DOCSLIB.ORG

The Latest Face of Creationism

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Latest Face of Creationism The Latest Face of Creationism Creationists who want religious ideas taught as scientifi c fact in public schools continue to adapt to courtroom defeats by hiding their true aims under ever changing guises • • • BY GLENN BRANCH & EUGENIE C. SCOTT rofessors routinely give advice to students but national spotlight as a state that pursues politics usually while their charges are still in school. over science and education,” and the American Arthur Landy, a distinguished professor of Association for the Advancement of Science, molecular and cell biology and biochemistry at which told Jindal that the law would “unleash Brown University, recently decided, however, an assault against scienti! c integrity.” Earlier, that he had to remind a former premed student the National Association of Biology Teachers of his that “without evolution, modern biology, had urged the legislature to defeat the bill, plead- including medicine and biotechnology, wouldn’t ing “that the state of Louisiana not allow its sci- make sense.” ence curriculum to be weakened by encouraging The sentiment was not original with Landy, the utilization of supplemental materials pro- KEY CONCEPTS of course. Thirty-six years ago geneticist Theo- duced for the sole purpose of confusing students dosius Dobzhansky, a major contributor to the about the nature of science.” ● Creationists continue to foundations of modern evolutionary theory, fa- But all these protests were of no avail. On agitate against the teaching of evolution in public mously told the readers of The American Biol- June 26, 2008, the governor’s of! ce announced schools, adapting their ogy Teacher that “nothing in biology makes that Jindal had signed the Louisiana Science Ed- tactics to match the road- sense, except in the light of evolution.” Back ucation Act into law. Why all the fuss? On its blocks they encounter. then, Dobzhansky was encouraging biology face, the law looks innocuous: it directs the state teachers to present evolution to their pupils in board of education to “allow and assist teachers, ● Past strategies have included portraying creationism as spite of religiously motivated opposition. Now, principals, and other school administrators to a credible alternative to however, Landy was addressing Bobby Jindal— create and foster an environment within public ) evolution and disguising the governor of the state of Louisiana—on whose elementary and secondary schools that pro- styling it under the name “intelli- desk the latest antievolution bill, the so-called motes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, gent design.” Louisiana Science Education Act, was sitting, and open and objective discussion of scienti! c awaiting his signature. theories being studied,” which includes provid- ● Other tactics misrepresent evolution as scienti! cally Remembering Jindal as a good student in his ing “support and guidance for teachers regard- );KURSTEN BRACCHI ( controversial and pretend genetics class, Landy hoped that the governor ing effective ways to help students understand, that advocates for teaching would recall the scienti! c importance of evolu- analyze, critique, and objectively review scien- photograph creationism are defending tion to biology and medicine. Joining Landy in ti! c theories being studied.” What’s not to like? academic freedom. his opposition to the bill were the American In- Aren’t critical thinking, logical analysis, and —The Editors stitute of Biological Sciences, which warned that open and objective discussion exactly what sci- “Louisiana will undoubtedly be thrust into the ence education aims to promote? ZACHARYZAVISLAK ( 92 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN January 2009 INJECTING RELIGION into the science curricula of public schools is often a hidden goal of state legislation addressing the teaching of evolution. CREDIT www.SciAm.com SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN 93 As always in the contentious history of evolu- John T. Scopes was prosecuted in 1925. It was tion education in the U.S., the devil is in the de- not until 1968 that such laws were ruled to be tails. The law explicitly targets evolution, which unconstitutional, in the Supreme Court case is unsurprising—for lurking in the background Epperson v. Arkansas. No longer able to keep of the law is creationism, the rejection of a scien- evolution out of the science classrooms of the ti! c explanation of the history of life in favor of public schools, creationists began to portray cre- a supernatural account involving a personal cre- ationism as a scienti! cally credible alternative, ator. Indeed, to mutate Dobzhansky’s dictum, dubbing it creation science or scienti! c creation- nothing about the Louisiana law makes sense ism. By the early 1980s legislation calling for ) ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE of except in the light of creationism. equal time for creation science had been intro- the U.S. Constitution’s First duced in no fewer than 27 states, including Lou- Amendment is now understood Creationism’s Evolution isiana. There, in 1981, the legislature passed the to require the separation of Creationists have long battled against the teach- Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and church and state. It has led the ing of evolution in U.S. public schools, and their Evolution-Science in Public School Instruction GeorgeW.Bush with students Supreme Court to strike down as ( unconstitutional laws aimed at strategies have evolved in reaction to legal