DOCSLIB.ORG

Science Or Pseudo-Science: Yes, It Matters!

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Science Or Pseudo-Science: Yes, It Matters! Science or Pseudo-Science: Yes, It Matters! I live in southwest Ohio, a beau- months, over 265,000 museum visi- when, according to Nelkin, William tiful area with streams and hills full tors have contributedto the economic Willoughby,the religion editor of the of fossils embedded in its limestone; well-beingof the area,spending an esti- WashingtonEvening Star, filed suit so I can see evidence of the fossil mated $10 million on gas, food, and against the Director of the National recorddaily. Yet, on May,28 2007-just lodging (Kelly, 2007). By the end of Science Foundationand the Boardof across the Ohio River in Petersburg, the summer,the Museumannounced Regentsof the Universityof Colorado. Kentucky-a new museum opened; that it had run out of parkingspaces The NSF had provided the funds for EDITORIAL the CreationMuseum, built for $27 and needed to build a new lot! the development of the BSCS texts, million Answersin a non- and BSCSwas locatedat the by Genesis, I think as I read these University international based in "Dej vu," of Colorado-Boulder. profit, ministry, accountsin local and national Willoughby to one Web newspa- wantedthe NSFto funds Petersburg.According site, as a provideequal pers.Twenty-five years ago, NABT, "forthe of the creation- TheAnswers in GenesisCreation and as a promulgation witness, Downloaded from http://online.ucpress.edu/abt/article-pdf/70/2/70/54478/30163204.pdf by guest on 28 September 2021 plaintiff, BSCS, joined ist of the of man[sic]" Museumis a one-of-a-hind,high- other science to defeat the theory origin groups (Nelkin, 1977). techmuseum, filled with anima- Arkansaslaw that requiredthe teach- in tronicdisplays (e.g., moving dino- ing of creationismas well as evolu- And, NABT found itself the GUEST saurs), strikingvideos, a state- tion in science classes (Heylin, 1982). midst of a debate on editorialpolicy: of-the-artplanetarium, Special Judge William R. Overton's decision Should ABTpublish creationists'arti- EffectsTheater, etc., that is spread includeda concise and classicdescrip- cles with a disclaimer?As described outover 60,000 feet incorporating tion of science, noting, in part, that by Nelkin, ABT stopped publishing up to 40-footceilings to contain science is guided by naturallaw and creationistarticles in 1972, althoughit someof its massiveexhibits. The that its claims are testable and falsifi- continuedto printletters on the topic. museumwill go beyondtelling the able. His decision was published in In addition, creationists demanded compellingstory of thecreation of TheAmerican Biology Teacher (Volume equaltime at NABT'snational meeting, life on this planetto proclaiming 44, Number 3, March 1982, pp. 172- and 1,500 biology teachers attended theBible as supremeauthority in 179). I've always attributedhis clarity a panel on creation science in 1972. all mattersit addresses. to the fact that his motherwas a biol- William Mayer,Executive Director of BSCS, accused NABT of schiz- - ALRCNews Kitchen,2007 ogy teacher!And, like many others, I being thought that the creationist/evolution oid, fighting the teaching of creation- Over 160 exhibitspromote beliefs that debatewas settled. ism in biology classes while providing the Earthis 6,000 yearsold; that dino- a national forum for it at meetings saurs and humans coexisted;and that Overton also noted that the (Nelkin, 1977). featuressuch as the Grand emphasis on evolution in the three geological So, where are we and fossilswere created the original BSCS texts undoubtedly today?Certainly Canyon by the recordis clear:Creationism, or GreatFlood as describedin the Book increased efforts to attack that the- legal creationscience, is religionand there- of Genesis(Rothstein, 2007). ory. Dorothy Nelkin's book Science TextbookControversies and the Politics fore has no place in a public school. with in Together many colleagues Time