the Beginning",
    year = "1984",
    howpublished = "A Scientist Shows the Creationists are Wrong: Buffalo, New York, Prometheus Books, 208 p",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {McGowan, C., 1984, In the Beginning: A Scientist Shows the Creationists are Wrong: Buffalo, New York, Prometheus Books, 208 p.}"
}

@misc{milne1984creationists58,
    author = "Milne, D. H",
    title = "Creationists, population growth, bunnies, and the Great Pyramid",
    year = "1984",
    howpublished = "Creation/Evolution, v. 4, p. 1-5",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Milne, D. H., 1984, Creationists, population growth, bunnies, and the Great Pyramid: Creation/Evolution, v. 4, p. 1-5.}"
}

@book{montagu1984science60,
    author = "Montagu, A",
    title = "Science and Creationism",
    year = "1984",
    publisher = "New York, Oxford University Press, 415 p",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Montagu, A., 1984, Science and Creationism: New York, Oxford University Press, 415 p.}"
}

@misc{patterson1984letter63,
    author = "Patterson, C",
    title = "Letter in reply to Steven Binkley, June 17, 1982",
    year = "1984",
    howpublished = "Creation/ Evolution Newsletter, v. 4, p. 4-5",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Patterson, C., 1984, Letter in reply to Steven Binkley, June 17, 1982: Creation/ Evolution Newsletter, v. 4, p. 4-5.}"
}

@inproceedings{patterson1984thermodynamics65,
    author = "Patterson, J. W",
    title = "Thermodynamics and Probability, in Awbery, F. T., and Thwaites, W. M., eds., Evolutionists Confront Creationists",
    year = "1984",
    booktitle = "San Francisco, American Association for the Advancement of Science, v. 1, Part 3, p. 132-152; Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Pacific Division",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Patterson, J. W., 1984, Thermodynamics and Probability, in Awbery, F. T., and Thwaites, W. M., eds., Evolutionists Confront Creationists: San Francisco, American Association for the Advancement of Science, v. 1, Part 3, p. 132-152; Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Pacific Division.}"
}

@book{rootbernstein1984ignorance67,
    author = "Root-Bernstein, R. S",
    title = "Ignorance versus knowledge in the evolutionist- creationist controversy, in Awbery, F. T., and Thwaites, W. M., eds., Evolution Vs. Creation",
    year = "1984",
    publisher = "San Diego, California, San Diego State University, p. 8-24; Aztec Lecture Notes",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Root-Bernstein, R. S., 1984, Ignorance versus knowledge in the evolutionist- creationist controversy, in Awbery, F. T., and Thwaites, W. M., eds., Evolution Vs. Creation: San Diego, California, San Diego State University, p. 8-24; Aztec Lecture Notes.}"
}

@misc{diamond1985voyage12,
    author = "Diamond, J",
    title = "Voyage of the Overloaded Ark",
    year = "1985",
    howpublished = "Discover, v. 6, p. 82-92",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Diamond, J., 1985, Voyage of the Overloaded Ark: Discover, v. 6, p. 82-92.}"
}

@misc{godfrey1985foot33,
    author = "Godfrey, L. R",
    title = "Foot Notes of an Anatomist",
    year = "1985",
    howpublished = "Creation/Evolution, v. 5, p. 16-36; in Cole, JR and Godfrey, LR, eds., (1985) The Paluxy River Footprint Mystery- Solved. Creation/Evolution 5 (Special Issue)",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Godfrey, L. R., 1985, Foot Notes of an Anatomist: Creation/Evolution, v. 5, p. 16-36; in Cole, JR and Godfrey, LR, eds., (1985) The Paluxy River Footprint Mystery- Solved. Creation/Evolution 5 (Special Issue).}"
}

@misc{davis1986dont10,
    author = "Davis, H. G",
    title = "Don't Fault the Lord for Taking Time",
    year = "1986",
    howpublished = "Gainesville (Fla) Sun",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Davis, H. G., 1986, Don't Fault the Lord for Taking Time: Gainesville (Fla) Sun.}"
}

@misc{dawkins1986the11,
    author = "Dawkins, R",
    title = "The Blind Watchmaker",
    year = "1986",
    howpublished = "New York, W. W. Norton",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Dawkins, R., 1986, The Blind Watchmaker: New York, W. W. Norton.}"
}

The teaching of Darwin's theories has been a controversial issue in American high schools for over a century. Larson shows that the matter has still not been resolved today, although the issue is no longer whether evolution should be taught but whether the Biblical view of creation should have equal status in biology classrooms.

@article{doi1023071051008,
    author = "O’Neil, Robert M. and Larson, Edward J.",
    title = "Trial and Error: The American Controversy over Creation and Evolution",
    year = "1986",
    journal = "Journal of Law and Religion",
    abstract = "The teaching of Darwin's theories has been a controversial issue in American high schools for over a century. Larson shows that the matter has still not been resolved today, although the issue is no longer whether evolution should be taught but whether the Biblical view of creation should have equal status in biology classrooms.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.2307/1051008",
    doi = "10.2307/1051008",
    openalex = "W2053306662"
}

@misc{hastings1986tracking39,
    author = "Hastings, R. J",
    title = "Tracking those incredible creationists--the trail continues",
    year = "1986",
    howpublished = "Creation/Evolution, v. 5, p. 5-15",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Hastings, R. J., 1986, Tracking those incredible creationists--the trail continues: Creation/Evolution, v. 5, p. 5-15.}"
}

@article{stokes1986alleged71,
    author = "Stokes, W. L",
    title = "Alleged human footprint from Middle Cambrian strata, Milford County, Utah",
    year = "1986",
    journal = "Journal of Geological Education, v. 34, p. 187-190",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Stokes, W. L., 1986, Alleged human footprint from Middle Cambrian strata, Milford County, Utah: Journal of Geological Education, v. 34, p. 187-190.}"
}

@misc{bennetta1987the5,
    author = "Bennetta, W. J",
    title = "The Meaning of 'Balanced Treatment",
    year = "1987",
    howpublished = "Creation/Evolution Newsletter, v. 7, p. 6-7",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Bennetta, W. J., 1987, The Meaning of 'Balanced Treatment': Creation/Evolution Newsletter, v. 7, p. 6-7.}"
}

@misc{dietz1987creationevolution14,
    author = "Dietz, R. S. and Holden, J. C",
    title = "Creation/Evolution SATIRICON",
    year = "1987",
    howpublished = "Creationism Bashed [1st ed.]: Winthrop, Washington, The Bookmaker, 140 p",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Dietz, R. S., and Holden, J. C., 1987, Creation/Evolution SATIRICON: Creationism Bashed [1st ed.]: Winthrop, Washington, The Bookmaker, 140 p.}"
}

