Debate

@article{wesson1972objections11,
    author = "Wesson, P. S",
    title = "Objections to continental drift and plate tectonics",
    year = "1972",
    journal = "Journal of Geology, v. 80, p. 185-187",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Wesson, P. S., 1972, Objections to continental drift and plate tectonics: Journal of Geology, v. 80, p. 185-187.}"
}

@book{sagan1974ufos7,
    author = "Sagan, C. and Page, T",
    title = "UFO's",
    year = "1974",
    publisher = "A Scientific Debate: Ithaca; New York, Cornell University Press [1973]; Norton [1974]",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Sagan, C., and Page, T., 1974, UFO's: A Scientific Debate: Ithaca; New York, Cornell University Press [1973]; Norton [1974].}"
}

@article{blake1979evolutioncreation,
    author = "Blake, Charles H.",
    title = "Evolution/Creation Debate",
    year = "1979",
    journal = "BioScience",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.2307/1307662",
    doi = "10.2307/1307662",
    number = "12",
    pages = "715-715",
    volume = "29"
}

@article{dodson1980evolutioncreation,
    author = "Dodson, Edward",
    title = "Evolution/Creation Debate",
    year = "1980",
    journal = "BioScience",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.2307/1307870",
    doi = "10.2307/1307870",
    number = "4",
    pages = "220-221",
    volume = "30"
}

@misc{robinson1980debate6,
    author = "Robinson, J. A. T",
    title = "Debate with Duane Gish",
    year = "1980",
    howpublished = "Christianity Today, no. April, p. 50",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Robinson, J. A. T., 1980, Debate with Duane Gish: Christianity Today, no. April, p. 50.}"
}

@misc{milne1981how5,
    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{keith1982scopes3,
    author = "Keith, B",
    title = "Scopes II",
    year = "1982",
    howpublished = "The Great Debate: Schreveport, Louisiana, Huntington House",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Keith, B., 1982, Scopes II: The Great Debate: Schreveport, Louisiana, Huntington House.}"
}

@article{strahler1983toward9,
    author = "Strahler, A. N",
    title = "Toward a broader perspective in the creation-evolution debate",
    year = "1983",
    journal = "Journal of Geological Education, v. 31, p. 87-94",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Strahler, A. N., 1983, Toward a broader perspective in the creation-evolution debate: Journal of Geological Education, v. 31, p. 87-94.}"
}

@misc{unger1984the10,
    author = "Unger, T",
    title = "The sociobiology debate",
    year = "1984",
    howpublished = "What is it really all about?: The American Rationalist, v. 29, no. 4, p. 57-59",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Unger, T., 1984, The sociobiology debate: What is it really all about?: The American Rationalist, v. 29, no. 4, p. 57-59.}"
}

@misc{klotz1985studies4,
    author = "Klotz, J. W",
    title = "Studies in Creation",
    year = "1985",
    howpublished = "A General Introduction to the Creation/ Evolution Debate: St. Louis, Mo., Concordia Publishing House",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Klotz, J. W., 1985, Studies in Creation: A General Introduction to the Creation/ Evolution Debate: St. Louis, Mo., Concordia Publishing House.}"
}

@misc{research1988radio2,
    author = "for Creation Research, Institute",
    title = "Radio Debate on the Age of the Earth",
    year = "1988",
    howpublished = "Acts and Facts, v. 17, no. 2, p. 2-3,7",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Institute for Creation Research, 1988, Radio Debate on the Age of the Earth: Acts and Facts, v. 17, no. 2, p. 2-3,7.}"
}

@misc{saladin1988saladingish8,
    author = "Saladin, K",
    title = "Saladin-Gish Debate",
    year = "1988",
    howpublished = "Creation/Evolution Newsletter, v. 8, p. 11, 14",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Saladin, K., 1988, Saladin-Gish Debate: Creation/Evolution Newsletter, v. 8, p. 11, 14.}"
}

@misc{badash1989theageoftheearth1,
    author = "Badash, L",
    title = "The-age-of-the-earth debate",
    year = "1989",
    howpublished = "Scientific American, v. 261, no. 2, p. 90-96",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Badash, L., 1989, The-age-of-the-earth debate: Scientific American, v. 261, no. 2, p. 90-96.}"
}

