Creationists

@misc{huxley1885the58,
    author = "Huxley, T. H",
    title = "The interpreters of Genesis and the interpreters of Nature",
    year = "1885",
    howpublished = "The Nineteenth Century",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Huxley, T. H., 1885, The interpreters of Genesis and the interpreters of Nature: The Nineteenth Century.}"
}

@book{jevons1910the60,
    author = "Jevons, F. B",
    title = "The Idea of God in Early Religions",
    year = "1910",
    publisher = "Cambridge, Cambridge University Press",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Jevons, F. B., 1910, The Idea of God in Early Religions: Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.}"
}

@misc{strachan1911encyclopedia113,
    author = "Strachan, J",
    title = "Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics",
    year = "1911",
    howpublished = "New York, Scribner's \& Sons, v. 4",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Strachan, J., 1911, Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics: New York, Scribner's \& Sons, v. 4.}"
}

@book{wright1960a122,
    author = "Wright, A. D",
    title = "A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom",
    year = "1960",
    publisher = "New York, Dover Publications; 2 Volumes",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Wright, A. D., 1960, A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom: New York, Dover Publications; 2 Volumes.}"
}

@misc{mayr1971evolution65,
    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.}"
}

@book{gish1972evolution38,
    author = "Gish, D. T",
    title = "Evolution? - The Fossils Say No!",
    year = "1972",
    publisher = "San Diego, Ca., Creation- life Publishers",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Gish, D. T., 1972, Evolution? - The Fossils Say No!: San Diego, Ca., Creation- life Publishers.}"
}

@book{morris1972the74,
    author = "Morris, H. M",
    title = "The Remarkable Birth of the Planet Earth",
    year = "1972",
    publisher = "San Diego, Creation-Life Publishers",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Morris, H. M., 1972, The Remarkable Birth of the Planet Earth: San Diego, Creation-Life Publishers.}"
}

@misc{ferre1973design27,
    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{gish1973creation39,
    author = "Gish, D. T",
    title = "Creation, Evolution and the Historical Evidence, in Ruse, M., ed., But Is It Science? The Philosophical Question in the Creation/Evolution Controversy",
    year = "1973",
    howpublished = "Buffalo, New York, Prometheus Books, p. 266-288",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Gish, D. T., 1973, Creation, Evolution and the Historical Evidence, in Ruse, M., ed., But Is It Science? The Philosophical Question in the Creation/Evolution Controversy: Buffalo, New York, Prometheus Books, p. 266-288.}"
}

@misc{morris1973untitled91,
    author = "Morris, H. M",
    title = "(?), Evolution, thermodynamics, and entropy",
    year = "1973",
    howpublished = "ICR Impact Series, v. 3, p. (pages not numbered)",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Morris, H. M., 1973 (?), Evolution, thermodynamics, and entropy: ICR Impact Series, v. 3, p. (pages not numbered).}"
}

@misc{gish1974the40,
    author = "Gish, D. T",
    title = "The solar system--new discoveries produce new mysteries",
    year = "1974",
    howpublished = "ICR Impact Series, v. 15, p. i-iv",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Gish, D. T., 1974, The solar system--new discoveries produce new mysteries: ICR Impact Series, v. 15, p. i-iv.}"
}

@misc{morris1974the75,
    author = "Morris, H. M",
    title = "The young earth",
    year = "1974",
    howpublished = "ICR Impact Series, v. 17, p. i-iv",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Morris, H. M., 1974, The young earth: ICR Impact Series, v. 17, p. i-iv.}"
}

@misc{morris1975language76,
    author = "Morris, H. M",
    title = "Language, creation, and the inner man",
    year = "1975",
    howpublished = "ICR Impact Series, v. 28, p. i-iv",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Morris, H. M., 1975, Language, creation, and the inner man: ICR Impact Series, v. 28, p. i-iv.}"
}

@misc{gish1976origin41,
    author = "Gish, D. T",
    title = "Origin of life",
    year = "1976",
    howpublished = "critique of early stage chemical evolution theories: ICR Impact Series, v. 31, p. i-iv",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Gish, D. T., 1976, Origin of life: critique of early stage chemical evolution theories: ICR Impact Series, v. 31, p. i-iv.}"
}

@misc{gish1976origin42,
    author = "Gish, D. T",
    title = "Origin of life",
    year = "1976",
    howpublished = "The Fox thermal model of the origin of life: ICR Impact Series, v. 33, p. i-iv",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Gish, D. T., 1976, Origin of life: The Fox thermal model of the origin of life: ICR Impact Series, v. 33, p. i-iv.}"
}

@misc{gish1976the43,
    author = "Gish, D. T",
    title = "The origin of life",
    year = "1976",
    howpublished = "Theories on the origin of biological order: ICR Impact Series, v. 37, p. i-iv",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Gish, D. T., 1976, The origin of life: Theories on the origin of biological order: ICR Impact Series, v. 37, p. i-iv.}"
}

@misc{morris1976entropy77,
    author = "Morris, H. M",
    title = "Entropy and Open Systems",
    year = "1976",
    howpublished = "Acts and Facts; Impact \#40",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Morris, H. M., 1976, Entropy and Open Systems: Acts and Facts; Impact \#40.}"
}

@misc{morris1976the92,
    author = "Morris, J. D",
    title = "The Paluxy River tracks",
    year = "1976",
    howpublished = "ICR Impact Series, v. 35, p. i- viii",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Morris, J. D., 1976, The Paluxy River tracks: ICR Impact Series, v. 35, p. i- viii.}"
}

@misc{morris1976up78,
    author = "Morris, H. M",
    title = "Up with catastrophism!",
    year = "1976",
    howpublished = "ICR Impact Series, v. 38, p. i-iv",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Morris, H. M., 1976, Up with catastrophism!: ICR Impact Series, v. 38, p. i-iv.}"
}

@misc{nevins1976continental97,
    author = "Nevins, S. E",
    title = "Continental drift, plate tectonics, and the Bible",
    year = "1976",
    howpublished = "ICR Impact Series, no. 32; i-iv",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Nevins, S. E., 1976, Continental drift, plate tectonics, and the Bible: ICR Impact Series, no. 32; i-iv.}"
}

@misc{nevins1976the98,
    author = "Nevins, S. E",
    title = "The origin of coal",
    year = "1976",
    howpublished = "ICR Impact Series, v. 41, p. i-iv",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Nevins, S. E., 1976, The origin of coal: ICR Impact Series, v. 41, p. i-iv.}"
}

@misc{bergman1977albert13,
    author = "Bergman, J",
    title = "Albert Szent-Georgyi's theory of syntropy and creationism",
    year = "1977",
    howpublished = "ICR Impact Series, v. 54, p. i-iv",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Bergman, J., 1977, Albert Szent-Georgyi's theory of syntropy and creationism: ICR Impact Series, v. 54, p. i-iv.}"
}

@book{gish1977dinosaurs44,
    author = "Gish, D. T",
    title = "Dinosaurs",
    year = "1977",
    publisher = "Those Terrible Lizards: El Cajon, California, Master Books [a.k.a. Creation-Life Publishers], 62 p",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Gish, D. T., 1977, Dinosaurs: Those Terrible Lizards: El Cajon, California, Master Books [a.k.a. Creation-Life Publishers], 62 p.}"
}

@misc{morris1977circular79,
    author = "Morris, H. M",
    title = "Circular reasoning in evolutionary geology",
    year = "1977",
    howpublished = "ICR Impact Series, v. 48, p. i-iv",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Morris, H. M., 1977, Circular reasoning in evolutionary geology: ICR Impact Series, v. 48, p. i-iv.}"
}

@misc{acton1978bone3,
    author = "Acton, R. K",
    title = {Bone disease simulating ancient age in "pre-human" fossils},
    year = "1978",
    howpublished = "ICR Impact Series, no. 59, p. i-iv",
    note = {talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Acton, R. K., 1978, Bone disease simulating ancient age in "pre-human" fossils: ICR Impact Series, no. 59, p. i-iv.}}
}

@misc{gish1978thermodymanics45,
    author = "Gish, D. T",
    title = "Thermodymanics and the origin of life (Part II)",
    year = "1978",
    howpublished = "ICR Impact Series, v. 58, p. i-iv",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Gish, D. T., 1978, Thermodymanics and the origin of life (Part II): ICR Impact Series, v. 58, p. i-iv.}"
}

@misc{morris1978the80,
    author = "Morris, H. M",
    title = "The day-age theory revisited",
    year = "1978",
    howpublished = "ICR Impact Series, v. 55, p. i-iv",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Morris, H. M., 1978, The day-age theory revisited: ICR Impact Series, v. 55, p. i-iv.}"
}

@misc{morris1978thermodynamics81,
    author = "Morris, H. M",
    title = "Thermodynamics and the origin of life",
    year = "1978",
    howpublished = "ICR Impact Series, v. 57, p. i-iv",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Morris, H. M., 1978, Thermodynamics and the origin of life: ICR Impact Series, v. 57, p. i-iv.}"
}

@misc{slusher1978the109,
    author = "Slusher, H. S",
    title = "The origin of the universe",
    year = "1978",
    howpublished = "an examination of the big-bang and steady-state cosmogenies: ICR Technical Monograph, v. 8; Institute for Creation Research, 50 pp",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Slusher, H. S., 1978, The origin of the universe: an examination of the big-bang and steady-state cosmogenies: ICR Technical Monograph, v. 8; Institute for Creation Research, 50 pp.}"
}

@misc{deyoung1979the22,
    author = "DeYoung, D. B",
    title = "The moon",
    year = "1979",
    howpublished = "A faithful witness in the sky: ICR Impact Series, v. 68, p. i-iv",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {DeYoung, D. B., 1979, The moon: A faithful witness in the sky: ICR Impact Series, v. 68, p. i-iv.}"
}

@book{gillespie1979charles37,
    author = "Gillespie, N. C",
    title = "Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation",
    year = "1979",
    publisher = "Chicago, Illinois, University of Chicago Press",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Gillespie, N. C., 1979, Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation: Chicago, Illinois, University of Chicago Press.}"
}

@misc{akridge1980the4,
    author = "Akridge, R",
    title = "The sun is shrinking",
    year = "1980",
    howpublished = "ICR Impact Series, no. 82, p. i-iv",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Akridge, R., 1980, The sun is shrinking: ICR Impact Series, no. 82, p. i-iv.}"
}

@misc{austin1980origin6,
    author = "Austin, S. A",
    title = "Origin of limestone caverns",
    year = "1980",
    howpublished = "ICR Impact Series, no. 79, p. i-iv",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Austin, S. A., 1980, Origin of limestone caverns: ICR Impact Series, no. 79, p. i-iv.}"
}

