|Table of Contents
Compiled by Wendy Cunningham
|I.||Sites describing and/or supporting evolution|
|II.||Sites describing and/or promoting creationism|
|III.||Position statements by scientific and educational groups|
|V.||Keep Kansas out of your back yard: What you can do|
|VI.||The Kansas Decision and other recent creationism vs. evolution school debates|
|VIII.||Articles, essays, books, reports, and press releases|
|IX.||GSA members speak out at GSA's 1999 Annual Meeting|
|X.||Participate in the debate by teaching a class Past GSA Treasurer David Dunn provides a syllabus and annotated bibliography for his University of Texas at Dallas course Geology Refutes Creationism|
Evolution and Creationism
Participate in the debate by teaching a class
One great way to educate students on the creationism vs. evolution debate (and get them actively involved) is to teach a class on the subject.
GSA Treasurer David Dunn has provided a syllabus and annotated bibliography for his University of Texas at Dallas course Geology Refutes Creationism. If you would like advice on setting up your own class, e-mail David Dunn.
GEOS 3101(2) Spring 1999
|Instructor:||David E. Dunn, F02.630, (972)883-4044, email@example.com|
|Office Hours:||Tuesday 1112 & 1:303; Wednesday 9:3011; Thursday 1112|
|Text:||Geology Refutes Creationism, reprint collection, Off Campus Books, 1999|
|Paper:||A five page (typewritten) paper will be the basis of you grade, and it will be due on Tuesday, March 23rd. In the paper you will analyze item # 22 in the text, the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Edwards v. Aguillard case. In three to four pages you should summarize the key points in the majority and concurring opinions, and in the dissenting opinions as well. In one or two pages you should give your own opinions on the issues raised by the case.|
This course is intended to allow you to understand the controversy in this country between scientists (primarily but not exclusively anthropologists, biologists and geologists) and those individuals who insist that the public schools teach a literal interpretation of the creation accounts in the book of Genesis (creationists). Most of the course will deal with the legal issues raised by the controversy, and we will study the science questions only as they pertain to the legal issues. A thorough reading of the text (Contents attached) and participation in class discussions will prepare all students, regardless of background, to handle the assigned paper without difficulty.
The amount of time we will devote to discussing each reprint will depend on student's backgrounds; consequently no attempt is made here to provide a firm schedule.
Students should acquire the text and read items 1 through 3 before the class meeting on February 18.
|1.||Geologic Time Scale||1|
|3.||The Genesis Flood||5|
|4.||Creationism In 20th Century America||19|
|5.||25 Creationists' Arguments and 25 Evolutionists' Answers||27|
|6.||Frequently Asked Questions About Evolution and the Nature of Science||35|
|7.||Creationism's Geologic Time Scale||41|
|8.||Arkansas Senate Bill 482||57|
|9.||Letter to Dunn||63|
|10.||Louisiana Senate Bill 86||67|
|11.||Letter to Senate Education Committee||73|
|12.||Louisiana Puts God into Biology Lessons||77|
|13.||Letter to Dunn and Statement||81|
|14.||Lawsuit: Aguillard v. Louisiana||87|
|15.||Creationism Goes On Trial In Arkansas||105|
|17.||Creationism And The Age Of The Earth||119|
|18.||Where Is The Science In Creation Science?||121|
|19.||Creationism In Schools: The Decision In McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education||127|
|20.||Judge's Ruling Hits Hard At Creationism||139|
|21.||Letter to Dunn||143|
|22.||Decision: Edwards v. Aguillard||147|
|23.||Six Significant Court Decisions Regarding Evolution and Creationism||183|
|24.||Letter to Lamar Alexander||187|
|25.||God and Science||191|
|26.||Orthodoxy And Originality In Creationist Thought||197|
|27.||Creationism: Please Don't Call It Science||203|
|28.||Creation's Incredible Witness: Duane T. Gish, Ph.D||207|
|29.||ICR Claims To Do Non-Scientific Research||217|
|30.||Paleontology Meets The Creationist Challenge||219|
|31.||On Earth As It Is In Heaven||227|
|1.||Any version of the Geologic Time Scale will do, but emphasize that all periods except the Ordovician and the subdivision of the Carboniferous into Mississippian and Pennsylvanian were defined before Darwin's earliest publication on evolution in 1859.|
|2.||Define thrust faults, especially large overthrusts which young earth creationists attempt to "debunk."|
|3.||Whitcomb, J. C., and H. M. Morris, 1961. The Genesis Flood.
Philadelphia, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., p. 180-200.
