DOCSLIB.ORG

Jerry Coyne the Faith That Dare Not Speak Its Name the Case Against Intelligent Design

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Jerry Coyne the Faith That Dare Not Speak Its Name the Case Against Intelligent Design the new republic P august 22 & 29, 2005 21 Wolsky had fabrics made. “Samples long as we’re there, we might as well ap- pictures possible?” I asked who that per- would go back and forth until we could preciate the good ones. We might also son might be. Fellini said, “Piero Gher- arrive at the right weight, weave and col- remember that costumes are usually ex- ardi.” Gherardi was the designer, a long- or.... Everything that Tom Hanks wore tensions of the director’s concept of the time colleague of Fellini’s. He was out of was woven for him.” The facing photo of film. In 1964 I spent a day with Federico town at the moment, and by the time I Hanks in his long overcoat makes us Fellini in Rome while he was shooting got back to Rome he had died. But I nev- grateful for Wolsky’s care. Juliet of the Spirits. At the end of the day er see a Fellini film, which happens fairly I doubt that many viewers go to films I thanked him, and he said, “Why don’t often, without thinking of what the direc- in order to judge the costumes, but as you go to see the genius who makes my tor said about his designer. J Jerry Coyne The Faith That Dare Not Speak Its Name The case against intelligent design. I. Of Pandas and People evidence.... Intelligent design is an xactly eighty years after By Percival Davis and explanation of the origin of life that the Scopes “monkey trial” Dean H. Kenyon differs from Darwin’s view.The ref- in Dayton, Tennessee, history (Haughton Publishing Company, erence book, Of Pandas and People, is about to repeat itself. In 170 pp., $24.95) is available for students to see if they a courtroom in Harrisburg, would like to explore this view in an EPennsylvania in late September, scien- effort to gain an understanding of tists and creationists will square off someone died on a cross. Can’t someone what intelligent design actually about whether and how high school stu- take a stand for him?” And he added: involves.As is true with any theory, dents in Dover, Pennsylvania will learn “Nowhere in the Constitution does it call students are encouraged to keep an about biological evolution. One would for a separation of church and state.” open mind. have assumed that these battles were After a summer of heated but in- over, but that is to underestimate the conclusive wrangling, on October 18, The results were dramatic but pre- fury (and the ingenuity) of creationists 2004 the Dover school board passed, by dictable. Two school board members re- scorned. a vote of six to three, a resolution that signed. All eight science teachers at The Scopes trial of our day—Kitz- read: “Students will be made aware of Dover High School sent a letter to the miller, et al v. Dover Area School District gaps/problems in Darwin’s theory and of school superintendent pointing out that et al—began innocuously. In the spring of other theories of evolution including, but “intelligent design is not science. It is not 2004, the district’s textbook review com- not limited to, intelligent design. Note: biology. It is not an accepted scientific mittee recommended that a new com- Origins of Life is not taught.” A month theory.” The biology teachers asked to mercial text replace the outdated biol- later, the Dover school district issued a be excused from reading the statement, ogy book. At a school board meeting in press release revealing how the alterna- claiming that to do so would “knowingly June, William Buckingham, the chair of tive of “intelligent design” was to be pre- and intentionally misrepresent subject the board’s curriculum committee, com- sented. Before starting to teach evolu- matter or curriculum,” a violation of their plained that the proposed replacement tion, biology teachers were to read their code of professional standards.And so, in book was “laced with Darwinism.” After ninth-grade students a statement, which January of this year, all ninth-grade biol- challenging the audience to trace its roots included the following language: ogy classes were visited by the assistant back to a monkey, he suggested that a superintendent himself, who read the more suitable textbook would include The Pennsylvania Academic Stan- mandated disclaimer while the teachers biblical theories of creation. When dards require students to learn about and a few students left the room. asked whether this might offend those