Creationism and Intelligent Design

Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics

Volumn 4, Issue , 2003, Pages 143-163

  Pennock, Robert T ^a  

^a MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Creation science; Evolution education

Indexed keywords

CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY; EDUCATION; EVOLUTION; INTELLIGENT DESIGN; RELIGION; REVIEW;

EVOLUTION; RELIGION;

EID: 0242609221     PISSN: 15278204     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1146/annurev.genom.4.070802.110400     Document Type: Review

References (97)

1. AAAS Board. 2002. AAAS Board Resolution on Intelligent Design Theory. http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/ 1106id2.shtml
2. Alters BJ, Alters SM. 2001. Defending Evolution: A Guide to the Creation/ Evolution Controversy. Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett. 272 pp.
3. Applegate D. 2001. Evolution opponents on the offensive in Senate, House. Am. Geol. Inst. Gov. Aff. Progr. http://www. agiweb.org/gap/legis107/ evolution_update 0601.html
4. Beard J, Nelson CE, Nickels M. 2003. Evolution and the Nature of Science Institutes. http://www.indiana.edu/%7 Eensiweb/home.html
5. Behe MJ. 1996. Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. New York: Free Press. 320 pp.
6. Behe MJ. 2001. Reply to my critics: A response to reviews of Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. Biol. Philos. 16:685-709
7. Blackstone NW. 1997. Argumentum ad ignorantiam. Q. Rev. Biol. 72:445-47
8. Brewer S. 1996. A problem-solving approach to the teaching of evolution. Bioscene 22:11-11, 33
9. Cavalier-Smith T. 1997. The blind biochemist. TREE 12:162-36
10. Coyne JA. 1996. God in the details. Nature 383:227-28
11. Coyne JA. 2001. Creationism by stealth. Nature 410:745-46
12. Crews FC. 2001. Saving us from Darwin. NY Rev. Books Oct. 4:24-27
13. Dawkins R. 2001. The 'information challenge'. See Ref. 61, pp. 617-31
14. Dembski WA. 1998. The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge Univ. Press. 243 pp.
15. Dembski WA. 2001. Who's got the magic? See Ref. 61, pp. 639-44
16. Dembski WA. 2002. No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased Without Intelligence. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. 336 pp.
17. DeWolf DK, Meyer SC, DeForrest ME. 1999. Intelligent Design in Public School Science Curricula: A Legal Guidebook. Richardson, TX: Found. Thought Ethics. 42 pp.
18. DeWolf DK, Meyer SC, DeForrest ME. 2000. Teaching the origins controversy: science, or religion, or speech? Utah Law Rev. 39:39-110
19. Discovery Inst. 1999. The Wedge Strategy. http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ ctrl/arch ive/wedge_document.html
20. Dobzhansky T. 1973. Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. Am. Biol. Teach. 35:127-29
21. Dorit R. 1997. Molecular evolution and scientific inquiry, misperceived. Am. Sci. 85:474-75
22. Elsberry W. 2003. The AntiEvolutionists: William A. Dembski. http://www.antievo lution.org/people/dembski_wa/wadembs ki.html
23. Elsberry WR. 1999. The design inference. Rep. Nat. Cent. Sci. Educ. 19:32-35
24. Fitelson B, Stephens C, Sober E. 2001. How not to detect design - critical notice: William A. Dembski, the design inference. See Ref. 61, pp. 597-615
25. Forrest B. 2001. The wedge at work: How intelligent design creationism is wedging its way into the cultural and academic mainstream. See Ref. 61, pp. 5-53
26. Forrest B, Gross PR. 2003. Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design. New York: Oxford Univ. Press. 416 pp.
27. Gilchrist GW. 1997. The elusive scientific basis of intelligent design theory. Rep. Nat. Cent. Sci. Educ. 17:14-15
28. Gish DT. 1978. Evolution?: The Fossils Say No! San Diego: Creation-Life. 277 pp.
29. Gishlick AD. 2002. Icons of Evolution?: Why Much of What Jonathan Wells Writes About Evolution is Wrong. http://www.ncseweb.org/icons/
30. Godfrey LR, ed. 1983. Scientists Confront Creationism. New York: Norton. 324 pp.
31. Godfrey-Smith P. 2001. Information and the argument from design. See Ref. 61, pp. 575-96
32. Gould SJ. 1992. Impeaching a self-appointed judge. Sci. Am. 267(1):118-21