@article{doi10230740249853,
    author = "Provine, William B. and Larson, Edward J.",
    title = "Trial and Error: The American Controversy over Creation and Evolution",
    year = "1987",
    journal = "Academe",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.2307/40249853",
    doi = "10.2307/40249853",
    openalex = "W2801744105"
}

@article{giddings1987scientists,
    author = "Giddings, Luther Val",
    title = "Scientists on Creationism Scientists Confront Creationism Laurie R. Godfrey W. W. Norton Creationism, Science, and the Law: The Arkansas Case M. C. La Follette Science and Creationism Ashley Montagu The Creation Controversy: Science or Scripture in the Schools Dorothy Nelkin Did the Devil Make Darwin Do It? Modern Perspectives on the Creation-Evolution Controversy David B. Wilson Evolution vs. Creationism: The Public Education Controversy J. Peter Zetterburg",
    year = "1987",
    journal = "BioScience",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.2307/1310179",
    doi = "10.2307/1310179",
    number = "1",
    openalex = "W2333955443",
    pages = "70-74",
    volume = "37"
}

@misc{gould1987william35,
    author = "Gould, S. J",
    title = "William Jennings Bryan's last campaign",
    year = "1987",
    howpublished = "Natural History Magazine, v. 96 (November), p. 16-26",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Gould, S. J., 1987, William Jennings Bryan's last campaign: Natural History Magazine, v. 96 (November), p. 16-26.}"
}

@book{harrold1987cult38,
    author = "Harrold, F. B. and Eve, R. A",
    title = "Cult Archeology and Creationism",
    year = "1987",
    publisher = "Understanding Pseudoscientific Beliefs about the Past [1st ed.]: Iowa City, Iowa, University of Iowa Press, 163 p",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Harrold, F. B., and Eve, R. A., 1987, Cult Archeology and Creationism: Understanding Pseudoscientific Beliefs about the Past [1st ed.]: Iowa City, Iowa, University of Iowa Press, 163 p.}"
}

@article{hastings1987new40,
    author = "Hastings, R. J",
    title = "New observations on Paluxy tracks confirm their dinosaurian origin",
    year = "1987",
    journal = "Journal of Geological Education, v. 35, p. 4-15",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Hastings, R. J., 1987, New observations on Paluxy tracks confirm their dinosaurian origin: Journal of Geological Education, v. 35, p. 4-15.}"
}

@misc{strahler1987science73,
    author = "Strahler, A. N",
    title = "Science and Earth History",
    year = "1987",
    howpublished = "The Evolution/Creation Controversy: Buffalo, New York, Prometheus Books, 552 p",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Strahler, A. N., 1987, Science and Earth History: The Evolution/Creation Controversy: Buffalo, New York, Prometheus Books, 552 p.}"
}

@misc{banach1988henry4,
    author = "Banach, M",
    title = "Henry Morris Visits His Old Haunts",
    year = "1988",
    howpublished = "Creation/Evolution Newsletter, v. 8",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Banach, M., 1988, Henry Morris Visits His Old Haunts: Creation/Evolution Newsletter, v. 8.}"
}

@misc{bennetta1988its6,
    author = "Bennetta, W. J",
    title = "It's a Bird! It's a Plane! It's Satan!",
    year = "1988",
    howpublished = "Creation/Evolution Newsletter, v. 8, p. 21",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Bennetta, W. J., 1988, It's a Bird! It's a Plane! It's Satan!: Creation/Evolution Newsletter, v. 8, p. 21.}"
}

@misc{fezer1988paul25,
    author = "Fezer, K. D",
    title = "Paul Ellwanger Strikes Again",
    year = "1988",
    howpublished = "Creation/Evolution Newsletter, v. 8, p. 5-6",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Fezer, K. D., 1988, Paul Ellwanger Strikes Again: Creation/Evolution Newsletter, v. 8, p. 5-6.}"
}

@misc{mciver1988creationist54,
    author = "McIver, T",
    title = "Creationist Misquotation of Darrow",
    year = "1988",
    howpublished = "Creation/Evolution, v. 23, p. 1-13",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {McIver, T., 1988, Creationist Misquotation of Darrow: Creation/Evolution, v. 23, p. 1-13.}"
}

@misc{mciver1988formless55,
    author = "McIver, T",
    title = "Formless and Void",
    year = "1988",
    howpublished = "Gap Theory Creationism: Creation/Evolution, v. 24, p. 1-24",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {McIver, T., 1988, Formless and Void: Gap Theory Creationism: Creation/Evolution, v. 24, p. 1-24.}"
}

@misc{ruse1988but69,
    author = "Ruse, M",
    title = "But Is It Science? The Philosophical Question in the Creation/ Evolution Controversy",
    year = "1988",
    howpublished = "Buffalo, New York, Prometheus Books, 406 p",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Ruse, M., 1988, But Is It Science? The Philosophical Question in the Creation/ Evolution Controversy: Buffalo, New York, Prometheus Books, 406 p.}"
}

@misc{goodgame1989calling34,
    author = "Goodgame, D",
    title = "Calling for an Overhaul",
    year = "1989",
    howpublished = "Time, v. 134, no. 15, p. 60,69",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Goodgame, D., 1989, Calling for an Overhaul: Time, v. 134, no. 15, p. 60,69.}"
}

@misc{holden1990irrationalityskeptics42,
    author = "Holden, C",
    title = "Irrationality-skeptics strike back",
    year = "1990",
    howpublished = "Science, v. 248, p. 165",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Holden, C., 1990, Irrationality-skeptics strike back: Science, v. 248, p. 165.}"
}

Abstract Students in three sections of a high school biology course were taught a unit on evolution and natural selection. Prior to instruction, students were pretested to determine their (a) reflective reasoning skill, (b) strength of religious commitment, (c) prior declarative knowledge of evolution and natural selection, and (d) beliefs in evolution or special creation and related religiously oriented beliefs. Following instruction the measures of declarative knowledge and beliefs were readministered. The study was designed to test (a) the hypothesis that the acquisition of domain‐specific concepts and the modification of nonscientific beliefs largely depends upon reflective reasoning skill, not prior declarative knowledge; and (b) the hypothesis that strength of religious commitment and a belief in special creation hinder the acquisition of scientific beliefs. Although instruction produced no overall shift toward a belief in evolution, as predicted, reflective reasoning skill was significantly related to initial scientific beliefs, and reflective reasoning skill, but not prior declarative knowledge, was significantly related to gains in declarative knowledge. Reflective reasoning skill, however, was not significantly related to changes in beliefs. Also as predicted, strength of religious commitment was negatively correlated with initial belief in evolution and with a change in belief toward evolution. Interrelationships among the study's major variables, as well as educational implications, are discussed.

