Mclean vs. arkansas

Readers may choose their own villain in the story we have told. Like us, some will find the greatest culpability in the scientific community itself, for the large-scale failure to pay attention to the teaching of science in the high schools. Others will blame the textbook authors and publishers for pursuing sales rather than quality. Some will attach blame to the politicians who exploited antievolution sentiment to get into, or remain, in office. Others will blame the conservative Protestant clergy. Some may blame the whole educational system for failing to teach Americans how to evaluate evidence. And many will blame the evolutionists for bringing the matter up in the first place. But whatever the lesson one wishes to draw from the history of biology textbooks since the Scopes trial, we think the story itself is worth knowing. That the textbooks could have downgraded their treatment of evolution with almost nobody noticing is the greatest tragedy of all.

@article{doi101126science1854154832,
    author = "Grabiner, Judith V. and Miller, Peter D.",
    title = "Effects of the Scopes Trial",
    year = "1974",
    journal = "Science",
    abstract = "Readers may choose their own villain in the story we have told. Like us, some will find the greatest culpability in the scientific community itself, for the large-scale failure to pay attention to the teaching of science in the high schools. Others will blame the textbook authors and publishers for pursuing sales rather than quality. Some will attach blame to the politicians who exploited antievolution sentiment to get into, or remain, in office. Others will blame the conservative Protestant clergy. Some may blame the whole educational system for failing to teach Americans how to evaluate evidence. And many will blame the evolutionists for bringing the matter up in the first place. But whatever the lesson one wishes to draw from the history of biology textbooks since the Scopes trial, we think the story itself is worth knowing. That the textbooks could have downgraded their treatment of evolution with almost nobody noticing is the greatest tragedy of all.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4154.832",
    doi = "10.1126/science.185.4154.832",
    openalex = "W1996918306"
}

@article{doi1010800021926619779654108,
    author = "Mariner, James L.",
    title = "The evolution-creation controversy in the United States",
    year = "1977",
    journal = "Journal of Biological Education",
    url = "https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/063cf006bcd2ecfdd85687fac1602c62974702d4",
    doi = "10.1080/00219266.1977.9654108",
    is_oa = "true",
    number = "1",
    pages = "6-11",
    semanticscholar_citation_count = "6",
    semanticscholar_id = "063cf006bcd2ecfdd85687fac1602c62974702d4",
    volume = "11"
}

@article{baum1981battle,
    author = "BAUM, RUDY",
    title = "Battle brewing over Arkansas creationism law",
    year = "1981",
    journal = "Chemical \& Engineering News Archive",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1021/cen-v059n027.p025",
    doi = "10.1021/cen-v059n027.p025",
    number = "27",
    openalex = "W2066424058",
    pages = "25-26",
    volume = "59"
}

@misc{broad1981creationists2,
    author = "Broad, W. J",
    title = "Creationists limit scope of evolution case",
    year = "1981",
    howpublished = "Science, v. 211, p. 1331-1332",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Broad, W. J., 1981, Creationists limit scope of evolution case: Science, v. 211, p. 1331-1332.}"
}

@article{crossref1981creationism,
    title = "Creationism taking a beating in Arkansas",
    year = "1981",
    journal = "Chemical \& Engineering News Archive",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1021/cen-v059n050.p006a",
    doi = "10.1021/cen-v059n050.p006a",
    number = "50",
    openalex = "W4254372773",
    pages = "6-7",
    volume = "59"
}

@article{dickson1981creationism,
    author = "Dickson, David",
    title = "Creationism again an issue in Arkansas",
    year = "1981",
    journal = "Nature",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1038/291179a0",
    doi = "10.1038/291179a0",
    number = "5812",
    openalex = "W1617353892",
    pages = "179-180",
    volume = "291"
}

@article{lewin1981creationism,
    author = "Lewin, Roger",
    title = "Creationism Goes on Trial in Arkansas",
    year = "1981",
    journal = "Science",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.214.4525.1101",
    doi = "10.1126/science.214.4525.1101",
    number = "4525",
    openalex = "W1988952755",
    pages = "1101-1104",
    volume = "214"
}

@article{crossref1982arkansas,
    title = "Arkansas creationism law struck down",
    year = "1982",
    journal = "Chemical \& Engineering News Archive",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1021/cen-v060n002.p005a",
    doi = "10.1021/cen-v060n002.p005a",
    number = "2",
    openalex = "W4236385519",
    pages = "5",
    volume = "60"
}

@article{doi101126science215452833,
    author = "Lewin, Roger",
    title = "Creationism on the Defensive in Arkansas",
    year = "1982",
    journal = "Science",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.215.4528.33",
    doi = "10.1126/science.215.4528.33",
    openalex = "W2016794454"
}

@article{doi101177016224398200700310,
    author = "Kerr, P.",
    title = {The "Creation-Science" Case and Pro Bono Publico},
    year = "1982",
    journal = "Science, Technology \& Human Values",
    url = "https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/fd8c51a29b059d58623131a2d37f969264b862aa",
    doi = "10.1177/016224398200700310",
    is_oa = "true",
    number = "3",
    pages = "57-62",
    semanticscholar_citation_count = "3",
    semanticscholar_id = "fd8c51a29b059d58623131a2d37f969264b862aa",
    volume = "7"
}

@misc{keith1982scopes5,
    author = "Keith, B",
    title = "Scopes II",
    year = "1982",
    howpublished = "The Great Debate: Schreveport, Louisiana, Huntington House",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Keith, B., 1982, Scopes II: The Great Debate: Schreveport, Louisiana, Huntington House.}"
}

@article{overton1982creationism,
    author = "Overton, William R.",
    title = "Creationism in Schools: The Decision in McLean versus the Arkansas Board of Education",
    year = "1982",
    journal = "Science",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.215.4535.934",
    doi = "10.1126/science.215.4535.934",
    number = "4535",
    openalex = "W1969212829",
    pages = "934-943",
    volume = "215"
}

@misc{overton1982creationism7,
    author = "Overton, J. and W.R",
    title = "Creationism in the schools; The decision in McLean versus the Arkansas Board of Education",
    year = "1982",
    howpublished = "Science, v. 215, p. 934-943",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Overton, J., W.R., 1982, Creationism in the schools; The decision in McLean versus the Arkansas Board of Education: Science, v. 215, p. 934-943.}"
}

@article{overton1982rev,
    author = "Overton, William R.",
    title = "Rev. Bill McLean vs. Arkansas Board of Education",
    year = "1982",
    journal = "Academe",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.2307/40248924",
    doi = "10.2307/40248924",
    number = "2",
    openalex = "W44827082",
    pages = "27",
    volume = "68"
}

An exegesis of the seminal works of Henry M. Morris, Director of the Institute for Creation Research, clearly reveals that scientific creationism is a religious doctrine. It is a necessary dogma of the conservative evangelical's particular form of Christianity, is premised upon a literal interpretation of the Bible, and has as its purpose the defense of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. [scientific creationism, religion, evolution]

@article{doi101525aa198385102a00050,
    author = "Williams, Robert C.",
    title = "Scientific Creationism: An Exegesis for a Religious Doctrine",
    year = "1983",
    journal = "American Anthropologist",
    abstract = "An exegesis of the seminal works of Henry M. Morris, Director of the Institute for Creation Research, clearly reveals that scientific creationism is a religious doctrine. It is a necessary dogma of the conservative evangelical's particular form of Christianity, is premised upon a literal interpretation of the Bible, and has as its purpose the defense of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. [scientific creationism, religion, evolution]",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1983.85.1.02a00050",
    doi = "10.1525/aa.1983.85.1.02a00050",
    openalex = "W2142762491",
    references = "crossref1983scientific, doi101126science215452833, doi101126science2154531381, doi101126science7292002, doi1023072405671, doi105962bhltitle28842, doi107312simp93764, lewin1981creationism, openalexw2798464087, overton1982creationism"
}

@book{futuyma1983science3,
    author = "Futuyma, D. J",
    title = "Science On Trial",
    year = "1983",
    publisher = "The Case For Evolution: New York, Pantheon Press",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Futuyma, D. J., 1983, Science On Trial: The Case For Evolution: New York, Pantheon Press.}"
}

