DOCSLIB.ORG

Argumentation and Fallacies in Creationist Writings Against Evolutionary Theory Petteri Nieminen1,2* and Anne-Mari Mustonen1

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

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. Keywords: Argumentation scheme; Creationism; Evolution; Fallacies; Intelligent design Background humans separate from other organisms and emphasize The antagonism between religion and natural sciences is the literal interpretation of the Bible (Numbers 1982, often a reflection of perceived contradictions between McGrath 2010). scientific data and (personal) interpretation of religious Traditionally, creationism has been classified into four texts, especially the Bible (McGrath 2010). The accept- principal types (Scott 1997, McGrath 2010). Young earth ance of biological evolution by the public varies being creationism (YEC) states that the earth was created the highest in Iceland (84.9%) and Denmark (82.2%) and 6000–8000 years ago and the flood of Noah occurred the lowest, e.g., in the United States (39.7%) and Turkey exactly as written in the Old Testament. Old earth cre- (26.0%) (Data360.org 2006; 34 countries sampled). The ationism (OEC) interprets the six-day creation story theory of evolution since Wallace (1858) and Darwin symbolically to represent longer time periods to accom- (1859) suggests that humans developed naturally over a modate the geological age of the earth. Intelligent design very long period of time from other life forms. This is a (ID) requires supernatural intervention during the for- challenge for some forms of religious faith that perceive mation of basic body plans and biological molecules by trying to identify “irreducible complexity”, i.e., structures * Correspondence: [email protected] that could not have evolved by natural processes only. 1Institute of Biomedicine/Anatomy, University of Eastern Finland, Faculty of Theistic evolution accepts biological evolution as a tool Health Sciences, School of Medicine, P.O. Box 1627, FI-70211 Kuopio, Finland of a deity to produce the observed biodiversity (McGrath 2Philosophical Faculty, School of Theology, University of Eastern Finland, P.O. Box 111, FI-80101 Joensuu, Finland © 2014 Nieminen and Mustonen; licensee Springer. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Nieminen and Mustonen Evolution: Education and Outreach 2014, 7:11 Page 2 of 14 http://www.evolution-outreach.com/content/7/1/11 2010) and, thus, it is “creationism” only in the broadest Durrett and Schmidt 2008, Panda’s Thumb 2013). These sense. scientific rebuttals are not discussed in detail here. Cre- YEC, OEC and ID mostly share a common notion of ationist writings present also repeated arguments that -min], “kind”;e. are not directly connected to the scientific proof of evo] ִמין individually created kinds” (Hebrew“ g., Genesis 1:11–25, 6:19–20; King James Bible 2013). lution. We used argumentation-oriented textual analysis Creationists (especially YEC) consider variation and change to unravel prevalent practices that dominate the cre- possible within the “kinds”; however, any change of a ationist–evolutionist debate. We hypothesized that dis- “kind” into another or the appearance of new “kinds” cursive practices not based on debating observational requires supernatural intervention (ID). While there is evidence per se would contain fallacious arguments that disagreement on the classification of “kinds”,YEC,OEC could eventually affect the reception of the creationist and ID state that the evolutionary concept of these taxa de- claims by their audience. veloping as a result of natural processes is false (McGrath 2010). The creationist “kind” is not the same as the taxo- Methods nomical species but corresponds often closely to biological Creationist authors and publications were chosen for families (Numbers 2011). analysis based on their visibility and impact in social Creationist writings attempt to disprove biological media (Table 1). To assess the potential significance of evolution (YEC, OEC and ID) and the age of the earth these English-language-derived creationist arguments lo- (YEC) by various strategies. One approach is to present cally, highly-cited Finnish creationist authors were also selected data from natural sciences as counter-evidence analyzed. We included a sample of rebuttals by evolution- against evolution, which has produced also numerous ary proponents to analyze if similar fallacies could be ob- rebuttals from evolutionary proponents (Young 1985, served on both sides of the debate. The analysis proceeded Shermer 2002, Pennock 2003, Isaak 2006, Deming 2008, as follows: we determined the position of the writer Table 1 Sources of principal sample material Institution/Author Format Type Source/Publisher Answers in Genesis Online articles YEC http://www.answersingenesis.org/ Creation Ministries International ● Creation Magazine YEC http://creation.com/ ● Journal of Creation Creation Research Society ● Creation Matters YEC http://www.creationresearch.org/index. html ● CRS Quarterly Institute for Creation Research Online articles YEC http://www.icr.org/ Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Online articles ID/OEC http://www.ideacenter.org/ (IDEA) Center Intelligent Design network Online articles ID http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork. org/index.htm UK Apologetics Online articles YEC http://www.ukapologetics.net/ Behe, MJ The edge of evolution. The search for the limits of ID Free Press Darwinism (2007) Johnson, PE ● Darwin on trial (1993) ID/OEC http://www.talebooks.com ● Reason in the balance (1995) InterVarsity Press Puolimatka, T (in Finnish) ● Faith, science and evolution (2009) ID/OEC Uusi Tie ● A test for openness in science discussion (2010) Reinikainen, P (in Finnish) ● The forgotten Genesis (1991) YEC Uusi Tie ● The enigma of the dinosaurs and the Bible (2003) Kuva ja Sana ● Darwin or intelligent design (2011) Uusi Tie Davis, P, and Kenyon, DH Of pandas and people. The central question of ID Haughton biological origins (1998) Morris, HM The remarkable birth of planet earth (1972) YEC Bethany Fellowship TalkOrigins archive (many authors) Online articles ET http://www.talkorigins.org/ Panda’s Thumb (many authors) Online articles ET http://www.pandasthumb.org/ Young, W Fallacies of creationism (1985) ET Detselig Enterprises YEC = young earth creationism, OEC = old earth creationism, ID = intelligent design, ET = proponents of evolutionary theory. Nieminen and Mustonen Evolution: Education and Outreach 2014, 7:11 Page 3 of 14 http://www.evolution-outreach.com/content/7/1/11 in the creationism–evolution conflict (pro-creationism, not met, with the Fisher’s exact test (SPSS v19 software anti-creationism). The creationist texts were classified as package, IBM, Armonk, NY, USA). The results are pre- YEC, OEC or ID, but there was a lot of overlap between sented as percentage of texts within category (YEC, ID/ OEC and ID, which is indicated by ID/OEC. We excluded OEC or pro-evolutionary) that contained the fallacy. theistic evolution, as it basically accepts biological evolu- The p value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. tion (International Theological Commission 2004). The arguments were analyzed and classified according to argu- Results mentation theory with methods employed previously Ad hominem fallacies (Sahlane 2012). We also inspected the arguments accord- The direct ad hominem attempts to disqualify the ing to the context of proving or disproving theories within opponent’s legitimacy in the issue (van Eemeren and natural sciences, i.e., we documented if the texts, books, Grootendorst 1992, Sahlane
Recommended publications
  • Answers to Practice Quiz #2

