The creationists' strength lies in their debating and
rhetorical skills. In separate accounts, Scott and Trott
describe the tactics of the creationist and provide some
pointers for anyone preparing to take one on.
Certain tactics should be avoided in public debates
with creationists, as this continuation of an exchange
between James Lippard and Ian Plimer illustrates.
An account given by one of the participants of a public
debate with creationist Ian Taylor of the Creation Science
Association of Ontario. This event was notable not only for
what transpired at the debate itself, but for the
underhanded tactics used by the organizers before and after
the debate.
An email debate on the topic of human evolution between
anti-evolutionist Richard Milton and
Fossil
Hominids author Jim Foley.
This exchance between Richard Trott and Duane Gish of
the Institute for Creation Research appeared in a student
newspaper at Rutgers University.
Transcript of the 1988 debate held at Auburn University
between the ICR's Duane Gish and Professor Ken Saladin of
Georgia College.
A first-hand account of the 1993 International Creation
Conference held in Beaverton, Oregon. This article
describes a few of the arguments creationists are currently
using as part of their arsenal; some of them could cause
the more informed scientist to erupt in giggles.
An account of the 1995 Sixth European Creationist
Congress in the Netherlands. This author gives the reader a
look at creationist activity in Europe.
This is the result of an attempted "formal" Usenet
debate, with orderly turns between speakers, length limits,
and a predetermined topic (the age of the earth). The
participants were Bob Bales and Chris Stassen, both
high-profile talk.origins readers at the time of the
debate.
Biologist Kenneth Miller debates creationist lawyer
Phillip Johnson on the validity of biological evolution.
The online debate forum was provided by PBS's Nova program.
A transcript of the "science hearings" held by a subcommittee of the Kansas
Board of Education composed of three creationists in May, 2005.
A background article and many relevant links are also provided.
Read the U.S. District Court decision in which
"balanced treatment" for creationism and evolution in
Arkansas public school science classrooms was ruled
unconstitutional.
Read the U.S. Supreme Court decision dealing with
creationism in public school science classrooms. The
majority opinions and the dissenting opinion by Justice
Antonin Scalia are provided along with the
amicus
curiae brief filed by
72 Nobel Prize winning scientists.
Read the U.S. Supreme Court case which ruled
unconstitutional Arkansas's law forbidding the teaching of
evolution in state-supported schools.
California public school teacher John Peloza sued his
school district, claiming he should not be required to
teach evolution or refrain from teaching about his
religious beliefs. The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
ruled against him on the substantive portions of his
claim.
Biology teachers, parents, and National Association of Biology Teachers
sued in 1975 to overturn Tennessee's "balanced treatment" law. The U.S. Sixth
Circuit Court of Appeals held that requiring creationism to be taught and
requiring disclaimers about evolution violated the First Amendment. Also
included is
Steele v. Waters which
the Tennessee Supreme Court agreed with the Sixth Circuit.
Houston, Texas, students sued to prevent the school district from teaching
evolution, believing it infringed their First Amendment rights. The
federal courts dismissed the case for failure to state a claim
upon which relief could be based.
The decision of the district court stricking down
a Cobb County, Georgia requirement that a sticker with a disclaimer
be placed on all textbooks that discuss evolution. The
amicus
curiae brief filed by
several pro-science organizations is also included.
Dover, Pennsylvania case which a judge ruled that intelligent design is
creationism, is not science, and does not belong in science classes of
public schools. Documents here include the decision of the court
and the complete trial transcript.
A 1977 decision of an Indiana superior court ruling
against a textbook produced by the Creation
Research Society. In some respects this case
resembles a young-earth creationist version of the Kitzmiller
case. Introductory material, links, as well as the full text of the
judge's memorandum opinion are provided.