@book{lafollette1983creationism6,
    author = "La Follette, M. C",
    title = "Creationism, Science and the Law",
    year = "1983",
    publisher = "The Arkansas Case: Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press, 236 p",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {La Follette, M. C., 1983, Creationism, Science and the Law: The Arkansas Case: Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press, 236 p.}"
}

@article{doi101093jcs272315,
    author = "Becker, W.",
    title = "Creationism: New Dimensions of the Religion-Democracy Relation",
    year = "1985",
    journal = "Journal of Church and State",
    url = "https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/c561879b50288a3a86d6269fbf1b2802e48c2e77",
    doi = "10.1093/JCS/27.2.315",
    is_oa = "true",
    number = "2",
    pages = "315-333",
    semanticscholar_citation_count = "1",
    semanticscholar_id = "c561879b50288a3a86d6269fbf1b2802e48c2e77",
    volume = "27"
}

@article{doi1023071051347,
    author = "Caudill, D. S.",
    title = "Law and Worldview: Problems in the Creation-Science Controversy",
    year = "1985",
    journal = "Journal of Law and Religion",
    url = "https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/55c96534b468060a50861c9a464ae96a962e72b4",
    doi = "10.2307/1051347",
    is_oa = "true",
    number = "1",
    pages = "1",
    semanticscholar_citation_count = "2",
    semanticscholar_id = "55c96534b468060a50861c9a464ae96a962e72b4",
    volume = "3"
}

@article{doi1023073511671,
    author = "Stempien, R. and Coleman, S.",
    title = "Processes of Persuasion: The Case of Creation Science",
    year = "1985",
    journal = "Review of Religious Research",
    url = "https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/903f035b71e86b55132321a1c93c97882aeee187",
    doi = "10.2307/3511671",
    is_oa = "true",
    number = "2",
    pages = "169",
    semanticscholar_citation_count = "9",
    semanticscholar_id = "903f035b71e86b55132321a1c93c97882aeee187",
    volume = "27"
}

@book{gilkey1985creationism4,
    author = "Gilkey, L",
    title = "Creationism on Trial",
    year = "1985",
    publisher = "Evolution and God at Little Rock: Minneapolis, Minnesota, Winston Press, 301 p",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Gilkey, L., 1985, Creationism on Trial: Evolution and God at Little Rock: Minneapolis, Minnesota, Winston Press, 301 p.}"
}

@misc{bird1987evaluation1,
    author = "Bird, W",
    title = "Evaluation, in Impact",
    year = "1987",
    howpublished = "El Cajon, California, Institute for Creation Research, v. 170, p. i-iii",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Bird, W., 1987, Evaluation, in Impact: El Cajon, California, Institute for Creation Research, v. 170, p. i-iii.}"
}

Abstract. As the crusade to outlaw the teaching of evolution changed to a battle for equal time for creationism, the ideological defenses of that doctrine also shifted from primarily biblical to more scientific grounds. This essay describes the historical development of “scientific creationism” from a variety of late–nineteenth– and early–twentieth–century creationist reactions to Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, through the Scopes trial and the 1960s revival of creationism, to the current spread of strict creationism around the world.

@article{doi101111j146797441987tb00843x,
    author = "Numbers, Ronald L.",
    title = "THE CREATIONISTS",
    year = "1987",
    journal = "Zygon®",
    abstract = "Abstract. As the crusade to outlaw the teaching of evolution changed to a battle for equal time for creationism, the ideological defenses of that doctrine also shifted from primarily biblical to more scientific grounds. This essay describes the historical development of “scientific creationism” from a variety of late–nineteenth– and early–twentieth–century creationist reactions to Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, through the Scopes trial and the 1960s revival of creationism, to the current spread of strict creationism around the world.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9744.1987.tb00843.x",
    doi = "10.1111/j.1467-9744.1987.tb00843.x",
    openalex = "W4211065491",
    references = "doi101002sce3730630507, doi101126science55141255, doi1023071860337, doi1023071868881, doi1023071891550, doi1023073164640, doi1023073165007, doi10560219780801829321, mcmahan1969controversy, openalexw1570418213, overton1982creationism"
}

The persistence of “scientific creationism” is a curiosity in an age where the epistemic authority of Darwinian evolution is virtually a commonplace. Rather than conceptualizing creationism as strictly a technical discourse or appealing to psychological explanations, this essay explores a rhetorical account for creation‐ism's appeal. It argues that creationism endures not only in spite of the response of the scientific community, but also, in part, because of it. An analysis of the creationism controversy between 1975 and 1990 indicates that the scientific response to creationism misconstrues both the scientific pretensions of creationism and the relative insularity of scientific decision making on questions of public policy. The response ultimately proves unresponsive to the public appeal of creationism which is grounded in an empiricist folk epistemology. This study has implications for our theoretical understandings of the relationships between technical and public discourses and the related relationship between technical expertise and rhetorical authority.

@article{doi10108000335639209383997,
    author = "Taylor, Charles",
    title = "Of audience, expertise and authority: The evolving creationism debate",
    year = "1992",
    journal = "Quarterly Journal of Speech",
    abstract = "The persistence of “scientific creationism” is a curiosity in an age where the epistemic authority of Darwinian evolution is virtually a commonplace. Rather than conceptualizing creationism as strictly a technical discourse or appealing to psychological explanations, this essay explores a rhetorical account for creation‐ism's appeal. It argues that creationism endures not only in spite of the response of the scientific community, but also, in part, because of it. An analysis of the creationism controversy between 1975 and 1990 indicates that the scientific response to creationism misconstrues both the scientific pretensions of creationism and the relative insularity of scientific decision making on questions of public policy. The response ultimately proves unresponsive to the public appeal of creationism which is grounded in an empiricist folk epistemology. This study has implications for our theoretical understandings of the relationships between technical and public discourses and the related relationship between technical expertise and rhetorical authority.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1080/00335639209383997",
    doi = "10.1080/00335639209383997",
    openalex = "W1994709526",
    references = "broad1981creationists, doi101038315185a0, doi10106313050879, doi101086414171, doi1023072095325, doi1023072332835, doi1023072550489, doi1023073102264, doi1043249780203759240, doi1043249781912128310, moyer1980evolutioncreation, openalexw2042137662, openalexw3152784682"
}

Introduction to the Expanded Edition Introduction 1. Creationism in the Age of Darwin 2. George Frederick Wright: From Christian Darwinist to Fundamentalist 3. Creationism in the Fundamentalist Controversy 4. Scientific Creationists in the Age of Bryan 5. George McCready Price and the New Catastrophism 6. The Religion and Science Association 7. The Deluge Geology Society 8. Evangelicals and Evolution in Great Britain 9. Evangelicals and Evolution in North America 10. John C. Whitcomb, Jr., Henry M. Morris, and The Genesis Flood 11. The Creation Research Society 12. Creation Science and Scientific Creationism 13. Deception and Discrimination 14. Creation Research Institutes 15. Creationism in the Churches 16. The Appeal of Creationism at Home and Abroad 17. Intelligent Design 18. Creationism Goes Global Notes Acknowledgments Index

@book{openalexw603845538,
    author = "Numbers, Ronald L.",
    title = "The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design",
    year = "1993",
    abstract = "Introduction to the Expanded Edition Introduction 1. Creationism in the Age of Darwin 2. George Frederick Wright: From Christian Darwinist to Fundamentalist 3. Creationism in the Fundamentalist Controversy 4. Scientific Creationists in the Age of Bryan 5. George McCready Price and the New Catastrophism 6. The Religion and Science Association 7. The Deluge Geology Society 8. Evangelicals and Evolution in Great Britain 9. Evangelicals and Evolution in North America 10. John C. Whitcomb, Jr., Henry M. Morris, and The Genesis Flood 11. The Creation Research Society 12. Creation Science and Scientific Creationism 13. Deception and Discrimination 14. Creation Research Institutes 15. Creationism in the Churches 16. The Appeal of Creationism at Home and Abroad 17. Intelligent Design 18. Creationism Goes Global Notes Acknowledgments Index",
    openalex = "W603845538"
}

A central issue to emerge from recent research into the public understanding of science concerns the methods of study adopted. A distinction is made here between the public understanding of science (meaning knowledge of scientific orthodoxy), and the public understanding of science (meaning what people take `science' to mean). This is used to consider the case of creation science, which is analysed using the method of discourse analysis developed initially by Gilbert and Mulkay. It is shown that creationists appear to employ similar discursive techniques and resources—supplemented by their alternative beliefs—to those used by orthodox scientists. Whilst acknowledging limitations of the creationist case, it is argued that it is sufficient to show the value of methods of study that are sensitive to possible contextual variations in the public understanding of science. It is suggested that more research of this nature is needed to determine the extent to which science is used as a resource of accounting, both alone and in conjunction with alternative discursive resources.