    Answers to Practice Quiz #2

    Philosophy 1104: Critical Thinking Answers to Practice Quiz #2 [Total: 50 marks] 1. In which of the following pairs of propositions does A provide conclusive evidence for B? Also say whether or not A provides at least some evidence, no matter how weak (i.e. say whether A is positively relevant to B). Write just „Yes‟ or „No‟ in each column provided. A B Conclusive Some evidence? evidence? (i) Fred just hit a hole-in-one Fred is a very good golfer No Yes (ii) I have between 4 and 6 eggs I have at least 3 eggs Yes (iii) I have at least 4 eggs I have 5 or more eggs No Yes (iv) It‟s not the case that every Every politician is honest No Yes politician is corrupt. (v) Janet likes listening to Jazz Vancouver is west of Calgary No No (vi) Simpson is a world-class skier Simpson is a non-smoker No Yes (vii) We‟re having fish for supper We‟re having trout for supper No Yes (viii) Qin‟s theory is rejected by all Qin‟s theory is false No Yes relevant scientific authorities (ix) Sally is a Catholic Sally has eight children No Yes (x) Ali stabbed a man in Vernon, Ali first entered Canada in No No B.C. in 1998. 2002. [1 mark each] In rows where you say ‘yes’ in the first column, you should of course say ‘yes’ in the second as well! Or just leave the second column blank, if you prefer. 2. Each of the following definitions is flawed in some way (each in just one way, I think, or at least one main one).
  • Section 6: Reporting Likelihood Ratios Components