describes how This opinion was confirmed by the I of Equal (1977) Ohio, Indiana,and Kentucky, signed the textbook sustainedthe U.S. SupremeCourt in 1987. But, cre- the differences controversy a petition explaining creationismdebate. In the New ationismevolved into intelligentdesign, and 1964, between science pseudo-science. Mexico Board of Education and the controversycontinues. Because the of scientistsand required However, protest that the inside covers of all BSCS God is not mentionedin definitionsof educators did not deter the science books be with a statement intelligentdesign, its proponentsclaim Visitors Bureau'sWeb site stamped Kentucky that evolution was a not a thatit is not religionand it is portrayed from the museum's theory, as the between creation- repeating public- fact, and that this was the official compromise "This'walk muse- ism and evolution.In ity: throughhistory' statementof the Board.In Texas, the 2005, intelligent um will counter evolutionarynatural for months with its design becamethe centerof controver- museums that turn countless controversyraged history StateBoard all three sy in Dover,Pennsylvania. Specifically, minds Christ and finallyapproving against Scripture" BSCStexts. in Texas plaintiffsprotested the requiredreading head of the However, 1969, (Rutledge, 2007). The removed two of them from its state- of a statementabout intelligentdesign KentuckyPaleontological Society pro- list. BSCSwas able to sur- in all ninthgrade biology classes. When the Visitors approved tested that tax-supported vive the becauseit retained biology teachers refused to read the not the museum's onslaught, Bureaushould use content control and the to statement,the Assistant Superintendent controversial the copyrights language.Eventually, its materials. its marketshriv- was sent to their classes to do so. The was but the muse- However, language modified, eled and not decision by Judge John E. Jones, III, um remains as a Northern small, large, publishing Kentucky houses handledfuture editions. ruled that intelligentdesign was not attractionon its Web site (Northern science (it was not testablenor falsifi- Kentucky Convention and Visitors Perhaps the height of the text- able) and thereforecould not be taught Bureau). Indeed, in less than six book controversyoccurred in 1972, in scienceclasses. 70 THEAMERICAN BIOLOGY TEACHER, VOLUME 70,NO. 2, FEBRUARY2008 However,the Americanpublic, on teachersfailed to help our students dis- Blumenthal,R. (2007). Officialleaves post as the whole, agrees with the Creation tinguishbetween science and pseudo-sci- Texas preparesto debate science educa- Museum,not the legal decisions.In May ence? Nobel LaureateLeon Lederman's tion standards. The New YorkTimes, p. A17. 2007, a poll found that 60% of respon- question,posed in 1988, is still valid-and dents believed that "God created the unanswered."How can you preserve a BSCS.(1989). CurriculumDevelopment for the worldin six days"(Landers, 2007), and a democracy when the world is increas- Year2000: A BSCSThirtieth Anniversary March2007 poll reportedthat 48% of the ingly complex scientifically and tech- Symposium. Colorado Springs, CO: Author. respondents agreed with the statement nologically,and people are increasingly that "Godcreated humans pretty much in more ignorantof the issues?"(Grobman Heylin, M. (1982). Creationism:It matters the present form at one time within the in BSCS, 1989, p.51). As Baum wrote a lot. Chemicaland EngineeringNews, last 10,000 years or so" (Begley,2007). in 1982, "[S]cientistshave assumed that January18, p. 6. Becauseof such beliefs,Christine Comer, science will win out in the end. It always Kelly, B.R. (2007, 25 November). Believers Directorof Sciencein Texas,was firedin has, afterall, in the past. ...That'strue, but or not, here they come. The Cincinnati 2007 (she was permitted to resign) for is it the real question?The question is, Enquirer,p. Al. forwardinga message from the National does it matter?"