The present survey was designed to assess predominant regional belief systems and the roles these beliefs play in science understanding and attitudes, and curricular effectiveness in colleges and universities. To this end, we created a wide variety of theory-driven subscales (lower order factors) reflecting, for example, exposure to evolutionary material, young earth creationist beliefs, moral and social objections, political ideology, endorsement of intelligent design fallacies, knowledge (and distrust) of the scientific enterprise, and attitudes of evolutionary theory’s relevance in several domains (e.g., sciences and humanities). We also included potentially important demographic variables (e.g., rural upbringing, family size). Finally, we assessed openness to experience, a key facet of personality. Hierarchical Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) analysis showed the 16 constructs to have a theoretically meaningful and quantitatively coherent higher order factor structure. In this large Kansas sample of university students, creationist reasoning and conservative orientation (political and religious) were negatively associated with exposure to evolutionary theory, knowledge about it, and positive attitudes toward its relevance. At the same time, exposure to the theory was positively associated with knowledge and positive attitudes. Importantly, though most Kansas-specific demographic variables (e.g., rural origins) were largely unrelated to outcomes of interest in this university-based sample, the personality factor openness to experience appears to be highly relevant for several higher order factors (e.g., exposure, knowledge and relevance, and creationist reasoning). We close with implications for educators and the next steps in survey development.

@article{doi101007s1205201002941,
    author = "Hawley, Patricia H. and Short, Stephen D. and McCune, Luke and Osman, Mark R. and Little, Todd D.",
    title = "What’s the Matter with Kansas?: The Development and Confirmation of the Evolutionary Attitudes and Literacy Survey (EALS)",
    year = "2010",
    journal = "Evolution Education and Outreach",
    abstract = "The present survey was designed to assess predominant regional belief systems and the roles these beliefs play in science understanding and attitudes, and curricular effectiveness in colleges and universities. To this end, we created a wide variety of theory-driven subscales (lower order factors) reflecting, for example, exposure to evolutionary material, young earth creationist beliefs, moral and social objections, political ideology, endorsement of intelligent design fallacies, knowledge (and distrust) of the scientific enterprise, and attitudes of evolutionary theory’s relevance in several domains (e.g., sciences and humanities). We also included potentially important demographic variables (e.g., rural upbringing, family size). Finally, we assessed openness to experience, a key facet of personality. Hierarchical Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) analysis showed the 16 constructs to have a theoretically meaningful and quantitatively coherent higher order factor structure. In this large Kansas sample of university students, creationist reasoning and conservative orientation (political and religious) were negatively associated with exposure to evolutionary theory, knowledge about it, and positive attitudes toward its relevance. At the same time, exposure to the theory was positively associated with knowledge and positive attitudes. Importantly, though most Kansas-specific demographic variables (e.g., rural origins) were largely unrelated to outcomes of interest in this university-based sample, the personality factor openness to experience appears to be highly relevant for several higher order factors (e.g., exposure, knowledge and relevance, and creationist reasoning). We close with implications for educators and the next steps in survey development.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1007/s12052-010-0294-1",
    doi = "10.1007/s12052-010-0294-1",
    openalex = "W2168910940",
    references = "crothers2011evolution, doi101037003329091293339, doi1010370033290913211, doi101111j146764941992tb00970x, doi101207s15328007sem09021, openalexw1515814298, openalexw1556033561, openalexw1610612296, openalexw2767879018, openalexw2789109311"
}

Anthropogenic hybridization is widely perceived as a threat to the conservation of biodiversity. Nevertheless, to date, relevant policy and management interventions are unresolved and highly convoluted. While this is due to the inherent complexity of the issue, we hereby hypothesize that a lack of agreement concerning management goals and approaches, within the scientific community, may explain the lack of social awarenesson this phenomenon, and the absence of effective pressure on decision-makers. By focusing on wolf x dog hybridization in Europe, we hereby (a) assess the state of the art of issues on wolf x dog hybridization within the scientific community, (b) assess the conceptual bases for different viewpoints, and (c) provide a conceptual framework aiming at reducing the disagreements.We adopted the Delphi technique, involving a three-round iterative survey addressed to a selected sample of experts who published at Web of Science listed journals, in the last 10 years on wolf x dog hybridization and related topics. Consensus was reached that admixed individuals should always be defined according to their genetic profile, and that a reference threshold for admixture (i.e., q-value in assignment tests) should be formally adopted for their identification. Tomitigate hybridization, experts agreed on adopting preventive, proactive and, when concerning small and recovering wolf populations, reactive interventions. Overall, experts’ consensus waned as the issues addressed became increasingly practical, including the adoption of lethal removal. We suggest three non-mutually exclusive explanations for this trend: (i) value-laden viewpoints increasingly emerge when addressing practical issues, and are particularly diverging between experts with different disciplinary backgrounds (e.g., ecologists, geneticists); (ii) some experts prefer avoiding the risk of potentially giving carte blanche to wolf opponents to (illegally) remove wolves, based on the wolf x dog hybridization issue; (iii) room for subjective interpretation and opinions result from the paucity of data on the effectiveness of different management interventions. These results have management implications and reveal gaps in the knowledge on a wide Spectrum of issues related not only to the management of anthropogenic hybridization, but also to the role of ethical values and real-world management concerns in the scientific debate. conservation, delphi technique, genetic admixture, introgression, lethal removal, management, ethics, values in science

