DOCSLIB.ORG

Creationism at the Grass Roots: a Study of a Local Creationist Institution

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Creationism at the Grass Roots: a Study of a Local Creationist Institution CREATIONISM AT THE GRASS ROOTS: A STUDY OF A LOCAL CREATIONIST INSTITUTION A dissertation submitted to the Kent State University College and Graduate School of Education, Health, and Human Services in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy by Paul J. Wendel May, 2008 © Copyright by Paul J. Wendel, 2008 All Rights Reserved ii A dissertation written by Paul J. Wendel B. S., Kent State University, 1988 M. S., University of Akron, 1998 M. A., Kent State University, 2003 Ph. D., Kent State University, 2008 Approved by ________________________________, Director, Doctoral Dissertation Committee Wendy Sherman Heckler ________________________________, Member, Doctoral Dissertation Committee Andrew Gilbert ________________________________, Member, Doctoral Dissertation Committee Nathan Myers Accepted by ________________________________, Interim Chair, Department of Teaching, J. David Keller Leadership, and Curriculum Studies ________________________________, Interim Dean, College and Graduate School Donald L. Bubenzer of Education, Health, and Human Services iii WENDEL, PAUL J., Ph. D., May 2008 Curriculum and Instruction CREATIONISM AT THE GRASS ROOTS: A STUDY OF A LOCAL CREATIONIST INSTITUTION (383 pp.) Director of Dissertation: Wendy Sherman Heckler, Ph. D. Relying on the book of Genesis as a source text, young-earth creationists or “creation scientists” claim to find physical evidence that the earth was created in six 24- hour periods less than ten thousand years ago and that most of the geologic column was laid down in a year-long worldwide flood. Unsurprisingly, these claims lead to a boundary dispute over the definition of science, in which mainstream scientists impugn the validity of creation science and creation scientists respond in kind. Although young- earth creationism is a growing movement, little is known about it. In particular, little is known about how creationists view the relationship between creationism and science or how the rhetoric of moral, cultural, environmental, and/or biological decline informs creationist practice. In order to investigate these issues, I studied the Fossil Museum (pseudonym), a local young-earth creationist institution, through a combination of naturalistic inquiry and visitor interviews. With respect to the rhetoric of decline, I found that cultural, environmental, and biological decline appear to function independently of one another in Fossil Museum rhetoric. With respect to views of the relationship between creationism and science, I found that despite having limited training or experience in science and despite committing numerous scientific errors, Fossil Museum associates respect and emulate science. Believing that physical evidence mediated by honest science will vindicate young-earth creationism, Fossil Museum associates speak of science in highly Baconian terms, invoking the ideal of assumption-free data and privileging observation over inference. They also accept the notion that science should be falsifiable and they suggest that on this criterion, mainstream science is not scientific. Yet because of their belief that physical evidence can vindicate their position, they openly discuss counterevidence to young-earth creationism, regarding such counterevidence as anomalies for future resolution rather than occasions for crisis. I conclude that because of Fossil Museum associates' honest approach to physical data and their belief that science can resolve disputes, productive dialogue is possible and desirable between mainstream scientists and some young-earth creationists, but such dialogue will be useful only if it is aimed at mutual understanding rather than mutual conversion. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am grateful to the many scholars who contributed to my growth and enabled me to complete this study. First among these is the director of this dissertation, Dr. Wendy Sherman Heckler, who ably mentored me as a scholar and as a teacher, got me unstuck when I was bogged down, and redirected me when needed. Drs. Andrew Gilbert and Nathan Myers contributed numerous valuable comments and directions along the way. Dr. Declan Keane, who helped to steer me onto a scholarly path some ten years ago, provided numerous productive criticisms which have strengthened the final product. Finally I was privileged to be part of a dissertation study group, informally known as the “data therapy” group, where I benefited from the insights of fellow students Richard Emch, Sheri Leafgren, Nida’a Makki, Cherie Parsons, and