(Baum, 1982, p. 26). His Landers, K. (2007, 29 May). And God cre- Centerfor Science Education,a pro-evo- answera quarterof a centuryago is still ated ... dinosaurs. ABC News Online. lution group, about a talk to be given in true today:It mattersa lot! Retrieved December 5, 2007, from In Austin (Blumenthal,2007). an edito- ButlerKahle http://www.abc.net.au/news/indepth/ the New YorkTimes noted that cur- Jane featureitems/s1936022.htm. rial, Downloaded from http://online.ucpress.edu/abt/article-pdf/70/2/70/54478/30163204.pdf by guest on 28 September 2021 ConditProfessor of ScienceEducation rent Texas science standardsrequire the D. Science Textbook (Emerita) Nelkin, (1977). teachingof evolution,but they are to be Controversiesand the Politicsof Equal reviewed in 2008. Is the Texas Board PastPresident, NABT, and Past Time. MA:The MITPress. BSCSBoard Directors Cambridge, of Educationretreating again as "into a Chairperson, of Miami New York Times. (2007, 4 December). darkerage?" (New York Times). University Evolution and Texas. New York, NY: Oxford,OH 45056 Meanwhile,back in visitors Author,p. A 34. Kentucky, [email protected] areflocking from across the countryto the Northern KentuckyConvention and Visitors CreationMuseum. Many are home-school References Bureau. (n.d.). Attractions. Retrieved familiesand Christianschool groups. In November 15,2007, from http://nkycvb. ALRCNews Kitchen. The creationmuseum. fact,42 such school groupsvisited in the com/attractions.aspx#museums. RetrievedDecember 5, 2007, fromhttp:// month of Novemberalone. One science Rothstein, E. (2007, 24 May). Adam and head at a Christianschool in www.alrcnewskitchen.corn/creation Eve in the land of the dinosaurs. The department museum/index.htm. Ohio
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]
  • 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 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]
  • 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]
  • 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.
    [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]
  • RIGHTING AMERICA at the CREATION MUSEUM by Susan L. Trollinger and William Vance Trollinger, Jr. a Concise Overview • the Crea
    RIGHTING AMERICA AT THE CREATION MUSEUM by Susan L. Trollinger and William Vance Trollinger, Jr. A Concise Overview • The Creation Museum is the crown jewel of the Answers in Genesis apologetics enterprise, an impressive and sophisticated visual argument on behalf of young Earth creationism and a highly politicized fundamentalism. • More than anything else, the Answers in Genesis enterprise (including the Creation Museum and the Ark Encounter) is best understood as a Christian Right site that relentlessly and aggressively promotes a highly ideological and radically politicized young Earth creationism as true Christianity, and that aims its attacks on – in particular – academics, feminists, gays/lesbians, and political and religious liberals. • The Creation Museum and Answers in Genesis seek to shape, prepare, and arm millions of American Christians as uncompromising and fearless warriors for what it understands to be the ongoing culture war in America. • To understand how American politics got to be where it is in 2016 -- where Donald Trump is the Republican presidential nominee, and where "facts" seem to have little bearing on his popularity -- one very good place to start is the Creation Museum. • At the Creation Museum and (of course) Ark Encounter the Flood of Genesis 6-8 is very important: not only is it used to explain away mainstream geology, but it also describes an overwhelmingly violent past Judgment that prefigures the future Judgment that will result in slaughter and eternal damnation of billions of people not in the camp of True Christians. • As bizarre as it may seem – with its claim that the God of the Bible created the universe in six consecutive 24-hour days less than 10,000 years ago – the Creation Museum lies squarely within the mainstream of the American cultural, political, and religious right.