Permission to reprint required.
|4.||Numbers, R. L., 1982. Creationism in 20th Century America: Science, v. 218, November 5, p. 538-544. Permission to reprint required.|
|5.||25 Creationists' Arguments and 25
Compiled by Michael Shermer, an Adjunct Professor of the History of Science at Occidental College and Executive Editor of Skeptic Magazine.
|6.||National Academy of Sciences, 1998. Frequently Asked Questions About Evolution and the Nature of Science. In Teaching About Evolution and theNature of Science. Washington, National Academy Press, p. 55-59. Permission to reprint required.|
|7.||Wise, D. U., 1998. Creationism's Geologic Time Scale: American
Scientist, v. 86, p. 160-173. Permission to reprint required.
This paper requires a lot of explanation for non-scientists, but is very useful in helping them understand the outrageous nonsense promulgated by young earth creationists.
|8.||Senate Bill 482, 1981. State of Arkansas.|
|9.||A letter to David Dunn from the Science Supervisor of the Louisiana Department of Education will not be included on the GSA website.|
|10.||Senate Bill 86, 1981. State of Louisiana.|
|11.||Dunn, D. E., 1981. Letter to Senate Education Committee.|
|12.||Broad, W. J., 1981. Louisiana Puts God Into Biology Lessons: Science, v. 213, August 2, p. 628-629. Permission to reprint required.|
|13.||Treen, D. C., 1981. Letter to Dunn and Statement Relative to Senate Bill 86. The Governor of Louisiana defends the creationism bill.|
|14.||Lawsuit: Aguillard v. Louisiana, 1981. U. S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana.|
|15.||Lewin, R., 1981. Creationism Goes on Trial in Arkansas: Science, v. 214, December 4, p. 1101-1104. Permission to reprint required.|
|16.||___________, 1981. The Creationists: A Science 81 Special Section, p. 53-60. Permission to reprint required.|
|17.||Abelson, P. H., 1982. Creationism and the Age of the Earth: Science, v. 215, January 8. Permission to reprint required.|
|18.||Lewin, R., 1982. Where Is the Science in Creation Science?: Science, v. 215, January 8, p. 142-146. Permission to reprint required.|
|19.||Overton, W. R., 1982. Creationism in Schools: The Decision in
McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education: Science, v. 215, February 19, p. 934-943.
Judge Overton's tightly reasoned and lucidly written decision is must reading for anyone seeking to understand the application of constitutional law to the creationism issue.
|20.||Lewin, R., 1982, Judge's Ruling Hits hard at Creationism: Science, v. 215, January 22, p. 381-384. Permission to reprint required.|
|21.||Novik, J. D., 1984. Letter to Dunn.
An ACLU attorney outlines his legal strategy in the Louisiana case.
|22.||U. S. Supreme Court, 1987. Decision in Edwards v. Aguillard: 482 U. S. 578, 96 L. Ed. 2d 510, Geologists may not recognize the citation above, but any law student or clerk will know how to find it. The majority and concurring opinions are far more ambiguous and less well written than Judge Overton's opinion in McLean. In the dissenting opinion Justices Scalia and Rehnquist demonstrate an incomprehensible failure to grasp the issues Judge Overton explained so clearly. It is clear that Justice Scalia gave undue weight to the testimony of a single creation scientist who appeared before the Louisiana legislative hearing which considered SB 86. That undue reliance on a single witness led Justice Scalia to several misstatements of demonstrable facts.|
|23.||National Academy of Sciences, 1998. Six Significant Court Decisions Regarding Evolution and Creationism. In Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science. Washington, National Academy Press, p. 121-122. Permission to reprint required.|
|24.||Dunn, D. E., 1991. Letter to Lamar Alexander.|
|25.||Shapiro, A. M., 1993. God and Science: Creation/Evolution, v. 13, n. 1, p. 10-19. Permission to reprint required.|
|26.||Tomey, C. P., 1993. Orthodoxy and Originality in Creationist Thought: Creation/Evolution, v. 13, n. 1, p. 32-41. Permission to reprint required.|
|28.||Fezer, K. D., 1993. Creation's Incredible Witness: Duane T. Gish, Ph.D.: Creation/Evolution, v. 13, N. 2, p. 5-21. Permission to reprint required.|
|29.||Matsumura, M., 1994, ICR Claims to do Non-Scientific Research: NCSE Reports, November, p. Permission to reprint required.|
|30.||Blackburn, D. G., 1995. Paleontology Meets the Creationist Challenge: Creation/Evolution, v. 15, n. 1, p. 26-28. Permission to reprint required.|
|31.||Hitt, J., 1996. On Earth as it is in Heaven: Harper's Magazine, v. 293, n. 1758, p. 51-60. Permission to reprint required.|