@article{doi1010880963662534004,
    author = "Locke, Simon",
    title = "The use of scientific discourse by creation scientists: some preliminary findings",
    year = "1994",
    journal = "Public Understanding of Science",
    abstract = "A central issue to emerge from recent research into the public understanding of science concerns the methods of study adopted. A distinction is made here between the public understanding of science (meaning knowledge of scientific orthodoxy), and the public understanding of science (meaning what people take `science' to mean). This is used to consider the case of creation science, which is analysed using the method of discourse analysis developed initially by Gilbert and Mulkay. It is shown that creationists appear to employ similar discursive techniques and resources—supplemented by their alternative beliefs—to those used by orthodox scientists. Whilst acknowledging limitations of the creationist case, it is argued that it is sufficient to show the value of methods of study that are sensitive to possible contextual variations in the public understanding of science. It is suggested that more research of this nature is needed to determine the extent to which science is used as a resource of accounting, both alone and in conjunction with alternative discursive resources.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/3/4/004",
    doi = "10.1088/0963-6625/3/4/004",
    openalex = "W2132549986",
    references = "doi101111j146797441987tb00843x, doi101111j146797441987tb00846x"
}

From its inception Darwinism posed a challenge to Christian theology. Darwinism threatened to undo the Church's understanding of creation, and therewith her understanding of the origin of human life. Nor did the challenge of Darwinism stop here. With human beings the result of a brutal, competitive process that systematically rooted out the weak and favored only the strong (we might say it is the strong who constitute the elect within Darwinism), the Church's understanding of the fall, redemption, the nature of morality, the veracity of the Scriptures, and the ultimate end of humankind were all in a fundamental way called into question. Without exaggeration, no aspect of theology escaped the need for re-evaluation in the light of Darwinism.

@article{openalexw109967440,
    author = "Dembski, William A.",
    title = "What every theologian should know about creation, evolution and design",
    year = "1999",
    abstract = "From its inception Darwinism posed a challenge to Christian theology. Darwinism threatened to undo the Church's understanding of creation, and therewith her understanding of the origin of human life. Nor did the challenge of Darwinism stop here. With human beings the result of a brutal, competitive process that systematically rooted out the weak and favored only the strong (we might say it is the strong who constitute the elect within Darwinism), the Church's understanding of the fall, redemption, the nature of morality, the veracity of the Scriptures, and the ultimate end of humankind were all in a fundamental way called into question. Without exaggeration, no aspect of theology escaped the need for re-evaluation in the light of Darwinism.",
    openalex = "W109967440"
}

I. INTRODUCTION II. IMPORTANT TERMS A. Creationism B. Evolution C. Intelligent Design 1. Scholarly Support for Intelligent Design 2. Intelligent Design's Conflict with Methodological Naturalism 3. Intelligent Design and Specified Complexity 4. The Application of Specified Complexity to Intelligent Design Theory a. Irreducible Complexity of Certain Biological Systems b. The Fine-Tuning of The Universe For The Existence of Human Life c. The Information Content of DNA d. The Fossil Record III. MCLEAN V. ARKANSAS IV. CONCLUSION I. INTRODUCTION The conventional wisdom in constitutional law is that the debate that began with the famous Scopes trial in 1925 (1) over the teaching of origins in public school science classrooms officially ended in 1987. In that year the U.S. Supreme Court, in Edwards v. Aguillard, (2) struck down a Louisiana statute, the Balanced Treatment Act, that required its public schools to teach creationism if they taught evolution and vice versa. The Court held that the statute violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. A small group of academics, however, with university appointments, impressive publications, and better credentials than their creationist predecessors, have raised questions about evolution and have offered alternative arguments that have changed the texture, tenor, and quality of a debate once thought long dead. The Intelligent Design (ID) movement, (3) has presented an array of sophisticated and empirically grounded arguments supporting the notion that intelligent agency may do a better job of accounting for certain aspects of the natural world, or the natural world as a whole, than non-agent explanations, such as natural selection or scientific laws working on the unguided interaction of matter. ID theorists argue that certain physical systems, including biological ones, exhibit what is known as specified complexity, and that specified complexity is best accounted for by intelligent agency. Moreover, ID theorists maintain that contemporary science's repudiation of intelligent agency as a legitimate category of explanation is not the result of carefully assessing ID's arguments and finding them wanting, but rather, it is the result of an a priori philosophical commitment to methodological naturalism (MN), (4) an epistemological point of view that entails ontological materialism (OM), (5) but which ID proponents contend is not a necessary condition for the practice of science. (6) Although the Edwards Court sounded the death-knell for creationism as part of the science curriculum in public schools, it neither prohibited public schools from teaching alternatives to evolution, (7) nor prevented schools from offering to their students theories that may be consistent with, and lend support to, a religious perspective. (8) As I have argued elsewhere, (9) both of these qualifications, combined with other factors, suggest that ID may be offered as part of a public school science curriculum or voluntarily by a teacher without violating the Establishment Clause, for, as we shall see, ID is an alternative to evolution that is consistent with, and lends support to, a number of philosophical and religious points of view. Unlike creationism, however, ID is not derived from a particular religion's special revelation, but is the result of arguments whose premises include empirical evidence, well-founded conceptual notions outside of the natural sciences, and conclusions that are supported by these premises. On the other hand, a future court may rely on the reasoning of a 1982 federal district court case, McLean v. Arkansas, to assess the constitutionality of teaching ID in public school science classes. McLean is the only federal court case that dealt with some of the important philosophical and scientific questions that simmer beneath the surface in this debate. …

@article{s2fe235529df457629978a0a125337036d35c504bf,
    author = "Beckwith, F.",
    title = "Science and Religion Twenty Years after McLean V. Arkansas: Evolution, Public Education, and the New Challenge of Intelligent Design",
    year = "2003",
    journal = "Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy",
    abstract = "I. INTRODUCTION II. IMPORTANT TERMS A. Creationism B. Evolution C. Intelligent Design 1. Scholarly Support for Intelligent Design 2. Intelligent Design's Conflict with Methodological Naturalism 3. Intelligent Design and Specified Complexity 4. The Application of Specified Complexity to Intelligent Design Theory a. Irreducible Complexity of Certain Biological Systems b. The Fine-Tuning of The Universe For The Existence of Human Life c. The Information Content of DNA d. The Fossil Record III. MCLEAN V. ARKANSAS IV. CONCLUSION I. INTRODUCTION The conventional wisdom in constitutional law is that the debate that began with the famous Scopes trial in 1925 (1) over the teaching of origins in public school science classrooms officially ended in 1987. In that year the U.S. Supreme Court, in Edwards v. Aguillard, (2) struck down a Louisiana statute, the Balanced Treatment Act, that required its public schools to teach creationism if they taught evolution and vice versa. The Court held that the statute violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. A small group of academics, however, with university appointments, impressive publications, and better credentials than their creationist predecessors, have raised questions about evolution and have offered alternative arguments that have changed the texture, tenor, and quality of a debate once thought long dead. The Intelligent Design (ID) movement, (3) has presented an array of sophisticated and empirically grounded arguments supporting the notion that intelligent agency may do a better job of accounting for certain aspects of the natural world, or the natural world as a whole, than non-agent explanations, such as natural selection or scientific laws working on the unguided interaction of matter. ID theorists argue that certain physical systems, including biological ones, exhibit what is known as specified complexity, and that specified complexity is best accounted for by intelligent agency. Moreover, ID theorists maintain that contemporary science's repudiation of intelligent agency as a legitimate category of explanation is not the result of carefully assessing ID's arguments and finding them wanting, but rather, it is the result of an a priori philosophical commitment to methodological naturalism (MN), (4) an epistemological point of view that entails ontological materialism (OM), (5) but which ID proponents contend is not a necessary condition for the practice of science. (6) Although the Edwards Court sounded the death-knell for creationism as part of the science curriculum in public schools, it neither prohibited public schools from teaching alternatives to evolution, (7) nor prevented schools from offering to their students theories that may be consistent with, and lend support to, a religious perspective. (8) As I have argued elsewhere, (9) both of these qualifications, combined with other factors, suggest that ID may be offered as part of a public school science curriculum or voluntarily by a teacher without violating the Establishment Clause, for, as we shall see, ID is an alternative to evolution that is consistent with, and lends support to, a number of philosophical and religious points of view. Unlike creationism, however, ID is not derived from a particular religion's special revelation, but is the result of arguments whose premises include empirical evidence, well-founded conceptual notions outside of the natural sciences, and conclusions that are supported by these premises. On the other hand, a future court may rely on the reasoning of a 1982 federal district court case, McLean v. Arkansas, to assess the constitutionality of teaching ID in public school science classes. McLean is the only federal court case that dealt with some of the important philosophical and scientific questions that simmer beneath the surface in this debate. …",
    url = "https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/fe235529df457629978a0a125337036d35c504bf",
    is_oa = "true",
    openalex = "W194368290",
    semanticscholar_citation_count = "18",
    semanticscholar_id = "fe235529df457629978a0a125337036d35c504bf"
}