@article{doi101002tea3660290205,
    author = "Lawson, Anton E. and Worsnop, William A.",
    title = "Learning about evolution and rejecting a belief in special creation: Effects of reflective reasoning skill, prior knowledge, prior belief and religious commitment",
    year = "1992",
    journal = "Journal of Research in Science Teaching",
    abstract = "Abstract Students in three sections of a high school biology course were taught a unit on evolution and natural selection. Prior to instruction, students were pretested to determine their (a) reflective reasoning skill, (b) strength of religious commitment, (c) prior declarative knowledge of evolution and natural selection, and (d) beliefs in evolution or special creation and related religiously oriented beliefs. Following instruction the measures of declarative knowledge and beliefs were readministered. The study was designed to test (a) the hypothesis that the acquisition of domain‐specific concepts and the modification of nonscientific beliefs largely depends upon reflective reasoning skill, not prior declarative knowledge; and (b) the hypothesis that strength of religious commitment and a belief in special creation hinder the acquisition of scientific beliefs. Although instruction produced no overall shift toward a belief in evolution, as predicted, reflective reasoning skill was significantly related to initial scientific beliefs, and reflective reasoning skill, but not prior declarative knowledge, was significantly related to gains in declarative knowledge. Reflective reasoning skill, however, was not significantly related to changes in beliefs. Also as predicted, strength of religious commitment was negatively correlated with initial belief in evolution and with a change in belief toward evolution. Interrelationships among the study's major variables, as well as educational implications, are discussed.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660290205",
    doi = "10.1002/tea.3660290205",
    openalex = "W2125473568"
}

Introduction to the Expanded Edition Introduction 1. Creationism in the Age of Darwin 2. George Frederick Wright: From Christian Darwinist to Fundamentalist 3. Creationism in the Fundamentalist Controversy 4. Scientific Creationists in the Age of Bryan 5. George McCready Price and the New Catastrophism 6. The Religion and Science Association 7. The Deluge Geology Society 8. Evangelicals and Evolution in Great Britain 9. Evangelicals and Evolution in North America 10. John C. Whitcomb, Jr., Henry M. Morris, and The Genesis Flood 11. The Creation Research Society 12. Creation Science and Scientific Creationism 13. Deception and Discrimination 14. Creation Research Institutes 15. Creationism in the Churches 16. The Appeal of Creationism at Home and Abroad 17. Intelligent Design 18. Creationism Goes Global Notes Acknowledgments Index

@book{openalexw603845538,
    author = "Numbers, Ronald L.",
    title = "The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design",
    year = "1993",
    abstract = "Introduction to the Expanded Edition Introduction 1. Creationism in the Age of Darwin 2. George Frederick Wright: From Christian Darwinist to Fundamentalist 3. Creationism in the Fundamentalist Controversy 4. Scientific Creationists in the Age of Bryan 5. George McCready Price and the New Catastrophism 6. The Religion and Science Association 7. The Deluge Geology Society 8. Evangelicals and Evolution in Great Britain 9. Evangelicals and Evolution in North America 10. John C. Whitcomb, Jr., Henry M. Morris, and The Genesis Flood 11. The Creation Research Society 12. Creation Science and Scientific Creationism 13. Deception and Discrimination 14. Creation Research Institutes 15. Creationism in the Churches 16. The Appeal of Creationism at Home and Abroad 17. Intelligent Design 18. Creationism Goes Global Notes Acknowledgments Index",
    openalex = "W603845538"
}

@article{mathisen1994the,
    author = "Mathisen, James A. and Numbers, Ronald L. and Boyer, Paul",
    title = "The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism",
    year = "1994",
    journal = "Sociology of Religion",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.2307/3712184",
    doi = "10.2307/3712184",
    number = "1",
    openalex = "W2314449897",
    pages = "95",
    volume = "55"
}

@article{larson1995the,
    author = "Larson, Edward J. and Numbers, Ronald L.",
    title = "The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism",
    year = "1995",
    journal = "Journal of Interdisciplinary History",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.2307/205746",
    doi = "10.2307/205746",
    number = "3",
    openalex = "W1963715053",
    pages = "537",
    volume = "25"
}

@article{robinson1995the,
    author = "Robinson, J. Cortland",
    title = "The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism (review)",
    year = "1995",
    journal = "Perspectives in Biology and Medicine",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1353/pbm.1995.0050",
    doi = "10.1353/pbm.1995.0050",
    number = "4",
    openalex = "W2283914064",
    pages = "662-664",
    volume = "38",
    references = "doi105860choice262321, doi105860choice270303"
}

Creationism is no longer the simple notion it once was taken to be. Its new advocates have become more sophisticated in how they present their views, speaking of intelligent design rather than creation and aiming their arguments against the naturalistic philosophical method that underlies science, proposing to replace it with a theistic science. The creationism controversy is not just about the status of Darwinian evolution--it is a clash of religious and philosophical worldviews, for a common underlying fear among Creationists is that evolution undermines both the basis of morality as they understand it and the possibility of purpose in life.In Tower of Babel, philosopher Robert T. Pennock compares the views of the new creationists with those of the old and reveals the insubstantiality of their arguments. One of Pennock's major innovations is to turn from biological evolution to the less charged subject of linguistic evolution, which has strong theoretical parallels with biological evolution, both in content and in the sort of evidence scientists use to draw conclusions about origins. Of course, an evolutionary view of language does conflict with the Bible, which says that God created the variety of languages at one time as punishment for the Tower of Babel.Several chapters deal with the work of Phillip Johnson, a highly influential leader of the new Creationists. Against his and other views, Pennock explains how science uses naturalism and discusses the relationship between factual and moral issues in the creationism-evolution controversy. The book also includes a discussion of Darwin's own shift from creationist to evolutionist and an extended argument for keeping private religious beliefs separate from public scientific knowledge.

@article{doi105860choice370278,
    title = "Tower of Babel: the evidence against the new creationism",
    year = "1999",
    journal = "Choice Reviews Online",
    abstract = "Creationism is no longer the simple notion it once was taken to be. Its new advocates have become more sophisticated in how they present their views, speaking of intelligent design rather than creation and aiming their arguments against the naturalistic philosophical method that underlies science, proposing to replace it with a theistic science. The creationism controversy is not just about the status of Darwinian evolution--it is a clash of religious and philosophical worldviews, for a common underlying fear among Creationists is that evolution undermines both the basis of morality as they understand it and the possibility of purpose in life.In Tower of Babel, philosopher Robert T. Pennock compares the views of the new creationists with those of the old and reveals the insubstantiality of their arguments. One of Pennock's major innovations is to turn from biological evolution to the less charged subject of linguistic evolution, which has strong theoretical parallels with biological evolution, both in content and in the sort of evidence scientists use to draw conclusions about origins. Of course, an evolutionary view of language does conflict with the Bible, which says that God created the variety of languages at one time as punishment for the Tower of Babel.Several chapters deal with the work of Phillip Johnson, a highly influential leader of the new Creationists. Against his and other views, Pennock explains how science uses naturalism and discusses the relationship between factual and moral issues in the creationism-evolution controversy. The book also includes a discussion of Darwin's own shift from creationist to evolutionist and an extended argument for keeping private religious beliefs separate from public scientific knowledge.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.37-0278",
    doi = "10.5860/choice.37-0278",
    openalex = "W1535451592"
}