@misc{cumming1980extinction20,
    author = "Cumming, K. B",
    title = "Extinction",
    year = "1980",
    howpublished = "ICR Impact Series, no. 84, p. i-iv",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Cumming, K. B., 1980, Extinction: ICR Impact Series, no. 84, p. i-iv.}"
}

@misc{gish1980the46,
    author = "Gish, D. T",
    title = "The origin of mammals",
    year = "1980",
    howpublished = "ICR Impact Series, v. 87, p. i-viii",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Gish, D. T., 1980, The origin of mammals: ICR Impact Series, v. 87, p. i-viii.}"
}

@book{parker1980the102,
    author = "Parker, G. E",
    title = "The Facts of Life",
    year = "1980",
    publisher = "San Diego, Ca., Creation-Life Publishers",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Parker, G. E., 1980, The Facts of Life: San Diego, Ca., Creation-Life Publishers.}"
}

@misc{slusher1980age110,
    author = "Slusher, H. S",
    title = "Age of the cosmos",
    year = "1980",
    howpublished = "ICR Technical Monograph, v. 9; Institute for Creation Research, 76 pp",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Slusher, H. S., 1980, Age of the cosmos: ICR Technical Monograph, v. 9; Institute for Creation Research, 76 pp.}"
}

@misc{weber1980common118,
    author = "Weber, C. G",
    title = "Common Creationist Attacks on Geology",
    year = "1980",
    howpublished = "Creation/Evolution, v. 2, p. 10-25",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Weber, C. G., 1980, Common Creationist Attacks on Geology: Creation/Evolution, v. 2, p. 10-25.}"
}

@misc{barnes1981depletion10,
    author = "Barnes, T. G",
    title = "Depletion of the Earth's magnetic field",
    year = "1981",
    howpublished = "ICR Impact Series, v. 100, p. i-iv",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Barnes, T. G., 1981, Depletion of the Earth's magnetic field: ICR Impact Series, v. 100, p. i-iv.}"
}

@article{broad1981creationists,
    author = "Broad, William J.",
    title = "Creationists Limit Scope of Evolution Case",
    year = "1981",
    journal = "Science",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7209512",
    doi = "10.1126/science.7209512",
    number = "4488",
    openalex = "W2039934714",
    pages = "1331-1332",
    volume = "211",
    references = "doi101126science211447735, doi101126science6107993"
}

@misc{darnbrough1981creationism21,
    author = "Darnbrough, C. and Goddard, J. and Stevely, W. S",
    title = "Creationism",
    year = "1981",
    howpublished = "Nature, v. 294, no. 5839, p. 302",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Darnbrough, C., Goddard, J., and Stevely, W. S., 1981, Creationism: Nature, v. 294, no. 5839, p. 302.}"
}

@phdthesis{fox1981creationism29,
    author = "Fox, S. W",
    title = "Creationism, the random hypothesis and experiments",
    year = "1981",
    publisher = "Science, v. 213, p. 290",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Fox, S. W., 1981, Creationism, the random hypothesis and experiments: Science, v. 213, p. 290.}"
}

@misc{gish1981the47,
    author = "Gish, D. T",
    title = "The mammal-like reptiles",
    year = "1981",
    howpublished = "ICR Impact Series, v. 102, p. i-viii",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Gish, D. T., 1981, The mammal-like reptiles: ICR Impact Series, v. 102, p. i-viii.}"
}

@misc{hailman1981creation52,
    author = "Hailman, J. P",
    title = "Creation Stories",
    year = "1981",
    howpublished = "BioScience, v. 32, p. 120-130",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Hailman, J. P., 1981, Creation Stories: BioScience, v. 32, p. 120-130.}"
}

@misc{milne1981how72,
    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{austin1982did7,
    author = "Austin, S. A",
    title = "Did the Earth have a reducing atmosphere?",
    year = "1982",
    howpublished = "ICR Impact Series, no. 109, p. i-iv",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Austin, S. A., 1982, Did the Earth have a reducing atmosphere?: ICR Impact Series, no. 109, p. i-iv.}"
}

@misc{barnes1982young11,
    author = "Barnes, T. G",
    title = "Young age for the moon and earth",
    year = "1982",
    howpublished = "ICR Impact Series, v. 110, p. i-iv",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Barnes, T. G., 1982, Young age for the moon and earth: ICR Impact Series, v. 110, p. i-iv.}"
}

CREATIONISTS IN COURT: SACRAMENTO, 1981 THOMAS H. JUKES* Evolution versus Creationism in California Legal action was brought against the State??California by Segraves et al., starting in 1979 and coming to trial in March 1981. On January 6, 1981, I received a telephone call from Mr. Robert Tyler, Deputy Attorney General, State of California, who made an appointment with me in my office for the following day. He asked me to serve as his consultant in the trial, to which I consented, because I was the coauthor, with Dr. Richard Lemmon, of appendix A in the Science Framework for Public SchooL·. This document, published in 1978 by the California State Board of Education [1], is intended for kindergarten and grades one through twelve. The introduction, by Dr. Wilson Riles, Superintendent of Public Instruction, says the Framework is intended to "give form and shape, strength and unity to all aspects of... public education." Dr. Riles also says that he hopes that the Framework will help teachers "in their most important work of enriching lives and showing each child his or her place as caretaker in the world of living things." Appendix A gives examples of "major conceptual organizations of scientific knowledge," including evolution, and it was to sections of this that the plaintiffs had directed their complaint. Lemmon and I were appointed to the Science Framework committee for writing the publication by Dr. Junji Kumamoto, who was chairperson of the appropriate governing committee. He had invited us tojoin following our participation in public hearings on the teaching of evolution held in Sacramento in December 1972 [2, pp. 55-64; 3]. Tyler, who is 33 years old and correspondingly energetic, asked me for help in getting scientific witnesses. My first call was to Dr. Carl Sagan, who readily consented. I then called Dr. Arthur Kornberg, who also agreed to serve. I made similar requests to Drs. Richard Dickerson, Norman Horowitz, David Wake, Watson Laetsch, Russell Doolittle, *Space Sciences Laboratory and Department of Biophysics and Medical Physics, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720.© 1982 by The University of Chicago. AU rights reserved 003 1-5982/82/2502-0282$01.00 Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 25, 2 ¦ Winter 1982 | 207 Everett Olson, C. Rainer Berger and Reverend Julian Bartlett, all of whom consented. Tyler followed up these calls and also called Lemmon and Drs. William Mayer and Brent Dalrymple, obtaining their consent. He also "recruited" several eminent clergymen of various faiths in addition to Bartlett, and other people in the teaching profession to serve as witnesses. The trial started on Monday, March 2, in the Superior Court of the State of California, Sacramento, Judge Irving Perluss presiding. The plaintiffs, Segraves et al., were represented in court by Richard K. Turner. The complaint contained 41 numbered paragraphs. Two of these were as follows: 20.The evolutionary theory of the origin of man and of all plant and animal life is at odds with, is hostile to and contributes a repugnant coercion against the religious beliefs of plaintiffs. 2 1. Scientific creationism is compatible and coincides with the religious beliefs of plaintiffs, said belief, based upon scientific principles, being that there was a time in the past when all matter, energy and man and all plant and animal life, and their processes and relationships were created ex nihilo and fixed by creative and intelligent design. The complaint also stated that the action ofthe State ofCalifornia forced taxpayers to support "an unconstitutional establishment of the Religion of Secular Humanism, which said establishment ofreligion is an extreme contravention of said plaintiff's freedom of religion." The complaint demanded that all copies of the 1978 Science Framework be recalled and that the Science Framework be revised "to reflect the constitutionally mandated approach of neutrality concerning the teaching of the origins of life." History The following appears in The War on Modern Science, by Maynard Shipley: "The war on science in California first took on a serious aspect in July 1924, when a group of Fundamentalists protested to the State Board of Education against the use in the high schools and junior colleges of textbooks teaching evolution, on the ground that 'Darwinism is clearly subversive to Christianity' " [4, p...

@article{doi101353pbm19820036,
    author = "Jukes, Thomas H.",
    title = "Creationists in Court: Sacramento, 1981",
    year = "1982",
    journal = "Perspectives in biology and medicine",
    abstract = {CREATIONISTS IN COURT: SACRAMENTO, 1981 THOMAS H. JUKES* Evolution versus Creationism in California Legal action was brought against the State??California by Segraves et al., starting in 1979 and coming to trial in March 1981. On January 6, 1981, I received a telephone call from Mr. Robert Tyler, Deputy Attorney General, State of California, who made an appointment with me in my office for the following day. He asked me to serve as his consultant in the trial, to which I consented, because I was the coauthor, with Dr. Richard Lemmon, of appendix A in the Science Framework for Public SchooL·. This document, published in 1978 by the California State Board of Education [1], is intended for kindergarten and grades one through twelve. The introduction, by Dr. Wilson Riles, Superintendent of Public Instruction, says the Framework is intended to "give form and shape, strength and unity to all aspects of... public education." Dr. Riles also says that he hopes that the Framework will help teachers "in their most important work of enriching lives and showing each child his or her place as caretaker in the world of living things." Appendix A gives examples of "major conceptual organizations of scientific knowledge," including evolution, and it was to sections of this that the plaintiffs had directed their complaint. Lemmon and I were appointed to the Science Framework committee for writing the publication by Dr. Junji Kumamoto, who was chairperson of the appropriate governing committee. He had invited us tojoin following our participation in public hearings on the teaching of evolution held in Sacramento in December 1972 [2, pp. 55-64; 3]. Tyler, who is 33 years old and correspondingly energetic, asked me for help in getting scientific witnesses. My first call was to Dr. Carl Sagan, who readily consented. I then called Dr. Arthur Kornberg, who also agreed to serve. I made similar requests to Drs. Richard Dickerson, Norman Horowitz, David Wake, Watson Laetsch, Russell Doolittle, *Space Sciences Laboratory and Department of Biophysics and Medical Physics, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720.© 1982 by The University of Chicago. AU rights reserved 003 1-5982/82/2502-0282$01.00 Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 25, 2 ¦ Winter 1982 | 207 Everett Olson, C. Rainer Berger and Reverend Julian Bartlett, all of whom consented. Tyler followed up these calls and also called Lemmon and Drs. William Mayer and Brent Dalrymple, obtaining their consent. He also "recruited" several eminent clergymen of various faiths in addition to Bartlett, and other people in the teaching profession to serve as witnesses. The trial started on Monday, March 2, in the Superior Court of the State of California, Sacramento, Judge Irving Perluss presiding. The plaintiffs, Segraves et al., were represented in court by Richard K. Turner. The complaint contained 41 numbered paragraphs. Two of these were as follows: 20.The evolutionary theory of the origin of man and of all plant and animal life is at odds with, is hostile to and contributes a repugnant coercion against the religious beliefs of plaintiffs. 2 1. Scientific creationism is compatible and coincides with the religious beliefs of plaintiffs, said belief, based upon scientific principles, being that there was a time in the past when all matter, energy and man and all plant and animal life, and their processes and relationships were created ex nihilo and fixed by creative and intelligent design. The complaint also stated that the action ofthe State ofCalifornia forced taxpayers to support "an unconstitutional establishment of the Religion of Secular Humanism, which said establishment ofreligion is an extreme contravention of said plaintiff's freedom of religion." The complaint demanded that all copies of the 1978 Science Framework be recalled and that the Science Framework be revised "to reflect the constitutionally mandated approach of neutrality concerning the teaching of the origins of life." History The following appears in The War on Modern Science, by Maynard Shipley: "The war on science in California first took on a serious aspect in July 1924, when a group of Fundamentalists protested to the State Board of Education against the use in the high schools and junior colleges of textbooks teaching evolution, on the ground that 'Darwinism is clearly subversive to Christianity' " [4, p...},
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1353/pbm.1982.0036",
    doi = "10.1353/pbm.1982.0036",
    openalex = "W2040795470",
    references = "broad1981creationists, doi101038scientificamerican047633, openalexw2422346693, openalexw317428478"
}