This book explains the history and strategy of the intelligent design creationist movement, which is headquartered at the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture in Seattle, WA. The movement’s twenty-year “Wedge Strategy,” implementation of which began in 1998, is aimed at bringing intelligent design into American public schools, public policymaking, and the cultural mainstream. Beginning with a brief history of the movement and the authentication of the “Wedge Document,” in which the Wedge Strategy is outlined, the book critiques the incompetent science and rhetorical tactics of the movement’s leaders: Douglas Axe, Paul Chien, Jonathan Wells, Michael Behe, and William Dembski. The movement’s own documents reveal its religious funding sources and its execution of all phases of the strategy except the production of genuine scientific data, including its development of a legal defense against challenges to the teaching of intelligent design. The book recounts the movement’s political maneuvering in its effort to influence science curricula in individual states, most notably Kansas and Ohio, and to develop political support among members of Congress. Importantly, the book documents the centrality of religion to intelligent design, its leaders’ associations with Christian extremists, its continuity with earlier forms of creationism, and its ambitions for academic legitimacy. This 2007 edition provides updates on the movement’s efforts in Kansas and Ohio and offers a firsthand account by Barbara Forrest, who was an expert witness for the plaintiffs, of the landmark legal case involving intelligent design, Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District (2005).

@book{doi101093acprofoso97801951574200010001,
    author = "Forrest, Barbara and Gross, Paul R.",
    title = "Creationism's Trojan Horse",
    year = "2004",
    booktitle = "Oxford University Press eBooks",
    abstract = "This book explains the history and strategy of the intelligent design creationist movement, which is headquartered at the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture in Seattle, WA. The movement’s twenty-year “Wedge Strategy,” implementation of which began in 1998, is aimed at bringing intelligent design into American public schools, public policymaking, and the cultural mainstream. Beginning with a brief history of the movement and the authentication of the “Wedge Document,” in which the Wedge Strategy is outlined, the book critiques the incompetent science and rhetorical tactics of the movement’s leaders: Douglas Axe, Paul Chien, Jonathan Wells, Michael Behe, and William Dembski. The movement’s own documents reveal its religious funding sources and its execution of all phases of the strategy except the production of genuine scientific data, including its development of a legal defense against challenges to the teaching of intelligent design. The book recounts the movement’s political maneuvering in its effort to influence science curricula in individual states, most notably Kansas and Ohio, and to develop political support among members of Congress. Importantly, the book documents the centrality of religion to intelligent design, its leaders’ associations with Christian extremists, its continuity with earlier forms of creationism, and its ambitions for academic legitimacy. This 2007 edition provides updates on the movement’s efforts in Kansas and Ohio and offers a firsthand account by Barbara Forrest, who was an expert witness for the plaintiffs, of the landmark legal case involving intelligent design, Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District (2005).",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195157420.001.0001",
    doi = "10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195157420.001.0001",
    openalex = "W2483629743"
}

@article{doi1011770306312706067898,
    author = "Fuller, S.",
    title = "A Step Toward the Legalization of Science Studies",
    year = "2006",
    journal = "Social Studies of Science",
    url = "https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/7b6e487e46b760bc585912d547cd936b21d31dce",
    doi = "10.1177/0306312706067898",
    is_oa = "true",
    number = "6",
    pages = "827-834",
    semanticscholar_citation_count = "21",
    semanticscholar_id = "7b6e487e46b760bc585912d547cd936b21d31dce",
    volume = "36"
}

Abstract The journal Science has documented the evolutionist–creationist controversy since it began publication in 1880. The annual number of references suggests the intensity of the public debate. Peaks occurred in response to the Scopes trial (1925) and trials in California (1979–1981), Arkansas (1981), and Louisiana (1982–1987). Although evolutionists won the last three outright, and public opinion largely supported science in the Scopes trial, dissenting opinions in the Supreme Court in the most recent case seem to have given impetus to new creationist activity—the intelligent design movement. Arguments have changed only slightly in the last century and a quarter. Fundamentalist opposition to teaching evolution remains strong. Scientists have consistently suggested better education as the solution to the dispute; however, to date, evidence does not support that position. Differences between science and fundamentalism appear irreconcilable, and no obvious end to the acrimonious debate is in sight.

@article{doi1016410006356820060560151eacis20co2,
    author = "Bleckmann, Charles A.",
    title = "Evolution and Creationism in Science: 1880–2000",
    year = "2006",
    journal = "BioScience",
    abstract = "Abstract The journal Science has documented the evolutionist–creationist controversy since it began publication in 1880. The annual number of references suggests the intensity of the public debate. Peaks occurred in response to the Scopes trial (1925) and trials in California (1979–1981), Arkansas (1981), and Louisiana (1982–1987). Although evolutionists won the last three outright, and public opinion largely supported science in the Scopes trial, dissenting opinions in the Supreme Court in the most recent case seem to have given impetus to new creationist activity—the intelligent design movement. Arguments have changed only slightly in the last century and a quarter. Fundamentalist opposition to teaching evolution remains strong. Scientists have consistently suggested better education as the solution to the dispute; however, to date, evidence does not support that position. Differences between science and fundamentalism appear irreconcilable, and no obvious end to the acrimonious debate is in sight.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2006)056[0151:eacis]2.0.co;2",
    doi = "10.1641/0006-3568(2006)056[0151:eacis]2.0.co;2",
    openalex = "W2172850408",
    references = "broad1981creationists, doi101126science1854154832, doi101126science2154535934, doi101126science2775328890, doi101126science2885467813, doi101126science3531, doi101126science55141255, doi101126science551417194, doi101126scienceos1215, doi1023072954697, lewin1981creationism, lewin1987creationism, openalexw3086307878, overton1982creationism"
}