    [Show full text]
  • Intro to Science Studies I
    PHIL 209A / SOCG 255A / HIGR 238 / COGR 225A Intro to Science Studies I Fall 2017 Instructor: Kerry McKenzie [email protected] Seminars: Tuesday 9.30-12.20pm, HSS 3027. Office Hours: Wednesday 2-4pm, HSS 8088. 1 Overview. This course is a philosophically slanted introduction to Science Studies. Our central question is a conceptual one, whose relevance to Science Studies should speak for itself – namely, what is science, and what distinguishes science from other fields? In grappling with this question we’ll familiarize ourselves with central works in the philosophy of science canon, and make glancing acquaintance with some more contemporary issues in scientific epistemology and metaphysics. But our guiding motif is a normative one: what, if anything, makes science entitled to the privileged status that it enjoys within culture? In more detail. The ‘question of demarcation’ – that of what, if anything, makes what we call ‘science’ science – was a central preoccupation of many of the major 20th century philosophers of science. While interest in this topic waned after the appearance of Larry Laudan’s ‘Demise of the Demarcation Problem’ in 1983, the question of what separates science from ‘pseudoscience’ is now making something of a comeback. In this course, we will review the approaches to demarcation offered by the philosophers Popper, Kuhn, and Lakatos – all of which serve as concise introductions to the dominant themes of their work as a whole – and then examine some more contemporary approaches more centred on pragmatics and the philosophy of language. We will then consider how homeopathy – for most a pseudoscience par excellence – fares with regard to the criteria we’ll have studied.
    [Show full text]
  • Recent Scholarly Perspectives on Genesis
    Recent Scholarly Perspectives on Genesis Dr. Steven Ball Professor of Physics Photo by Shai Halevi, courtesy of Israel Antiquities Authority Sabbatical – Time to Play Sabbatical – Time to Sightsee Sabbatical – Time to Work Sabbatical – Time to Teach Sabbatical – Time to Learn Overview of Genesis • Genesis is the first book of the Pentateuch, a five-part collection on the birth of the nation of Israel – from Creation to Israel entering Canaan • Authorship is traditionally attributed to Moses, following the exodus of Israel from Egypt, around 1400 BCE. • Most modern scholars accept that Genesis is a redacted literary work, reaching its final version as late as post-exilic Israel around 400 BCE. Overview of Genesis • Genesis 1-11 is a brief outline of history beginning with creation, the fall and the spread of sin, to the origin of people groups and languages, all in need of redemption. • Genesis 12-50 are the patriarchal stories: God partners with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob & Joseph, in establishing Israel and a plan of redemption. • Understanding the purpose and meaning of Genesis has been a challenge for Bible scholars long before the advent of modern science. Genesis 1 – Creation • “In the beginning God created the heavens and earth. And the earth was formless and void…” • The “formless void” is transformed by God over 6 days into an earth that is ordered and filled. • 7 times “God saw that it was good” • Each “day” is described as “and there was evening and there was morning” • Man is created “in the image of God” • God “rests” on the seventh day, blessing it Pattern of each day § 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Young-Earth Creationism, Creation Science, and the Evangelical Denial of Climate Change
    religions Article Revisiting the Scopes Trial: Young-Earth Creationism, Creation Science, and the Evangelical Denial of Climate Change K. L. Marshall New College, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH1 2LX, UK; [email protected] Abstract: In the century since the Scopes Trial, one of the most influential dogmas to shape American evangelicalism has been that of young-earth creationism. This article explains why, with its arm of “creation science,” young-earth creationism is a significant factor in evangelicals’ widespread denial of anthropogenic climate change. Young-earth creationism has become closely intertwined with doctrines such as the Bible’s divine authority and the Imago Dei, as well as with social issues such as abortion and euthanasia. Addressing this aspect of the environmental crisis among evangelicals will require a re-orientation of biblical authority so as to approach social issues through a hermeneutic that is able to acknowledge the reality and imminent threat of climate change. Citation: Marshall, K. L. 2021. Revisiting the Scopes Trial: Keywords: evangelicalism; creation science; young-earth creationism; climate change; Answers in Young-Earth Creationism, Creation Genesis; biblical literalism; biblical authority; Noahic flood; dispensational theology; fundamentalism Science, and the Evangelical Denial of Climate Change. Religions 12: 133. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel12020133 1. Introduction Academic Editors: Randall Balmer The 1925 Scopes “Monkey” Trial is often referenced as a metonymy for American and Edward Blum Protestantism’s fundamentalist-modernist controversy that erupted in the years following World War I. William Jennings Bryan, the lawyer and politician who argued in favor of Received: 25 January 2021 biblical creationism1—in keeping with his literal understanding of the narratives in Genesis Accepted: 12 February 2021 Published: 20 February 2021 1 and Genesis 2—was vindicated when the judge ruled that high school biology teacher John Scopes had indeed broken the law by teaching Darwinian evolution in a public school.