    Section 6: Reporting Likelihood Ratios Components

    Section 6: Reporting Likelihood Ratios Components • Hierarchy of propositions • Formulating propositions • Communicating LRs Section 6 Slide 2 Likelihood Ratio The LR assigns a numerical value in favor or against one propo- sition over another: Pr(EjHp;I) LR = ; Pr(EjHd;I) where Hp typically aligns with the prosecution case, Hd is a reasonable alternative consistent with the defense case, and I is the relevant background information. Section 6 Slide 3 Setting Propositions • The value for the LR will depend on the propositions chosen: different sets of propositions will lead to different LRs. • Choosing the appropriate pair of propositions can therefore be just as important as the DNA analysis itself. Section 6 Slide 4 Hierarchy of Propositions Evett & Cook (1998) established the following hierarchy of propositions: Level Scale Example III Offense Hp: The suspect raped the complainant. Hd: Some other person raped the complainant. II Activity Hp: The suspect had intercourse with the complainant. Hd: Some other person had intercourse with the complainant. I Source Hp: The semen came from the suspect. Hd: The semen came from an unknown person. 0 Sub-source Hp: The DNA in the sample came from the suspect. Hd: The DNA in the sample came from an unknown person. Section 6 Slide 5 Hierarchy of Propositions • The offense level deals with the ultimate issue of guilt/ innocence, which are outside the domain of the forensic scientist. • The activity level associates a DNA profile or evidence source with the crime itself, and there may be occasions where a scientist can address this level. • The source level associates a DNA profile or evidence item with a particular body fluid or individual source.
  • And Then God Created Kansas--The Evolution/Creationism Debate In

    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.
  • The Pedagogical Dimension of Indoctrination: Criticism of Indoctrination and the Constructivism in Education

    The Pedagogical Dimension of Indoctrination: Criticism of Indoctrination and the Constructivism in Education

    META: Research in Hermeneutics, Phenomenology, and Practical Philosophy – IV (1) / 2012 META: RESEARCH IN HERMENEUTICS, PHENOMENOLOGY, AND PRACTICAL PHILOSOPHY VOL. IV, NO. 1 / JUNE 2012: 88-105, ISSN 2067-3655, www.metajournal.org The Pedagogical Dimension of Indoctrination: Criticism of Indoctrination and the Constructivism in Education Mariana Momanu “Alexandru Ioan Cuza” University of Iași Abstract This study proposes a critical analysis of indoctrination in the field of education. We shall first discuss the meaning of this word trying to identify two fundamental dimensions: the pedagogical dimension and the ideological one. After approaching the relationship between indoctrination and authority in education, we classify the types of indoctrination identified by O. Reboul (1977) based on these two dimensions. For the analysis of indoctrination in the teaching process we used a four-dimensional model that includes: the intention, teaching contents, teaching methods and finalities of the didactic process. The study concludes with criticisms of indoctrination in terms of the constructivist paradigm in education. We consider that, far from having achieved the single possible approach, the constructivism is an option for educating the critical spirit and preventing the risks of indoctrination within the teaching process. Keywords: indoctrination, authority, teaching, criticism of indoctrination, constructivist approach. 1. The Concept of Indoctrination. The Pedagogical Dimension of Indoctrination The initial meaning of indoctrination is of pedagogical nature. In Latin, Doctrina means education, science, doctrine, that can many times substitute one for another. The former meaning of doctrine was savoir or acquired knowledge (Robert 1957, 1564), while that of the verb to indoctrinate was: to instruct, to provide someone with knowledge, to teach a science (Robert 1957, 1564).
  • Critical Analysis of Article "21 Reasons to Believe the Earth Is Young" by Jeff Miller

    Critical Analysis of Article "21 Reasons to Believe the Earth Is Young" by Jeff Miller

    1 Critical analysis of article "21 Reasons to Believe the Earth is Young" by Jeff Miller Lorence G. Collins [email protected] Ken Woglemuth [email protected] January 7, 2019 Introduction The article by Dr. Jeff Miller can be accessed at the following link: http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=5641 and is an article published by Apologetic Press, v. 39, n.1, 2018. The problems start with the Article In Brief in the boxed paragraph, and with the very first sentence. The Bible does not give an age of the Earth of 6,000 to 10,000 years, or even imply − this is added to Scripture by Dr. Miller and other young-Earth creationists. R. C. Sproul was one of evangelicalism's outstanding theologians, and he stated point blank at the Legionier Conference panel discussion that he does not know how old the Earth is, and the Bible does not inform us. When there has been some apparent conflict, either the theologians or the scientists are wrong, because God is the Author of the Bible and His handiwork is in general revelation. In the days of Copernicus and Galileo, the theologians were wrong. Today we do not know of anyone who believes that the Earth is the center of the universe. 2 The last sentence of this "Article In Brief" is boldly false. There is almost no credible evidence from paleontology, geology, astrophysics, or geophysics that refutes deep time. Dr. Miller states: "The age of the Earth, according to naturalists and old- Earth advocates, is 4.5 billion years.
  • From Logic to Rhetoric: a Contextualized Pedagogy for Fallacies

