Table of Contents Compiled by Wendy Cunningham
	Introduction
I.	Sites describing and/or supporting evolution
II.	Sites describing and/or promoting creationism
III.	Position statements by scientific and educational groups
IV.	Interactive forums
V.	Keep Kansas out of your back yard: What you can do
VI.	The Kansas Decision and other recent creationism vs. evolution school debates
VII.	Court cases
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.

Syllabus
Annotated bibliography

GEOLOGY REFUTES CREATIONISM

GEOS 3101(2) Spring 1999

Instructor:	David E. Dunn, F02.630, (972)883-4044, ddunn@utdallas.edu
Office Hours:	Tuesday 11–12 & 1:30–3; Wednesday 9:30–11; Thursday 11–12
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.

SYLLABUS

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.

CONTENTS

Item	Title	Pages
1.	Geologic Time Scale	1
2.	Faults	3
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
16.	The Creationists	109
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

top

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY
for
Geology Refutes Creationism
David E. Dunn

Item
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 Evolutionists' Answers 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.

top