The Nature of the Arguments for Creationism, Intelligent Design, and Evolution

Barnes, Ralph M.; Church, Rebecca A.; Draznin-Nagy, Samuel

doi:10.1007/s11191-017-9875-5

Cited by 6 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the present study, the final rows of Tables 4 and 5 revealed that sources that promote claims that are inconsistent with mainstream science appear to use ad hominem attacks with greater frequency than sources that promote claims consistent with scientific orthodoxy. This finding is consistent with the results presented by Barnes and Church (2013) and Barnes, Church, and Draznin-Nagy (2017). Data reported in both papers revealed that those with messages inconsistent with the scientific mainstream (i.e., creationism) rely on very different argumentative and rhetorical strategies than those arguing for messages consistent with the scientific mainstream (i.e., evolution).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

“…For example, researchers may want to dedicate more time and resources to ad hominem arguments that are extremely common and dedicate relatively little time and resources to types of ad hominem arguments that are quite rare. Barnes and Church (2013) and Barnes, Church, and Draznin-Nagy (2017) have found that, in certain ways, the frequency and type of arguments vary as a function of whether-or-not the communicator advocates a position that is consistent with mainstream scientific thought. Those two publications, however, considered only one scientific topic (evolution), and neither of those publications tackled the issues of ad hominem or ad populum arguments.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Source Related Argumentation Found in Science Websites

Barnes

Neumann

Draznin-Nagy

2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, we consider the way that web documents seeking to persuade readers of certain science claims provide information about the sources of the arguments. Our quantitative analysis reveals that web documents in our sample include hundreds of examples in which the reader is provided information regarding the trustworthiness (or lack thereof) of sources. The web documents also contain a large number of examples in which the reader is provided with information about how many individuals hold a particular belief. We discuss ad hominem, ad verecundiam, and ad populum arguments, and the way that the examples found in our sample of documents are related to these argumentation schemes.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Source Related Argumentation Found in Science Websites

Barnes

Neumann

Draznin-Nagy

2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The purpose of comparing and contrasting argumentation in science and humanities is not so much in simply identifying their similarities and differences as in understanding the nature of scientific arguments in a more indepth level. The intersections between science and other disciplines, over issues such as the origins of the universe or of life, are also a fruitful area of study to highlight the nature of scientific argumentation from a comparative perspective (e.g., Barnes, Church, & Draznin-Nagy, 2017).…”

Section: Interdisciplinarity and Argumentationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Argumentation and interdisciplinarity: reflections from the Oxford Argumentation in Religion and Science Project

Erduran

Guilfoyle

Park

et al. 2019

Discip Interdscip Sci Educ Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Argumentation has emerged as a key area of research and development in science education in recent years. Simply defined, argumentation is about the justification of knowledge claims with evidence and reasons. Although there is now a vast amount of work in argumentation, much research remains to be pursued. Given the interdisciplinary nature of argumentation, the dialogue between science education and other relevant domains can potentially produce constructive research agendas that could profit argumentation research and lead to practical applications. Following an overview of the relevant interdisciplinary investigations that can be pursued in science education, the paper subsequently focuses on the interphase of science and religion. Although science education research has witnessed considerable debate about particular issues related to science and religion such as the teaching and learning of evolution and creationism, the role of argumentation remains an uncharted territory. Hence, the paper focuses on how argumentation may be explored in science and religious education in comparison. Some preliminary observations from the Oxford Argumentation in Religion and Science (OARS) Project are reported including a comparative analysis of curricula and teachers' views. Implications for interdisciplinarity in the context of argumentation in science education are discussed.

show abstract

“…Despite this frequent conflation, the divergent histories of acceptance of DWM and natural selection, as well as much other evidence, clearly demonstrate that acceptance of DWM does not require acceptance of natural selection, and that the "fact of evolution" and the mechanisms by which it occurs are conceptually quite separate (Ruse 1979(Ruse , 1986Gould 1983;Ospovat 1981a, b;Kampourakis and Zogza 2008: 43;Griffiths 2009;Mayer 2014;Barnes et al 2017). In this context, the "evidence for evolution" is evidence for DWM.…”

Section: What Do People Intend When They Use the Word "Evolution"?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although many sources over the many years since Darwin have summarized abundant "evidence for evolution" (e.g., Romanes 1882;Heilprin 1888;Ward 1925;Lull 1947;Hotton 1968;Prothero 2007;Coyne 2009;Dawkins 2009;Rogers 2011;Theobald 2012;Mayer 2014;Barnes et al 2017), there has been surprisingly little explicit discussion of the logic of that evidence and its application to evolution education. As Sober notes: "Given how central the thesis of common ancestry is to evolutionary reasoning, one might expect there to be a vast literature in which the evidence for that claim is amassed.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evolutionary remnants as widely accessible evidence for evolution: the structure of the argument for application to evolution education

Allmon

Ross

2018

Evo Edu Outreach

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evolution education, in both schools and informal education, often focuses on natural selection and the fit of organisms through natural selection to their environment and way of life. Examples of evidence that evolution has occurred are therefore often limited to a modest number of classic but exotic cases, with little attention to how one might apply principles to more familiar organisms. Many of these classic examples are examples of adaptation; adaptation to local environments is, however, an outcome that could in principle also be explained by supernatural creation or design. A frequent result is the perception among the public is that examples of evolution are rare, and that the existence of well-adapted organisms may just as easily be explained metaphysically. We argue that among categories of evidence of evolution accessible to non-specialists in any environment, the most compelling evidence of common ancestry consists of remnants of evolutionary history evident in homologous features, particularly when those homologies are related to lack of fit of organisms to their way of life ("vestiges") or to better fit that involves complicated combinations of parts usually assigned other functions ("contrivances"). Darwin emphasized the critical nature of this argument from imperfections, and it has been part of traditional catalogs of "evidence for evolution" for more than a century. Yet while remnants of history are widely used as a category of evidence for evolution, their utility in education of comparative anatomy to document body parts passed on through descent is underemphasized in evolution education at all levels. We explore the use of evolutionary remnants to document common ancestry and evidence for evolution, for application to evolution education.

show abstract

The Nature of the Arguments for Creationism, Intelligent Design, and Evolution

Cited by 6 publications

References 21 publications

Source Related Argumentation Found in Science Websites

Source Related Argumentation Found in Science Websites

Argumentation and interdisciplinarity: reflections from the Oxford Argumentation in Religion and Science Project

Evolutionary remnants as widely accessible evidence for evolution: the structure of the argument for application to evolution education

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About