In 1925, during the so-called ‘monkey trial’ in Dayton, Tennessee, Biblical creationists squared off against a high school teacher, John Scopes, who was charged with violating a state law that prohibited the teaching of evolution. Although the result was a public relations disaster, creationism has continued to gain strength, evolving new forms as it struggles to evade legal restrictions in the schools. The boundaries seem clear. In 1982, for instance, a federal court held in McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education that an Arkansas statute requiring ‘balanced treatment’—balancing, that is, “creation science” and “evolution science”—was unconstitutional. In 1987, that ruling was strengthened (p. 105) when the Supreme Court overturned Louisiana’s similar ‘Creationism Act” inEdwards v. Aguillard, ruling that “creation science was a thinly veiled version of creationism, and that teaching it would promote a particular religious view, and hence violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.” (p. 105) You might think it unlikely, then, that a school district would once more try to force the issue of teaching any form of creationism—yet that’s exactly what happened in Dover, Pennsylvania in 2004. A board dominated by Christian fundamentalists passed an amendment to the science curriculum, stating: “Students will be made aware of gaps/problems in Darwin’s theory and of other theories of evolution including, but not limited to, intelligent design.” (p. 13) “Intelligent design” (ID), the most recent version of antievolutionism, avoids mention of the Bible, but contends that life shows a specific type of “irreducible complexity” that cannot be produced by natural causes and must, therefore, have been caused by an “intelligent designer.” The argument dates back at least as far as 1802, when William Paley published his Natural Theology. If we found a watch upon the ground, Paley argued, we would conclude from its intricate structure and function that it had been shaped for a purpose and must have had a maker. So, too, must we infer a Maker of such complex structures as the vertebrate eye. These days, ID proponents point to cellular or molecular structures like the bacterial flagellum and the blood-clotting cascade—without, however, describing how the design occurs. As an explanation, one leading theorist offers, “At some point, a supernatural designer must get into the picture.” (p. 138; Slack quoting Behe) In Dover, high school teachers and parents objected when the school board directed that copies of an ID-based textbook were to be placed in classrooms as a “curricular supplement,” (p. 12) and that biology teachers must, before they taught anything about evolution, read to their students a prepared statement that included the following lines:

@article{doi101007s1205200700058,
    author = "Barrett, A.",
    title = "Gordy Slack, The Battle Over the Meaning of Everything: Evolution, Intelligent Design, and a School Board in Dover, PA",
    year = "2007",
    journal = "Evolution: Education and Outreach",
    abstract = "In 1925, during the so-called ‘monkey trial’ in Dayton, Tennessee, Biblical creationists squared off against a high school teacher, John Scopes, who was charged with violating a state law that prohibited the teaching of evolution. Although the result was a public relations disaster, creationism has continued to gain strength, evolving new forms as it struggles to evade legal restrictions in the schools. The boundaries seem clear. In 1982, for instance, a federal court held in McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education that an Arkansas statute requiring ‘balanced treatment’—balancing, that is, “creation science” and “evolution science”—was unconstitutional. In 1987, that ruling was strengthened (p. 105) when the Supreme Court overturned Louisiana’s similar ‘Creationism Act” inEdwards v. Aguillard, ruling that “creation science was a thinly veiled version of creationism, and that teaching it would promote a particular religious view, and hence violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.” (p. 105) You might think it unlikely, then, that a school district would once more try to force the issue of teaching any form of creationism—yet that’s exactly what happened in Dover, Pennsylvania in 2004. A board dominated by Christian fundamentalists passed an amendment to the science curriculum, stating: “Students will be made aware of gaps/problems in Darwin’s theory and of other theories of evolution including, but not limited to, intelligent design.” (p. 13) “Intelligent design” (ID), the most recent version of antievolutionism, avoids mention of the Bible, but contends that life shows a specific type of “irreducible complexity” that cannot be produced by natural causes and must, therefore, have been caused by an “intelligent designer.” The argument dates back at least as far as 1802, when William Paley published his Natural Theology. If we found a watch upon the ground, Paley argued, we would conclude from its intricate structure and function that it had been shaped for a purpose and must have had a maker. So, too, must we infer a Maker of such complex structures as the vertebrate eye. These days, ID proponents point to cellular or molecular structures like the bacterial flagellum and the blood-clotting cascade—without, however, describing how the design occurs. As an explanation, one leading theorist offers, “At some point, a supernatural designer must get into the picture.” (p. 138; Slack quoting Behe) In Dover, high school teachers and parents objected when the school board directed that copies of an ID-based textbook were to be placed in classrooms as a “curricular supplement,” (p. 12) and that biology teachers must, before they taught anything about evolution, read to their students a prepared statement that included the following lines:",
    url = "https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/counter/pdf/10.1007/s12052-007-0005-8",
    doi = "10.1007/s12052-007-0005-8",
    is_oa = "true",
    number = "1",
    pages = "77-79",
    semanticscholar_citation_count = "9",
    semanticscholar_id = "32c2eaeba3854e1e66f1573f7afcc46a2b29c5c8",
    volume = "1"
}

Introduction In Dover Pennsylvania, the local school board mandated the reading of the following statement which includes both a disclaimer marginalizing the biological theories of evolution and the recommendation of a school library book Of Pandas and People. These were presented as referenced alternatives to the existing scientific theories of evolution to all tenth grade biology classes. The Kitzmiller court testimonies and depositions provided the following information: On November 19, 2004, the Defendant Dover Area School District announced by press release that, commencing in January 2005, teachers would be required to read the following statement to students in the ninth grade biology class at Dover High School: The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin's Theory of Evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part. Because Darwin's Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations. Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves. With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the Origins of Life to individual students and their families. As a Standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on Standards-based assessments. (4) The initial reaction was immediate and came from the school's biology teachers. They refused to read the statement to their classes; consequently, members of the school board visited each biology class and personally recited the disclaimer. Tammy Kitzmiller and other parents filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. (5) When loosely disguised religious dogma is proposed to be a new scientific theory to be presented in public science classes it is traditionally met with intense opposition from the scientific community and consistently challenged in the courts. Additionally, there is a continuum linking court decisions that allow for reasonable conclusions about the fate of Intelligent Design Theory if it is ever heard by the U.S. Supreme Court. It can be argued that the influence of the Kitzmiller outcome will be will be infavorable to Intelligent Design Theory in any potential Supreme Court hearing that challenges the constitutionality of Intelligent Design Theory. Prior to the legal challenge in Dover Pennsylvania, religious fundamentalist were attempting to incorporate the pseudoscientific concept of Intelligent Design Theory into public school science classes at the local level hoping to circumvent Constitutional restrictions. With the lawsuit in Pennsylvania the constitutional and scientific status of Intelligent Design Theory was put on trial. The U.S. District Court case in Dover and the U.S. District Court case of McLean v. Arkansas have striking similarities. McLean v. Arkansas entailed a comparable pseudoscientific concept known as Creation Science. (6) The underlying concept for both cases is one of religious dogma camouflaged in scientific sounding language in order to be incorporated into public science classes. Establishment Clause Assessments In his judgment of Kitzmiller Judge Jones used the existing First Amendment tests previously established by the Supreme Court. (7) These principles have been repeatedly used by the courts in decisions relating to infringements issues of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. …

@article{s26e349e385de1169d780964477005059e1f3864e7,
    author = "Snyder, D.",
    title = "The Dover Question: Will Kitzmiller V Dover Affect the Status of Intelligent Design Theory in the Same Way as McLean V. Arkansas Affected Creation Science?",
    year = "2007",
    journal = "Forum on public policy",
    abstract = "Introduction In Dover Pennsylvania, the local school board mandated the reading of the following statement which includes both a disclaimer marginalizing the biological theories of evolution and the recommendation of a school library book Of Pandas and People. These were presented as referenced alternatives to the existing scientific theories of evolution to all tenth grade biology classes. The Kitzmiller court testimonies and depositions provided the following information: On November 19, 2004, the Defendant Dover Area School District announced by press release that, commencing in January 2005, teachers would be required to read the following statement to students in the ninth grade biology class at Dover High School: The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin's Theory of Evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part. Because Darwin's Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations. Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves. With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the Origins of Life to individual students and their families. As a Standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on Standards-based assessments. (4) The initial reaction was immediate and came from the school's biology teachers. They refused to read the statement to their classes; consequently, members of the school board visited each biology class and personally recited the disclaimer. Tammy Kitzmiller and other parents filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. (5) When loosely disguised religious dogma is proposed to be a new scientific theory to be presented in public science classes it is traditionally met with intense opposition from the scientific community and consistently challenged in the courts. Additionally, there is a continuum linking court decisions that allow for reasonable conclusions about the fate of Intelligent Design Theory if it is ever heard by the U.S. Supreme Court. It can be argued that the influence of the Kitzmiller outcome will be will be infavorable to Intelligent Design Theory in any potential Supreme Court hearing that challenges the constitutionality of Intelligent Design Theory. Prior to the legal challenge in Dover Pennsylvania, religious fundamentalist were attempting to incorporate the pseudoscientific concept of Intelligent Design Theory into public school science classes at the local level hoping to circumvent Constitutional restrictions. With the lawsuit in Pennsylvania the constitutional and scientific status of Intelligent Design Theory was put on trial. The U.S. District Court case in Dover and the U.S. District Court case of McLean v. Arkansas have striking similarities. McLean v. Arkansas entailed a comparable pseudoscientific concept known as Creation Science. (6) The underlying concept for both cases is one of religious dogma camouflaged in scientific sounding language in order to be incorporated into public science classes. Establishment Clause Assessments In his judgment of Kitzmiller Judge Jones used the existing First Amendment tests previously established by the Supreme Court. (7) These principles have been repeatedly used by the courts in decisions relating to infringements issues of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. …",
    url = "https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/6e349e385de1169d780964477005059e1f3864e7",
    is_oa = "true",
    openalex = "W263039232",
    semanticscholar_id = "6e349e385de1169d780964477005059e1f3864e7"
}