set- Act, which required teachers to teach creation teaching creationism in public backs. In the 1920s they attempted to ban the science if they taught evolution. AP Photo schools—which is why creation- teaching of evolution outright, with laws such as The Louisiana Balanced Treatment Act was ists now disguise that aim. Tennessee’s Butler Act, under which teacher based on a model bill circulated across the coun- try by creationists working at the grassroots lev- LAWRENCEJACKSON el. Obviously inspired by a particular literal in- ); terpretation of the book of Genesis, the model bill de! ned creation science as including cre- Scopes ation ex nihilo (“from nothing”), a worldwide flood, a “relatively recent inception” of the );AP PHOTO ( earth, and a rejection of the common ancestry of humans and apes. In Arkansas, such a bill Billof Rights was enacted earlier in 1981 and promptly chal- lenged in court as unconstitutional. So when the Louisiana Balanced Treatment Act was still un- der consideration by the state legislature, sup- ISTOCKPHOTO.COM( Late 1910s and 1925: Butler 1958:1 Biological Sciences Curric- It’s Your early 1920s: Act in Tennes- uulum Study (BSCS) is founded with Move As high school see outlaws ffunds from a federal government attendance rises, more teaching of cconcerned about science education This time line notes some key American students become human iin the wake of Sputnik. BSCS’s events in the see sawing history exposed to evolution. evolution. ttextbooks emphasize evolution, Teacher John T. Scopes (above) is which was largely absent from of the battle between creation- prosecuted and convicted under the textbooks after the Scopes trial; ists and evolutionists. It high- law, although the conviction is later commercial publishers follow suit. lights the way creationist overturned on a technicality. tactics have shifted in response to evolution’s ad vances in 1989: Of Pandas and People, 2001: classrooms and to court rulings the ! rst book systematically to Passage of the No Child Left Behind that have banned religious use the term “intelligent design” Act cements the importance of is published; sstate science standards, which proselytizing in public schools. it touts the hhave become a new battleground notion as an bbetween creationism and evolution alternative ((because inclusion of evolution to evolution. iin science standards increases tthe likelihood that evolution wwill be taught) . 94 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN January 2009 porters, anticipating a similar challenge, imme- and the historicity of Noah’s ! ood) but otherwise THE AUTHORS diately purged the bill’s de" nition of creation riddled with the same scienti" c errors and entan- science of speci" cs, leaving only “the scienti" c gled with the same religious doctrines. evidences for creation and inferences from those Such a careful inspection occurred in a fed- scienti" c evidences.” But this tactical vagueness eral courtroom in 2005, in the trial of Kitzmill- failed to render the law constitutional, and in er v. Dover Area School District. At issue was a 1987 the Supreme Court ruled in Edwards v. policy in a local school district in Pennsylvania Aguillard that the Balanced Treatment Act vio- requiring a disclaimer to be read aloud in the Glenn Branch and Eugenie C. lated the Establishment Clause of the First classroom alleging that evolution is a “Theo- Scott are deputy director and Amendment to the Constitution, because the ry ... not a fact,” that “gaps in the Theory exist executive director, respectively, of act “impermissibly endorses religion by advanc- for which there is no evidence,” and that intel- the National Center for Science ing the religious belief that a supernatural being ligent design as presented in Of Pandas and Education (NCSE) in Oakland, Calif., where they work to defend the ); created humankind.” People is a credible scienti" c alternative to evo- teaching of evolution in the public Creationism adapts quickly. Just two years lution. Eleven local parents " led suit in federal schools. Together they edited Not in later a new label for creationism—“intelligent district court, arguing that the policy was un- Our Classrooms:
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals
    UNDERSTANDING THE INTELLIGENT DESIGN CREATIONIST MOVEMENT: ITS TRUE NATURE AND GOALS A POSITION PAPER FROM THE CENTER FOR INQUIRY OFFICE OF PUBLIC POLICY AUTHOR: BARBARA FORREST, Ph.D. Reviewing Committee: Paul Kurtz, Ph.D.; Austin Dacey, Ph.D.; Stuart D. Jordan, Ph.D.; Ronald A. Lindsay, J. D., Ph.D.; John Shook, Ph.D.; Toni Van Pelt DATED: MAY 2007 ( AMENDED JULY 2007) Copyright © 2007 Center for Inquiry, Inc. Permission is granted for this material to be shared for noncommercial, educational purposes, provided that this notice appears on the reproduced materials, the full authoritative version is retained, and copies are not altered. To disseminate otherwise or to republish requires written permission from the Center for Inquiry, Inc. Table of Contents Section I. Introduction: What is at stake in the dispute over intelligent design?.................. 1 Section II. What is the intelligent design creationist movement? ........................................ 2 Section III. The historical and legal background of intelligent design creationism ................ 6 Epperson v. Arkansas (1968) ............................................................................ 6 McLean v. Arkansas (1982) .............................................................................. 6 Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) ............................................................................. 7 Section IV. The ID movement’s aims and strategy .............................................................. 9 The “Wedge Strategy” .....................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • A Threat to Geoscience Education: Creationist Anti-Evolution Activity in Canada Jason R