    [Show full text]
  • Creation/Evolution
    Creation/Evolution Issue XXIV CONTENTS Fall 1988 ARTICLES 1 Formless and Void: Gap Theory Creationism by Tbm Mclver 25 Scientific Creationism: Adding Imagination to Scripture by Stanley Rice 37 Demographic Change and Antievolution Sentiment: Tennessee as a Case Study, 1925-1975 by George E. Webb FEATURES 43 Book Review 45 Letters to the Editor LICENSED TO UNZ.ORG ELECTRONIC REPRODUCTION PROHIBITED About this issue ... In this issue, Tom Mclver again brings his historical scholarship to bear on an issue relevant to creationism. This time, he explores the history of and the major players in the development and promotion of the "gap theory." Rarely do we treat in detail alternative creationist theories, preferring instead to focus upon the young- Earth special creationists who are so politically militant regarding public educa- tion. However, coverage of different creationist views is necessary from time to time in order to provide perspective and balance for those involved in the controversy. The second article compares scripture to the doctrines of young-Earth special crea- tionists and finds important disparities. Author Stanley Rice convincingly shows that "scientific" creationists add their own imaginative ideas in an effort to pseudoscientifically "flesh out" scripture. But why do so many people accept creationist notions? Some have maintained that the answer may be found through the study of demographics. George E. Webb explores that possibility in "Demographic Change and Antievolution Sentiment" and comes to some interesting conclusions. CREATION/EVOLUTION XXIV (Volume 8, Number 3} ISSN 0738-6001 Creation/Evolution, a publication dedicated to promoting evolutionary science, is published by the American Humanist Association.
    [Show full text]
  • Answers to Common Misconceptions About Biological Evolution Leah M
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Papers in Evolution Papers in the Biological Sciences 5-2017 Answers to common misconceptions about biological evolution Leah M. Abebe University of Nebraska-Lincoln Blake Bartels University of Nebraska-Lincoln Kaitlyn M. Caron University of Nebraska-Lincoln Adam M. Gleeson University of Nebraska-Lincoln Samuel N. Johnson University of Nebraska-Lincoln See next page for additional authors Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/bioscievolution Part of the Evolution Commons Abebe, Leah M.; Bartels, Blake; Caron, Kaitlyn M.; Gleeson, Adam M.; Johnson, Samuel N.; Kluza, Tyler J.; Knopik, Nicholas W.; Kramer, Kristen N.; Maza, Masiel S.; Stava, Kaitlyn A.; Sullivan, Kaitlyn; Trimble, Jordan T.; and Zink, Robert M. , editor, "Answers to common misconceptions about biological evolution" (2017). Papers in Evolution. 4. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/bioscievolution/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Papers in the Biological Sciences at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Papers in Evolution by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Authors Leah M. Abebe; Blake Bartels; Kaitlyn M. Caron; Adam M. Gleeson; Samuel N. Johnson; Tyler J. Kluza; Nicholas W. Knopik; Kristen N. Kramer; Masiel S. Maza; Kaitlyn A. Stava; Kaitlyn Sullivan; Jordan T. Trimble; and Robert M. Zink , editor This article is available at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/bioscievolution/4 Answers to common misconceptions about biological evolution Class of BIOS 472, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Spring 2017 Students: Leah M. Abebe, Blake Bartels, Kaitlyn M.
    [Show full text]