David Wojnowski. I am particularly indebted to Nida’a Makki, who shared her wisdom and support in countless discussions. I am also grateful to the participants in this study who welcomed me into the Fossil Museum and shared their lives. Ben was particularly generous with his time, notified me of numerous events, introduced me to other Fossil Museum associates, and supplied information wherever he could. Art, Claire, Diana, and Francis were especially generous with their time and attention. iv Finally, I am grateful for my family’s steadfast support. My wife, Joyce Wendel, worked with me and encouraged me throughout this life-changing process. I cannot thank her enough for listening, contributing ideas, and enabling me to take a hiatus from teaching in order to write the dissertation. My daughter, Emily Wendel, cheerfully endured my constant need to study. I am very fortunate indeed. v TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . iv CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION . 1 Opposition to Evolution in Public Schools . 1 The Strength of Creationism in the United States . 2 The Dearth of Knowledge About Creationists . 4 The Need for Information About Creationists . 7 II LITERATURE REVIEW . 12 Why Evolution? . 12 The Historical Context of Modern Creationism . 15 Evangelicals and Fundamentalists . 16 Christian/Fundamentalist Responses to the Theory of Evolution before 1960 . 18 The Birth of Creation Science . 22 Intelligent Design . 37 Creationism and the Struggle to Define Science . 38 The Legal Landscape . 39 Testability/Falsifiability . 47 Additional Demarcation Criteria . 56 Alternative Approaches to Science/Non-Science Demarcation . 60 Teaching the Nature of Science . 69 Research Questions . 73 III METHODOLOGY . 74 A Philosophy of Social Science Research . 74 The Explanatory Power of Worldviews . 75 The Weakness of Worldviews . 78 Study of Performance Tendencies . 80 The Case Study . 83 Validity, Objectivity, and Researcher Influence . 86 The Study . 89 vi IV DATA . 93 Physical Facilities . 93 The Fossil Museum . 93 Fossil Park . 99 The Museum Tour . 101 Classroom Presentation . 101 The Exhibit Hall . 105 Opening the Doors of Truth . 110 Fossil Museum Staff . 113 Science at the Fossil Museum . 115 Respect for Science . 115 Exhibits . 121 Scientists . 124 Declinism . 128 Ways of Speaking of Science . 139 Anomalies . 156 Museum Visitors . 168 Interviewee Demographics . 168 Table 1: Fossil Museum Visitor Interviews . 170 Satisfaction with the Museum . 177 Creationism Among Interviewed Visitors . 178 Progress and Decline . 181 Anomalies . 184 Conclusion . 187 V DISCUSSION . 190 Amateur Scientists . 190 Respect for Science . 190 Ignorance of Science . 191 Supportive Visitors . 193 Baconian Science . 195 Assumption-Free Data . 195 Science/Non-Science Demarcation . 198 Falsifications and Anomalies . 203 Falsifications . 203 Anomalies . 207 Decline . 211 Genomic Devolution . 212 Three Independent Forms of Decline . 214 An Opportunity for Productive Dialogue . 215 On the Nature of Science Education: A Role for Educators . 219 Conclusion . 220 vii APPENDICES . ..
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Reflections on a Young Earth Creationist' Approach to Scientific
    Reflections on a Young Earth Creationist’ Approach to Scientific Apologetics JUNE 15, 2015 BY JOEL DUFF A few weeks ago I was a scheduled to present several lectures as part of a course offered by Veritas Theological Seminary in Santa Ana, California. The course title was Scientific Apologetics: The Age of the Earth. The course was split 50/50 between speakers from Solid Rock Lectures including myself, and two prominent employees of Answers in Genesis. However, just hours before I was to present I was informed by the seminary president that I would not be allowed to speak. I had spent the previous two evenings listening to 11 hours of presentations by the AiG speakers and was prepared to respond to that material in addition to pulling together the strands of thought begun by my colleagues earlier in the week. Though I was thwarted from speaking – why this happened is a topic to explore in a future post – I spent time writing down some reflections on the course material presented by the Answers in Genesis speakers. I was able to have these reflections given to the students in addition to some of the other reading materials that I had already prepared. I have returned to my reflections originally written hastily in the very early hours of the morning. I have edited them for clarity and provided a few more examples. I am providing that edited version below as a small – 3000 word – glimpse into the world of creation apologetics. Does the evidence point to a young earth? A few observations.