In this lively, engaging book, Brown University professor Kenneth R. Miller offers a thoughtful, cutting-edge analysis of the debate between evolutionism and creationism. After refuting the claims of evolution's most vocal critics, he shows how Darwin's great insights continue to be valid and claims that evolution neither invalidates spiritual world views nor precludes a belief in God. Professor Miller argues that, properly understood, evolution actually adds more depth and meaning to the spiritual world. Brilliant, fast-paced, and thoughtful, this resolution of the issues that seem to divide God from evolution will serve as a guide to anyone interested in the classic questions of ultimate meaning and human origins.

@book{openalexw1569351806,
    author = "Miller, Kenneth R.",
    title = "Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution",
    year = "1999",
    booktitle = "DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library)",
    abstract = "In this lively, engaging book, Brown University professor Kenneth R. Miller offers a thoughtful, cutting-edge analysis of the debate between evolutionism and creationism. After refuting the claims of evolution's most vocal critics, he shows how Darwin's great insights continue to be valid and claims that evolution neither invalidates spiritual world views nor precludes a belief in God. Professor Miller argues that, properly understood, evolution actually adds more depth and meaning to the spiritual world. Brilliant, fast-paced, and thoughtful, this resolution of the issues that seem to divide God from evolution will serve as a guide to anyone interested in the classic questions of ultimate meaning and human origins.",
    openalex = "W1569351806"
}

@article{doi101006cogp20010749,
    author = "Evans, E. Margaret",
    title = "Cognitive and Contextual Factors in the Emergence of Diverse Belief Systems: Creation versus Evolution",
    year = "2001",
    journal = "Cognitive Psychology",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.2001.0749",
    doi = "10.1006/cogp.2001.0749",
    openalex = "W2172182392",
    references = "doi101016s0898122196900218, doi101017cbo9780511529863, doi101038315185a0, doi101093auk1002507, doi1043249781315006215, doi105860choice280612, doi105860choice295107, doi107551mitpress25240010001, larson1995the, openalexw1550375751, openalexw1594369375, openalexw2018528947, openalexw2074397232, robinson1995the"
}

Why is there still so much anti-evolution sentiment in the United States at the start of the Third Millennium? Why does the debate that began in 1859, when Charles Darwin successfully established the study of evolution, still rage in 2000? How can America tolerate the continued attack by conservative elements within the Judeo-Christian tradition on the quality of science education when science and its technological offshoots are so essential to our future well being and prosperity? Niles Eldredge, a leading expert on evolution and the diversity of life, has studied creationism and debated creationists for over two decades. Now, in The Triumph of Evolution, he presents the most up-to-date examination of the creation-evolution confrontation available. In this incisive narrative, he reveals the creationists' basic argument and their strategies for advancing it--including the recent attack on philosophical naturalism and emphasis on models of intelligent design by creationist Phillip Johnson and his colleagues. He also the charges that the study of evolution cannot be scientific or that it leads to the demise of family, religion, and traditional values. The Triumph of Evolution counters all these arguments with a simple overview of the evolutionary process--and a ringing declaration of the scientific nature of the study of evolution. Eldredge disavows the ongoing dissonance between science and religion and seeks instead a resonance in the pressing issue of catastrophic species loss on Earth. It is a problem that can be solved only if science and the adherents of the world's religious traditions pool their understanding, knowledge, and resources together. Ultimately, The Triumph of Evolution challenges all of us to leave the stale debates of the nineteenth century to confront the vital problems of the next century.

@article{doi105860choice383311,
    title = "The triumph of evolution: and the failure of creationism",
    year = "2001",
    journal = "Choice Reviews Online",
    abstract = "Why is there still so much anti-evolution sentiment in the United States at the start of the Third Millennium? Why does the debate that began in 1859, when Charles Darwin successfully established the study of evolution, still rage in 2000? How can America tolerate the continued attack by conservative elements within the Judeo-Christian tradition on the quality of science education when science and its technological offshoots are so essential to our future well being and prosperity? Niles Eldredge, a leading expert on evolution and the diversity of life, has studied creationism and debated creationists for over two decades. Now, in The Triumph of Evolution, he presents the most up-to-date examination of the creation-evolution confrontation available. In this incisive narrative, he reveals the creationists' basic argument and their strategies for advancing it--including the recent attack on philosophical naturalism and emphasis on models of intelligent design by creationist Phillip Johnson and his colleagues. He also the charges that the study of evolution cannot be scientific or that it leads to the demise of family, religion, and traditional values. The Triumph of Evolution counters all these arguments with a simple overview of the evolutionary process--and a ringing declaration of the scientific nature of the study of evolution. Eldredge disavows the ongoing dissonance between science and religion and seeks instead a resonance in the pressing issue of catastrophic species loss on Earth. It is a problem that can be solved only if science and the adherents of the world's religious traditions pool their understanding, knowledge, and resources together. Ultimately, The Triumph of Evolution challenges all of us to leave the stale debates of the nineteenth century to confront the vital problems of the next century.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.38-3311",
    doi = "10.5860/choice.38-3311",
    openalex = "W1575210154"
}

The last decade saw arrival of a new player in creation/evolution debate--the intelligent design creationism (IDC) movement, whose strategy is to act as the to overturn Darwinism and scientific naturalism. This anthology of writings by prominent creationists and their critics focuses on what is novel about new movement. It serves as a companion to Robert Pennock's Tower of Babel, in which he criticizes wedge movement, as well as other new varieties of creationism.The book contains articles previously published in specialized, hard-to-find journals, as well as new contributions. Each section contains introductory background information, articles by influential creationists and their critics, and in some cases responses by creationists. The discussions cover IDC as a political movement, IDC's philosophical attack on evolution, theological debate over apparent conflict between evolution and Bible, IDC's scientific claims, and philosopher Alvin Plantinga's critique of naturalism and evolution. The book concludes with Pennock's Why Creationism Should Not Be Taught in Public Schools.