@misc{flew1982darwin28,
    author = "Flew, A",
    title = "Darwin, Evolution and Creationism",
    year = "1982",
    howpublished = "Free Inquiry, v. 2, no. 3, p. 46-49",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Flew, A., 1982, Darwin, Evolution and Creationism: Free Inquiry, v. 2, no. 3, p. 46-49.}"
}

@misc{knaub1982molecular61,
    author = "Knaub, C. and Parker, G",
    title = "Molecular evolution?",
    year = "1982",
    howpublished = "ICR Impact Series, v. 114, p. i-iv",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Knaub, C., and Parker, G., 1982, Molecular evolution?: ICR Impact Series, v. 114, p. i-iv.}"
}

@misc{lewin1982creationism62,
    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{mattill1982three64,
    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{morrison1982astronomy95,
    author = "Morrison, D",
    title = "Astronomy and creationism",
    year = "1982",
    howpublished = "Mercury, no. September-October, p. 144-147",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Morrison, D., 1982, Astronomy and creationism: Mercury, no. September-October, p. 144-147.}"
}

@misc{numbers1982creationism100,
    author = "Numbers, R",
    title = "Creationism in 20th-Century America",
    year = "1982",
    howpublished = "Science, v. 218, p. 538- 544",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Numbers, R., 1982, Creationism in 20th-Century America: Science, v. 218, p. 538- 544.}"
}

@misc{rybka1982consequences105,
    author = "Rybka, T. W",
    title = "Consequences of time dependent nuclear decay indices on half lifes",
    year = "1982",
    howpublished = "ICR Impact Series, v. 106, p. i-iv",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Rybka, T. W., 1982, Consequences of time dependent nuclear decay indices on half lifes: ICR Impact Series, v. 106, p. i-iv.}"
}

@misc{schadewald1982six106,
    author = "Schadewald, R. J",
    title = "Six 'Flood' Arguments Creationists Can't Answer",
    year = "1982",
    howpublished = "Creation/Evolution, v. 3, p. 12-17",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Schadewald, R. J., 1982, Six 'Flood' Arguments Creationists Can't Answer: Creation/Evolution, v. 3, p. 12-17.}"
}

@misc{sunderland1982evolution115,
    author = "Sunderland, L. D. and Parker, G. E",
    title = "Evolution? Prominent scientist reconsiders",
    year = "1982",
    howpublished = "ICR Impact Series, v. 108, p. i-iv",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Sunderland, L. D., and Parker, G. E., 1982, Evolution? Prominent scientist reconsiders: ICR Impact Series, v. 108, p. i-iv.}"
}

@misc{austin1983did8,
    author = "Austin, S. A",
    title = "Did landscapes evolve?",
    year = "1983",
    howpublished = "ICR Impact Series, no. 118, p. i-iv",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Austin, S. A., 1983, Did landscapes evolve?: ICR Impact Series, no. 118, p. i-iv.}"
}

@misc{barnes1983the12,
    author = "Barnes, T. G",
    title = "The earth's magnetic age",
    year = "1983",
    howpublished = "the Achilles Heel of evolution: ICR Impact Series, v. 122, p. i-iv",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Barnes, T. G., 1983, The earth's magnetic age: the Achilles Heel of evolution: ICR Impact Series, v. 122, p. i-iv.}"
}

@misc{brace1983humans17,
    author = "Brace, C. L",
    title = "Humans in Space and Time, in Godfrey, L. R., ed., Scientists Confront Creationism",
    year = "1983",
    howpublished = "New York, Norton, p. 245-282",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Brace, C. L., 1983, Humans in Space and Time, in Godfrey, L. R., ed., Scientists Confront Creationism: New York, Norton, p. 245-282.}"
}

@incollection{brown1983the18,
    author = "Brown, W. T",
    editor = "Zetterberg, J. P.",
    title = "The Scientific Case for Creationism: 108 Catagories of Evidence",
    year = "1983",
    booktitle = "Evolution Versus Creationism",
    publisher = "The Public Education Controversy: Phoenix, AZ., Oryx Press",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Brown, W. T., 1983, The Scientific Case for Creationism: 108 Catagories of Evidence, in Zetterberg, J. P., ed., Evolution Versus Creationism: The Public Education Controversy: Phoenix, AZ., Oryx Press.}"
}

@misc{cracraft1983systematics19,
    author = "Cracraft, J",
    title = "Systematics, comparative biology, and the case against creationism, in Godfrey, L. R., ed., Scientists Confront Creationism",
    year = "1983",
    howpublished = "New York, W.W. Norton, p. 163-169",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Cracraft, J., 1983, Systematics, comparative biology, and the case against creationism, in Godfrey, L. R., ed., Scientists Confront Creationism: New York, W.W. Norton, p. 163-169.}"
}

@book{eldredge1983the25,
    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.}"
}

@book{friar1983a30,
    author = "Friar, W. and Davis, P",
    title = "A Case for Creation [3rd ed.]",
    year = "1983",
    publisher = "Chicago, Illinois, Moody Press",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Friar, W., and Davis, P., 1983, A Case for Creation [3rd ed.]: Chicago, Illinois, Moody Press.}"
}

@misc{frye1983creationscience32,
    author = "Frye, R. M",
    title = "Creation-Science Against the Religious Background, in Frye, R. M., ed., Is God a Creationist? The Religious Case Against Creation-Science",
    year = "1983",
    howpublished = "New York, Scribner's, p. 1-28",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Frye, R. M., 1983, Creation-Science Against the Religious Background, in Frye, R. M., ed., Is God a Creationist? The Religious Case Against Creation-Science: New York, Scribner's, p. 1-28.}"
}

@misc{frye1983is31,
    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{frye1983the33,
    author = "Frye, R. M",
    title = "The Two Books of God, in Frye, R. M., ed., Is God a Creationist? The Religious Case Against Creation-Science",
    year = "1983",
    howpublished = "New York, Scribner's, p. 199- 205",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Frye, R. M., 1983, The Two Books of God, in Frye, R. M., ed., Is God a Creationist? The Religious Case Against Creation-Science: New York, Scribner's, p. 199- 205.}"
}

@misc{gish1983creating48,
    author = "Gish, D. T",
    title = "Creating a missing link",
    year = "1983",
    howpublished = "a tale about a whale: ICR Impact Series, v. 123, p. i-iv",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Gish, D. T., 1983, Creating a missing link: a tale about a whale: ICR Impact Series, v. 123, p. i-iv.}"
}

@misc{godfrey1983creationism50,
    author = "Godfrey, L. R",
    title = "Creationism and Gaps in the Fossil Record, in Godfrey, L. R., ed., Scientists Confront Creationism",
    year = "1983",
    howpublished = "New York, W.W. Norton, p. 193- 218",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Godfrey, L. R., 1983, Creationism and Gaps in the Fossil Record, in Godfrey, L. R., ed., Scientists Confront Creationism: New York, W.W. Norton, p. 193- 218.}"
}

@misc{mckean1983life70,
    author = "McKean, K",
    title = "Life on a Young Planet",
    year = "1983",
    howpublished = "Discover, v. 4, p. 39-42",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {McKean, K., 1983, Life on a Young Planet: Discover, v. 4, p. 39-42.}"
}

@misc{morris1983those82,
    author = "Morris, H. M",
    title = "Those remarkable floating rock formations",
    year = "1983",
    howpublished = "ICR Impact Series, v. 119, p. i-iv",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Morris, H. M., 1983, Those remarkable floating rock formations: ICR Impact Series, v. 119, p. i-iv.}"
}

@book{patterson1983an103,
    author = "Patterson, J. W",
    title = "An Engineer Looks at the Creationist Movement, in Zetterberg, P. J., ed., Evolution Versus Creationism",
    year = "1983",
    publisher = "The Public Education Controversy: Phoenix, Arizona, Oryx Press, p. 150-161",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Patterson, J. W., 1983, An Engineer Looks at the Creationist Movement, in Zetterberg, P. J., ed., Evolution Versus Creationism: The Public Education Controversy: Phoenix, Arizona, Oryx Press, p. 150-161.}"
}

@misc{raup1983the104,
    author = "Raup, D. M",
    title = "The Geological and Paleontological Arguments of Creationism, in Godfrey, L. R., ed., Scientists Confront Creationism",
    year = "1983",
    howpublished = "New York, Norton, p. 147-162",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Raup, D. M., 1983, The Geological and Paleontological Arguments of Creationism, in Godfrey, L. R., ed., Scientists Confront Creationism: New York, Norton, p. 147-162.}"
}

@article{shea1983creationism108,
    author = "Shea, J. H",
    title = "Creationism, uniformitarianism, geology and science",
    year = "1983",
    journal = "Journal of Geological Education, v. 31, p. 105-110",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Shea, J. H., 1983, Creationism, uniformitarianism, geology and science: Journal of Geological Education, v. 31, p. 105-110.}"
}

@inproceedings{awbery1984evolutionists9,
    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.}"
}

@book{gallant1984to34,
    author = "Gallant, R. A",
    title = "To Hell With Evolution, in Montagu, A., ed., Science and Creationism",
    year = "1984",
    publisher = "New York, Oxford University Press, p. 282-305",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Gallant, R. A., 1984, To Hell With Evolution, in Montagu, A., ed., Science and Creationism: New York, Oxford University Press, p. 282-305.}"
}

@incollection{godfrey1984scientific51,
    author = "Godfrey, L. R",
    editor = "Montagu, A.",
    title = "Scientific Creationism: The Art of Distortion",
    year = "1984",
    booktitle = "Science and Creationism",
    publisher = "New York, Oxford University Press, p. 167- 181",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Godfrey, L. R., 1984, Scientific Creationism: The Art of Distortion, in Montagu, A., ed., Science and Creationism: New York, Oxford University Press, p. 167- 181.}"
}