    [Show full text]
  • Wrangell St. Elias News March & April 2010 Page 1
    WRANGELL ST. ELIAS NEWS MARCH & APRIL 2010 PAGE 1 Wrangell St. Elias News “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty” Volume Nineteen Issue Two March & April 2010 $2.50 A winter “Mail Day”—McCarthy style our mail pilot tries ail days in McCa- again the next day. rthy look much Copper Valley Air Mdifferent than Service has a variety of mail day delivery in the “big airplanes and pilots. city.” Dave Parmenter, own- First, it is not 5 or 6 days a er, is often our “mail week but twice a week; that pilot.” Dave is pictured is, unless the weather keeps here as he prepares to our mail pilot on the ground unload his Cessna 185 in Glennallen, about 125 with all our mail day WSEN staff photo miles west of our community. goodies. Wheel skies Dave—our mail pilot. are still a “must” dur- ing the latter part of or just seek out those warmer February. climes. Winter mail days Transportation to mail is are usually sparsely usually by snowmachine with attended by local sleds to haul incoming boxes. residents. The (continued on page 11) McCarthy/Ken nicott area population is only about 50- 60 year round WSEN staff photo folks and work Bonnie Kenyon, Howard Haley, Jim Edwards is seasonal— and Mike Monroe. mostly in the summer Wednesdays and Fridays months. In recent are the scheduled days for years, the majority of us both incoming and outgoing take advantage of the WSEN staff photo mail. For the most part, if one slower-paced winter Park Ranger Stephens Harper meets incoming of those days is missed due to months to travel and passenger, Erica Edmonds who is the new adverse weather conditions, visit family and friends Kennecott Interpretive Ranger.
    [Show full text]
  • The New Answers Book 3
    First printing: February 2010 Copyright © 2009 by Answers in Genesis. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever without written permission of the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations in articles and reviews. For information write: Master Books®, P.O. Box 726, Green Forest, AR 72638 ISBN-13: 978-0-89051-579-2 ISBN-10: 0-89051-579-4 Library of Congress Number: 2008903202 Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture is from the New King James Version of the Bible. Printed in the United States of America Please visit our website for other great titles: www.masterbooks.net For information regarding author interviews, please contact the publicity department at (870) 438-5288. ® ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AND SPECIAL THANKS Acknowledgments and special thanks for reviewing or editing chapters: Steve Fazekas (theology, AiG), Frost Smith (biology, editor, AiG), Mike Matthews (editor, AiG), Gary Vaterlaus (science education, editor, AiG), Tim Chaffey (theology, Midwest Apologetics), Dr. John Whitcomb (theology, presi- dent of Whitcomb Ministries), Dr. Larry Vardiman (atmospheric science, chair- man of the department of astro-geophysics at the Institute for Creation Research), Ken Ham (biology, president and CEO of Answers in Genesis), Donna O’Daniel (biology, AiG), Dr. Tim Clarey (geology), Christine Fidler (CEO of Image in the UK), Mark Looy (editor, AiG), Dr. Terry Mortenson (history of geology, AiG), John Upchurch (editor, AiG), Dr. Jason Lisle (astrophysics, AiG), Dr. John Morris (geological engineering, president of the Institute for Creation Research), Dr. Andrew Snelling (geology, director of research at AiG), Dr. David Menton (retired, cell biology, former associate professor of anatomy at Washington Uni- versity School of Medicine, now AiG), Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • The Streaked Bombardier Beetle (Brachinus Sclopeta) Is One of the UK’S Most Threatened Invertebrates with Modern Records Restricted to London’S Brownfields
    © Benoit Martha The Streaked bombardier beetle (Brachinus sclopeta) is one of the UK’s most threatened invertebrates with modern records restricted to London’s brownfields. This easily identifiable beetle is 5-7.5mm long and has a metallic blue-green elytra with a distinctive orange-red streak, and a slim orange-red body. Similar to all bombardier species, when threatened it can spray a boiling, chemical mixture of hydroquinones and hydrogen peroxide from the tip of its flexible abdomen to deter predators. Life cycle Habitat Very little is known of their ecology, but adults have been Streaked bombardier in the UK are now exclusively recorded throughout the year in an apparently active state. It associated with brownfields that support open mosaic is likely that the Streaked bombardier follows a similar life habitat on previously developed land, a Priority Habitat. They cycle to closely related species, with reproduction in the require sites with a mosaic of dry open ground, ruderal warmer months before overwintering as adults. It is thought vegetation and large debris such as broken bricks and rubble. that larvae are ectoparasites of Amara, Harpalus and Soil and rubble bunds created by site clearances appear to possibly Ophonus beetle larvae, attaching themselves to their provide them with optimal habitat, perhaps providing them prey and feeding before pupating. with a range of microclimates, aspects, temperature and moisture. The beetles are often found tightly embedded Distribution between broken brick or rubble and soil. A range of microclimates and different ruderal species are also likely to Historical records of the Streaked bombardier are restricted improve the number and diversity of seed eating Amara and to a handful of sites on the south coast of England, with the Harpalus prey species.