@article{doi105860choice400857,
    title = "Intelligent design creationism and its critics: philosophical, theological, and scientific perspectives",
    year = "2002",
    journal = "Choice Reviews Online",
    abstract = "The last decade saw arrival of a new player in creation/evolution debate--the intelligent design creationism (IDC) movement, whose strategy is to act as the to overturn Darwinism and scientific naturalism. This anthology of writings by prominent creationists and their critics focuses on what is novel about new movement. It serves as a companion to Robert Pennock's Tower of Babel, in which he criticizes wedge movement, as well as other new varieties of creationism.The book contains articles previously published in specialized, hard-to-find journals, as well as new contributions. Each section contains introductory background information, articles by influential creationists and their critics, and in some cases responses by creationists. The discussions cover IDC as a political movement, IDC's philosophical attack on evolution, theological debate over apparent conflict between evolution and Bible, IDC's scientific claims, and philosopher Alvin Plantinga's critique of naturalism and evolution. The book concludes with Pennock's Why Creationism Should Not Be Taught in Public Schools.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.40-0857",
    doi = "10.5860/choice.40-0857",
    openalex = "W370690743",
    references = "doi101016s0003046515308016, doi101093owc97801995546520030079, doi105860choice296276, doi105860choice383311, openalexw1569351806"
}

Creationism, the rejection of evolution in favor of supernatural design, comes in many varieties besides the common young-earth Genesis version. Creationist attacks on science education have been evolving in the last few years through the alliance of different varieties. Instead of calls to teach "creation science," one now finds lobbying for "intelligent design" (ID). Guided by the Discovery Institute's "Wedge strategy," the ID movement aims to overturn evolution and what it sees as a pernicious materialist worldview and to renew a theistic foundation to Western culture, in which human beings are recognized as being created in the image of God. Common ID arguments involving scientific naturalism, "irreducible complexity," "complex specified information," and "icons of evolution," have been thoroughly examined and refuted. Nevertheless, from Kansas to Ohio to the U.S. Congress, ID continues lobbying to teach the controversy, and scientists need to be ready to defend good evolution education.

@article{doi101146annurevgenom4070802110400,
    author = "Pennock, Robert T.",
    title = "Creationism and Intelligent Design",
    year = "2003",
    journal = "Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics",
    abstract = {Creationism, the rejection of evolution in favor of supernatural design, comes in many varieties besides the common young-earth Genesis version. Creationist attacks on science education have been evolving in the last few years through the alliance of different varieties. Instead of calls to teach "creation science," one now finds lobbying for "intelligent design" (ID). Guided by the Discovery Institute's "Wedge strategy," the ID movement aims to overturn evolution and what it sees as a pernicious materialist worldview and to renew a theistic foundation to Western culture, in which human beings are recognized as being created in the image of God. Common ID arguments involving scientific naturalism, "irreducible complexity," "complex specified information," and "icons of evolution," have been thoroughly examined and refuted. Nevertheless, from Kansas to Ohio to the U.S. Congress, ID continues lobbying to teach the controversy, and scientists need to be ready to defend good evolution education.},
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.genom.4.070802.110400",
    doi = "10.1146/annurev.genom.4.070802.110400",
    openalex = "W2127931101",
    references = "crossref1984scientific, doi1010070306472155, doi101017cbo9780511570643, doi101038nature01568, doi10106312915455, doi101093oso97801985498330010001, doi1023074444260, doi105860choice400857, openalexw1523652513, openalexw1557693421, openalexw1569351806"
}

FOREWORD: The Unmetabolized Darwin ACKNOWLEDGMENTS PREFACE INTRODUCTION: The Pillars of Creationism PART I: Science, Evolution, Religion, and Creationism CHAPTER 1. Science: Truth Without Certainty CHAPTER 2. Evolution CHAPTER 3. Beliefs: Religion, Creationism, and Naturalism PART II: A History of the Creationism/Evolution Controversy CHAPTER 4. Before Darwin to the Twentieth Century CHAPTER 5. Eliminating Evolution, Inventing Creation Science CHAPTER 6. Neocreationism CHAPTER 7. Testing Intelligent Design and Evidence Against Evolution in the Courts PART III: Selections from the Literature CHAPTER 8. Cosmology, Astronomy, Geology CHAPTER 9. Patterns and Processes of Biological Evolution CHAPTER 10. Legal Issues CHAPTER 11. Educational Issues CHAPTER 12. Religious Issues CHAPTER 13. The Nature of Science CHAPTER 14. Creationism and Evolution in the Media REFERENCES FOR FURTHER EXPLORATION NAME INDEX SUBJECT INDEX

@article{doi105860choice425849,
    title = "Evolution vs. creationism: an introduction",
    year = "2005",
    journal = "Choice Reviews Online",
    abstract = "FOREWORD: The Unmetabolized Darwin ACKNOWLEDGMENTS PREFACE INTRODUCTION: The Pillars of Creationism PART I: Science, Evolution, Religion, and Creationism CHAPTER 1. Science: Truth Without Certainty CHAPTER 2. Evolution CHAPTER 3. Beliefs: Religion, Creationism, and Naturalism PART II: A History of the Creationism/Evolution Controversy CHAPTER 4. Before Darwin to the Twentieth Century CHAPTER 5. Eliminating Evolution, Inventing Creation Science CHAPTER 6. Neocreationism CHAPTER 7. Testing Intelligent Design and Evidence Against Evolution in the Courts PART III: Selections from the Literature CHAPTER 8. Cosmology, Astronomy, Geology CHAPTER 9. Patterns and Processes of Biological Evolution CHAPTER 10. Legal Issues CHAPTER 11. Educational Issues CHAPTER 12. Religious Issues CHAPTER 13. The Nature of Science CHAPTER 14. Creationism and Evolution in the Media REFERENCES FOR FURTHER EXPLORATION NAME INDEX SUBJECT INDEX",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.42-5849",
    doi = "10.5860/choice.42-5849",
    openalex = "W1570171665"
}

@article{crossref2007scientists,
    title = "Scientists confront intelligent design and creationism",
    year = "2007",
    journal = "Choice Reviews Online",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.44-6842",
    doi = "10.5860/choice.44-6842",
    number = "12",
    openalex = "W200016936",
    pages = "44-6842-44-6842",
    volume = "44"
}

=239) at a secular liberal arts private university in Northeastern United States responded to a five-question survey to assess their views about: (1) evolution, creationism, and intelligent design in the science class; (2) students' attitudes toward evolution; (3) students' position about the teaching of human evolution; (4) evolution in science exams; and (5) students' willingness to discuss evolution openly. There were 60.6% of biology majors and 42% of nonmajors supported the exclusive teaching of evolution in the science class, while 45.3% of nonmajors and 32% of majors were willing to learn equally about evolution, creationism, and intelligent design (question 1); 70.5% of biology majors and 55.6% of nonmajors valued the factual explanations evolution provides about the origin of life and its place in the universe (question 2); 78% of the combined responders (majors plus nonmajors) preferred science courses where evolution is discussed comprehensively and humans are part of it (question 3); 69% of the combined responders (majors plus nonmajors) had no problem answering questions concerning evolution in science exams (question 4); 48.1% of biology majors and 26.8% of nonmajors accepted evolution and expressed it openly, but 18.2% of the former and 14.2% of the latter accepted evolution privately; 46% of nonmajors and 29.1% of biology majors were reluctant to comment on this topic (question 5). Combined open plus private acceptance of evolution within biology majors increased with seniority, from freshman (60.7%) to seniors (81%), presumably due to gradual exposure to upper-division biology courses with evolutionary content. College curricular/pedagogical reform should fortify evolution literacy at all education levels, particularly among nonbiologists.

