DOCSLIB.ORG

Evolution and Intelligent Design: College Students' Perspectives

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers Graduate School 2006 Evolution and intelligent design: College students' perspectives Bethany Klein The University of Montana Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Klein, Bethany, "Evolution and intelligent design: College students' perspectives" (2006). Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers. 5009. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/5009 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at ScholarWorks at University of Montana. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Maureen and Mike MANSFIELD LIBRARY The University of Montana Permission is granted by the author to reproduce this material in its entirety, provided that this material is used for scholarly purposes and is properly cited in published works and reports. **Please check "Yes" or "No" and provide signature** Yes, I grant permission No, I do not grant permission Author's Signature: Date: ^ 7 3 U K| c?OQCa Any copying for commercial purposes or financial gain may be undertaken only with the author's explicit consent. 8/98 EVOLUTION AND INTELLIGENT DESIGN: COLLEGE STUDENTS’ PERSPECTIVES by Bethany Klein B.A. Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania, 2003 presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Arts The University of Montana July 2006 pproved by: Dean, Graduate School Date UMI Number: EP40473 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. UMI EP40473 Published by ProQuest LLC (2014). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106- 1346 Klein, Bethany M.A., July 2006 Anthropology Evolution and Intelligent Design: College Students’ Perspectives Chairperson: Ashley McKeown, PhD fA, A questionnaire was developed and administered to undergraduate students at the University of Montana during the Fall 2005 semester. This questionnaire’s main purpose was to determine the students’ knowledge and understanding on the subject of evolution and intelligent design in order to determine what steps need to be taken in the future to better educate the public on the need to teach evolution in high school biology classes. By using percentage scores, a chi-square test of independence, and comparative analysis of other surveys administered, the results indicated that the students tended to believe more in the scientific rationale used to explain the origin of humans rather than the religious views. Even so, the results showed that the students were completely divided on the issue of whether or not intelligent design should be allowed in the high schools across the United States. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would gratefully like to thank my thesis advisor, Dr. Ashley McKeown, for her willingness to help me throughout this entire study. Without all of her thoughtful suggestions and insights I could not have accomplished this amazing achievement. I would also like to thank my former professor, Dr. David Minderhout, for always keeping my spirits up. Without his amazing ability to keep me motivated throughout my entire academic career, I would not be where I am today. Special thanks to Dr. Randall Skelton and Dr. Fred Allendorf for their willingness to be a part of this. Their comments and critiques helped to shape this thesis into what it is. And to Don Partain who helped me through all of my spiritual and religious questions throughout this study. I am so thankful to have such a great friend in my life. I would finally like to thank my mom and dad, Marianne and John, for all of their support throughout my long academic career. They must have so much patience to have been able to talk me through my stress of the day from 3,000 miles away. Thank you! And to Chris who has constantly kept me going throughout my graduate career at the University of Montana. I do not know if I could have made it through those years without him. Thanks for enduring the long distance! And to my sister, Staci. Thanks for proofreading and your insightful critiques. And just thanks to the rest of my family and friends who have been there for me whenever I needed them. I know that without all of their support I would not have been able to achieve this amazing accomplishment. TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract ii Acknowledgements iii List of Tables v List of Figures vi Chapter 1: Introduction 1 Chapter 2: Background 3 The History of Evolutionary Thought 6 The Emergence of Darwin 14 Heredity and the Rise of Genetics 18 The History of Creationism Held by Christians 21 The Rise of Creationism from the 1800s through the Present 25 The Rise of the Creationist/Evolutionist Debates 33 The History of the Debate Over Evolution and Creationism 34 In American Education Chapter 3: Materials and Methods 41 Demographics 42 Background Information Collected 45 Questions on Evolution and Intelligent Design 49 Statistics 50 Chapter 4: Results and Discussion 53 Percentage Scores 54 Chi-Square Test of Independence 58 Comparative Analysis of Gallup Poll Results and Current Survey 80 Comparative Analysis from Past Studies 83 Problems and Future Work Associated with the Current Study 83 Chapter 5: Conclusion 86 References Cited 89 Appendix 1 93 Appendix 2 95 Appendix 3 96 Appendix 4 97 iv List of Tables Page 4.1. Combined percentage scores obtained from questions pertaining to religious beliefs and opinions....................................................................................................... 55 4.2. Combined percentage scores obtained from questions pertaining to scientific understanding and scientific belief .............................................................................57 4.3. Combined percentage scores obtained from questions pertaining to the effects of exposure to evolution, and opinions on evolution and intelligent design 58 4.4. Contingency table for answers to “Do you believe humans are descended from an ape-like ancestor?"..........................................................................................................59 4.5. Contingency table for answers to "Do you believe evolution is a scientific theory that is testable?" ......................................................................................................... 60 4.6. Contingency table for answers to "Do you believe in microevolution?"................61 4.7. Contingency table for answers to "Do you believe in macroevolution?"...............61 4.8. Contingency table for answers to "Do you believe God created the earth 4.5 billion years ago?"..........................................................................................................62 4.9. Contingency table for answers to "Do you believe the earth was created by God 6,000 years ago?" ............................................................. 63 4.10. Contingency table for answers to "Do you believe God created the world in 6 days?" ...............................................................................................................................64 4.11. Contingency table for answers to "If you believe God created the world in 6 days, do you believe that a day was 24 hours long?" .............................................65 4.12. Contingency table for answers to "Do you believe all living humans are descended from Adam and Eve?" ............................................................................... 66 4.13. Contingency table for answers to "Do you believe humans and dinosaurs coexisted?"......................................................................................... 67 4.14. Contingency table for answers to "Do you believe intelligent design is a scientific theory that can be tested?" ................ 68 4.15. Contingency table for answers to "Do you believe a theory is anything that can be tested in the natural world and cannot be falsified?" ........................ 69 4.16. Contingency table for answers to "Has being exposed to evolution changed your belief system?" .............................................................................................................. 70 4.17. Contingency table for answers to "Has being exposed to evolution made you question your belief system?" .....................................................................................71 4.18. Contingency table for answers to "Do you believe evolution should be taught in high school?"................................................................................................................. 72 4.19. Contingency table for answers to "Do you believe intelligent design should be taught in high school?".................................................................................................73 4.20. Results from the chi-square test of independence ...................................................
Recommended publications
  • The Earth Is Flat! Exploring the Mental Models of the Solar System in the Foundation Phase K