of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and Inevitably,the controversy went to the other faiths, Buckingham replied, “This eventually to take a standardized test courts. Eleven Dover parents filed suit country wasn’t founded on Muslim be- of which evolution is a part. against the school district and its board liefs or evolution. This country was Because Darwin’s Theory is a of directors, asking that the “intelligent founded on Christianity and our students theory, it continues to be tested as should be taught as such.” Defending his new evidence is discovered.The Jerry Coyne is a professor in the Depart- views a week later, Buckingham report- Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the ment of Ecology and Evolution at the edly pleaded: “Two thousand years ago, Theory exist for which there is no University of Chicago. 22 august 22 & 29, 2005 P the new republic design” policy be rescinded for fostering to find that a scientifically advanced So- according to its account, “primitive” or- “excessive entanglement of government viet Union had beaten the United States ganisms such as fish would be found in and religion, coerced religious instruc- into space.This spurred rapid revisions of the lowest layers, while mammals and tion, and an endorsement by the state of science textbooks, some emphasizing bi- more “advanced” species appeared in religion over non-religion and of one reli- ological evolution. But the anti-evolution higher layers because they climbed hills gious viewpoint over others.” The plain- statutes were still in force, and so some and mountains to escape the rising wa- tiffs are represented by the Philadelphia teachers using newer books were violat- ters.Why dolphins are found in the upper law firm of Pepper Hamilton, the Penn- ing the law. One of these teachers, Susan strata with other mammals is one of sylvania American Civil Liberties Union, Epperson, brought suit against the state many facts that this ludicrous fantasy and Americans United for Separation of Arkansas for violating the Establish- fails to explain. of Church and State; the defendants, by ment Clause. She won the right to teach Scientific creationism also came to the Thomas More Law Center, a conserv- evolution, and Epperson v. Arkansas was grief because its advocates did not ade- ative Christian organization in Ann Ar- upheld by the United States Supreme quately hide its religious underpinnings. bor, Michigan. Court in 1968, only a year after Tennessee In 1981, the Arkansas legislature passed finally rescinded the Butler Act. Finally it an “equal time” bill mandating balanced hy all the fuss about was legal to teach evolution everywhere treatment for “evolution science” and a seemingly inoffensive in America. “creation science” in the classroom. The statement? Who could bill was quickly challenged in federal possibly object to students he opponents of evolution court by a group of religious and scien- W“keep[ing] an open mind” and examin- proceeded to re-think their tific plaintiffs led by a Methodist min- ing a respectable-sounding alternative strategy, deciding that if they ister named William McLean. The de- to evolution? Isn’t science about testing could not beat scientists, they fense was easily outgunned, with Judge theories against each other? The furor Twould join them. They thus recast them- William Overton quickly spotting bib- makes sense only in light of the tortuous selves as “scientific creationists,” propos- lical literalism underlying the scientific- history of creationism in America. Since ing an ostensibly non-religious alterna- creationist arguments. In a landmark it arose after World War I, Christian- tive to the theory of evolution that might opinion (and a masterpiece of legal ar- fundamentalist creationism has under- be acceptable in the classroom. But the gument), Overton ruled in McLean v. gone its own evolution, taking on newer empirical claims of scientific creation- Arkansas Board of Education that the forms after absorbing repeated blows ism—that the Earth is young (6,000 to balanced-treatment act was unconsti- from the courts. “Intelligent design,” as I 10,000 years old), that all species were tutional, asserting that it violated the will show, is merely the latest incarnation created suddenly and simultaneously, Establishment Clause in three ways: it of the biblical creationism espoused by that mass extinctions were caused by a lacked a secular legislative purpose, its William Jennings Bryan in Dayton. Far great worldwide flood—bore a suspi- primary effect was to advance religion, from a respectable scientific