The renewed creationist movements are currently seen as a threat for science teaching in the world What is their impact on teachers' conceptions? We present here the results of a first large survey on this question, analysing teachers' conceptions in 14 countries (5 in Africa, 1 in Middle East and 9 in Europe). The total sample is composed of 5700 teachers (partly in-service, partly pre-service) of primary and secondary schools; 1846 of these teachers have biological training, 1787 have language training and 2077 have training to teach in primary school. We used a questionnaire including personal information and 15 questions on Evolution. The results show high significant differences between countries, religions, ageing, gender and level of instruction. This latter effect suggests the need for increasing the level of teachers’ training in order to overcome the current increasing creationist movements.

@article{openalexw2142439093,
    author = "Clément, Pierre and Quessada, Marie Pierre and Laurent, Charline and de Carvalho, Graça Simões",
    title = "Science and Religion: Evolutionism and Creationism in Education. A survey of teachers conceptions in 14 countries",
    year = "2008",
    abstract = "The renewed creationist movements are currently seen as a threat for science teaching in the world What is their impact on teachers' conceptions? We present here the results of a first large survey on this question, analysing teachers' conceptions in 14 countries (5 in Africa, 1 in Middle East and 9 in Europe). The total sample is composed of 5700 teachers (partly in-service, partly pre-service) of primary and secondary schools; 1846 of these teachers have biological training, 1787 have language training and 2077 have training to teach in primary school. We used a questionnaire including personal information and 15 questions on Evolution. The results show high significant differences between countries, religions, ageing, gender and level of instruction. This latter effect suggests the need for increasing the level of teachers’ training in order to overcome the current increasing creationist movements.",
    openalex = "W2142439093"
}

The intelligent design (ID) creationist movement is now a quarter of a century old. ID proponents at the Discovery Institute, headquartered in Seattle, WA, USA, insist that ID is not creationism. However, it is the direct descendant of the creation science movement that began in the 1960s and continued until the definitive ruling against creationism by the US Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard1987, which struck down laws that required balancing the teaching of evolution with creationism in public schools. Already anticipating in the early 1980s that Arkansas and Louisiana “balanced treatment” laws would be declared unconstitutional, a group of creationists led by Charles Thaxton began laying the groundwork for what is now the ID movement. After Edwards, Thaxton and his associates promoted ID aggressively until it, too, was declared unconstitutional by a federal judge in Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District 2005. Subsequently, in 2008, the Discovery Institute began its multistate promotion of model “academic freedom” legislation that bears striking parallels to the 1980s balanced treatment laws. Because of Kitzmiller, ID proponents have written their model legislation in code language in an effort to avoid another court challenge. Yet despite attempting to evade the legal constraints imposed by Edwards, they are merely recycling earlier creationist tactics that date back to the late 1970s and early 1980s. The tactics that ID creationists now use—promoting legislation, publishing “educational” materials, establishing a “research” institute, and sanitizing their terminology—are the recycled tactics of their creation science predecessors.

@article{doi101007s1205201002171,
    author = "Forrest, Barbara",
    title = "It's Déjà Vu All Over Again: The Intelligent Design Movement's Recycling of Creationist Strategies",
    year = "2010",
    journal = "Evolution Education and Outreach",
    abstract = "The intelligent design (ID) creationist movement is now a quarter of a century old. ID proponents at the Discovery Institute, headquartered in Seattle, WA, USA, insist that ID is not creationism. However, it is the direct descendant of the creation science movement that began in the 1960s and continued until the definitive ruling against creationism by the US Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard1987, which struck down laws that required balancing the teaching of evolution with creationism in public schools. Already anticipating in the early 1980s that Arkansas and Louisiana “balanced treatment” laws would be declared unconstitutional, a group of creationists led by Charles Thaxton began laying the groundwork for what is now the ID movement. After Edwards, Thaxton and his associates promoted ID aggressively until it, too, was declared unconstitutional by a federal judge in Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District 2005. Subsequently, in 2008, the Discovery Institute began its multistate promotion of model “academic freedom” legislation that bears striking parallels to the 1980s balanced treatment laws. Because of Kitzmiller, ID proponents have written their model legislation in code language in an effort to avoid another court challenge. Yet despite attempting to evade the legal constraints imposed by Edwards, they are merely recycling earlier creationist tactics that date back to the late 1970s and early 1980s. The tactics that ID creationists now use—promoting legislation, publishing “educational” materials, establishing a “research” institute, and sanitizing their terminology—are the recycled tactics of their creation science predecessors.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1007/s12052-010-0217-1",
    doi = "10.1007/s12052-010-0217-1",
    openalex = "W2069055087",
    references = "doi101525aa198385102a00050"
}

ABSTRACT The federal government has repeatedly denied the introduction of creationism into public schools as it is a direct violation of the separation of church and state. Little is known about those who would opt to eliminate evolution in scientific curriculum altogether. The authors examined this more extreme anti-evolution perspective in a nationally representative sample of U.S. adults (N = 2,000). A binary logistic regression model involving 11 relevant predictors revealed that the most important predictor of support for the teaching of creationism-only education in public schools was low educational attainment, which yielded a stronger magnitude of effect than did belief in God or importance of religion. Results are interpreted and discussed in the context of implications for educational policy and science curriculum in public schools.

@article{doi10108000220670903383028,
    author = "Lac, Andrew and Hemovich, Vanessa and Himelfarb, Igor",
    title = "Predicting Position on Teaching Creationism (Instead of Evolution) in Public Schools",
    year = "2010",
    journal = "The Journal of Educational Research",
    abstract = "ABSTRACT The federal government has repeatedly denied the introduction of creationism into public schools as it is a direct violation of the separation of church and state. Little is known about those who would opt to eliminate evolution in scientific curriculum altogether. The authors examined this more extreme anti-evolution perspective in a nationally representative sample of U.S. adults (N = 2,000). A binary logistic regression model involving 11 relevant predictors revealed that the most important predictor of support for the teaching of creationism-only education in public schools was low educational attainment, which yielded a stronger magnitude of effect than did belief in God or importance of religion. Results are interpreted and discussed in the context of implications for educational policy and science curriculum in public schools.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1080/00220670903383028",
    doi = "10.1080/00220670903383028",
    openalex = "W2017308793",
    references = "doi101002sce10105, doi101016s016953479789790x, doi101038444406a, doi10108000220670209598786, doi101093acprofoso97801951574200010001, doi1023072291635, doi105860choice455520, openalexw1593551567, openalexw2133470535, openalexw612372977, overton1982creationism"
}

@article{crothers2011evolution,
    author = "CROTHERS, JOHN",
    title = "Evolution vs Creationism",
    year = "2011",
    journal = "Biological Journal of the Linnean Society",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8312.2010.01584.x",
    doi = "10.1111/j.1095-8312.2010.01584.x",
    number = "1",
    openalex = "W1592869374",
    pages = "234-235",
    volume = "102"
}