@misc{mcgowan1984in66,
    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{morris1984a83,
    author = "Morris, H. M",
    title = "A History of Modern Creationism",
    year = "1984",
    howpublished = "San Diego, California, Master Books, 382 p",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Morris, H. M., 1984, A History of Modern Creationism: San Diego, California, Master Books, 382 p.}"
}

@misc{morris1984evolution84,
    author = "Morris, H. M",
    title = "Evolution Ex nihilo",
    year = "1984",
    howpublished = "ICR Impact Series, v. 135, p. i-iv",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Morris, H. M., 1984, Evolution Ex nihilo : ICR Impact Series, v. 135, p. i-iv.}"
}

@misc{oller1984not101,
    author = "Oller, J. W",
    title = "Not according to Hoyle",
    year = "1984",
    howpublished = "ICR Impact Series, v. 138, p. i-iv",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Oller, J. W., 1984, Not according to Hoyle: ICR Impact Series, v. 138, p. i-iv.}"
}

@misc{vardiman1984the116,
    author = "Vardiman, L",
    title = "The sky has fallen",
    year = "1984",
    howpublished = "ICR Impact Series, v. 128, p. i-iv",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Vardiman, L., 1984, The sky has fallen: ICR Impact Series, v. 128, p. i-iv.}"
}

@article{weinberg1984reviews119,
    author = "Weinberg, S",
    title = "Reviews of Thirty Creationist Books",
    year = "1984",
    journal = "Syosset, New York, National Center for Science Education",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Weinberg, S., 1984, Reviews of Thirty Creationist Books: Syosset, New York, National Center for Science Education.}"
}

@misc{diamond1985if23,
    author = "Diamond, J",
    title = "If the Creationists Are Right, God is a Squid",
    year = "1985",
    howpublished = "Discover, v. 6, p. 91",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Diamond, J., 1985, If the Creationists Are Right, God is a Squid: Discover, v. 6, p. 91.}"
}

@book{gilkey1985creationism36,
    author = "Gilkey, L",
    title = "Creationism on Trial",
    year = "1985",
    publisher = "Evolution and God at Little Rock: Minneapolis, Minnesota, Winston Press, 301 p",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Gilkey, L., 1985, Creationism on Trial: Evolution and God at Little Rock: Minneapolis, Minnesota, Winston Press, 301 p.}"
}

@misc{wolf1985the121,
    author = "Wolf, J. and Mellett, J. S",
    title = "The Role of 'Nebraska Man' in the Creation- Evolution Debate",
    year = "1985",
    howpublished = "Creation/Evolution, v. 16, p. 31-43",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Wolf, J., and Mellett, J. S., 1985, The Role of 'Nebraska Man' in the Creation- Evolution Debate: Creation/Evolution, v. 16, p. 31-43.}"
}

@misc{ackerman1986its2,
    author = "Ackerman, P. D",
    title = "It's a Young World After All",
    year = "1986",
    howpublished = "Grand Rapids, Michigan, Baker Book House",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Ackerman, P. D., 1986, It's a Young World After All: Grand Rapids, Michigan, Baker Book House.}"
}

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{hechinger1986fundamentalists56,
    author = "Hechinger, F. M",
    title = "Fundamentalists Turn to Courts, Ballot Box for Control of Schools",
    year = "1986",
    howpublished = "Gainesville (Fla) Sun",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Hechinger, F. M., 1986, Fundamentalists Turn to Courts, Ballot Box for Control of Schools: Gainesville (Fla) Sun.}"
}

@misc{morris1986the93,
    author = "Morris, J. D",
    title = "The Paluxy River mystery",
    year = "1986",
    howpublished = "ICR Impact Series, v. 151, p. i-iv",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Morris, J. D., 1986, The Paluxy River mystery: ICR Impact Series, v. 151, p. i-iv.}"
}

@misc{moyer1986science96,
    author = "Moyer, W. A",
    title = "Science versus Revealed Truth",
    year = "1986",
    howpublished = "Meeting the Challenge of Creationism in the Classroom, in Hanson, R. W., ed., Science and Creation: Geological, Theological and Educational Perspectives: New York, Macmillan, p. 46-54",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Moyer, W. A., 1986, Science versus Revealed Truth: Meeting the Challenge of Creationism in the Classroom, in Hanson, R. W., ed., Science and Creation: Geological, Theological and Educational Perspectives: New York, Macmillan, p. 46-54.}"
}

@misc{nickels1986creationists99,
    author = "Nickels, M. K",
    title = "Creationists and Australopithecines",
    year = "1986",
    howpublished = "Creation/Evolution, v. 19, p. 1-15",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Nickels, M. K., 1986, Creationists and Australopithecines: Creation/Evolution, v. 19, p. 1-15.}"
}

@inproceedings{schadewald1986the107,
    author = "Schadewald, R. J",
    title = "The 1896 International Conference on Creationism",
    year = "1986",
    booktitle = "Creation/Evolution Newsletter, v. 6, p. 8-14",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Schadewald, R. J., 1986, The 1896 International Conference on Creationism: Creation/Evolution Newsletter, v. 6, p. 8-14.}"
}

@misc{anderson1987creationism5,
    author = "Anderson, D. E",
    title = "Creationism Ruling Hailed, Denounced",
    year = "1987",
    howpublished = "Tampa Tribune",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Anderson, D. E., 1987, Creationism Ruling Hailed, Denounced: Tampa Tribune.}"
}

@misc{bird1987evaluation14,
    author = "Bird, W",
    title = "Evaluation, in Impact",
    year = "1987",
    howpublished = "El Cajon, California, Institute for Creation Research, v. 170, p. i-iii",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Bird, W., 1987, Evaluation, in Impact: El Cajon, California, Institute for Creation Research, v. 170, p. i-iii.}"
}

@misc{boxer1987will16,
    author = "Boxer, S",
    title = "Will Creationism Rise Again?",
    year = "1987",
    howpublished = "Discover, v. 8, p. 80-85",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Boxer, S., 1987, Will Creationism Rise Again?: Discover, v. 8, p. 80-85.}"
}

@misc{dietz1987creationevolution24,
    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.}"
}

Antievolutionism is alive and well in the United States, as shown by public attitudes toward evolution and the factual truth of Biblical literalism. High percentages of college students do not accept evolution as a valid explanation of earth's history. One in three think humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time. Antievolutionism has had three phases: (1) “straight” antievolutionism, during which time the teaching of evolution was outlawed; (2) pro-creationism, during which the Genesis story was taught alongside or instead of evolution; and finally, today, (3) “scientific” creationism, in which Biblical literalism is clothed in scientific terms. The strategy of modern antievolutionists is to move creationism away from religion (hence scientific creationism) and argue a “free speech” issue: that students being taught only “one side” of the “origins” issue are being denied a constitutionally guaranteed freedom. Present-day antievolutionists have had surprising success, as shown by legislation in Arkansas and Louisiana mandating the teaching of scientific creationism. Textbooks have sharply reduced the coverage of evolution in quantity and quality as a result of antievolutionist pressure. There is a pervasive feeling being generated that evolutionary sciences are not as reliable as other sciences. Pressure has been exerted on research institutions and granting agencies to cease funding evolutionary projects. These trends will continue until opposed by a successful educational effort both in and out of schools to increase the public understanding of science.

@article{doi101002ajpa1330300505,
    author = "Scott, Eugenie C.",
    title = "Antievolutionism, scientific creationism, and physical anthropology",
    year = "1987",
    journal = "American Journal of Physical Anthropology",
    abstract = "Antievolutionism is alive and well in the United States, as shown by public attitudes toward evolution and the factual truth of Biblical literalism. High percentages of college students do not accept evolution as a valid explanation of earth's history. One in three think humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time. Antievolutionism has had three phases: (1) “straight” antievolutionism, during which time the teaching of evolution was outlawed; (2) pro-creationism, during which the Genesis story was taught alongside or instead of evolution; and finally, today, (3) “scientific” creationism, in which Biblical literalism is clothed in scientific terms. The strategy of modern antievolutionists is to move creationism away from religion (hence scientific creationism) and argue a “free speech” issue: that students being taught only “one side” of the “origins” issue are being denied a constitutionally guaranteed freedom. Present-day antievolutionists have had surprising success, as shown by legislation in Arkansas and Louisiana mandating the teaching of scientific creationism. Textbooks have sharply reduced the coverage of evolution in quantity and quality as a result of antievolutionist pressure. There is a pervasive feeling being generated that evolutionary sciences are not as reliable as other sciences. Pressure has been exerted on research institutions and granting agencies to cease funding evolutionary projects. These trends will continue until opposed by a successful educational effort both in and out of schools to increase the public understanding of science.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.1330300505",
    doi = "10.1002/ajpa.1330300505",
    openalex = "W2076854957",
    references = "doi101353pbm19820036, openalexw151338792, openalexw318769748"
}

CREATIONISTS VERSUS EVOLUTION: A PARADIGM OF SCIENCE AND SOCIETY INTERACTION RIVERS SINGLETON, JR.* I beseech you, in the boweh of Christ, think it possible you might be mutaken. —Oliver Cromwell Since the early twentieth century in this country, a basic conflict has existed between proponents of fundamentalist religious views of biological origins (creationists) and modern science. At times, this conflict has been quiescent; at others, it has been agitated and vituperative. In the early 1980s, the conflict went through one of its active phases, generating a great deal of heat and vitriol at the local, state, and national levels and raising classical issues. Like earlier outbreaks, the recent creationist controversy has had a profound effect on school textbooks and on local school science curricula. Several new and different issues about science and its method, however, have emerged from the most recent conflict. In certain respects, the present controversy now seems to be entering another quiescent phase. The debates at the state and national levels seem to have stilled, although the U.S. Supreme Court is currently hearing an appeal on the legality of legislation in Louisiana. Despite its present passive nature, however, the debate has raised serious questions about what ought to be taught in our educational systems and who should make these curricular decisions. The debate also involves profound questions about the nature and limits ofboth science and religion. For both ofthese reasons, it can serve as a paradigm of the interaction of science and society, of which science is but one component. ConseThe author thanks his colleagues, D. Heyward Brock, Mary Williams, and David Smith, for their many helpful discussions of this topic and for their critical reading of the manuscript. *School of Life and Health Sciences, Center for Science and Culture, University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware 19716.© 1987 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved. 003 1-5982/87/3003-0538/$0 1.00 324 I Rivers Singleton, Jr. ¦ Creationists versus Evolution quently, this seems an appropriate time to reflect on the historical development of the conflict, on the claims made by both sides, and on what the controversy has meant in the interaction of science and society. Historical Developments Since E.J. Larson [1] has published an excellent detailed history ofthe legal aspects of this controversy, I will touch only on its highlights here. George Marsden [2, 3] has correctly pointed out that the conflict between science and creationism is grounded in a Baconian view of science held by the creationists. Modern-day creationists are not original in their view of science. WilliamJennings Bryan, one of the more vivid and wellknown opponents of the teaching of evolution, claimed that Darwin's ideas were unscientific because they were not derived by means of Baconian methodology. Two aspects of this Baconian view are essential to the present conflict. First is the attitude that the essence of the scientific method involves only observation and classification of facts. For the careful Baconian observer, theories to explain the facts will emerge. This view of the scientific method ignores the role of hypothesis in guiding scientific discovery and restricts science to those processes that can actually be observed. The second aspect of the Baconian view of science is that it seeks to discover objective certainty about the universe. The Baconian scientist wishes to collect the factual description of the universe into a textbook. The creationist view of science grew out of the early development of biology in an intellectual environment dominated by Isaac Newton's mechanistic picture of the universe. The clock is an apt metaphor to describe a universe that operates according to Newtonian principles. From this perspective, the universe is a divine machine, operating according to rules laid down by God that describe the interaction of all of its parts. Newton's view of science is also relevant here, for, in many regards, it typifies the Baconian view of science. Newton considered himself foremost to be a theologian, and he believed that science and theology are inseparable. In his view, science could indeed seek and verify absolute answers to transcendent questions about the universe. The creation/ evolution controversy has grown in part from this attitude that science can verify...