@article{doi103389fevo201900175,
    author = "Donfrancesco, Valerio and Ciucci, Paolo and Salvatori, Valéria and Benson, David and Andersen, Liselotte Wesley and Bassi, Elena and Blanco, Juan Carlos and Boitani, Luigi and Caniglia, Romolo and Canu, Antonio and Capitani, Claudia and Chapron, Guillaume and Czarnomska, Sylwia D. and Fabbri, Elena and Galaverni, Marco and Galov, Ana and Giménez, Olivier and Godinho, Raquel and Greco, Claudia and Hindrikson, Maris and Huber, Đuro and Hulva, Pavel and Jędrzejewski, Włodzimierz and Kusak, Josip and Linnell, John D. C. and Llaneza, Luís and López‐Bao, José Vicente and Männil, Peep and Marucco, Francesca and Mattioli, Luca and Milanesi, Pietro and Milleret, Cyril and Mysłajek, Robert W. and Ordiz, Andrés and Palacios, Vicente and Pedersen, Hans Christian and Pertoldi, Cino and Pilot, Małgorzata and Randi, Ettore and Rodrı́guez, Alejandro and Saarma, Urmas and Sand, Håkan and Scandura, Massimo and Strønen, Astrid Vik and Tsingarska, Elena and Mukherjee, Nibedita",
    title = "Unravelling the Scientific Debate on How to Address Wolf-Dog Hybridization in Europe",
    year = "2019",
    journal = "Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution",
    abstract = "Anthropogenic hybridization is widely perceived as a threat to the conservation of biodiversity. Nevertheless, to date, relevant policy and management interventions are unresolved and highly convoluted. While this is due to the inherent complexity of the issue, we hereby hypothesize that a lack of agreement concerning management goals and approaches, within the scientific community, may explain the lack of social awarenesson this phenomenon, and the absence of effective pressure on decision-makers. By focusing on wolf x dog hybridization in Europe, we hereby (a) assess the state of the art of issues on wolf x dog hybridization within the scientific community, (b) assess the conceptual bases for different viewpoints, and (c) provide a conceptual framework aiming at reducing the disagreements.We adopted the Delphi technique, involving a three-round iterative survey addressed to a selected sample of experts who published at Web of Science listed journals, in the last 10 years on wolf x dog hybridization and related topics. Consensus was reached that admixed individuals should always be defined according to their genetic profile, and that a reference threshold for admixture (i.e., q-value in assignment tests) should be formally adopted for their identification. Tomitigate hybridization, experts agreed on adopting preventive, proactive and, when concerning small and recovering wolf populations, reactive interventions. Overall, experts’ consensus waned as the issues addressed became increasingly practical, including the adoption of lethal removal. We suggest three non-mutually exclusive explanations for this trend: (i) value-laden viewpoints increasingly emerge when addressing practical issues, and are particularly diverging between experts with different disciplinary backgrounds (e.g., ecologists, geneticists); (ii) some experts prefer avoiding the risk of potentially giving carte blanche to wolf opponents to (illegally) remove wolves, based on the wolf x dog hybridization issue; (iii) room for subjective interpretation and opinions result from the paucity of data on the effectiveness of different management interventions. These results have management implications and reveal gaps in the knowledge on a wide Spectrum of issues related not only to the management of anthropogenic hybridization, but also to the role of ethical values and real-world management concerns in the scientific debate. conservation, delphi technique, genetic admixture, introgression, lethal removal, management, ethics, values in science",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2019.00175",
    doi = "10.3389/fevo.2019.00175",
    openalex = "W2945499307",
    references = "doi101186s1205201400063"
}