    The Earth Is Flat! Exploring the Mental Models of the Solar System in the Foundation Phase K

    THE EARTH IS FLAT! EXPLORING THE MENTAL MODELS OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM IN THE FOUNDATION PHASE K. Nthimbane1, S. Ramsaroop2 & F. Naude3 University of Johannesburg [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] ABSTRACT- This paper aims at describing the changes in the mental models that foundation phase learners construct about the relationships between the Earth, the Sun and the Moon. A series of clinical interviews were conducted with Foundation phase learners at a primary school in Soweto, Johannesburg, to elicit their thinking in relation to the shape, colour and relative positions of the Earth, the Sun and the Moon. The participants in this study consisted of 10 grade R and 10 grade three learners. Learners constructed their representations of the Earth, the Sun and the Moon using clay. From this, their intuitive ideas about colours and shapes of these objects became evident. The question this research asks is: “How do learners’ concepts of the relationships between the Earth, Moon, and Sun change throughout the foundation phase?” Data was collected through interviews and video recordings and was analyzed using open coding. The findings revealed that there is a marked change between the flat Earth models that are prevalent with the grade R sample and the spherical depictions made by the grade 3 learners. The findings further show that despite the changes in representations of the shape of the Earth, most learners still hold a geocentric model of the solar system. The authors recommend that foundation phase teachers use the protocol that was developed for these interviews as a means to establish the intuitive theories that children hold before attempting to teach content relating to weather, seasons, day/night cycles and the solar system.
  • Chapter 22 Notes: Introduction to Evolution