@article{doi101007s120520080096x,
    author = "Paz‐y‐Miño‐C, Guillermo and Espinosa, Avelina",
    title = "Assessment of Biology Majors’ Versus Nonmajors’ Views on Evolution, Creationism, and Intelligent Design",
    year = "2008",
    journal = "Evolution Education and Outreach",
    abstract = "=239) at a secular liberal arts private university in Northeastern United States responded to a five-question survey to assess their views about: (1) evolution, creationism, and intelligent design in the science class; (2) students' attitudes toward evolution; (3) students' position about the teaching of human evolution; (4) evolution in science exams; and (5) students' willingness to discuss evolution openly. There were 60.6\% of biology majors and 42\% of nonmajors supported the exclusive teaching of evolution in the science class, while 45.3\% of nonmajors and 32\% of majors were willing to learn equally about evolution, creationism, and intelligent design (question 1); 70.5\% of biology majors and 55.6\% of nonmajors valued the factual explanations evolution provides about the origin of life and its place in the universe (question 2); 78\% of the combined responders (majors plus nonmajors) preferred science courses where evolution is discussed comprehensively and humans are part of it (question 3); 69\% of the combined responders (majors plus nonmajors) had no problem answering questions concerning evolution in science exams (question 4); 48.1\% of biology majors and 26.8\% of nonmajors accepted evolution and expressed it openly, but 18.2\% of the former and 14.2\% of the latter accepted evolution privately; 46\% of nonmajors and 29.1\% of biology majors were reluctant to comment on this topic (question 5). Combined open plus private acceptance of evolution within biology majors increased with seniority, from freshman (60.7\%) to seniors (81\%), presumably due to gradual exposure to upper-division biology courses with evolutionary content. College curricular/pedagogical reform should fortify evolution literacy at all education levels, particularly among nonbiologists.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1007/s12052-008-0096-x",
    doi = "10.1007/s12052-008-0096-x",
    openalex = "W2097875464",
    references = "crossref2007scientists, doi101093acprofoso97801951574200010001, doi101126science1128374, doi102307jctvjsf433, doi105860choice396411, doi105860choice430409, doi105860choice445634, openalexw1487898100, openalexw1582498952, openalexw2414652543, openalexw573892296"
}

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), a peer reviewed journal of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) - an authoritative source of high-impact, original research that broadly spans the biological, physical, and social sciences.

@article{doi101073pnas0711608105,
    author = "Ayala, Francisco J.",
    title = "Science, evolution, and creationism",
    year = "2008",
    journal = "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences",
    abstract = "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), a peer reviewed journal of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) - an authoritative source of high-impact, original research that broadly spans the biological, physical, and social sciences.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0711608105",
    doi = "10.1073/pnas.0711608105",
    openalex = "W2149113029"
}

The strength of the evidence supporting evolution has increased markedly since the discovery of DNA but, paradoxically, public resistance to accepting evolution seems to have become stronger. A key dilemma is that science faculty have often continued to teach evolution ineffectively, even as the evidence that traditional ways of teaching are inferior has become stronger and stronger. Three pedagogical strategies that together can make a large difference in students' understanding and acceptance of evolution are extensive use of interactive engagement, a focus on critical thinking in science (especially on comparisons and explicit criteria) and using both of these in helping the students actively compare their initial conceptions (and publicly popular misconceptions) with more fully scientific conceptions. The conclusion that students' misconceptions must be dealt with systematically can be difficult for faculty who are teaching evolution since much of the students' resistance is framed in religious terms and one might be reluctant to address religious ideas in class. Applications to teaching evolution are illustrated with examples that address criteria and critical thinking, standard geology versus flood geology, evolutionary developmental biology versus organs of extreme perfection, and the importance of using humans as a central example. It is also helpful to bridge the false dichotomy, seen by many students, between atheistic evolution versus religious creationism. These applications are developed in detail and are intended to be sufficient to allow others to use these approaches in their teaching. Students and other faculty were quite supportive of these approaches as implemented in my classes.

@article{doi101093icbicn027,
    author = "Nelson, Craig E.",
    title = "Teaching evolution (and all of biology) more effectively: Strategies for engagement, critical reasoning, and confronting misconceptions",
    year = "2008",
    journal = "Integrative and Comparative Biology",
    abstract = "The strength of the evidence supporting evolution has increased markedly since the discovery of DNA but, paradoxically, public resistance to accepting evolution seems to have become stronger. A key dilemma is that science faculty have often continued to teach evolution ineffectively, even as the evidence that traditional ways of teaching are inferior has become stronger and stronger. Three pedagogical strategies that together can make a large difference in students' understanding and acceptance of evolution are extensive use of interactive engagement, a focus on critical thinking in science (especially on comparisons and explicit criteria) and using both of these in helping the students actively compare their initial conceptions (and publicly popular misconceptions) with more fully scientific conceptions. The conclusion that students' misconceptions must be dealt with systematically can be difficult for faculty who are teaching evolution since much of the students' resistance is framed in religious terms and one might be reluctant to address religious ideas in class. Applications to teaching evolution are illustrated with examples that address criteria and critical thinking, standard geology versus flood geology, evolutionary developmental biology versus organs of extreme perfection, and the importance of using humans as a central example. It is also helpful to bridge the false dichotomy, seen by many students, between atheistic evolution versus religious creationism. These applications are developed in detail and are intended to be sufficient to allow others to use these approaches in their teaching. Students and other faculty were quite supportive of these approaches as implemented in my classes.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/icn027",
    doi = "10.1093/icb/icn027",
    openalex = "W2167513161",
    references = "openalexw1569351806"
}

Despite many legal and legislative decisions, a new study shows that one in eight high school biology instructors teach their students that creationism or intelligent design is a valid alternative to evolutionary biology.