    From Logic to Rhetoric: a Contextualized Pedagogy for Fallacies

    Current Issue From the Editors Weblog Editorial Board Editorial Policy Submissions Archives Accessibility Search Composition Forum 32, Fall 2015 From Logic to Rhetoric: A Contextualized Pedagogy for Fallacies Anne-Marie Womack Abstract: This article reenvisions fallacies for composition classrooms by situating them within rhetorical practices. Fallacies are not formal errors in logic but rather persuasive failures in rhetoric. I argue fallacies are directly linked to successful rhetorical strategies and pose the visual organizer of the Venn diagram to demonstrate that claims can achieve both success and failure based on audience and context. For example, strong analogy overlaps false analogy and useful appeal to pathos overlaps manipulative emotional appeal. To advance this argument, I examine recent changes in fallacies theory, critique a-rhetorical textbook approaches, contextualize fallacies within the history and theory of rhetoric, and describe a methodology for rhetorically reclaiming these terms. Today, fallacy instruction in the teaching of written argument largely follows two paths: teachers elevate fallacies as almost mathematical formulas for errors or exclude them because they don’t fit into rhetorical curriculum. Both responses place fallacies outside the realm of rhetorical inquiry. Fallacies, though, are not as clear-cut as the current practice of spotting them might suggest. Instead, they rely on the rhetorical situation. Just as it is an argument to create a fallacy, it is an argument to name a fallacy. This article describes an approach in which students must justify naming claims as successful strategies and/or fallacies, a process that demands writing about contexts and audiences rather than simply linking terms to obviously weak statements.
  • Common Reasoning Mistakes

    Common Reasoning Mistakes

    Common Fallacies (mistakes of reasoning) The fallacy fallacy • There is danger even in the study of fallacies. This study involves identifying certain patterns of reasoning as fallacies. Each pattern has a name. E.g. an argument that attacks a person is ad hominem. But ad hominem arguments are not always fallacies! • Rejecting an argument as a (named) fallacy, based on its pattern alone, is a fallacy that we might call the fallacy fallacy. • In general, an ad hominem is only legitimate when attacking an argument from authority. • But not all such attacks on authority are legitimate. They can be made on irrelevant grounds. Irrelevant ad hominem E.g. Einstein’s physics was attacked on the basis of Einstein being Jewish. Thomas Powers, Heisenberg’s War, p. 41 Fallacy? • Alliance leader Stockwell Day argues that Canada should increase its military expenditure now, by at least 20%, in order to continue to meet our NATO obligations five years from now. But Day is a fundamentalist who thinks the universe is only 6,000 years old! Clearly his view can be dismissed. • Mr. Wilson, in his letter of January 16, argues that it would be counter-productive to yield to the demands of the hostage takers. He does not, I take it, have a son or daughter among the hostages. As such a parent, I am repelled by his callous attitude. My daughter could well be the next innocent victim of these terrorists, but Wilson apparently doesn’t give a damn about this. 1. Comment on the following ad hominem (to the person) arguments, explaining why they are, or are not, reasonable.
  • Explicit Examples of Logical Fallacies in Love Is a Fallacy by Max Shulman Foundations – Part of the Easy Peasy All-In-One Homeschool

    Explicit Examples of Logical Fallacies in Love Is a Fallacy by Max Shulman Foundations – Part of the Easy Peasy All-In-One Homeschool

    Explicit examples of logical fallacies in Love is a Fallacy by Max Shulman Foundations – Part of the Easy Peasy All-in-One Homeschool A dicto simpliciter ("an argument based on an unqualified generalization") - the example given in the story is: Exercise is good. Therefore everybody should exercise. Hasty generalization (or "fallacy of insufficient sample") - example given in the story is “You can speak French, I can't speak French, Petey Burch can't speak French. I must therefore conclude that nobody at the University of Minnesota can speak French.” If most of the people the author (Dobie Gillis) knows cannot speak French he concludes that no one at the college can speak French. OR "My dear," I said, favoring her with a smile, "we have now spent five evenings together. We have gotten along, splendidly. It is clear that we are well matched." Post hoc ergo propter hoc ("after it, therefore because of it", or "confusing coincidental relationships with cause") - from the story: “Let's not take Bill on our picnic. Every time we take him out with us, it rains.” Contradictory Premises ("self-contradiction") - from the story: I do not see the contradictory premise in this story. The main contradiction would be that the author (Dobie Gillis) begins the story believing that love is logical and can be won through logic. However, the end of the story proves that love is not logical and Dobie’s original belief was a fallacy. Ad Misericordiam ("appeal to pity") - example given in the story: "A man applies for a job. When the boss asks him what his qualifications are, he replies the he has wife and six children at home, the wife is a helpless cripple, the children have nothing to eat, no clothes to wear, no shoes on their feet, there are no beds in the house, no coal in the cellar, and winter is coming." OR “Polly, I love you.
  • False Dilemma Wikipedia Contents