    Chapter 22 Notes: Introduction to Evolution

    NOTES: Ch 22 – Descent With Modification – A Darwinian View of Life Our planet is home to a huge variety of organisms! (Scientists estimate of organisms alive today!) Even more amazing is evidence of organisms that once lived on earth, but are now . Several hundred million species have come and gone during 4.5 billion years life is believed to have existed on earth So…where have they gone… why have they disappeared? EVOLUTION: the process by which have descended from . Central Idea: organisms alive today have been produced by a long process of . FITNESS: refers to traits and behaviors of organisms that enable them to survive and reproduce COMMON DESCENT: species ADAPTATION: any inherited characteristic that enhances an organism’s ability to ~based on variations that are HOW DO WE KNOW THAT EVOLUTION HAS OCCURRED (and is still happening!!!)??? Lines of evidence: 1) So many species! -at least (250,000 beetles!) 2) ADAPTATIONS ● Structural adaptations - - ● Physiological adaptations -change in - to certain toxins 3) Biogeography: - - and -Examples: 13 species of finches on the 13 Galapagos Islands -57 species of Kangaroos…all in Australia 4) Age of Earth: -Rates of motion of tectonic plates - 5) FOSSILS: -Evidence of (shells, casts, bones, teeth, imprints) -Show a -We see progressive changes based on the order they were buried in sedimentary rock: *Few many fossils / species * 6) Applied Genetics: “Artificial Selection” - (cattle, dogs, cats) -insecticide-resistant insects - 7) Homologies: resulting from common ancestry Anatomical Homologies: ● comparative anatomy reveals HOMOLOGOUS STRUCTURES ( , different functions) -EX: ! Vestigial Organs: -“Leftovers” from the evolutionary past -Structures that Embryological Homologies: ● similarities evident in Molecular/Biochemical Homologies: ● DNA is the “universal” genetic code or code of life ● Proteins ( ) Darwin & the Scientists of his time Introduction to Darwin… ● On November 24, 1859, Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection.
  • Scientific Creationism, Geocentricity and the Flat Earth These Three Movements Have More in Common Than They Like to Acknowledge

    Scientific Creationism, Geocentricity and the Flat Earth These Three Movements Have More in Common Than They Like to Acknowledge

    Scientific Creationism, Geocentricity and the Flat Earth These three movements have more in common than they like to acknowledge Robert Schadewald Evolution is a scientific fairy-tale just as the "flat-earth theory" was in the 12th century. —Edward Blick, scientific creationist1 Poor flat-earthers! Few modern intellectual movements have been so widely scorned and misunderstood. Among Christians, religious tolerance and ecumenicalism seem to break down at the edge of the earth. The opening quotation suggests the contempt that most "scientific creationists" feel for the flat-earthers. Comparing them to evolutionists is an especially low blow, since the flat-earthers have always been in the forefront of the battle against evolution. Though flat-earthism is as well-supported scripturally and scientifically as creationism, the creationists plainly do not want to be associated with flat-earthers. In a public debate with creationist Duane Gish, paleontologist Michael Voorhies suggested that the Creation Research Society resembled the Flat Earth Society. According to a report of the debate published in the creationist newsletter Acts & Facts, Gish replied that not a single member of the Creation Research Society was a member of the Flat Earth Society and that Voorhies's linking of the two was nothing more than a smear.2 Gish's remarks brought a rejoinder in the Flat Earth News from an outraged letter writer (identified only as "G.J.D.") who had read the Acts & Facts report. "G.J.D."contested Gish's claim that no members of the Flat Earth Society belong to the Creation Research Society, concluding, "He doesn't know what he's talking about, as I belong to both, and I am writing to him to let him know that he is wrong."3 Ironically, Gish may have created a fact.
  • The Demarcation Problem

    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.
  • Biblical Catastrophism and Geology