Abstract This paper analyzes recent research conclusions regarding biology teacher attitudes toward evolution, and the variable implementation of evolution in the high schools nationwide. Berkman and Plutzer (2010. Evolution, creationism, and the battle to control America's classrooms. New York: Cambridge University Press) conclude that due to a large portion of high school biology teachers compromising or downplaying evolution in the curriculum, the placement of evolution specific courses in biology teacher preparation programs will steer evolution deniers away from the field. In this paper, such arguments are situated in a larger historical and philosophical context of science education. By discussing recent sociological insight into the religiosity of education majors and education faculty, new questions are raised about student and teacher ontology, what this means for understanding science, the politics of science teacher education programs, and the epistemological and ethical limits of science education standards to dissolve Creationism. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 49: 122–139, 2012

@article{doi101002tea20445,
    author = "Long, David E.",
    title = "The politics of teaching evolution, science education standards, and Being a creationist",
    year = "2011",
    journal = "Journal of Research in Science Teaching",
    abstract = "Abstract This paper analyzes recent research conclusions regarding biology teacher attitudes toward evolution, and the variable implementation of evolution in the high schools nationwide. Berkman and Plutzer (2010. Evolution, creationism, and the battle to control America's classrooms. New York: Cambridge University Press) conclude that due to a large portion of high school biology teachers compromising or downplaying evolution in the curriculum, the placement of evolution specific courses in biology teacher preparation programs will steer evolution deniers away from the field. In this paper, such arguments are situated in a larger historical and philosophical context of science education. By discussing recent sociological insight into the religiosity of education majors and education faculty, new questions are raised about student and teacher ontology, what this means for understanding science, the politics of science teacher education programs, and the epistemological and ethical limits of science education standards to dissolve Creationism. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 49: 122–139, 2012",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20445",
    doi = "10.1002/tea.20445",
    openalex = "W2023700914",
    references = "doi1010079789400718081"
}

he purpose of this phenomenological study was to understand the experiences of Christian public high school biology teachers who believe in a literal, young earth account of creation as revealed in the book of Genesis. There is a gap in the literature regarding understanding the teaching experiences of Christians who believe in a strict interpretation of the biblical book of Genesis. This study was conducted by interviewing 11 Christian public school biology teachers from multiple states who met the criteria for being identified as young earth creationists. Data were also collected through a focus group and reflective vignettes. Data were analyzed through coding techniques, such as creating a classification scheme based on verbatim interviews, in order to identify emerging themes and categories of common experiences. The themes that emerged were: a love for science, a strong religious belief, the willingness to teach what evolution is, the intent to discount evolution, tension from outside sources, the feeling of strong community support, the belief of strong student relationships, and only a vague understanding of the current legal status of the creation/evolution debate. An understanding of the shared phenomenon of these teachers allows for a more complete understanding of the makeup of American biology educators.

@article{openalexw2177425460,
    author = "Dougherty, Eric Keith",
    title = "A phenomenological study of public school biology teachers who believe in the literal Genesis account of creation",
    year = "2015",
    journal = "Scholars Crossing (Liberty University)",
    abstract = "he purpose of this phenomenological study was to understand the experiences of Christian public high school biology teachers who believe in a literal, young earth account of creation as revealed in the book of Genesis. There is a gap in the literature regarding understanding the teaching experiences of Christians who believe in a strict interpretation of the biblical book of Genesis. This study was conducted by interviewing 11 Christian public school biology teachers from multiple states who met the criteria for being identified as young earth creationists. Data were also collected through a focus group and reflective vignettes. Data were analyzed through coding techniques, such as creating a classification scheme based on verbatim interviews, in order to identify emerging themes and categories of common experiences. The themes that emerged were: a love for science, a strong religious belief, the willingness to teach what evolution is, the intent to discount evolution, tension from outside sources, the feeling of strong community support, the belief of strong student relationships, and only a vague understanding of the current legal status of the creation/evolution debate. An understanding of the shared phenomenon of these teachers allows for a more complete understanding of the makeup of American biology educators.",
    openalex = "W2177425460",
    references = "doi10108000220670903383028"
}

ABSTRACT The main aim of this paper is to describe high school students’ attitudes concerning evolution and creation, with a focus on (1) attitudes toward evolutionary theory, (2) attitudes toward the Biblical accounts of creation, (3) creationist beliefs, and (4) scientistic beliefs. Latent class analyses revealed seven attitude profiles in a sample of 1672 German high school students. In contrast with the prevailing focus on creationism in science education research, a scientistic attitude profile (22%) rather than a creationist attitude profile (4%) characterized the largest group in this sample. The remaining five profiles account for three‐fourths of the sample and describe a range of different positions, that is, noncreationist and nonscientistic positions. Moreover, the groups of students who belonged to different attitude profiles differed significantly in terms of further variables: (a) perception of conflict between science and theology, (b) attitudes toward science, (c) attitudes toward religion, (d) understanding of the nature of science, and (e) understanding of the nature of Christian theology. The benefit of the presented approach is discussed in the context of previous studies that focused on the acceptance of evolutionary theory. Because we found evidence for a wide variety of attitudes, implications for teaching and learning evolution are discussed.

@article{doi101002sce21226,
    author = "Konnemann, Christiane and Asshoff, Roman and Hammann, Marcus",
    title = "Insights Into the Diversity of Attitudes Concerning Evolution and Creation: A Multidimensional Approach",
    year = "2016",
    journal = "Science Education",
    abstract = "ABSTRACT The main aim of this paper is to describe high school students’ attitudes concerning evolution and creation, with a focus on (1) attitudes toward evolutionary theory, (2) attitudes toward the Biblical accounts of creation, (3) creationist beliefs, and (4) scientistic beliefs. Latent class analyses revealed seven attitude profiles in a sample of 1672 German high school students. In contrast with the prevailing focus on creationism in science education research, a scientistic attitude profile (22\%) rather than a creationist attitude profile (4\%) characterized the largest group in this sample. The remaining five profiles account for three‐fourths of the sample and describe a range of different positions, that is, noncreationist and nonscientistic positions. Moreover, the groups of students who belonged to different attitude profiles differed significantly in terms of further variables: (a) perception of conflict between science and theology, (b) attitudes toward science, (c) attitudes toward religion, (d) understanding of the nature of science, and (e) understanding of the nature of Christian theology. The benefit of the presented approach is discussed in the context of previous studies that focused on the acceptance of evolutionary theory. Because we found evidence for a wide variety of attitudes, implications for teaching and learning evolution are discussed.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21226",
    doi = "10.1002/sce.21226",
    openalex = "W2299282477",
    references = "doi101007s1205201103710"
}

Scientific communities maintain respected authority on matters related to the natural world; however, there are instances where significant portions of the population hold beliefs contrary to the scientific consensus. These beliefs have generally been studied as the product of scientific illiteracy. This project reframes the issue as one of social deviance from the consensus of scientific communities. Using young-earth creationism and global warming skepticism as case studies, I suggest that consensus perception in light of public scientific deviance is a valuable dialectical framework, and demonstrate its utility using logistic regression analyses of the 2006 Pew Religion and Public Life Survey. Believing there is no scientific consensus is one of the most important factors in predicting scientifically deviant beliefs, along with political and religious effects, eclipsing education. The inability of consensus perception to explain all variation in scientific deviance lends further credence to the framework, suggesting future directions in the study of this phenomenon.

