Lynn 1
Tyler Lynn
Megan Keaton
ENC1102-31
24 February 2014
Annotated Bibliography
BRANCH, GLENN. "Bad Science: Genetics, as Misread by Creationism." GeneWatch 26.4
(2013): 29-39. Print.
This article first starts with describing the history of the argument between Creationism
and Evolution and what time periods each was more prominent. At times in U.S. history there
were laws against teaching Evolution in schools, and times where teachers were encouraged to
make it seem questionable. This article is particular on how those who believe in Creationism
misinterpret genetics and use these interpretations to try and prove Creationism or disprove
Evolution. They also blame Evolution for the failures of genetics such as eugenics. The author
believes that there has never been an opposition between genetics and the theory of Evolution.
The author seems to be trying to have a neutral side of the argument on Evolution versus
Creationism. He is trying to disprove the fact that genetics is supporting Creationism or rather
disproving Evolution. While this author is known for wanting to disprove Creationism, he
doesn’t seem to be trying to use this article to do so.
If you had no other previous knowledge on this author, you would think from this article
that he is either neutral or maybe at most slightly turned towards Evolution. This is a little
different from some of the other authors that you can tell are strong supporters of one or the
other.
Lynn 2
“there’s never been a time when it made scientific sense to talk about evolution and genetics as
opposed. (Branch 2)”
“creationists abuse genetics to argue against evolution, they also argue against evolution by
holding it responsible for the abuses of genetics (Branch 2)”
“Historically, three goals have char- acterized the creationist movement in the United States:
banning the teaching of evolution; balancing the teaching of evolution with the teach- ing of the
supposed alternatives of biblical creationism, creation sci- ence, or intelligent design; and belittling evolution as “just a theory” or as “controversial.”(Branch 1)”
Lynn 3
SENTER, P. "Using Creation Science to Demonstrate Evolution: Application of a Creationist
Method for Visualizing Gaps in the Fossil Record to a Phylogenetic Study of Coelurosaurian
Dinosaurs." Journal of Evolutionary Biology 23.8 (2010): 1732-43. Print.
This article is actually using creation science to demonstrate evolution. This using the
fact that you could use logic from the book of Genesis in the bible to prove evolution through
morphological gaps in taxa. Taxa is idea that one thing is related or coming from the same thing.
The main three things this was said to do is determine which taxa have less evolutionary proof
than others, determined by the larger gaps in taxa. Second, comparing the gaps in the fossil
record as it changed through history could be a check of progress in the filling of such gaps
during consecutive periods of discovery. Third, visual and quantitative verification of the lack of
gaps between taxa could be seen as confirming the relatedness of those taxa through evolution.
The author’s clear purpose is to prove Evolution while also disproving Creationism. The
strange part is that he is trying to prove Evolution, but using Creationist logic to do so. This is
something you won’t find very often, but I think it shows his purpose was to try and prove
Evolution to Creationist by making them his target audience. Using their logic and things they
believe to disprove them.
This author agrees with that of the genetics article in that Evolution is the true theory of
historical science. Both authors used science to help prove their points one being genetics and
one fossils. The difference is that the genetics article never specifically tried to prove the whole
Creationism theory is false, yet this article said exactly that Evolution was the only true theory.
“creation scientists would be obliged to either accept that by their own logic the included taxa are
evolutionarily related or that their own logic is internally inconsistent. (Senter 1)”
Lynn 4
“Evolutionary biologists have a long history of using the findings of mainstream science to
counter the claims of creation science (Senter 2)”
“Practitioners of creation science are the ones who mould and hone creationist arguments, and it
is towards their claims that the defence of evolutionary biology is best directed. (Senter 2)”
Lynn 5
BERRY, R. J. (SAM). "Disputing Evolution Encourages Environmental Neglect." Science &
Christian Belief 25.2 (2013): 113-30. Print.
This article went into depth in the history of what has been believed in Creationism and
how as science develops it is harder to prove. It also talks about Darwin and Darwinism, which is
a large part of the Evolution theory. Creation had another name at one point, Intelligent Design.
This was the idea that God created and sculpted every single little thing that is here today. But
the article’s main point is that Creation led to Evolution. To believe one is to believe the other.
The creation of the Earth and then came the Evolution of that Creation to what it has become
today.
This author’s purpose was very much in favor of Creationism and the belief in God. He
seemed to want to explain both views on Creation and Evolution before he made his point of
how both can work together. The Creation portion he believes is that God created the Earth and
everything on it, but the Evolution portion he believes is the difference between what God
created, and what we see today. He thinks that it would be naive to think that what God created
so long ago hasn’t evolved into many new things. That it would be discrediting God to think that
his Creation couldn’t have evolved in many ways.
Apart from the fossil and genetics articles this is an author and article that believe in
Creationism. This article had some similarities with the other articles as well, such as the
descriptions of previous beliefs and sciences of Creationism and Evolution.
“We err badly if we believe that we have to contrive to keep God involved in the evolutionary
machinery. He is integral to it (Berry 18)”
“Darwin's own answer in the Origin was, 'It may not be a logical deduction, but to my
imagination it is far more satisfactory to look at such instinct (Berry 5)”
Lynn 6
“A more nuanced variant of 'creationism' is 'Intelligent Design' (ID). Al- though vehemently
denied by its proponents, ID is in effect a revival of the classical argument of God as a Divine
Watchmaker. (Berry 6)”