    Biblical Catastrophism and Geology

    BIBLICAL CATASTROPHISM AND GEOLOGY HENRY M. MORRIS Professor of Civi I Engineering Virginia Polytechnic Institute Theories of catastrophism in geological interpretation are not new. Prior to the time of Sir Charles Lyell, scientists generally believed that most geological formations must be attributed to great physical catastrophes or revolutions. Lyell, however, taught that these phenomena could be explained by the ordinary processes of nature, acting over vast expanses of geological time. This is his "principle of uniformitarianism, II. now almost universally accepted as the foundation princ~ple of modern historical geology. Profoundly influenced by LyelPs theories, Charles Darwin soon published his theory of evolu­ tion by natural selection. The supposed paleontologi cal record of the evolutionary history of life on earth, together with the principle of uniformity, now constitutes the interpretive framework within which all data of historical geology are supposed to be explained. Furthermore, this phil­ osophy of evolutionary uniformitarianism now serves also as the interpretive framework in the social sciences and economi cs, and even in the study of religion itself. Thus a superstructure of gigantic size has been erected on the Lyellian-Darwinian foundation. However, catastrophism is not dead. The inadequacies of a thorough-going uniformitarianism have become increasingly obvious in recent years, and such quasi-catastrophist concepts as wan­ dering continents, shifting poles, slipping crusts, meteoritic and cometary collisions, etc., are appearing more and more frequently in geological literature. It is, in fact, generally recognized that even the ordinary fossiliferous deposits of the sedimentary rocks must often have at least a semi-catastrophist basis, since the process of fossilization usually requires rather rapid burial, under conditions seldom encountered in the modern world.
  • Novel Biophysical Information Transfer Mechanisms (Nbit)(U)

    Novel Biophysical Information Transfer Mechanisms (Nbit)(U)

    This document is made available through the declassification efforts and research of John Greenewald, Jr., creator of: The Black Vault The Black Vault is the largest online Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) document clearinghouse in the world. The research efforts here are responsible for the declassification of hundreds of thousands of pages released by the U.S. Government & Military. Discover the Truth at: http://www.theblackvault.com Central Intelligence Agency Washington, D.C. 20505 10 April 2018 Mr. John Greenewald, Jr. 27305 W. Live Oak Road Suite #1203 Castaic, CA 91384 Reference: F-2018-01307 Dear Mr. Greenewald: This is a final response to your 3 April 2018 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, received in the office of the Information and Privacy Coordinator on 4 April 2018, for the following document: Parapsychology and AI Research Report, 75-11096. We conducted a search of our previously released database and located the document you requested, consisting of 118 pages. Because you are entitled to the first 100 pages free and the remaining amount would be minimal, there is no charge for processing your request. If you have any questions regarding our response, you may contact us at: Central Intelligence Agency Washington, DC 20505 Information and Privacy Coordinator 703-613-3007 (Fax) Sincerely, Allison Fong Information and Privacy Coordinator Enclosure I {co3o 6367 6 Approved For Release 2002/10/21 : CIA-RDP79-00999A000300070001-4 SG1A Approved For Release 2002/10/21 : CIA-RDP79-00999A000300070001-4 SG11 Approved For Release 2002/10/21 : CIA-RDP79-00999A000300070001-4 C03063676 I I Approved For Release 2002/10/21 : CIA-RDP79-00999A000300070001-4 SECRET Copy No.3 Final Report NOVEL BIOPHYSICAL INFORMATION TRANSFER MECHANISMS (NBIT)(U) January 14, 1976 SG1A Document No.
  • CREATION SCIENCE BIBLIOGRAPHY Ray Mondragon (10/17, Rev 4/19)

    CREATION SCIENCE BIBLIOGRAPHY Ray Mondragon (10/17, Rev 4/19)