    Document generated on 10/02/2021 4:16 p.m. Geoscience Canada A Threat to Geoscience Education: Creationist Anti-Evolution Activity in Canada Jason R. Wiles Volume 33, Number 3, September 2006 Article abstract The rejection of biological and geological evolution is a pervasive problem in URI: https://id.erudit.org/iderudit/geocan33_3com01 science education. Recent events in the United States have brought anti-evolution activity to the forefront in media coverage of science education, See table of contents but Canadians are often unaware that such creationist, anti-evolution activity is present in Canada as well. In this article, various foreign and Canadian-based anti-evolution efforts that threaten biology and geoscience education are Publisher(s) discussed. These creationist organizations and their activities may adversely influence Canadian science curricula and public understanding of evolution The Geological Association of Canada and science in general. ISSN 0315-0941 (print) 1911-4850 (digital) Explore this journal Cite this article Wiles, J. R. (2006). A Threat to Geoscience Education: Creationist Anti-Evolution Activity in Canada. Geoscience Canada, 33(3), 135–140. All rights reserved © The Geological Association of Canada, 2006 This document is protected by copyright law. Use of the services of Érudit (including reproduction) is subject to its terms and conditions, which can be viewed online. https://apropos.erudit.org/en/users/policy-on-use/ This article is disseminated and preserved by Érudit. Érudit is a non-profit inter-university consortium of the Université de Montréal, Université Laval, and the Université du Québec à Montréal. Its mission is to promote and disseminate research.
    [Show full text]
  • AMNH Digital Library
    ^^<e?& THERE ARE THOSE WHO DO. AND THOSE WHO WOULDACOULDASHOULDA. Which one are you? If you're the kind of person who's willing to put it all on the line to pursue your goal, there's AIG. The organization with more ways to manage risk and more financial solutions than anyone else. Everything from business insurance for growing companies to travel-accident coverage to retirement savings plans. All to help you act boldly in business and in life. So the next time you're facing an uphill challenge, contact AIG. THE GREATEST RISK IS NOT TAKING ONE: AIG INSURANCE, FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE FREEDOM TO DARE. Insurance and services provided by members of American International Group, Inc.. 70 Pine Street, Dept. A, New York, NY 10270. vww.aig.com TODAY TOMORROW TOYOTA Each year Toyota builds more than one million vehicles in North America. This means that we use a lot of resources — steel, aluminum, and plastics, for instance. But at Toyota, large scale manufacturing doesn't mean large scale waste. In 1992 we introduced our Global Earth Charter to promote environmental responsibility throughout our operations. And in North America it is already reaping significant benefits. We recycle 376 million pounds of steel annually, and aggressive recycling programs keep 18 million pounds of other scrap materials from landfills. Of course, no one ever said that looking after the Earth's resources is easy. But as we continue to strive for greener ways to do business, there's one thing we're definitely not wasting. And that's time. www.toyota.com/tomorrow ©2001 JUNE 2002 VOLUME 111 NUMBER 5 FEATURES AVIAN QUICK-CHANGE ARTISTS How do house finches thrive in so many environments? By reshaping themselves.
    [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]
  • Where Did We Come From?
    Reading 10.2 Where Did We Come From? Lottie L. Joiner or a year, Martha Wise listened to presentations, vis- investigate and critically analyze all aspects of evolutionary ited constituents’ homes, took phone call after long theory.” The statement made Ohio the first state to require F phone call, and spent hours answering e-mail. She districts to let criticisms of evolution be examine din class- was often up until the wee hours of the morning, trying to rooms. However, a disclaimer insists that the board did not understand the latest issue dividing her state: the teaching support “the teaching or testing of intelligent design,”a the- of “intelligent design,” one of the alternative theories of the ory that the complex features of life are the result of intelli- origin of species. gent planning and activity. “I’m not a scientist. I don’t know much about science,” For many, it was a compromise that satisfied both sides. says Wise, a member of the Ohio State Board of Education. Some felt that it was not enough. Others believed that the “There’s nothing the intelligent design people showed me Ohio board had caved to the pressure of Darwin’s critics. that the science people couldn’t say,‘That’s not evidence,’or “Science education has not convinced a lot of ‘That’s not a fact.’ I can’t refute them because I don’t know Americans that Darwin was right,”says Charles Haynes, se- that much about it. I can’t believe either side.” nior scholar at the Freedom Forum’s first amendment The question of which side you believe is central to the Center, based at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn.
    [Show full text]
  • Creation, Design and Evolution: Can Science Discover Or Eliminate God?