@article{doi1011770731121417710459,
    author = "Tom, Joshua C.",
    title = "Social Origins of Scientific Deviance: Examining Creationism and Global Warming Skepticism",
    year = "2017",
    journal = "Sociological Perspectives",
    abstract = "Scientific communities maintain respected authority on matters related to the natural world; however, there are instances where significant portions of the population hold beliefs contrary to the scientific consensus. These beliefs have generally been studied as the product of scientific illiteracy. This project reframes the issue as one of social deviance from the consensus of scientific communities. Using young-earth creationism and global warming skepticism as case studies, I suggest that consensus perception in light of public scientific deviance is a valuable dialectical framework, and demonstrate its utility using logistic regression analyses of the 2006 Pew Religion and Public Life Survey. Believing there is no scientific consensus is one of the most important factors in predicting scientifically deviant beliefs, along with political and religious effects, eclipsing education. The inability of consensus perception to explain all variation in scientific deviance lends further credence to the framework, suggesting future directions in the study of this phenomenon.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1177/0731121417710459",
    doi = "10.1177/0731121417710459",
    openalex = "W2621020342",
    references = "doi1016410006356820060560151eacis20co2"
}

Researchers argue that white evangelical Christians are likely to support teaching creationism in public schools. Yet, less is known about the role religion may play in shaping attitudes toward evolution and teaching creationism among blacks and Latinos, who are overrepresented in U.S. conservative Protestant traditions. This study fills a gap in the literature by examining whether religious factors (e.g., religious affiliation and Biblical literalism) relate to differences in support for teaching creationism between blacks and Latinos compared to whites and other racial groups. Using a nationally representative survey (N = 9,425), we find that although black and Latino Americans support teaching creationism more than other groups, religion plays a stronger role among blacks in shaping support for teaching creationism instead of evolution. Results add an important racial dimension to scholarly discussions on religion and science and suggest further exploration of race alongside other factors that may contribute to support for teaching creationism.

@article{doi1011772378023119870376,
    author = "Salazar, Esmeralda Sánchez and Vaidyanathan, Brandon and Ecklund, Elaine Howard and Garcia, Adriana",
    title = "Challenging Evolution in Public Schools: Race, Religion, and Attitudes toward Teaching Creationism",
    year = "2019",
    journal = "Socius Sociological Research for a Dynamic World",
    abstract = "Researchers argue that white evangelical Christians are likely to support teaching creationism in public schools. Yet, less is known about the role religion may play in shaping attitudes toward evolution and teaching creationism among blacks and Latinos, who are overrepresented in U.S. conservative Protestant traditions. This study fills a gap in the literature by examining whether religious factors (e.g., religious affiliation and Biblical literalism) relate to differences in support for teaching creationism between blacks and Latinos compared to whites and other racial groups. Using a nationally representative survey (N = 9,425), we find that although black and Latino Americans support teaching creationism more than other groups, religion plays a stronger role among blacks in shaping support for teaching creationism instead of evolution. Results add an important racial dimension to scholarly discussions on religion and science and suggest further exploration of race alongside other factors that may contribute to support for teaching creationism.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1177/2378023119870376",
    doi = "10.1177/2378023119870376",
    openalex = "W2972723526",
    references = "doi1010029781444320787ch13, doi10108000220670903383028"
}

Enlightened scientists and educators everywhere lament the persistence of disbelief in the process of evolution through natural selection, but they have done little to illuminate the psychological basis of Creationist resistance. Creationists’ arguments against evolution certainly cannot constitute arguments in favor of supernatural creation. Whatever the relative contributions of biology and social structure in causing the patriarchality of human society generally, contempt for femaleness is widespread in our own society. Evolutionism, in the unconscious mind of the creationist, replaces father with mother, and with a kind of witch-mother at that. Creationism has become parasitic upon scientific discourse. However, these scientific-like activities give precious little support for creationism as a theory. There is good reason to deny the existence of a creation science, it is undeniable that a few of the leading creationists really are scientists. Ideally, mother and child “let go of the early bond without rejecting” one another.

@incollection{doi10432497813157919998,
    author = "Graber, Robert Bates and McWhorter, Ladelle",
    title = "Creationist Resistance to Evolution: The Patriarchal Unconscious as the Key",
    year = "2019",
    abstract = "Enlightened scientists and educators everywhere lament the persistence of disbelief in the process of evolution through natural selection, but they have done little to illuminate the psychological basis of Creationist resistance. Creationists’ arguments against evolution certainly cannot constitute arguments in favor of supernatural creation. Whatever the relative contributions of biology and social structure in causing the patriarchality of human society generally, contempt for femaleness is widespread in our own society. Evolutionism, in the unconscious mind of the creationist, replaces father with mother, and with a kind of witch-mother at that. Creationism has become parasitic upon scientific discourse. However, these scientific-like activities give precious little support for creationism as a theory. There is good reason to deny the existence of a creation science, it is undeniable that a few of the leading creationists really are scientists. Ideally, mother and child “let go of the early bond without rejecting” one another.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315791999-8",
    doi = "10.4324/9781315791999-8",
    openalex = "W856250361",
    references = "doi101525aa198385102a00050"
}

@incollection{ruse2021the,
    author = "Ruse, Michael",
    title = "The Arkansas Creationism Trial Forty Years On",
    year = "2021",
    booktitle = "Karl Popper's Science and Philosophy",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-67036-8\_14",
    doi = "10.1007/978-3-030-67036-8\_14",
    openalex = "W3185094721",
    pages = "257-276",
    references = "doi101017cbo9781139171434, doi10106313050879, doi10106313060577, doi101086288419, doi101086psaprocbienmeetp19822192409, doi1023071868881, doi1023072550489, doi1041599780674042995, openalexw2065464699, openalexw603845538"
}

Charles Darwin’s Theory of Evolution arouses controversies all over the world, especially in the Islamic world. Harun Yahya, the pseudonym of Adnan Oktar and the distinguished Islamic Turkish author who announces his opposition to this theory, asserting its faultiness and maintaining the value of Islamic conceptions of creation to resist those of the secular West. Among his fictional production for children are his prominent two books; Stories For Thinking Children.1. (2003) and Stories For Thinking Children.2. (2011), the primary focus of this scientific discussion. These works articulate Yahya's critique of Darwinian evolution, grounded in the teachings of the Holy Quran, logical reasoning, and contemporary scientific advancements in areas like biochemistry. Engaged with Western audiences in English and through scientific discourse, Yahya posits himself as a notable voice in the Islamic enterprise of anti-Darwinism, advocating for a viewpoint that foregrounds the Islamic teachings, challenging Western ideologies related to evolution. His writings feed young readers in both Islamic and non-Islamic English-speaking contexts, including Europe and America, as well as globally. By using different narrative techniques, Yahya effectively communicates his ideological viewpoints. This study aims to explore Yahya’s Islamic perspective on creation along with examining how he emphasizes the shortcomings of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution in the fictional context of his children's stories and his technical methods and devices.

@article{doi1021608aakj20253771782038,
    author = "Khreba, Gihan Ibrahim ElSayed",
    title = "Creation VS Evolution: A Thematic and Technical Study of H.Yahya’s Stories for Children",
    year = "2025",
    journal = "Al-Mağallah Al-ʿilmiyyaẗ Li Kulliyyaẗ Al-Adāb - Ǧāmiʿaẗ Asyūṭ/Al-Mağallah Al-ʿilmiyyaẗ Li Kulliyyaẗ Al-Adāb - Ǧāmiʿaẗ Asyūṭ",
    abstract = "Charles Darwin’s Theory of Evolution arouses controversies all over the world, especially in the Islamic world. Harun Yahya, the pseudonym of Adnan Oktar and the distinguished Islamic Turkish author who announces his opposition to this theory, asserting its faultiness and maintaining the value of Islamic conceptions of creation to resist those of the secular West. Among his fictional production for children are his prominent two books; Stories For Thinking Children.1. (2003) and Stories For Thinking Children.2. (2011), the primary focus of this scientific discussion. These works articulate Yahya's critique of Darwinian evolution, grounded in the teachings of the Holy Quran, logical reasoning, and contemporary scientific advancements in areas like biochemistry. Engaged with Western audiences in English and through scientific discourse, Yahya posits himself as a notable voice in the Islamic enterprise of anti-Darwinism, advocating for a viewpoint that foregrounds the Islamic teachings, challenging Western ideologies related to evolution. His writings feed young readers in both Islamic and non-Islamic English-speaking contexts, including Europe and America, as well as globally. By using different narrative techniques, Yahya effectively communicates his ideological viewpoints. This study aims to explore Yahya’s Islamic perspective on creation along with examining how he emphasizes the shortcomings of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution in the fictional context of his children's stories and his technical methods and devices.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.21608/aakj.2025.377178.2038",
    doi = "10.21608/aakj.2025.377178.2038",
    openalex = "W4410476278",
    references = "doi105406dialjmormthou4330062"
}