33. Johnson PE. 1990. Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism. Richardson, TX: Haughton. 37 pp.
34. Johnson PE. 1991. Darwin on Trial. Washington, DC: Regnery Gateway. 195 pp.
35. Johnson PE. 1992. The religion of the blind watchmaker. Perspect. Sci. Christ. Faith 45:46-48
36. Johnson PE. 1995. Reason in the Balance: The Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law & Education. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. 245 pp.
37. Kennedy EM. 2001. Evolution is designed for science classes. The Washington Times. http://www.washingtontimes.com/ op-ed/20020321-76780268.htm#2
38. Kitcher P. 1982. Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 213 pp.
39. 38a. Lenski R, Ofria C, Pennock RT, Adami C. 2003. The evolutionary origin of complex features. Nature 423:139-44
40. Majerus MEN. 1998. Melanism: Evolution in Action. New York: Oxford Univ. Press. 338 pp.
41. McComas WF, ed. 2000. The Nature of Science in Science Education: Rationales and Strategies, Vol. 5. Dordrecht: Kluwar Acad. 388 pp.
42. Meyer SC. 1999. The return of the god hypothesis. J. Interdiscip. Stud. 11:1-38
43. Meyer SC. 2002. Teach the controversy on origins. Cincinnati Enquirer March 30
44. Miller KR. 1996. Darwin's Black Box. Creat./Evol. 16:36
45. Miller KR. 1999. Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution. New York: Cliff Street Books. 338 pp.
46. Miller KR. 2003. Answering the biochemical argument from design. In God and Design, ed. N Manson. New York: Routledge. 400 pp.
47. Miller KR. 2003. The flagellum unspun: the collapse of 'irreducible complexity.' See Ref. 73a. In press
48. Morris HM. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books. 281 pp.
49. Morris HM, Parker GE. 1982. What is Creation Science? El Cajon, CA: Master Books. 306 pp.
50. Murphy N. 2001. Phillip Johnson on trial: a critique of his critique of Darwin. See Ref. 61, pp. 451-69
51. NCSE Staff. 2002. Analysis of the Discovery Institute's Bibliography. http://www. ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3878_anal ysis_of_the_discovery_inst_4_5_2002.asp
52. NCSE Staff. 2002. Evolving Banners at the Discovery Institute. http://www.ncse web.org/resources/articles/ 4116_evolving _banners_at_the_discov_8_29_2002.asp
53. NCSE Staff. 2003. Press Room http:// www.natcenscied.org/pressroom.asp? branch=statement
54. Nelson CE. 2000. Effective strategies for teaching evolution and other controversial topics. In The Creation Controversy & The Science Classroom, ed. JW Skehan, CE Nelson, pp. 19-47. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press
55. Orr HA. 1997. Darwin vs. intelligent design (again). Boston Rev. http://www-polisci.mit.edu/bostonreview/BR21.6/orr. html
56. Orr HA. 2002. No free lunch: Why specified complexity cannot be purchased without intelligence. Boston Rev. 27. http:// bostonreview.mit.edu/ BR27.3/orr.html
57. Padian K, Gishlick AD. 2002. The talented Mr. Wells. Q. Rev. Biol. 77:33-37
58. Pearcey N. 2000. We're not in Kansas anymore: Why secular scientists and media can't admit that Darwinism might be wrong. Christianity Today 44(6):42
59. Pennock RT. 1996. Naturalism, evidence and creationism: the case of Phillip Johnson. Biol. Philos. 11:543-59
60. Pennock RT. 1999. Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 429 pp.
61. Pennock RT. 2000. Lions and Tigers and Apes, Oh My!: Creationism vs. Evolution in Kansas. http://www.aaas.org/spp/dser/ evolution/perspectives/ pennock.htm
62. Pennock RT, ed. 2001. Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics: Philosophical, Theological and Scientific Perspectives. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
63. Pennock RT. 2001. The wizards of ID: reply to Dembski. See Ref. 61, pp. 645-67
64. Pennock RT. 2002. Mystery science theater: the case of the secret agent. Nat. Hist. 111(3):77
65. Pennock RT. 2002. Should creationism be taught in the public schools? Sci. Educ. 11:111-33
66. Pennock RT. 2003. DNA by design?: Stephen Meyer and the return of the God hypothesis. See Ref. 73a. In press
67. Petto AJ, Godfrey LR, eds. 2003. Scientists Confront Creationism. New York: Norton. In press