@article{doi101353pbm19870044,
    author = "Singleton, Rivers",
    title = "Creationists Versus Evolution: A Paradigm of Science and Society Interaction",
    year = "1987",
    journal = "Perspectives in biology and medicine",
    abstract = "CREATIONISTS VERSUS EVOLUTION: A PARADIGM OF SCIENCE AND SOCIETY INTERACTION RIVERS SINGLETON, JR.* I beseech you, in the boweh of Christ, think it possible you might be mutaken. —Oliver Cromwell Since the early twentieth century in this country, a basic conflict has existed between proponents of fundamentalist religious views of biological origins (creationists) and modern science. At times, this conflict has been quiescent; at others, it has been agitated and vituperative. In the early 1980s, the conflict went through one of its active phases, generating a great deal of heat and vitriol at the local, state, and national levels and raising classical issues. Like earlier outbreaks, the recent creationist controversy has had a profound effect on school textbooks and on local school science curricula. Several new and different issues about science and its method, however, have emerged from the most recent conflict. In certain respects, the present controversy now seems to be entering another quiescent phase. The debates at the state and national levels seem to have stilled, although the U.S. Supreme Court is currently hearing an appeal on the legality of legislation in Louisiana. Despite its present passive nature, however, the debate has raised serious questions about what ought to be taught in our educational systems and who should make these curricular decisions. The debate also involves profound questions about the nature and limits ofboth science and religion. For both ofthese reasons, it can serve as a paradigm of the interaction of science and society, of which science is but one component. ConseThe author thanks his colleagues, D. Heyward Brock, Mary Williams, and David Smith, for their many helpful discussions of this topic and for their critical reading of the manuscript. *School of Life and Health Sciences, Center for Science and Culture, University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware 19716.© 1987 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved. 003 1-5982/87/3003-0538/$0 1.00 324 I Rivers Singleton, Jr. ¦ Creationists versus Evolution quently, this seems an appropriate time to reflect on the historical development of the conflict, on the claims made by both sides, and on what the controversy has meant in the interaction of science and society. Historical Developments Since E.J. Larson [1] has published an excellent detailed history ofthe legal aspects of this controversy, I will touch only on its highlights here. George Marsden [2, 3] has correctly pointed out that the conflict between science and creationism is grounded in a Baconian view of science held by the creationists. Modern-day creationists are not original in their view of science. WilliamJennings Bryan, one of the more vivid and wellknown opponents of the teaching of evolution, claimed that Darwin's ideas were unscientific because they were not derived by means of Baconian methodology. Two aspects of this Baconian view are essential to the present conflict. First is the attitude that the essence of the scientific method involves only observation and classification of facts. For the careful Baconian observer, theories to explain the facts will emerge. This view of the scientific method ignores the role of hypothesis in guiding scientific discovery and restricts science to those processes that can actually be observed. The second aspect of the Baconian view of science is that it seeks to discover objective certainty about the universe. The Baconian scientist wishes to collect the factual description of the universe into a textbook. The creationist view of science grew out of the early development of biology in an intellectual environment dominated by Isaac Newton's mechanistic picture of the universe. The clock is an apt metaphor to describe a universe that operates according to Newtonian principles. From this perspective, the universe is a divine machine, operating according to rules laid down by God that describe the interaction of all of its parts. Newton's view of science is also relevant here, for, in many regards, it typifies the Baconian view of science. Newton considered himself foremost to be a theologian, and he believed that science and theology are inseparable. In his view, science could indeed seek and verify absolute answers to transcendent questions about the universe. The creation/ evolution controversy has grown in part from this attitude that science can verify...",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1353/pbm.1987.0044",
    doi = "10.1353/pbm.1987.0044",
    openalex = "W1999182401",
    references = "doi101353pbm19820036"
}

@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"
}

@misc{epstein1987court26,
    author = "Epstein, A",
    title = "Court Strikes Down Law on Creationism",
    year = "1987",
    howpublished = "Miami Herald",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Epstein, A., 1987, Court Strikes Down Law on Creationism: Miami Herald.}"
}

@misc{geisler1987origin35,
    author = "Geisler, N. L. and Anderson, J. K",
    title = "Origin Science",
    year = "1987",
    howpublished = "A Proposal for the Creation/Evolution Controversy: Grand Rapids, Michigan, Baker Book House",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Geisler, N. L., and Anderson, J. K., 1987, Origin Science: A Proposal for the Creation/Evolution Controversy: Grand Rapids, Michigan, Baker Book House.}"
}

@misc{gish1987startling49,
    author = "Gish, D. T",
    title = "Startling Discoveries Support Creation",
    year = "1987",
    howpublished = "ICR Impact Series, v. 171, p. i-iv",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Gish, D. T., 1987, Startling Discoveries Support Creation: ICR Impact Series, v. 171, p. i-iv.}"
}

@book{harrold1987cult53,
    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.}"
}

@misc{hastings1987creationists54,
    author = "Hastings, R. J",
    title = "Creationists' Tooth Claims Evolve into a New 'Fish Story",
    year = "1987",
    howpublished = "Creation/Evolution Newsletter, v. 7, p. 18-20",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Hastings, R. J., 1987, Creationists' Tooth Claims Evolve into a New 'Fish Story': Creation/Evolution Newsletter, v. 7, p. 18-20.}"
}

@misc{lewin1987creationism63,
    author = "Lewin, R",
    title = "Creationism Case Argued Before Supreme Court",
    year = "1987",
    howpublished = "Science, v. 235, p. 22- 23",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Lewin, R., 1987, Creationism Case Argued Before Supreme Court: Science, v. 235, p. 22- 23.}"
}

@misc{mciver1987nebraska67,
    author = "McIver, T",
    title = "Nebraska Man Strikes Again and Again",
    year = "1987",
    howpublished = "Creation/Evolution Newsletter, v. 7, p. 13-14",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {McIver, T., 1987, Nebraska Man Strikes Again and Again: Creation/Evolution Newsletter, v. 7, p. 13-14.}"
}

@misc{mckinney1987court71,
    author = "McKinney, J",
    title = "Court Hears Creationism Arguments",
    year = "1987",
    howpublished = "Creation/Evolution Newsletter, v. 6, p. 11-12",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {McKinney, J., 1987, Court Hears Creationism Arguments: Creation/Evolution Newsletter, v. 6, p. 11-12.}"
}

@article{monroe1987creationism73,
    author = "Monroe, J. S",
    title = "Creationism, human footprints, and flood geology",
    year = "1987",
    journal = "Journal of Geological Education, v. 35, p. 93-103",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Monroe, J. S., 1987, Creationism, human footprints, and flood geology: Journal of Geological Education, v. 35, p. 93-103.}"
}

@misc{morris1987is85,
    author = "Morris, H. M",
    title = "Is Creationism Scientific?",
    year = "1987",
    howpublished = "Acts and Facts, v. 16, no. 12, p. 1,4",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Morris, H. M., 1987, Is Creationism Scientific?: Acts and Facts, v. 16, no. 12, p. 1,4.}"
}

@misc{morris1987the86,
    author = "Morris, H. M",
    title = "The Judging Spirit of God",
    year = "1987",
    howpublished = "Days of Praise, v. Sept. Oct. Nov., no. 28 Oct",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Morris, H. M., 1987, The Judging Spirit of God: Days of Praise, v. Sept. Oct. Nov., no. 28 Oct.}"
}

This study presents the results of a 19-item questionnaire distributed to all high school biology departments in the state of Ohio. The results indicated that Ohio high school biology teachers are far more likely to support the teaching of evolution, and far less likely to support the teaching of creationism than is the public at large. Most biology courses in the state include some evolutionary component. There is also reasonably strong sentiment against the teaching of creationism in the public schools. The amount and quality of that evolutionary teaching, however, are apparently well below the ideal. Teachers are not particularly sophisticated in their understanding of evolutionary theory; only a little over one-half of them feel that the theory itself is testable. Almost three-fourths of the teachers recognize, however, that creationism is not based on a solid scientific foundation. Approximately 10% of them have experienced pressure from pro-creationism forces either to remove evolution from the curriculum or to install a creation component. Pro-evolutionary forces are much less active. Teachers favoring religion and prayer in the public schools are significantly more likely to teach creationism in their biology courses than those opposed.