    [Show full text]
  • The Demarcation Problem
    Part I The Demarcation Problem 25 Chapter 1 Popper’s Falsifiability Criterion 1.1 Popper’s Falsifiability Popper’s Problem : To distinguish between science and pseudo-science (astronomy vs astrology) - Important distinction: truth is not the issue – some theories are sci- entific and false, and some may be unscientific but true. - Traditional but unsatisfactory answers: empirical method - Popper’s targets: Marx, Freud, Adler Popper’s thesis : Falsifiability – the theory contains claims which could be proved to be false. Characteristics of Pseudo-Science : unfalsifiable - Any phenomenon can be interpreted in terms of the pseudo-scientific theory “Whatever happened always confirmed it” (5) - Example: man drowning vs saving a child Characteristics of Science : falsifiability - A scientific theory is always takes risks concerning the empirical ob- servations. It contains the possibility of being falsified. There is con- firmation only when there is failure to refute. 27 28 CHAPTER 1. POPPER’S FALSIFIABILITY CRITERION “The theory is incompatible with certain possible results of observation” (6) - Example: Einstein 1919 1.2 Kuhn’s criticism of Popper Kuhn’s Criticism of Popper : Popper’s falsifiability criterion fails to char- acterize science as it is actually practiced. His criticism at best applies to revolutionary periods of the history of science. Another criterion must be given for normal science. Kuhn’s argument : - Kuhn’s distinction between normal science and revolutionary science - A lesson from the history of science: most science is normal science. Accordingly, philosophy of science should focus on normal science. And any satisfactory demarcation criterion must apply to normal science. - Popper’s falsifiability criterion at best only applies to revolutionary science, not to normal science.
    [Show full text]
  • Apologetic Resources
    APOLOGETIC RESOURCES A Young Earth ministry perspective, namely contrasting Scripture to true science now and during the ages. By Dr. Jim Pagels [email protected] 9/2016 Editor Dr. John Fricke, Emeritus Professor of Biology, Concordia University, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Copyright This book is offered as an educational resource on a no cost basis. Contents are not to be reproduced for the purpose of sale. Note that all Scriptural passages are taken from the English Standard Version. 1 I HAVE NO GREATER JOY THAN TO HEAR THAT MY CHILDREN WALK IN THE TRUTH III JOHN 1:4 Forward - Although there is much young Earth information available from commercial sources and on the internet, it was the impression of this writer that no resource that deals with basic topical issues correlating the young Earth philosophy and science exists for professional church workers. To this end, Apologetic Resources is being offered. Intended Audience – The intended audience of this reference material is primarily use by professional church workers, i.e., teachers, pastors, youth workers, etc., namely those who choose to uphold the literal interpretation of Genesis and the inerrancy of Holy Scripture. The focus in this regard is Young Earth Creationism and the catastrophic nature of the global Genesis Flood keeping in mind that Genesis 1-11 is foundational to most of the significant doctrines of Holy Scripture. Of course, laymen may well also find this reference a valuable resource. There is obviously a realistic interplay between Scripture, apologetics and true science. The goal of this document is to provide clarity to this interaction.
    [Show full text]
  • Mapping the Creation-Evolution Debate in Public Life
    MAPPING THE CREATION-EVOLUTION DEBATE IN PUBLIC LIFE by ANDREW JUDSON HART (Under the Direction of Edward Panetta) ABSTRACT Evolution versus creation is a divisive issue as religion is pitted against science in public discourse. Despite mounting scientific evidence in favor of evolution and legal decisions against the teaching of creationism in public schools, the number of advocates who still argue for creationist teaching in the science curriculum of public schools remains quite large. Public debates have played a key role in the creationist movement, and this study examines public debates between creationists and evolutionists over thirty years to track trends and analyze differences in arguments and political style in an attempt to better understand why creationism remains salient with many in the American public. INDEX WORDS: Creation; Evolution; Public Debate; Argumentation; Political Style; Bill Nye MAPPING THE CREATION-EVOLUTION DEBATE IN PUBLIC LIFE by ANDREW JUDSON HART B.A., The University of Georgia, 2010 B.S.F.R., The University of Georgia, 2010 M.A.T., The University of Georgia, 2014 A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of The University of Georgia in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree MASTER OF ARTS ATHENS, GEORGIA 2016 © 2016 Andrew Judson Hart All Rights Reserved MAPPING THE CREATION-EVOLUTION DEBATE IN PUBLIC LIFE by ANDREW JUDSON HART Major Professor: Edward Panetta Committee: Barbara Biesecker Thomas Lessl Electronic Version Approved: Suzanne Barbour Dean of the Graduate School The University of Georgia May 2016 iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This project would not have been possible without Dr. Ed Panetta pushing me down the path to study the creation-evolution debates and his work with me on this through the many drafts and edits.