    CREATION SCIENCE BIBLIOGRAPHY Ray Mondragon (10/17, rev 4/19) Note: This bibliography contains mainly the books that refute the evolution worldview and support the creationist young-universe view. There are only a few books from the old-universe view as noted at the end. A few other resources have been added from Robby Dean after a 4/12/19 meeting as noted with an asterisk. CREATION vs. EVOLUTION Scientific Creationism, edited by Henry M. Morris, Institute for Creation Research, Master Books, 1974. Over 22 scientists with PhDs contribute a variety of scientific evidence supporting the creation view. Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth?, Jonathan Wells, Regnery Publishing, 2000. The main evidence supporting the theory of evolution, “icons,” are explained and effectively refuted. The Lie: Evolution, Ken Ham, Master Books, 1987. The theory of evolution is refuted more philosophically than evidentially for a general audience. Biblical Creationism: What Each Book of the Bible Teaches about Creation and the Flood, Henry Morris, Baker Book House, 1993. The entire Bible is surveyed for passages referring to creation or God as Creator. Man’s Origin, Man’s Destiny: A Critical Survey of the Principles of Evolution and Christianity, A. E. Wilder-Smith, Bethany Fellowship, Inc., 1975. A professor with PhDs in organic chemistry and medical science supports the creationist position from both science and Scripture. This is an older but still a useful work. * The Creation of Life: A Cybernetic Approach To Evolution. A. E. Wilder Smith. Older but very valuable work by a British scholar who has a Ph,D in organic chemistry, a Doctor of Science in Pharmaceuticals from the University of Geneva, and a third doctorate from the E.
  • Evolution Or Special Creation?

    Evolution Or Special Creation?

    EVOLUTION OR SPECIAL CREATION? By FRANK LEWIS MARSH, Ph. D In the great debate over the origin of this world and its inhabitants, both animal and human, many people overlook the subjective nature of the evidence used on both sides to defend positions taken. In this book the author points out that an examination of nature, either minute or vast, can never reveal, without outside information, just how the world came into existence. His sharp analysis of the problems involved will help clear the atmosphere for all who sincerely wish to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion. 1963 BY REVIEW AND HERALD REVIEW AND HERALD PUBLISHING ASSOCIATION WASHINGTON, D.C. www.AnswersInGenesis.org CONTENTS Kinds of Evidence What Do We Mean by Evolution and Special Creation? Has Natural Science Made Scripture Obsolete? Can Processes of Variation Produce New Basic Types? Completely Established Scientific Findings An Origin With Promise Creationist Internet Resources COPYRIGHT 1963 BY THE REVIEW AND HERALD PUBLISHING ASSOCIATION OFFSET IN U.S.A. KINDS OF EVIDENCE MANY honest-hearted men and women are asking the question Are we actually blood descendants of amoeba like, fishlike, reptile like, insect like, apelike types, or was our earliest ancestor formed directly from the dust, the son of God? Would Christ die to save noble beasts, or did He give His life to redeem fallen sons and daughters of Adam, children of God? This question naturally leads to another, How can we know the truth about this extremely important point? Is it a problem like that of the shape of our earth or its motions as an astronomical body? That is, Is it a problem that can be solved by applying the scientific method of investigation, where the worker employs his senses aided by specialized apparatus to secure data, and then searches for the correct answer through mathematical calculations from these data? If the problem of origin of living forms was of the same nature as that of the shape of our earth, careful scientists would have solved it long before this.
  • Creation and Evolution: What Should We Teach?

    Creation and Evolution: What Should We Teach?

    Creation and Evolution: What Should We Teach? Author: Eugenie C. Scott, Director Affiliation: National Center for Science Education Bio: Dr. Eugenie C. Scott is Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education, Inc., a not-for-profit membership organization of scientists, teachers, and others that works to improve the teaching of evolution and of science as a way of knowing. It opposes the teaching of “scientific” creationism and other religiously based views in science classes. A former college professor, Dr. Scott lectures widely and is called upon by the press and other media to explain science and evolution to the general public. Scott is the author of the 2004 book, Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction, and has served as president of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists. Scott has been honored by both scientists and educators by being awarded the National Science Board Public Service Award, the AIBS Outstanding Service Award, the Geological Society of America Public Service Award, and the California Science Teachers Association Distinguished Service Award. She holds a Ph.D. in physical anthropology from the University of Missouri, an honorary D.Sc. from McGill University, and an honorary Doctor of Science from Ohio State University. Abstract: In this essay, I sketch an overview of the foundations of the creation/evolution debate in the United States today. Evolution is rejected by many Americans because it conflicts with their religious views. This conflict may occur because evolution is not compatible with biblical literalism, or because evolution creates other problems in Christian theology. Most Americans do not belong to Christian traditions that require a literal interpretation of the Bible; in addition, there is a long tradition of accommodation of evolution and science to Christian theology.
  • Intelligent Design Creationism and the Constitution