alternative cious resemblance to creation stories in and it fostered excessive government to evolution, it is a clever attempt to the Bible.This strategy was devised large- entanglement with religion. sneak religion, cloaked in the guise of ly by Henry Morris, an engineering pro- McLean v. Arkansas Board of Educa- science, into the public schools. fessor who headed the influential Insti- tion began a string of legal setbacks for The journey from Dayton to Dover tute for Creation Research in San Diego scientific creationists. Five years later, was marked by a series of legal verdicts, and helped to write the textbook Scien- in Edwards v. Aguillard, the Supreme only one of which, the Scopes trial, fa- tific Creationism.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Argumentation and Fallacies in Creationist Writings Against Evolutionary Theory Petteri Nieminen1,2* and Anne-Mari Mustonen1
    Nieminen and Mustonen Evolution: Education and Outreach 2014, 7:11 http://www.evolution-outreach.com/content/7/1/11 RESEARCH ARTICLE Open Access Argumentation and fallacies in creationist writings against evolutionary theory Petteri Nieminen1,2* and Anne-Mari Mustonen1 Abstract Background: The creationist–evolutionist conflict is perhaps the most significant example of a debate about a well-supported scientific theory not readily accepted by the public. Methods: We analyzed creationist texts according to type (young earth creationism, old earth creationism or intelligent design) and context (with or without discussion of “scientific” data). Results: The analysis revealed numerous fallacies including the direct ad hominem—portraying evolutionists as racists, unreliable or gullible—and the indirect ad hominem, where evolutionists are accused of breaking the rules of debate that they themselves have dictated. Poisoning the well fallacy stated that evolutionists would not consider supernatural explanations in any situation due to their pre-existing refusal of theism. Appeals to consequences and guilt by association linked evolutionary theory to atrocities, and slippery slopes to abortion, euthanasia and genocide. False dilemmas, hasty generalizations and straw man fallacies were also common. The prevalence of these fallacies was equal in young earth creationism and intelligent design/old earth creationism. The direct and indirect ad hominem were also prevalent in pro-evolutionary texts. Conclusions: While the fallacious arguments are irrelevant when discussing evolutionary theory from the scientific point of view, they can be effective for the reception of creationist claims, especially if the audience has biases. Thus, the recognition of these fallacies and their dismissal as irrelevant should be accompanied by attempts to avoid counter-fallacies and by the recognition of the context, in which the fallacies are presented.
    [Show full text]
  • And Then God Created Kansas--The Evolution/Creationism Debate In
    COMMENTS AND THEN GOD CREATED KANSAS? THE EVOLUTION/CREATIONISM DEBATE IN AMERICA'S PUBLIC SCHOOLS MARJORIE GEORGE' "For most Kansans, there really is no conflict between science and religion. Our churches have helped us search for spiritual truth, and our schools have helped us understand the natural world." -Brad Williamson, biology teacher at Olathe East High School in Olathe, Kansas.' INTRODUCTION Kansas has recently become embroiled in a fierce debate over the minds of the state's children, specifically regarding what those children will learn in their public school science classrooms. At first glance, a science curriculum does not seem like a subject of great controversy, but it continues to be one in Kansas and other communities across the country. The controversy hinges specifically on the role evolution should play in science classrooms, but also reflects the broader debate over what role schools should play in students' moral development. Today many parents are worried about sending their children to t BA. 1993, Washington University; J.D. Candidate 2001, University of Pennsylania. Thank you to Sarah Barringer Gordon for her initial advice and editorial comments, and Tracey George for her always helpful comments, as well as her thirty years of encouragement and inspiration. A very special thanks to Jonathan Petty tor alwa)s believing in me and providing unwavering support for my decision to attend law school and of my numerous pursuits during law school. Finally, thank you to all of the Penn Law Review editors for their hard work on this and every article. I Brad Williamson, I Teach, Therefore I IVor7, in Kansas, WASH.