@article{doi101371journalpbio0060124,
    author = "Berkman, Michael and Pacheco, Julianna Sandell and Plutzer, Eric",
    title = "Evolution and Creationism in America's Classrooms: A National Portrait",
    year = "2008",
    journal = "PLoS Biology",
    abstract = "Despite many legal and legislative decisions, a new study shows that one in eight high school biology instructors teach their students that creationism or intelligent design is a valid alternative to evolutionary biology.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0060124",
    doi = "10.1371/journal.pbio.0060124",
    openalex = "W2057308114",
    references = "doi101002tea20027, doi101126science1126746, doi1016620002768520020640021hsbtks20co2, doi1016620002768520050670457ttoeci20co2, doi1023072998636, doi1041599780674042971, doi10540800221368432102, openalexw1540827035, openalexw1561945099, openalexw2920842814"
}

The responses of biology majors in their first year of college differed significantly from those of first-year non-biology majors on only 3 of the 20 items on the Measure of Acceptance of the Theory of Evolution survey instrument. Despite these differences, and regardless of whether students were or were not biology majors, several findings from the survey stand out: (a) surprisingly high percentages of students accepted creationism-based claims, (b) students' views of evolution and creationism when they entered college were strongly associated with the treatment of evolution and creationism in the students' high-school biology classes, and (c) on average, incoming biology majors' views of evolution and creationism were similar to those of nonmajors. In this article, these results are discussed relative to the ongoing popularity of creationism among biology majors and biology teachers.

@article{doi101525bio200959510,
    author = "Moore, Randy and Cotner, Sehoya",
    title = "The Creationist Down the Hall: Does It Matter When Teachers Teach Creationism?",
    year = "2009",
    journal = "BioScience",
    abstract = "The responses of biology majors in their first year of college differed significantly from those of first-year non-biology majors on only 3 of the 20 items on the Measure of Acceptance of the Theory of Evolution survey instrument. Despite these differences, and regardless of whether students were or were not biology majors, several findings from the survey stand out: (a) surprisingly high percentages of students accepted creationism-based claims, (b) students' views of evolution and creationism when they entered college were strongly associated with the treatment of evolution and creationism in the students' high-school biology classes, and (c) on average, incoming biology majors' views of evolution and creationism were similar to those of nonmajors. In this article, these results are discussed relative to the ongoing popularity of creationism among biology majors and biology teachers.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2009.59.5.10",
    doi = "10.1525/bio.2009.59.5.10",
    openalex = "W2112363278",
    references = "doi101002sce10105, doi101002tea3660290205, doi101111j15585646200700276x, doi101146annurevgenom4070802110400, doi101371journalpbio0060124, doi1016620002768520000620023ettnos20co2, doi1016620002768520020640021hsbtks20co2, doi1016620002768520040660419iwtiam20co2, doi10166200027685200769332rotmoa20co2, doi1023074448445, openalexw573892296"
}

faculty=2.48 and students=1.65) than the students. Because attitudes toward evolution correlate (1) positively with understanding of science/evolution and (2) negatively with religiosity/political ideology, we conclude that science education combined with vigorous public debate should suffice to increase acceptance of naturalistic rationalism and decrease the negative impact of creationism and ID on society's evolution literacy.

@article{doi101007s120520100298x,
    author = "Paz‐y‐Miño‐C, Guillermo and Espinosa, Avelina",
    title = "New England Faculty and College Students Differ in Their Views About Evolution, Creationism, Intelligent Design, and Religiosity",
    year = "2010",
    journal = "Evolution Education and Outreach",
    abstract = "faculty=2.48 and students=1.65) than the students. Because attitudes toward evolution correlate (1) positively with understanding of science/evolution and (2) negatively with religiosity/political ideology, we conclude that science education combined with vigorous public debate should suffice to increase acceptance of naturalistic rationalism and decrease the negative impact of creationism and ID on society's evolution literacy.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1007/s12052-010-0298-x",
    doi = "10.1007/s12052-010-0298-x",
    openalex = "W2161636214",
    references = "apple2008evolution, crossref2007scientists, doi101002tea3660270503, doi101007s1097200790627, doi101007s1205200901757, doi101007s1205201002331, doi1010160016003257907664, doi10103828478, doi1010970000505319570700000032, doi101126science1126746, doi1023073498751, doi105860choice425849, doi105860choice473136, openalexw1582498952"
}

Sixty percent of U.S. high school biology teachers are not advocates for either evolutionary biology or nonscientific alternatives.

@article{doi101126science1198902,
    author = "Berkman, Michael and Plutzer, Eric",
    title = "Defeating Creationism in the Courtroom, But Not in the Classroom",
    year = "2011",
    journal = "Science",
    abstract = "Sixty percent of U.S. high school biology teachers are not advocates for either evolutionary biology or nonscientific alternatives.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1198902",
    doi = "10.1126/science.1198902",
    openalex = "W2078411385",
    references = "doi101002tea20150, doi101017cbo9780511760914, doi101017s153759270999082x, doi101093poqnfn034, doi101146annurevgenom082509141815, doi101371journalpbio0060124, doi1016620002768520020640021hsbtks20co2, doi1023074451231, doi10540800221368432102, doi105860choice486571"
}

Introduction 1. Who should decide what children are taught? 2. The public speaks: 'teach both' 3. A nation divided by religion, education, and place 4. Is evolution fit for polite company?: science standards in the American states 5. Teachers and what they teach 6. State standards meet street level bureaucracy 7. When the personal becomes pedagogical 8. Teachers in their schools and communities 9. The battle for America's classrooms.

@article{doi105860choice486571,
    author = "Berkman, Michael B. 1960- and Plutzer, Eric 1958-",
    title = "Evolution, creationism, and the battle to control America's classrooms",
    year = "2011",
    journal = "Choice Reviews Online",
    abstract = "Introduction 1. Who should decide what children are taught? 2. The public speaks: 'teach both' 3. A nation divided by religion, education, and place 4. Is evolution fit for polite company?: science standards in the American states 5. Teachers and what they teach 6. State standards meet street level bureaucracy 7. When the personal becomes pedagogical 8. Teachers in their schools and communities 9. The battle for America's classrooms.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.48-6571",
    doi = "10.5860/choice.48-6571",
    openalex = "W1967884940",
    references = "doi101086257839, doi101371journalpbio0060124, doi1016620002768520050670457ttoeci20co2, doi1023072074664, doi1023072095325, doi1023072655098, doi1023074444260, doi1041599780674042971, doi104324978020350598410, doi10540800221368432102, doi105860choice274796, doi107312grau91070013, larson1995the, openalexw1507004422, openalexw1561945099, openalexw2920842814"
}

This position paper argues that students' understanding and acceptance of evolution may be supported, rather than hindered, by classroom discussion of creationism. Parallels are drawn between creationism and other scientific misconceptions, both of the scientific community in the past and of students in the present. Science teachers frequently handle their students' misconceptions as they arise by offering appropriate socio-cognitive conflict, which highlights reasons to disbelieve one idea and to believe another. It is argued that this way of working, rather than outlawing discussion, is more scientific and more honest. Scientific truth does not win the day by attempting to deny its opponents a voice but by engaging them with evidence. Teachers can be confident that evolution has nothing to fear from a free and frank discussion in which claims can be rebutted with evidence. Such an approach is accessible to children of all ages and is ultimately more likely to drive out pre-scientific superstitions. It also models the scientific process more authentically and develops students' ability to think critically.