@article{openalexw2171740920,
    author = "Zimmerman, Michael J.",
    title = "The Evolution-Creation Controversy: Opinions of Ohio High School Biology Teachers",
    year = "1987",
    journal = "The Knowledge Bank (The Ohio State University)",
    abstract = "This study presents the results of a 19-item questionnaire distributed to all high school biology departments in the state of Ohio. The results indicated that Ohio high school biology teachers are far more likely to support the teaching of evolution, and far less likely to support the teaching of creationism than is the public at large. Most biology courses in the state include some evolutionary component. There is also reasonably strong sentiment against the teaching of creationism in the public schools. The amount and quality of that evolutionary teaching, however, are apparently well below the ideal. Teachers are not particularly sophisticated in their understanding of evolutionary theory; only a little over one-half of them feel that the theory itself is testable. Almost three-fourths of the teachers recognize, however, that creationism is not based on a solid scientific foundation. Approximately 10\% of them have experienced pressure from pro-creationism forces either to remove evolution from the curriculum or to install a creation component. Pro-evolutionary forces are much less active. Teachers favoring religion and prayer in the public schools are significantly more likely to teach creationism in their biology courses than those opposed.",
    openalex = "W2171740920",
    references = "doi101086414171, doi102307280358"
}

@misc{research1987the59,
    author = "for Creation Research, Institute",
    title = "The Supreme Court Decision and its Meaning",
    year = "1987",
    howpublished = "ICR Impact Series, v. 170",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Institute for Creation Research, 1987, The Supreme Court Decision and its Meaning: ICR Impact Series, v. 170.}"
}

@misc{stein1987implausibilities112,
    author = "Stein, G",
    title = "Implausibilities Shown to be Plausible",
    year = "1987",
    howpublished = "Skeptical Inquirer, v. 11, no. 2, p. 407-408",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Stein, G., 1987, Implausibilities Shown to be Plausible: Skeptical Inquirer, v. 11, no. 2, p. 407-408.}"
}

@misc{strahler1987science114,
    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{wheeler1987more120,
    author = "Wheeler, T. J",
    title = "More on Creationists and Meteoritic Dust",
    year = "1987",
    howpublished = "Creation/ Evolution Newsletter, v. 7, p. 14-15",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Wheeler, T. J., 1987, More on Creationists and Meteoritic Dust: Creation/ Evolution Newsletter, v. 7, p. 14-15.}"
}

@misc{zimmerman1987that123,
    author = "Zimmerman, M",
    title = "That Court Ruling Won't Stop the Creationists",
    year = "1987",
    howpublished = "Creation/ Evolution Newsletter, v. 7, p. 4-5",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Zimmerman, M., 1987, That Court Ruling Won't Stop the Creationists: Creation/ Evolution Newsletter, v. 7, p. 4-5.}"
}

@misc{aardsma1988has1,
    author = "Aardsma, G. F",
    title = "Has the Speed of Light Decayed?",
    year = "1988",
    howpublished = "ICR Impact Series, v",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Aardsma, G. F., 1988, Has the Speed of Light Decayed?: ICR Impact Series, v.}"
}

@misc{bliss1988good15,
    author = "Bliss, R. B",
    title = "Good Science",
    year = "1988",
    howpublished = "A K-6 plan for Excellence: ICR Impact Series, v. 182",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Bliss, R. B., 1988, Good Science: A K-6 plan for Excellence: ICR Impact Series, v. 182.}"
}

@misc{mciver1988antievolution69,
    author = "McIver, T",
    title = "Anti-Evolution",
    year = "1988",
    howpublished = "An Annotated Bibliography: Jefferson, North Carolina, McFarland, 385 p",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {McIver, T., 1988, Anti-Evolution: An Annotated Bibliography: Jefferson, North Carolina, McFarland, 385 p.}"
}

@misc{mciver1988creationist68,
    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{morris1988a94,
    author = "Morris, J. D",
    title = "A Report on the ICR Ararat Expedition, 1987",
    year = "1988",
    howpublished = "ICR Impact Series, v. 175",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Morris, J. D., 1988, A Report on the ICR Ararat Expedition, 1987: ICR Impact Series, v. 175.}"
}

@misc{morris1988the87,
    author = "Morris, H. M",
    title = "The Compromise Road",
    year = "1988",
    howpublished = "ICR Impact Series, v. 177",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Morris, H. M., 1988, The Compromise Road: ICR Impact Series, v. 177.}"
}

@misc{morris1988the88,
    author = "Morris, H. M",
    title = "The Heritage of the Recapitulation Theory",
    year = "1988",
    howpublished = "ICR Impact Series, v. 183",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Morris, H. M., 1988, The Heritage of the Recapitulation Theory: ICR Impact Series, v. 183.}"
}

@misc{waldrop1988shroud117,
    author = "Waldrop, M. M",
    title = "Shroud of Turin is Medieval",
    year = "1988",
    howpublished = "Science, v. 242, p. 378",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Waldrop, M. M., 1988, Shroud of Turin is Medieval: Science, v. 242, p. 378.}"
}

In this comprehensive treatment of the ongoing conflict between creationists and evolutionary scientists, well-known geomorphologist Arthur Strahler carefully examines creationists' claims of scientific evidence for the six-day divine creation of the universe, followed by the catastrophic flood of Noah, as claimed in Genesis. The creationists' arguments are examined and evaluated against the findings of mainstream science in the fields of cosmology, astronomy, geophysics, geology, palaeontology, and evolutionary biology. Updated with a new preface and responses to recent attacks on evolutionary theory, Science and Earth History can serve as both a popular overview of earth history and as a scholarly anecdote to the fictions of creationism once again finding their way into classrooms and universities. Strahler illuminates the controversy by reviewing the philosophy, methodology, and sociology of empirical science, as contrasted with the belief systems of religion and pseudoscience. The author also includes lucid criteria for distinguishing science from pseudoscience, and reviews the great discoveries and developments in science that point to the evolution of life over the earth's three-billion-year history.

@article{doi102307635116,
    author = "Davies, Gordon L. Herries and Strahler, Arthur N.",
    title = "Science and Earth History-The Evolution/creation Controversy",
    year = "1989",
    journal = "Geographical Journal",
    abstract = "In this comprehensive treatment of the ongoing conflict between creationists and evolutionary scientists, well-known geomorphologist Arthur Strahler carefully examines creationists' claims of scientific evidence for the six-day divine creation of the universe, followed by the catastrophic flood of Noah, as claimed in Genesis. The creationists' arguments are examined and evaluated against the findings of mainstream science in the fields of cosmology, astronomy, geophysics, geology, palaeontology, and evolutionary biology. Updated with a new preface and responses to recent attacks on evolutionary theory, Science and Earth History can serve as both a popular overview of earth history and as a scholarly anecdote to the fictions of creationism once again finding their way into classrooms and universities. Strahler illuminates the controversy by reviewing the philosophy, methodology, and sociology of empirical science, as contrasted with the belief systems of religion and pseudoscience. The author also includes lucid criteria for distinguishing science from pseudoscience, and reviews the great discoveries and developments in science that point to the evolution of life over the earth's three-billion-year history.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.2307/635116",
    doi = "10.2307/635116",
    openalex = "W1523318096"
}

@misc{hastings1989creationists55,
    author = "Hastings, R. J",
    title = "Creationists' 'Glen Rose Man' Proves to be a Fish Tooth (as Expected)",
    year = "1989",
    howpublished = "National Council on Science Education Reports, v. 9, no. 3, p. 14-15",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Hastings, R. J., 1989, Creationists' 'Glen Rose Man' Proves to be a Fish Tooth (as Expected): National Council on Science Education Reports, v. 9, no. 3, p. 14-15.}"
}

@misc{humphreys1989the57,
    author = "Humphreys, R",
    title = "The Mystery of the Earth's Magnetic Field",
    year = "1989",
    howpublished = "ICR Impact Series, v. 188, p. i-iv",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Humphreys, R., 1989, The Mystery of the Earth's Magnetic Field: ICR Impact Series, v. 188, p. i-iv.}"
}

@misc{morris1989evolution89,
    author = "Morris, H. M",
    title = "Evolution",
    year = "1989",
    howpublished = "A House Divided: ICR Impact Series, v. 194",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Morris, H. M., 1989, Evolution: A House Divided: ICR Impact Series, v. 194.}"
}

@misc{morris1989how90,
    author = "Morris, H. M",
    title = "How a Christian Dies",
    year = "1989",
    howpublished = "ICR Impact Series, v. 193",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Morris, H. M., 1989, How a Christian Dies: ICR Impact Series, v. 193.}"
}

@misc{stambaugh1989death111,
    author = "Stambaugh, J. S",
    title = "Death Before Sin?",
    year = "1989",
    howpublished = "ICR Impact Series, v. 191",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Stambaugh, J. S., 1989, Death Before Sin?: ICR Impact Series, v. 191.}"
}

@article{vanvark1990affinity,
    author = "van Vark, G. N. and Bilsborough, A. and Schaafsma, W.",
    title = "Affinity, hominid evolution and Creationism. New computer methods weaken the Creationists' position",
    year = "1990",
    journal = "Human Evolution",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02435596",
    doi = "10.1007/bf02435596",
    number = "5",
    openalex = "W2085469743",
    pages = "471-482",
    volume = "5",
    references = "doi10100797814612091954, doi101007978940096357310, doi101007978940096357319, doi101017cbo9780511569647, doi101017cbo9780511569647012, doi101017s003060530001841x, doi101086202516, doi101214aoms1177732979, doi1023071444116"
}

@article{doi101002sce3730770209,
    author = "Shankar, Ganga and Skoog, Gerald",
    title = "Emphasis given evolution and creationism by texas high school biology teachers",
    year = "1993",
    journal = "Science Education",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730770209",
    doi = "10.1002/sce.3730770209",
    openalex = "W2145788564"
}

@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"
}

The purpose of this study was to explore how some university biology majors in Beirut, Lebanon, accommodate the theory of biological evolution with their existing religious beliefs. Sixty-two students enrolled in a required senior biology seminar responded to open-ended questions that addressed (a) their understanding of the theory of evolution, (b) their perception of conflict between this theory and religion, and (c) whether the theory of evolution clashed with their own beliefs about the world. Based on their responses, 15 students were selected for an in-depth exploration of their written responses. Students' answers clustered under 1 of 4 main positions: for evolution, against evolution, compromise, and neutral. The authors suggest that teaching students about the nature of scientific facts, theories, and evidence is more likely to enhance understanding of evolutionary theory if students are given the opportunity to discuss their values and beliefs in relation to scientific knowledge. © 1997 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 34: 429–445, 1997.