68. Pigliucci M. 2002. Denying Evolution: Creationism, Scientism, and the Nature of Science: Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Assoc. 275 pp.
69. Plantinga A. 2001. Methodological naturalism? See Ref. 61, pp. 339-61
70. Provine WB. 1990. Response to Phillip Johnson. See Ref. 33, pp. 19-22
71. Raelian Movement. 2002. Raelian Movement Supports ID Theory. http://www. prweb.com/releases/2002/11/prweb50443. php
72. Raff RA. 2001. The creationist abuse of evo-devo. Evol. Dev. 3:373-74
73. Rudge DW. 2000. Does being wrong make Kettlewell wrong for science teaching? J. Biol. Educ. 35:5-11
74. Ruse M, ed. 1988. But Is It Science? The Philosophical Question in the Creation/Evolution Controversy. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books. 406 pp.
75. 73a. Ruse M, Dembski W, eds. 2003. Debating Design: from Darwin to DNA. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press. In press
76. Ruse M. 2001. Methodological naturalism under attack. See Ref. 61, pp. 363-85
77. Santorum R. 2002. Illiberal education in Ohio schools. The Washington Times, March 14. http://www.washingtontimes. com/commentary/20020314-50858765. htm
78. Scharmann LC. 1994. Teaching evolution: designing successful instruction. J. Sci. Teach. Educ. 5:122-29
79. Scott EC. 1996. Creationism, ideology, and science. Ann. NY Acad. Sci. 775:505-22
80. Scott EC. 1996. Evolving euphemisms: balanced treatment mutates to 'evidence against evolution.' NCSE Rep. 16:5, 18
81. Shallit J. 2002. William Dembski, no free lunch. Biosystems 66:93-99
82. Shanks N, Joplin KH. 1999. Redundant complexity: a critical analysis of intelligent design in biochemistry. Philos. Sci. 66:268-98
83. Smith MU, Siefel H, McInerney JD. 1995. Foundational issues in evolution education. Sci. Educ. 4:23-40
84. Strahler AN. 1987. Science and Earth History: The Evolution/Creation Controversy. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books. 252 pp.
85. Tamzek N. 2002. Icon of Obfuscation: Jonathan Wells' Book 'Icons of Evolution' and Why Most of What it Teaches About Evolution is Wrong. http://www. talkorigins.org/faqs/wells
86. Tuckwiller T. 2003. Intelligent design believers, sect seek curriculum change. Charleston Gazette, Jan 14. http://www. gospelcom.net/apologeticsindex/ rnb/arch ives/00001936.html
87. Unification Theol. Seminary. 1997. Dr. Jonathan Wells returns to UTS. The Cornerstone 21. http://www.tparents.org/ library/unification/publications/ cornerst/ cs970506/cst_dr-jonathan.html
88. Unification Thought Inst. 1996. From Evolution Theory to a New Creation Theory: Errors in Darwinism and a Proposal From Unification Thought. Tokyo: Kogensha. http://www.tparents.org/Li brary/Unification/Books/EvolTheo/0-Toc. htm
89. Van Till HJ. 1999. 'Intelligent design' theory: two viewpoints. Zygon 34:667-82
90. Van Till HJ. 2002. E. coli at the No Free Lunchroom: Bacterial Flagella and Dembski's Case for Intelligent Design. http://www.aaas.org/spp/dser/ evolution/ perspectives/vantillecoli.pdf
91. Van Till HJ. 2002. Howard Van Till's response to William Dembski's remarks 'Naturalism's argument from invincible ignorance.' American Association for the Advancement of Science, Dialogue on Science, Ethics, and Religion. http://www. aaas.org/spp/dser/evolution/perspectives/ vantillresponse.pdf
92. Walker K. 1998. Young-earth theory gains advocates. Christianity Today 42(5):24
93. Wells J. 2000. Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? Washington, DC: Regnery. 362 pp.
94. West JG Jr. 2002. Darwin in the Classroom: Ohio Allows Alternative. http:// www.discovery.org/viewDB/index.php3? command = view & id = 1321 & program = CRSC
95. Wexler JD. 2003. Darwin, design, and disestablishment: teaching the evolution controversy in public schools. Vanderbilt Law Rev. In press
96. Willard DJ. 2002. Evolution challenge muted: state board allows criticism, but doesn't mandate teaching of intelligent design. The Beacon J. Dec. 11. http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/ 4713920.htm
97. Wolpert D. 2003. William Dembski's treatment of the No Free Lunch theorems is written in jello. Math. Rev. In press