@article{doi101080095006932012692102,
    author = "Foster, Colin",
    title = "Creationism as a Misconception: Socio-cognitive conflict in the teaching of evolution",
    year = "2012",
    journal = "International Journal of Science Education",
    abstract = "This position paper argues that students' understanding and acceptance of evolution may be supported, rather than hindered, by classroom discussion of creationism. Parallels are drawn between creationism and other scientific misconceptions, both of the scientific community in the past and of students in the present. Science teachers frequently handle their students' misconceptions as they arise by offering appropriate socio-cognitive conflict, which highlights reasons to disbelieve one idea and to believe another. It is argued that this way of working, rather than outlawing discussion, is more scientific and more honest. Scientific truth does not win the day by attempting to deny its opponents a voice but by engaging them with evidence. Teachers can be confident that evolution has nothing to fear from a free and frank discussion in which claims can be rebutted with evidence. Such an approach is accessible to children of all ages and is ultimately more likely to drive out pre-scientific superstitions. It also models the scientific process more authentically and develops students' ability to think critically.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.692102",
    doi = "10.1080/09500693.2012.692102",
    openalex = "W2028410225",
    references = "doi10100210982736200008376582aidtea530co2l, doi101002sce20065, doi101002sici1098237x200005843287aidsce130co2a, doi101021ed048p284, doi10108003057260208560187, doi101146annurevgenom4070802110400, doi101207s15324818ame15035, doi101207s15326985ep39012, doi1023072181652, doi1031020013189x023007013, doi1043249780203454220"
}

@article{doi101007s1116501897463,
    author = "Archila, Pablo Antonio and Molina, Jorge",
    title = "Evolution and Creationism: Views of Students in a Colombian University—Findings from 7 Years of Data Using a Three-Question Survey",
    year = "2018",
    journal = "Research in Science Education",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9746-3",
    doi = "10.1007/s11165-018-9746-3",
    openalex = "W2884633857",
    references = "doi101007s120520100298x"
}

This article examines religious language in a contested public sphere by analyzing performances of linguistic creativity among creationists in the United States. The public creation‐evolution debate has been a central speech event in the development of modern creationism, and functions as a key site for claiming cultural legitimacy. Focusing on three creation‐evolution debates spanning 33 years, I advance the concept of “creationist poetics” to capture how framing, stance taking, and speech play define the performance repertoire of creationists in the debate context. In particular, I illustrate how creationist speakers work to create a conspiracy‐populist frame and a revealer stance. Together, these strategies sketch a lifeworld that envisions elitist “secular” actors suppressing scriptural authority and creationists as humble, clear‐eyed people exposing the conspiracy through scriptural fidelity. I argue that this system of poetics is a key expressive resource in the ongoing struggle to wrest authority away from evolutionary science and claim it for biblical fundamentalism. Ultimately, this analysis of creationist poetics informs our understanding of how authority as a contingent social process is discursively mediated, a central theme in the study of both religious and political language.

@article{doi101111jola12205,
    author = "Bielo, James S.",
    title = "“Particles‐to‐People…Molecules‐to‐Man”: Creationist Poetics in Public Debates",
    year = "2019",
    journal = "Journal of Linguistic Anthropology",
    abstract = "This article examines religious language in a contested public sphere by analyzing performances of linguistic creativity among creationists in the United States. The public creation‐evolution debate has been a central speech event in the development of modern creationism, and functions as a key site for claiming cultural legitimacy. Focusing on three creation‐evolution debates spanning 33 years, I advance the concept of “creationist poetics” to capture how framing, stance taking, and speech play define the performance repertoire of creationists in the debate context. In particular, I illustrate how creationist speakers work to create a conspiracy‐populist frame and a revealer stance. Together, these strategies sketch a lifeworld that envisions elitist “secular” actors suppressing scriptural authority and creationists as humble, clear‐eyed people exposing the conspiracy through scriptural fidelity. I argue that this system of poetics is a key expressive resource in the ongoing struggle to wrest authority away from evolutionary science and claim it for biblical fundamentalism. Ultimately, this analysis of creationist poetics informs our understanding of how authority as a contingent social process is discursively mediated, a central theme in the study of both religious and political language.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1111/jola.12205",
    doi = "10.1111/jola.12205",
    openalex = "W2945888056",
    references = "robinson1995the"
}

There is substantial body of literature in science education focusing on students’ understanding of the theory of evolution by natural selection. However, despite decades of research on the evolution versus creationism debate there is still widespread concern that particular misconceptions about evolution persist. The study aimed to recalibrate the evolution versus creationism debate by engaging students in an argumentation task where students can interpret evidence and reasons for why either position is justified or not, and on what basis. A card sort activity used to investigate the students’ use of evidence and reasons. A sample of 77 students with an average age of 13 participated in the study in England in the context of a funded research project. The findings pointed to challenges and opportunities in teaching and learning of evolution through an argumentation task where alternative perspectives are drawn from both science and religious education. Furthermore, they illustrated how argumentation tasks can potentially provide a context for students to explore cross-subject topics. Research about the immersion of students in tasks that support their argumentation can generate understanding of students’ reasoning, and ultimately such research may lead to the design of lesson resources to support students’ engagement in science.

@article{doi1010800950069320212004330,
    author = "Guilfoyle, Liam and Erduran, Sibel",
    title = "Recalibrating the evolution versus creationism debate for student learning: towards students’ evaluation of evidence in an argumentation task",
    year = "2021",
    journal = "International Journal of Science Education",
    abstract = "There is substantial body of literature in science education focusing on students’ understanding of the theory of evolution by natural selection. However, despite decades of research on the evolution versus creationism debate there is still widespread concern that particular misconceptions about evolution persist. The study aimed to recalibrate the evolution versus creationism debate by engaging students in an argumentation task where students can interpret evidence and reasons for why either position is justified or not, and on what basis. A card sort activity used to investigate the students’ use of evidence and reasons. A sample of 77 students with an average age of 13 participated in the study in England in the context of a funded research project. The findings pointed to challenges and opportunities in teaching and learning of evolution through an argumentation task where alternative perspectives are drawn from both science and religious education. Furthermore, they illustrated how argumentation tasks can potentially provide a context for students to explore cross-subject topics. Research about the immersion of students in tasks that support their argumentation can generate understanding of students’ reasoning, and ultimately such research may lead to the design of lesson resources to support students’ engagement in science.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2021.2004330",
    doi = "10.1080/09500693.2021.2004330",
    openalex = "W3214723409",
    references = "doi101080095006932012692102"
}