@article{doi101002sici10982736199705345429aidtea230co2s,
    author = "Dagher, Zoubeida R. and BouJaoude, Saouma",
    title = "Scientific views and religious beliefs of college students: The case of biological evolution",
    year = "1997",
    journal = "Journal of Research in Science Teaching",
    abstract = "The purpose of this study was to explore how some university biology majors in Beirut, Lebanon, accommodate the theory of biological evolution with their existing religious beliefs. Sixty-two students enrolled in a required senior biology seminar responded to open-ended questions that addressed (a) their understanding of the theory of evolution, (b) their perception of conflict between this theory and religion, and (c) whether the theory of evolution clashed with their own beliefs about the world. Based on their responses, 15 students were selected for an in-depth exploration of their written responses. Students' answers clustered under 1 of 4 main positions: for evolution, against evolution, compromise, and neutral. The authors suggest that teaching students about the nature of scientific facts, theories, and evidence is more likely to enhance understanding of evolutionary theory if students are given the opportunity to discuss their values and beliefs in relation to scientific knowledge. © 1997 John Wiley \& Sons, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 34: 429–445, 1997.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1098-2736(199705)34:5<429::aid-tea2>3.0.co;2-s",
    doi = "10.1002/(sici)1098-2736(199705)34:5<429::aid-tea2>3.0.co;2-s",
    openalex = "W1987752722"
}

@article{doi1023074450533,
    author = "Moore, Randy",
    title = "Creationism in the United States: I. Banning Evolution from the Classroom",
    year = "1998",
    journal = "The American Biology Teacher",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.2307/4450533",
    doi = "10.2307/4450533",
    openalex = "W2027518377",
    references = "doi10108000335639209383997"
}

@article{doi1023074450698,
    author = "Paterson, Frances R. A. and Rossow, Lawrence F.",
    title = {"Chained to the Devil's Throne": Evolution \& Creation Science as a Religio-Political Issue},
    year = "1999",
    journal = "The American Biology Teacher",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.2307/4450698",
    doi = "10.2307/4450698",
    openalex = "W2256831697"
}

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"
}

@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"
}

The creationist Bible-based onslaught against science in general and evolution in particular has been reasonably effective in present-day America. Propaganda methods include partial truths and gross misstatements of fact. For scientific teaching and lecturing, many of these distortions can be exposed using a chart of creationists' Noah's flood-based, force-fitted version of geologic time, rates, and events. In addition, the creationist dichotomy of choice between their version of faith and their distorted cartoon of science can be countered by a diagram showing the large spectrum of possible religious beliefs about evolution.

@article{doi1054081089999549130,
    author = "Wise, Donald U.",
    title = "Creationism's Propaganda Assault on Deep Time and Evolution",
    year = "2001",
    journal = "Journal of Geoscience Education",
    abstract = "The creationist Bible-based onslaught against science in general and evolution in particular has been reasonably effective in present-day America. Propaganda methods include partial truths and gross misstatements of fact. For scientific teaching and lecturing, many of these distortions can be exposed using a chart of creationists' Noah's flood-based, force-fitted version of geologic time, rates, and events. In addition, the creationist dichotomy of choice between their version of faith and their distorted cartoon of science can be countered by a diagram showing the large spectrum of possible religious beliefs about evolution.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.5408/1089-9995-49.1.30",
    doi = "10.5408/1089-9995-49.1.30",
    openalex = "W2523231631"
}

@article{doi1016620002768520050670457ttoeci20co2,
    author = "Moore, Randy and Kraemer, Karen",
    title = "The Teaching of Evolution \& Creationism in Minnesota",
    year = "2005",
    journal = "The American Biology Teacher",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1662/0002-7685(2005)067[0457:ttoeci]2.0.co;2",
    doi = "10.1662/0002-7685(2005)067[0457:ttoeci]2.0.co;2",
    openalex = "W2176524897",
    references = "doi101002sce3730750605, doi101126science1433608852a, doi101177016146818909100201, doi1016620002768520000620023ettnos20co2, doi1016620002768520020640021hsbtks20co2, doi1016620002768520040660419iwtiam20co2, doi1023074450382, doi1023074450650, doi10540800221368432102, openalexw1561945099"
}

"In his latest book, Michael Ruse, a preeminent authority on Darwinian evolutionary thought and a leading participant in the ongoing debate, uncovers surprising similarities between evolutionist and creationist thinking. Exploring the underlying philosophical commitments of evolutionists, he reveals that those most hostile to religion are just as evangelical as their fundamentalist opponents. But more crucially, and reaching beyond the biblical issues at stake, he demonstrates that these two diametrically opposed ideologies have, since the Enlightenment, engaged in a struggle for the privilege of defining human origins, moral values, and the nature of reality." "Highlighting modern-day partisans as divergent as Richard Dawkins and Left Behind authors Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins, Ruse's book takes on the assumptions of controversialists of every stripe and belief and offers to all a new and productive way of understanding this unifying, if often bitter, quest."--BOOK JACKET.

@book{doi1041599780674042971,
    author = "Ruse, Michael",
    title = "The Evolution-Creation Struggle",
    year = "2005",
    booktitle = "Harvard University Press eBooks",
    abstract = {"In his latest book, Michael Ruse, a preeminent authority on Darwinian evolutionary thought and a leading participant in the ongoing debate, uncovers surprising similarities between evolutionist and creationist thinking. Exploring the underlying philosophical commitments of evolutionists, he reveals that those most hostile to religion are just as evangelical as their fundamentalist opponents. But more crucially, and reaching beyond the biblical issues at stake, he demonstrates that these two diametrically opposed ideologies have, since the Enlightenment, engaged in a struggle for the privilege of defining human origins, moral values, and the nature of reality." "Highlighting modern-day partisans as divergent as Richard Dawkins and Left Behind authors Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins, Ruse's book takes on the assumptions of controversialists of every stripe and belief and offers to all a new and productive way of understanding this unifying, if often bitter, quest."--BOOK JACKET.},
    url = "https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674042971",
    doi = "10.4159/9780674042971",
    openalex = "W2113135468"
}

Abstract The journal Science has documented the evolutionist–creationist controversy since it began publication in 1880. The annual number of references suggests the intensity of the public debate. Peaks occurred in response to the Scopes trial (1925) and trials in California (1979–1981), Arkansas (1981), and Louisiana (1982–1987). Although evolutionists won the last three outright, and public opinion largely supported science in the Scopes trial, dissenting opinions in the Supreme Court in the most recent case seem to have given impetus to new creationist activity—the intelligent design movement. Arguments have changed only slightly in the last century and a quarter. Fundamentalist opposition to teaching evolution remains strong. Scientists have consistently suggested better education as the solution to the dispute; however, to date, evidence does not support that position. Differences between science and fundamentalism appear irreconcilable, and no obvious end to the acrimonious debate is in sight.

@article{doi1016410006356820060560151eacis20co2,
    author = "Bleckmann, Charles A.",
    title = "Evolution and Creationism in Science: 1880–2000",
    year = "2006",
    journal = "BioScience",
    abstract = "Abstract The journal Science has documented the evolutionist–creationist controversy since it began publication in 1880. The annual number of references suggests the intensity of the public debate. Peaks occurred in response to the Scopes trial (1925) and trials in California (1979–1981), Arkansas (1981), and Louisiana (1982–1987). Although evolutionists won the last three outright, and public opinion largely supported science in the Scopes trial, dissenting opinions in the Supreme Court in the most recent case seem to have given impetus to new creationist activity—the intelligent design movement. Arguments have changed only slightly in the last century and a quarter. Fundamentalist opposition to teaching evolution remains strong. Scientists have consistently suggested better education as the solution to the dispute; however, to date, evidence does not support that position. Differences between science and fundamentalism appear irreconcilable, and no obvious end to the acrimonious debate is in sight.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2006)056[0151:eacis]2.0.co;2",
    doi = "10.1641/0006-3568(2006)056[0151:eacis]2.0.co;2",
    openalex = "W2172850408",
    references = "broad1981creationists, doi101126science1854154832, doi101126science2154535934, doi101126science2775328890, doi101126science2885467813, doi101126science3531, doi101126science55141255, doi101126science551417194, doi101126scienceos1215, doi1023072954697, lewin1981creationism, lewin1987creationism, openalexw3086307878, overton1982creationism"
}

@article{openalexw2419246321,
    author = "Ayala, Francisco J.",
    title = "Evolution vs. creationism.",
    year = "2006",
    journal = "PubMed",
    openalex = "W2419246321"
}

@misc{crossref2008evolution,
    title = "Evolution, Creationism, and the Long History of the Earth",
    year = "2008",
    booktitle = "Earth Science and Human History 101",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.5040/9798400643149.ch-003",
    doi = "10.5040/9798400643149.ch-003",
    openalex = "W4391202600",
    pages = "89-118"
}

Journal Article Trends: Evolution, Creationism, and the Teaching of Human Origins in Schools Get access Eric Plutzer, Eric Plutzer Address correspondence to Michael Berkman; e-mail: mbb1@psu.edu, mberkman@la.psu.edu Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar Michael Berkman Michael Berkman Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar Public Opinion Quarterly, Volume 72, Issue 3, Fall 2008, Pages 540–553, https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfn034 Published: 18 August 2008

@article{doi101093poqnfn034,
    author = "Plutzer, Eric and Berkman, M.",
    title = "Trends: Evolution, Creationism, and the Teaching of Human Origins in Schools",
    year = "2008",
    journal = "Public Opinion Quarterly",
    abstract = "Journal Article Trends: Evolution, Creationism, and the Teaching of Human Origins in Schools Get access Eric Plutzer, Eric Plutzer Address correspondence to Michael Berkman; e-mail: mbb1@psu.edu, mberkman@la.psu.edu Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar Michael Berkman Michael Berkman Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar Public Opinion Quarterly, Volume 72, Issue 3, Fall 2008, Pages 540–553, https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfn034 Published: 18 August 2008",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfn034",
    doi = "10.1093/poq/nfn034",
    openalex = "W2131811423"
}

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"
}

Who should decide what children are taught in school? This question lies at the heart of the evolution-creation wars that have become a regular feature of the US political landscape. Ever since the 1925 Scopes 'monkey trial' many have argued that the people should decide by majority rule and through political institutions; others variously point to the federal courts, educational experts, or scientists as the ideal arbiter. Berkman and Plutzer illuminate who really controls the nation's classrooms. Based on their innovative survey of 926 high school biology teachers they show that the real power lies with individual educators who make critical decisions in their own classrooms. Broad teacher discretion sometimes leads to excellent instruction in evolution. But the authors also find evidence of strong creationist tendencies in America's public high schools. More generally, they find evidence of a systematic undermining of science and the scientific method in many classrooms.

@book{doi101017cbo9780511760914,
    author = "Berkman, Michael and Plutzer, Eric",
    title = "Evolution, Creationism, and the Battle to Control America's Classrooms",
    year = "2010",
    booktitle = "Cambridge University Press eBooks",
    abstract = "Who should decide what children are taught in school? This question lies at the heart of the evolution-creation wars that have become a regular feature of the US political landscape. Ever since the 1925 Scopes 'monkey trial' many have argued that the people should decide by majority rule and through political institutions; others variously point to the federal courts, educational experts, or scientists as the ideal arbiter. Berkman and Plutzer illuminate who really controls the nation's classrooms. Based on their innovative survey of 926 high school biology teachers they show that the real power lies with individual educators who make critical decisions in their own classrooms. Broad teacher discretion sometimes leads to excellent instruction in evolution. But the authors also find evidence of strong creationist tendencies in America's public high schools. More generally, they find evidence of a systematic undermining of science and the scientific method in many classrooms.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511760914",
    doi = "10.1017/cbo9780511760914",
    openalex = "W4300532785"
}

@article{doi101111j10958312201001584x,
    author = "Crothers, John",
    title = "Evolution vs Creationism",
    year = "2010",
    journal = "Biological Journal of the Linnean Society",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8312.2010.01584.x",
    doi = "10.1111/j.1095-8312.2010.01584.x",
    openalex = "W1592869374"
}

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 essay analyzes the argumentative structure of the “Answers in Genesis” ministry's Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky. Founded by a $27 million grant, the 70,000 square-foot museum appropriates the stylistic and authoritative signifiers of natural history museums, complete with technically proficient hyperreal displays and modern curatorial techniques. In this essay, we argue that the museum provides a culturally authoritative space in which Young Earth Creationists can visually craft the appearance that there is an ongoing scientific controversy over matters long settled in the scientific community (evolution), or what scholars call a disingenuous or manufactured controversy. We analyze the displays and layout as argumentative texts to explain how the museum negotiates its own purported status as a museum with its ideological mission to promulgate biblical literalism. The Creation Museum provides an exemplary case study in how the rhetoric of controversy is used to undermine existing scientific knowledge and legitimize pseudoscientific beliefs. This essay contributes to argumentation studies by explaining how religious fundamentalists simulate the structure of a contentious argument by adopting the material signifiers of expert authority to ground their claims.