    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..................................................................................................
  • Eugenie Scott

    Eugenie Scott

    Expert Witness Statement by Eugenie C. Scott Contents: 1. Qualifications as an Expert Witness 2. The Nature of Science 3. The Scientific Meaning of “Theory” and “Fact” 4. History of the Creationism/Evolution Controversy Definitions: evolution, creationism, creation science Fundamentalism; Banning Evolution Creation Science “Evidence Against Evolution” and Creation Science Evolution of Creation Science Into Intelligent Design “Theory Not Fact” Policies Are Promoted By Creationists to Denigrate Evolution and Advance Creationism 5. History of Creationism in Georgia 6. History of Creationism in Cobb County 7. “Theory Not Fact” Policies are Pedagogically Harmful Respectfully submitted: Date: November 17, 2006 _________________________ Eugenie C. Scott, Ph.D., D.Sc. 420 40th St #2 Oakland, CA 94609 1. Qualifications My name is Eugenie C. Scott. My curriculum vitae is attached to this Declaration as Exhibit A. I have a Ph.D. in physical anthropology from the University of Missouri and honorary doctorates (D.Sc.) from McGill University, Ohio State University, and Mt. Holyoke College. In December 2006, I will receive an honorary doctorate from the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, and in May 2007, from Rutgers University. I am the Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) in Oakland, California. NCSE is a nonprofit membership organization of scientists and others that defends the teaching of evolution in the public schools. NCSE is affiliated with the American Association for the Advancement of Science. The NCSE monitors the creationism/evolution controversy and maintains an archive of information on the recent history of the controversy, including materials relevant to the history of the creationism/evolution controversy in Cobb County.
  • Creation/Evolution

    Creation/Evolution

    Creation/Evolution issue VI CONTENTS Fall 1981 ARTICLES 1 A Survey of Creationist Field Research—by Henry P. Zuidema 6 Arkeology: A New Science In Support of Creation?—by Robert A. Moore 16 Paluxy Man—The Creationist Plltdown—by Christopher Gregory Weber 23 An Analysis of the Creationist Film, Footprints in Stone—by Laurie R. Godfrey 30 Tripping Over a Triloblte: A Study of the Meister Tracks—by Ernest C. Conrad 34 Misquoted Scientists Respond—by John R. Cole REPORTS 45 News Briefs from the Editor LICENSED TO UNZ.ORG ELECTRONIC REPRODUCTION PROHIBITED FORTHCOMING SYMPOSIA Fall Science Conference of the Metropolitan Detroit Science Teachers Associa- tion and the Detroit Area Council of Teachers of Mathematics. November 14, 1981, at Lakeview High School, St. Clair Shores, Michigan. One of the sessions at this conference will be devoted to the creation-evolution controversy. University of Minnesota Conference on "Evolution and Public Education." December 5, 1981, at the Earle Brown Center of the St. Paul Campus. It is aimed at high school teachers, school board members, legislators, and the general pub- lic. The purpose is to examine the creation-evolution controversy as it relates to education and science. John A. Moore will give the keynote address. Fourteen lecturers will participate, including two who have written for Creation/Evolu- tion. Contact Peter Zetterberg, Department of Conferences, University of Min- nesota, 211 Nolte Center, 315 Pillsbury Drive SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455, (612) 373-3486. University of Montevallo, Montevallo, Alabama: "Scientific Creationism vs. Evolution: Impact on Public Schools." Early 1982. This program is aimed at freshman students, the university community, and the general public.