    [Show full text]
  • Book Review: Jerry A. Coyne's Why Evolution Is True
    A peer-reviewed electronic journal published by the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies ISSN 1541-0099 20(1) – June 2009 Book review: Jerry A. Coyne’s Why Evolution Is True Russell Blackford, Monash University Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Evolution and Technology Journal of Evolution and Technology - Vol. 20 Issue 1 – June 2009 - pgs 61-66 http://jetpress.org/v20/blackford.htm Why Evolution Is True. By Jerry A. Coyne. Viking, New York, 2009. 282 pp., $27.95 (hardback). ISBN: 978 0 670 02053 9 (all page references to this edition) Jerry A. Coyne is a professor at the University of Chicago, where his research focuses on evolutionary genetics and speciation. In Why Evolution Is True, he presents a full-scale defence of modern evolutionary theory, which can, so he notes, be described in one long sentence: Life on earth evolved gradually beginning with one primitive species – perhaps a self-replicating molecule – that lived more than 3.5 billion years ago; it then branched out over time, throwing off many new and diverse species; and the mechanism for most (but not all) of evolutionary change is natural selection. (3.) This breaks down into six components: the fact of evolution, in the sense of genetic change over time; the idea of gradualism, of changes taking place over many generations (although sometimes they come about relatively quickly, depending on the evolutionary pressures operating); the phenomenon of speciation, whereby new species split off from existing lineages; the common ancestry of different species, since new species,
    [Show full text]
  • Evolution Is a Short-Order Cook, Not a Watchmaker
    NATURE|Vol 435|19 May 2005 CORRESPONDENCE When science meets religion in the classroom SIR – In the Editorial “Dealing with design” such a reconciliation impossible because faith scientific challenges to their faith should seek (Nature434,1053; 2005), Natureclaims that and science are two mutually exclusive ways guidance from a theologian, not a scientist. scientists have not dealt effectively with the of looking at the world. For such scientists, Scientists should never have to apologize for threat to evolutionary biology posed by Natureapparently prescribes hypocrisy. The teaching science. ‘intelligent design’ (ID) creationism. Rather real business of science teachers is to teach Jerry Coyne than ignoring, dismissing or attacking ID, science, not to help students shore up world- Department of Ecology and Evolution, University scientists should, the editors suggest, learn views that crumble when they learn science. of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60637, USA how religious people can come to terms And ID creationism is not science, despite Peter AtkinsLincoln College, University of Oxford with science, and teach these methods of the editors’ suggestion that ID “tries to use Colin BlakemoreMedical Research Council, London accommodation in the classroom. The goal scientific methods to find evidence of God in Richard DawkinsOxford University Museum, University of Oxford of science education should thus be “to point nature”. Rather, advocates of ID pretend to use Steve JonesGalton Laboratories, University College London to options other than ID for reconciling scientific methods to support their religious Richard LewontinMuseum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University science and belief ”. In this way, students’ faith preconceptions. It has no more place in the John Maddox 9 Pitt Street, London W8 4NX will not be challenged by scientific truth, and biology classroom than geocentrism has in Paul NurseThe Rockefeller University, New York evolution will triumph.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix A: Excerpts from of Pandas and People (2Nd Ed., 1993), the Published Version Used by Students
    Case 4:04-cv-02688-JEJ Document 309 Filed 11/04/2005 Page 1 of 18 Appendix A: Excerpts from Of Pandas and People (2nd ed., 1993), the published version used by students, Quote A: “This book has a single goal: to present data from six areas of science that bear on the central question of biological origins. We don't propose to give final answers, nor to unveil The Truth. Our purpose, rather, is to help readers understand origins better, and to see why the data may be viewed in more than one way.” (Of Pandas and People, 2nd ed. 1993, pg. viii) Quote B: “If science is based upon experience, then science tells us the message encoded in DNA must have originated from an intelligent cause. But what kind of intelligent agent was it? On its own, science cannot answer this question; it must leave it to religion and philosophy. But that should not prevent science from acknowledging evidences for an intelligent cause origin wherever they may exist. This is no different, really, than if we discovered life did result from natural causes. We still would not know, from science, if the natural cause was all that was involved, or if the ultimate explanation was beyond nature, and using the natural cause.” (Of Pandas and People, 2nd ed., 1993, pg. 7) Quote C: “Today we recognize that appeals to intelligent design may be considered in science, as illustrated by current NASA search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). Archaeology has pioneered the development of methods for distinguishing the effects of natural and intelligent causes.