@article{doi10108000028533201211821759,
    author = "Kelly, Casey Ryan and Hoerl, Kristen",
    title = "Genesis in Hyperreality: Legitimizing Disingenuous Controversy at the Creation Museum",
    year = "2012",
    journal = "Argumentation and Advocacy",
    abstract = "This essay analyzes the argumentative structure of the “Answers in Genesis” ministry's Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky. Founded by a $27 million grant, the 70,000 square-foot museum appropriates the stylistic and authoritative signifiers of natural history museums, complete with technically proficient hyperreal displays and modern curatorial techniques. In this essay, we argue that the museum provides a culturally authoritative space in which Young Earth Creationists can visually craft the appearance that there is an ongoing scientific controversy over matters long settled in the scientific community (evolution), or what scholars call a disingenuous or manufactured controversy. We analyze the displays and layout as argumentative texts to explain how the museum negotiates its own purported status as a museum with its ideological mission to promulgate biblical literalism. The Creation Museum provides an exemplary case study in how the rhetoric of controversy is used to undermine existing scientific knowledge and legitimize pseudoscientific beliefs. This essay contributes to argumentation studies by explaining how religious fundamentalists simulate the structure of a contentious argument by adopting the material signifiers of expert authority to ground their claims.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.2012.11821759",
    doi = "10.1080/00028533.2012.11821759",
    openalex = "W1521231243",
    references = "doi10108000335639209383997"
}

@misc{crossref2013creation,
    title = "Creation Without Creationism",
    year = "2013",
    booktitle = "No God, No Science?",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118323205.part3",
    doi = "10.1002/9781118323205.part3",
    openalex = "W1598318637",
    pages = "297-297"
}

@misc{long2014life,
    author = "Long, John",
    title = "Life on Earth still favours evolution over creationism",
    year = "2014",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.64628/aa.khwh4qmmv",
    doi = "10.64628/aa.khwh4qmmv",
    openalex = "W4413699251"
}

Scientific communities maintain respected authority on matters related to the natural world; however, there are instances where significant portions of the population hold beliefs contrary to the scientific consensus. These beliefs have generally been studied as the product of scientific illiteracy. This project reframes the issue as one of social deviance from the consensus of scientific communities. Using young-earth creationism and global warming skepticism as case studies, I suggest that consensus perception in light of public scientific deviance is a valuable dialectical framework, and demonstrate its utility using logistic regression analyses of the 2006 Pew Religion and Public Life Survey. Believing there is no scientific consensus is one of the most important factors in predicting scientifically deviant beliefs, along with political and religious effects, eclipsing education. The inability of consensus perception to explain all variation in scientific deviance lends further credence to the framework, suggesting future directions in the study of this phenomenon.

@article{doi1011770731121417710459,
    author = "Tom, Joshua C.",
    title = "Social Origins of Scientific Deviance: Examining Creationism and Global Warming Skepticism",
    year = "2017",
    journal = "Sociological Perspectives",
    abstract = "Scientific communities maintain respected authority on matters related to the natural world; however, there are instances where significant portions of the population hold beliefs contrary to the scientific consensus. These beliefs have generally been studied as the product of scientific illiteracy. This project reframes the issue as one of social deviance from the consensus of scientific communities. Using young-earth creationism and global warming skepticism as case studies, I suggest that consensus perception in light of public scientific deviance is a valuable dialectical framework, and demonstrate its utility using logistic regression analyses of the 2006 Pew Religion and Public Life Survey. Believing there is no scientific consensus is one of the most important factors in predicting scientifically deviant beliefs, along with political and religious effects, eclipsing education. The inability of consensus perception to explain all variation in scientific deviance lends further credence to the framework, suggesting future directions in the study of this phenomenon.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1177/0731121417710459",
    doi = "10.1177/0731121417710459",
    openalex = "W2621020342",
    references = "doi1016410006356820060560151eacis20co2"
}

@incollection{doi10100797833199093945,
    author = "Fisher, Rachel J.",
    title = "Case Studies in Teaching Evolution in the Southwestern U.S.: The Intersection of Dilemmas in Practice",
    year = "2018",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90939-4\_5",
    doi = "10.1007/978-3-319-90939-4\_5",
    openalex = "W2809412413",
    references = "doi1016410006356820060560151eacis20co2"
}

The data-based study of long past events and processes is common throughout the sciences. Some examples are the astrophysical hypotheses that the universe began with a cosmic explosion ("big bang"), which is supported by measurements of the cosmic microwave background radiation pervading the modern universe; the hypothesis that the end-Cretaceous mass extinction was caused by a meteorite impact, which is supported by an iridium anomaly and large quantities of shocked quartz in K-Pg (Cretaceous-Paleogene) boundary sediments; and the hypothesis that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, which is supported by analyses of shared segments of ribosomal RNA found in contemporary organisms. My interest in the methodology of the historical sciences and how it differs from that of stereotypical or "classical" (as I later dubbed it) experimental science was first piqued in the 1990s by the writings of so-called "scientific [more accurately, biblical] creationists." Scientific creationists and their successors, members of the "Intelligent Design Network,"1 extol classical experimental research (the testing of hypotheses under controlled laboratory conditions) as the paradigm of good science, contending that historical scientific research is inferior because it uses "a form of abductive reasoning that produces competing historical hypotheses, that lead to an inference to the best current explanation rather than to an explanation that is logically compelled by experimental confirmation."2 Proponents of intelligent design are not alone, however, in denigrating the work of historical scientists. Articulating a view held by a surprising number of experimentalists, Henry Gee, at the time a senior editor of Nature, declared that no science can be historical because conjectures about the past cannot be tested by means of controlled laboratory experiments (Gee 1999).

@incollection{doi1010179781108648981011,
    author = "Cleland, Carol E.",
    title = "Is It Possible to Scientifically Reconstruct the History of Life on Earth?",
    year = "2020",
    booktitle = "Cambridge University Press eBooks",
    abstract = {The data-based study of long past events and processes is common throughout the sciences. Some examples are the astrophysical hypotheses that the universe began with a cosmic explosion ("big bang"), which is supported by measurements of the cosmic microwave background radiation pervading the modern universe; the hypothesis that the end-Cretaceous mass extinction was caused by a meteorite impact, which is supported by an iridium anomaly and large quantities of shocked quartz in K-Pg (Cretaceous-Paleogene) boundary sediments; and the hypothesis that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, which is supported by analyses of shared segments of ribosomal RNA found in contemporary organisms. My interest in the methodology of the historical sciences and how it differs from that of stereotypical or "classical" (as I later dubbed it) experimental science was first piqued in the 1990s by the writings of so-called "scientific [more accurately, biblical] creationists." Scientific creationists and their successors, members of the "Intelligent Design Network,"1 extol classical experimental research (the testing of hypotheses under controlled laboratory conditions) as the paradigm of good science, contending that historical scientific research is inferior because it uses "a form of abductive reasoning that produces competing historical hypotheses, that lead to an inference to the best current explanation rather than to an explanation that is logically compelled by experimental confirmation."2 Proponents of intelligent design are not alone, however, in denigrating the work of historical scientists. Articulating a view held by a surprising number of experimentalists, Henry Gee, at the time a senior editor of Nature, declared that no science can be historical because conjectures about the past cannot be tested by means of controlled laboratory experiments (Gee 1999).},
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108648981.011",
    doi = "10.1017/9781108648981.011",
    openalex = "W3084347786",
    references = "doi101007978940076537514, doi10100797894007653756, doi101007s1069901091787, doi101093bioscibiy084, doi1041599780674969025, doi1077659781526106476, openalexw2965328582, openalexw649908387"
}

“Cognitive creationism” is a term for ideologically based rejection of concepts from differential psychology or behavioral genetics. Various authors have compared this practice to young-Earth creationism, but the parallels between the two have not previously been subjected to an in-depth comparison, which is conducted for the first time in this paper. Both views are based on a similar set of psychological needs, and both have developed epistemologically similar worldviews, which draw certain conclusions ahead of time and then interpret all evidence in light of these assumptions. This reversal of the scientific method leads both young-Earth creationists and cognitive creationists to reject large swaths of otherwise well-established research due to its potential to support conclusions they have chosen a priori to reject. Both views also tend to rely on nonparsimonious ad hoc explanations, which are usually not able to reliably predict any future results. The risks posed by cognitive creationism will be discussed, along with potential implications for science education.

@article{tezuka2021cognitive,
    author = "Tezuka, Shuichi",
    title = "Cognitive Creationism Compared to Young-Earth Creationism",
    year = "2021",
    journal = "Journal of Controversial Ideas",
    abstract = "“Cognitive creationism” is a term for ideologically based rejection of concepts from differential psychology or behavioral genetics. Various authors have compared this practice to young-Earth creationism, but the parallels between the two have not previously been subjected to an in-depth comparison, which is conducted for the first time in this paper. Both views are based on a similar set of psychological needs, and both have developed epistemologically similar worldviews, which draw certain conclusions ahead of time and then interpret all evidence in light of these assumptions. This reversal of the scientific method leads both young-Earth creationists and cognitive creationists to reject large swaths of otherwise well-established research due to its potential to support conclusions they have chosen a priori to reject. Both views also tend to rely on nonparsimonious ad hoc explanations, which are usually not able to reliably predict any future results. The risks posed by cognitive creationism will be discussed, along with potential implications for science education.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.35995/jci01010003",
    doi = "10.35995/jci01010003",
    number = "1",
    openalex = "W3157890563",
    pages = "1",
    volume = "1",
    references = "doi101016jintell200411005, doi101016jneubiorev201509017, doi101016jssresearch201310004, doi101038mp200955, doi101038mp201185, doi101038ng3285, doi101126science2218526, doi1023072075146, doi105860choice423650"
}