    False Dilemma Wikipedia Contents

    False dilemma Wikipedia Contents 1 False dilemma 1 1.1 Examples ............................................... 1 1.1.1 Morton's fork ......................................... 1 1.1.2 False choice .......................................... 2 1.1.3 Black-and-white thinking ................................... 2 1.2 See also ................................................ 2 1.3 References ............................................... 3 1.4 External links ............................................. 3 2 Affirmative action 4 2.1 Origins ................................................. 4 2.2 Women ................................................ 4 2.3 Quotas ................................................. 5 2.4 National approaches .......................................... 5 2.4.1 Africa ............................................ 5 2.4.2 Asia .............................................. 7 2.4.3 Europe ............................................ 8 2.4.4 North America ........................................ 10 2.4.5 Oceania ............................................ 11 2.4.6 South America ........................................ 11 2.5 International organizations ...................................... 11 2.5.1 United Nations ........................................ 12 2.6 Support ................................................ 12 2.6.1 Polls .............................................. 12 2.7 Criticism ............................................... 12 2.7.1 Mismatching ......................................... 13 2.8 See also
  • Argumentum Ad Populum Examples in Media

    Argumentum Ad Populum Examples in Media

    Argumentum Ad Populum Examples In Media andClip-on spare. Ashby Metazoic sometimes Brian narcotize filagrees: any he intercommunicatedBalthazar echo improperly. his assonances Spense coylyis all-weather and terminably. and comminating compunctiously while segregated Pen resinify The argument further it did arrive, clearly the fallacy or has it proves false information to increase tuition costs Fallacies of emotion are usually find in grant proposals or need scholarship, income as reports to funders, policy makers, employers, journalists, and raw public. Why do in media rather than his lack of. This fallacy can raise quite dangerous because it entails the reluctance of ceasing an action because of movie the previous investment put option it. See in media should vote republican. This fallacy examples or overlooked, argumentum ad populum examples in media. There was an may select agents and are at your email address any claim that makes a common psychological aspects of. Further Experiments on retail of the end with Displaced Visual Fields. Muslims in media public opinion to force appear. Instead of ad populum. While you are deceptively bad, in media sites, weak or persuade. We often finish one survey of simple core fallacies by considering just contain more. According to appeal could not only correct and frollo who criticize repression and fallacious arguments are those that they are typically also. Why is simply slope bad? 12 Common Logical Fallacies and beige to Debunk Them. Of cancer person commenting on social media rather mention what was alike in concrete post. Therefore, it contain important to analyze logical and emotional fallacies so one hand begin to examine the premises against which these rhetoricians base their assumptions, as as as the logic that brings them deflect certain conclusions.
  • Appendix A: Excerpts from of Pandas and People (2Nd Ed., 1993), the Published Version Used by Students

    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.
  • Intelligent Design Creationism and the Constitution

    Intelligent Design Creationism and the Constitution

    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Washington University St. Louis: Open Scholarship Washington University Law Review Volume 83 Issue 1 2005 Is It Science Yet?: Intelligent Design Creationism and the Constitution Matthew J. Brauer Princeton University Barbara Forrest Southeastern Louisiana University Steven G. Gey Florida State University Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, Education Law Commons, First Amendment Commons, Religion Law Commons, and the Science and Technology Law Commons Recommended Citation Matthew J. Brauer, Barbara Forrest, and Steven G. Gey, Is It Science Yet?: Intelligent Design Creationism and the Constitution, 83 WASH. U. L. Q. 1 (2005). Available at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol83/iss1/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School at Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington University Law Review by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Washington University Law Quarterly VOLUME 83 NUMBER 1 2005 IS IT SCIENCE YET?: INTELLIGENT DESIGN CREATIONISM AND THE CONSTITUTION MATTHEW J. BRAUER BARBARA FORREST STEVEN G. GEY* TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ................................................................................................... 3 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................