    [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]
  • The Case Against Intelligent Design
    1 THE CASE AGAINST INTELLIGENT DESIGN. The Faith That Dare Not Speak Its Name by Jerry Coyne Post date: 08.11.05 Issue date: 08.22.05 Of Pandas and People By Percival Davis and Dean H. Kenyon (Haughton Publishing Company, 170 pp., $24.95) I. Exactly eighty years after the Scopes "monkey trial" in Dayton, Tennessee, history is about to repeat itself. In a courtroom in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania in late September, scientists and creationists will square off about whether and how high school students in Dover, Pennsylvania will learn about biological evolution. One would have assumed that these battles were over, but that is to underestimate the fury (and the ingenuity) of creationists scorned. The Scopes trial of our day--Kitzmiller, et al v. Dover Area School District et al-- began innocuously. In the spring of 2004, the district's textbook review committee recommended that a new commercial text replace the outdated biology book. At a school board meeting in June, William Buckingham, the chair of the board's curriculum committee, complained that the proposed replacement book was "laced with Darwinism." After challenging the audience to trace its roots back to a monkey, he suggested that a more suitable textbook would include biblical theories of creation. When asked whether this might offend those of other faiths, Buckingham replied, "This country wasn't founded on Muslim beliefs or evolution. This country was founded on Christianity and our students should be taught as such." Defending his views a week later, Buckingham reportedly pleaded: "Two thousand years ago, someone died on a cross.
    [Show full text]
  • “The Church of the Homeless Jesus As a Home for the Holidays” Advent 4C (December 23, 2018) Rev. Dr. David A. Kaden >>
    1 “The Church of the Homeless Jesus as a Home for the Holidays” Advent 4C (December 23, 2018) Rev. Dr. David A. Kaden >>Put a hand on our shoulder and point us in the right direction. Put our hand on someone’s shoulder and let it matter. Amen<< On Friday, Jerry Coyne, Emeritus Professor of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago, published a piece titled, “Yes, There is a War between Science and Religion.”1 Science, he writes, searches for “truth about the universe” through observation, “doing experiments,” and “replicating … [the] results.” Religion, on the other hand, he says, searches for truth “via dogma, scripture, and authority.” “The conflict between [them],” he says, “rests on the [conflicting] methods they use to decide what is truth … .” I winced when I read Coyne’s characterization of religion with the words “dogma” and “authority.” I wonder if he’s ever been to a UCC church! Friday’s article was not the first time Coyne made this argument. He published a book on the conflict between science and religion back in 2015, which won mixed reviews in the Washington Post, The Atlantic, and others. Mixed reviews, because it seems that whenever ​ ​ ​ scientists venture of course into the churning waters of the religious world, in order to criticize religion, they tend to take aim at the easy conservative religious targets: Coyne’s easy target is the dismissal of climate change by some more conservative people of faith, who ignore the warnings of scientists - an example of people of faith venturing off course into the ​ ​ world of science.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Evolutionary Psychology Is 'True". a Review of Jerry Coyne, Why
    Evolutionary Psychology www.epjournal.net – 2009. 7(2): 288-294 ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ Book Review Why Evolutionary Psychology is “True” 1 A review of Jerry Coyne, Why Evolution is True. Viking Penguin: New York, 2009, 304 pp., US$27.95, ISBN-13 978-0-670-02053-9 (hardcover) James R. Liddle, Florida Atlantic University, Department of Psychology, Davie, FL 33314 USA, Email: [email protected] (corresponding author). Todd K. Shackelford, Florida Atlantic University, Department of Psychology, Davie, FL 33314 USA, Email: [email protected]. Jerry Coyne is a professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago. In Why Evolution is True (WEIT), he undertakes a daunting task: to provide a thorough yet concise and readable account of the evidence in support of evolution. It is difficult to overstate Coyne’s success in meeting this goal. From fossils and embryos to biogeography and speciation, Coyne not only reviews detailed evidence for evolution, but also explains why this evidence is exactly what we would expect to find if evolution were true, all with a writing style that is engaging and accessible. Coyne is also successful in what is obviously another of his goals, which is to provide a devastating response to creationist arguments. Several reviews have summarized the many excellent aspects of WEIT (e.g., Dawkins, 2009; Futuyma, 2009; Padian, 2009). In this review, we address an aspect of WEIT that appears to have been mentioned in just one other review. Futuyma (2009) briefly mentions Coyne’s critique of evolutionary psychology, suggesting that “one might make more allowance for the possible validity of hypotheses in this field” (p.