    University of St. Thomas Journal of Law and Public Policy Volume 4 Issue 1 Fall 2009 Article 5 January 2009 Creation, Design and Evolution: Can Science Discover or Eliminate God? Peter M.J. Hess Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.stthomas.edu/ustjlpp Part of the First Amendment Commons, Law and Philosophy Commons, and the Religion Law Commons Recommended Citation Peter M. Hess, Creation, Design and Evolution: Can Science Discover or Eliminate God?, 4 U. ST. THOMAS J.L. & PUB. POL'Y 102 (2009). Available at: https://ir.stthomas.edu/ustjlpp/vol4/iss1/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by UST Research Online and the University of St. Thomas Journal of Law and Public Policy. For more information, please contact the Editor-in-Chief at [email protected]. CREATION, DESIGN AND EVOLUTION: CAN SCIENCE DISCOVER OR ELIMINATE GOD? PETER M. J. HESS, PH.D.* NATIONAL CENTER FOR SCIENCE EDUCATION "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament shows forth his handiwork." Psalms 19:1 INTRODUCTION: THE PLAYING OUT OF THE DESIGN ARGUMENT IN THE WEST Every culture has its views about the universe, about the human person, and about the great metaphysical questions that confront us. How ought we to think about the relationship between cosmology, anthropology, and theology? This may be a challenge for us in our increasingly secular post- modem culture, but for most of human history it was not an issue. In the Judeo-Christian tradition these areas of human reflection were naturally bound up together, as in the Hebrew psalmist's proto-statement of the argument from design: "the heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament shows forth his handiwork."' The scholastic university culture of the High Middle Ages held as its ideal the "unity of knowledge," or unitas scientiae, approaching the study of the universe as a coherent and knowable whole.
    [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]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Edited by Steven J. Dick and Mark L. Lupisella
    Edited by Steven J. Dick and Mark L. Lupisella NASA SP-2009-4802 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Cosmos and Culture : Cultural Evolution in a Cosmic Context / Steven J. Dick and Mark Lupisella, editors. p. cm. -- (NASA SP ; 4802) Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Cosmology--History. 2. Astronomy--History. 3. Culture--Origin. 4. Social evolution. 5. Human evolution. I. Dick, Steven J. II. Lupisella, Mark. QB981.C8263 2009 523.109--dc22 2009004348 ISBN 978-0-16-083119-5 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800 9 0 0 0 0 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402-0001 ISBN 978-0-16-083119-5 9 780160 831195 ISBN 978-0-16-083119-5 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800 9 0 0 0 0 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402-0001 ISBN 978-0-16-083119-5 9 780160 831195 Table of Contents Introduction – Steven J. Dick and Mark L. Lupisella v Part 1: The Cosmic Context Chapter 1 – Eric J. Chaisson Cosmic Evolution State of the Science 3 Chapter 2 – Steven J. Dick Cosmic Evolution History, Culture, and Human Destiny 25 Part 2: Cultural Evolution Chapter 3 – Kathryn Denning Social Evolution State of the Field 63 Chapter 4 – Daniel C. Dennett The Evolution of Culture 125 Chapter 5 – Howard Bloom The Big Burp and the Multiplanetary Mandate 145 Chapter 6 – John M.
    [Show full text]
  • CARL ZIMMER Author & Journalist
    CARL ZIMMER Author & journalist carlzimmer.com @carlzimmer BIOGRAPHY The New York Times Book Review calls Carl Zimmer "as fine a science essayist as we have." He is the author of thirteen acclaimed books and a columnist for the New York Times. Zimmer first be- gan writing about science at Discover, where he served for five years as a senior editor, and has gone on to write hundreds of features for magazines including The Atlantic, The New York Times Magazine, Time, National Geographic, and Scientific American. He has also served as a scientific editor for television documentaries, consulted on museum exhibits, and contributed his writing to major science web sites. Zimmer has earned numerous honors for his work. In 2007 he won the National Academies Communication Award, and he has won the American Association for the Advancement of Sci- ences Science Journalism Award three times. In 2015, Zimmer won the Distinguished Service Award from the National Association of Biology Teachers, and in 2016, he won the Stephen Jay Gould Prize, awarded by the Society for the Study of Evolution. In 2018, Zimmer’s book She Has Her Mother’s Laugh was named by Publisher’s Weekly one of the ten best books of the year. The Guardian named it the best science book of 2018 and The New York Times Book Review chose it as a Notable Book of the Year. It was short-listed for the Baillie-Gifford Prize for Nonfiction and a fi- nalist for the PEN/E.O. Wilson Literary Science Writing Prize. His articles have been antholo- gized in both The Best American Science and Nature Writing series and The Best American Science Writing series.
    [Show full text]