    [Show full text]
  • How Bombardier Beetles Survive Being Eaten – and Other Amazing Animal Defence Mechanisms
    07/02/2018 How bombardier beetles survive being eaten – and other amazing animal defence mechanisms Academic rigour, journalistic flair How bombardier beetles survive being eaten – and other amazing animal defence mechanisms February 7, 2018 12.03am GMT Author Luc Bussiere Lecturer in Biological Sciences, University of Stirling What goes in must come out. Sugiura & Sato, Kobe University, Author provided (No reuse) In Disney’s film version of Pinnochio, the boy-puppet rescues his creator Geppetto by lighting a fire inside Monstro the whale, who has swallowed them both. The fire causes the whale to sneeze, freeing Pinnochio and Geppetto from their gastric prison. Before you dismiss this getaway as incredible fantasy, consider that new research shows that a kind of fire in the belly can actually be an effective strategy for escaping predators in the real world. In fact, the animal kingdom is full of amazing examples of unusual defence mechanisms that help small creatures avoid a nasty fate. In a new paper in Biology Letters, scientists at Kobe University in Japan describe how bombardier beetles can survive being eaten by a toad by releasing a hot chemical spray that makes the hungry amphibian vomit. Bombardier beetles are so-named because, when threatened, they emit a boiling, irritating substance from their backsides with remarkable accuracy, to deter potential predators. They produce the caustic mixture by combining hydrogen peroxide, hydroquinones and chemical catalysts in a specially reinforced chamber at the base of their abdomen, which shields the beetle’s own organs from the resulting explosive reaction. Slow-motion footage of spraying by Asian bombardier beetle https://theconversation.com/how-bombardier-beetles-survive-being-eaten-and-other-amazing-animal-defence-mechanisms-91288 1/4 07/02/2018 How bombardier beetles survive being eaten – and other amazing animal defence mechanisms The Japanese researchers fed two different species of bombardier beetles to captive toads.
    [Show full text]
  • Creation Evidences Museum in Glen Rose, and Director of International Expeditions Looking for Living Dinosaurs
    DR. BAUGH, CREATION IN SYMPHONY Tape 1, Sessions 1 & 2 Creation in Symphony: THE EVIDENCE Session 1 Evolution Won’t Work (voice - intro) 150 years ago the theory of evolution found reception in the mind of western man. It was not a new idea. It had been introduced in religious political documents in ancient Babylon, and later in secular contemplations of developing Greece. Erasmus Darwin came up with the idea of natural selection as a mechanism for evolution. His grandson, Charles, introduced the concept to the secular academic community, which was eager to embrace a non-theistic doctrine. This doctrine removed the need for a Creator in the natural world, and the need for accountability in the spiritual world. The text of this video series shows that evolution does not work in theory, or in laboratory research. The evidence is heavily in favor of special creation. In this series of lectures a complete Creation model has been developed, with extensive technical references. Prepare to have your mind dramatically expanded, and your faith academically justified, as our speaker, Dr. Carl Baugh, takes you on a fascinating journey from the microscopic to the galactic. Discover creation in symphony. (Baugh) Hello, I’m Carl Baugh, director of Creation Evidences Museum in Glen Rose, and director of international expeditions looking for living dinosaurs. Welcome to the discussion today. We’re going to discuss very intimate questions, which have to do with your past, your present and your future, and that of all of mankind. We’re going to talk about dinosaurs. Tyrannosaurus Rex. Pachycephalosaurus.