    [Show full text]
  • Intelligent Design: the Latest Creationist Pseudo-Science
    © 2009, Dustin J. Penn III. Intelligent Design: The Latest Creationist Pseudo-Science "The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism… ID's backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID." - U.S. District Judge Jones, 20061 Summary Evolution is not only problematic for religious fundamentalists, it is also unpopular among many who dislike its implications that God is distant and even unnecessary. The rise of a new form of creationism, called "intelligent design" (ID), has been popular because it retains a belief in a divine creation of humans, while abandoning fundamentalists' notions that the universe was created in six days and the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.2 ID's central claim is that life is too complex to explain by chance, and can only be explained by an "intelligent designer." This is merely a restatement of the Teleological argument for the existence of God, popular during the 18th and 19th centuries and the basis for Natural Theology (see Section V.). In other words, ID advocates are creationists who have substituted the word "God" with "intelligent designer". Nevertheless, ID triggered a popular resurgence of creationism in the USA, and it has become a global movement.
    [Show full text]
  • Cracks in the Wall, a Bulge Under the Carpet: the Singular Story of Religion, Evolution, and the U.S
    University of Miami Law School University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository Articles Faculty and Deans 2011 Cracks in the Wall, a Bulge Under the Carpet: the Singular Story of Religion, Evolution, and the U.S. Constitution Susan Haack University of Miami School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.miami.edu/fac_articles Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, Law and Society Commons, Legal History Commons, and the Supreme Court of the United States Commons Recommended Citation Susan Haack, Cracks in the Wall, a Bulge Under the Carpet: the Singular Story of Religion, Evolution, and the U.S. Constitution, 57 Wayne L. Rev. 1303 (2011). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty and Deans at University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles by an authorized administrator of University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CRACKS IN THE WALL, A BULGE UNDER THE CARPET: THE SINGULAR STORY OF RELIGION, EVOLUTION, AND THE U.S. CONSTITUTION SUSAN HAACKt I. AN EMBARRASSMENT OF RICHES....................... 1303 II. IN THE BEGINNING: ORIGINS OF THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE.... 1307 III. A NEW WORLD IN THE NEW WORLD: MONKEYING WITH SCIENCE............................................ 1311 IV. YOUR ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE AT WORK: OUTLAWING OUTLAWING EVOLUTION .........................1316 V. PLUS (A CHANGE: THE RISE AND FALL OF "BALANCED TREATMENT" .............................. 1319 VI. THE WAY WE LIVE NOw: DFtJA VU ALL OVER AGAIN ................ 1324 From a report in the Daily Telegraph about an assistant in a jewelry shop, selling a cross to a customer: "Which sort did you want to look at, Sir? .
    [Show full text]
  • Jerry A. Coyne. Why Evolution Is True. New York: Viking, 2009. 282 Pp. $27.95 (Cloth). ISBN 9780670020539. Matt Young and Paul K
    Christian Scholar’s Review 358 Untitled book review, Michael Buratovich, Christian Scholar’s Review, 23(3), 358-362 (2010). Reprinted with permission. Jerry A. Coyne. Why Evolution is True. New York: Viking, 2009. 282 pp. $27.95 (cloth). ISBN 9780670020539. Matt Young and Paul K. Strode . Why Evolution Works (And Creationism Fails). Piscataway, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 2009. 241 pp. $21.95 (paper). ISBN 9780813545509. Reviewed by Michael Buratovich, Biochemistry, Spring Arbor University On May 28, 2007, the recent creationist organization Answers in Genesis opened its 27- million-dollar Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky. Although the organization projected 250,000 visitors to the museum in its first year, 404,000 people paid to see the museum dur- ing its first year of operation. Despite the economic slowdown in 2008-2009, almost one million people have visited the museum since its opening. The Creation Museum aggressively 7 Reviews promotes a young earth and universe, flood geology, contemporaneous existence of almost 359 all fossil creatures, and attacks the Neo-Darwinian theory of biological evolution vigorously. The broad exposure of the American public to the Creation Museum and, consequently, the arguments for Recent Creationism promulgated by organizations like Answers in Genesis, has motivated mainstream scientists to articulate and clarify their views of biological evolution and why they embrace it. Two popular books on the theory of biological evolution that attempt to do just that are Jerry Coyne’s Why Evolution is True and Matt Young and Paul Strode’s Why Evolution Works (and Creationism Fails). Both of these books are very readable and provide useful summaries of evolutionary theory.
    [Show full text]