    [Show full text]
  • Intelligent Design Creationism and the Constitution
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Washington University St. Louis: Open Scholarship Washington University Law Review Volume 83 Issue 1 2005 Is It Science Yet?: Intelligent Design Creationism and the Constitution Matthew J. Brauer Princeton University Barbara Forrest Southeastern Louisiana University Steven G. Gey Florida State University Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, Education Law Commons, First Amendment Commons, Religion Law Commons, and the Science and Technology Law Commons Recommended Citation Matthew J. Brauer, Barbara Forrest, and Steven G. Gey, Is It Science Yet?: Intelligent Design Creationism and the Constitution, 83 WASH. U. L. Q. 1 (2005). Available at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol83/iss1/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School at Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington University Law Review by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Washington University Law Quarterly VOLUME 83 NUMBER 1 2005 IS IT SCIENCE YET?: INTELLIGENT DESIGN CREATIONISM AND THE CONSTITUTION MATTHEW J. BRAUER BARBARA FORREST STEVEN G. GEY* TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ................................................................................................... 3 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Evolution Exposed (Hebron, KY: Answers in Genesis, 2006), P
    footnotes from THE LIE We thank you for listening to the audiobook presentation of the 25th an- niversary special edition of The Lie by author Ken Ham. This download contains footnote details as well as other information related to the printed book, includ- ing more about the author and a timeline of his ministry work. For more infor- mation on other books available from Master Books, the world’s leading creation science publisher, visit our website at www.masterbooks.net. To learn more about author Ken Ham, and the Answers in Genesis Ministry, visit www.answersingen- esis.org. Chapter 1 Endnotes 1. Ken Ham and Britt Beemer, Already Gone: Why Your Kids Will Quit the Church and What You Can Do to Stop It, with Todd Hillard (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2009), p. 170. 2. “August 10, 2009, What I learned from the Creation Museum,” posted by a member of the Secular Student Alliance, http://pnrj.xanga.com/709441435/ what-i-learned-from-the-creation-museum/. 3. Vickie Aldous, “Nudity Issue Sparks More City Council Debate,” Ashland Daily Tidings, http://www.dailytidings.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091118/ NEWS02/911180316. 4. For more information on observational science and historical science, see Roger Patterson, Evolution Exposed (Hebron, KY: Answers in Genesis, 2006), p. 24–26, http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/what-is-science. 5. For more information on Noah’s ark and the Flood, see Ken Ham and Tim Lovett, “Was There Really a Noah’s Ark and Flood?” inThe New Answers Book ,1 Ken Ham, editor (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2006).
    [Show full text]
  • Creation/Evolution
    Creation/Evolution Are the fossils in the wrong order for human evolution? Issue VIII CONTENTS Spring 1982 ARTICLES 1 Charles Darwin: A Centennial Tribute by H. lames Birx 11 Kelvin Was Not a Creationist by Stephen G Brush 14 Are There Human Fossils in the "Wrong Place" for Evolution by Ernest C. Conrad 23 Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon-14 Dating by Christopher Gregory Weber REPORTS .30 Creation-Evoiution Debates: Who's Winning Them Now? by Frederick Edwards 43 News Briefs LICENSED TO UNZ.ORG ELECTRONIC REPRODUCTION PROHIBITED FORTHCOMING PROGRAMS PBS TV Program, "Creation vs. Evolution: Battle in the Classroom," airing Wednesday, July 7, at 9:00 PM Eastern time. This sixty-minute documentary ex- plores the growing war of litigation over creationism in the public schools with interviews of teachers, scientists, religious, and political leaders, students, and parents in the forefront of the battle. The program particularly examines the "two-model" approach used recently in Livermore, California, and gets the reac- tions of the principal individuals involved. The basic ideas of creationism and evolution are argued in a "point-counterpoint" segment between Duane Gish and Russell Doolittle. The age of the earth and universe are covered. Other per- sonalities featured include: Tim LaHaye; James Robison; Richard Bliss; Nell, Kelly, and Casey Segraves; John N. Moore; Bill Keith; and even Ronald Reagan. A featured representative on the evolution side is William V. Mayer. The docu- mentary is a production of KPBS, San Diego. 1982 Annual Fellows' Meeting at Guilford College, August 8-13, Greensboro, North Carolina. Of the sixteen programs, one is entitled "Religion and Science: The Creationist Debate." Contact John O.
    [Show full text]