Darwinism, Design and Public Education (Rhetoric & Public Affairs) [Paperback]

John Angus Campbell (Editor), Stephen C. Meyer (Editor)

Book Description

Series: Rhetoric & Public Affairs | Publication Date: November 30, 2003

From the Scopes Trial in 1925 through the action of the Kansas board of education, the teaching of evolution in public schools has been a flashpoint in American education. The evolution of fundamentalist creationism into the proposition of "intelligent design" (ID) in the late 20th century reignited the character of this controversy. Darwinism, Design, and Public Education provides a thorough and readable source of primary literature for and against the rhetoric of intelligent design as a science, a philosophy, and a movement for educational reform.

--This text refers to the Hardcover edition.

Editorial Reviews

About the Author

John Angus Campbell is Professor and Director of Graduate Studies in the Department of Communication at the University of Memphis.

Stephen C. Meyer is Director and Senior Fellow of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute, in Seattle, Washington.
     Dr. Meyer has co-written or edited two books: Darwinism, Design, and Public Education and Science and Evidence of Design in the Universe. He has also authored numerous technical articles as well as editorials in magazines and newspapers, such as the Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, Houston Chronicle, Chicago Tribune, First Things, and the National Review.

Product Details

• Paperback: 634 pages
• Publisher: Michigan State University Press (November 30, 2003)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0870136755
• ISBN-13: 978-0870136757
• Product Dimensions: 8.9 x 6 x 1.4 inches
• Shipping Weight: 2 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 4.4 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (14 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,357,916 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

50 of 68 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars A Volume of the Highest Academic Standards, January 15, 2004

By 

Casey Luskin (Seattle, WA, USA) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Darwinism, Design and Public Education (Rhetoric & Public Affairs) (Hardcover)

Two comparable volumes have come out in the past year and a half that debate intelligent design theory: "Darwinism, Design, and Public Education (DDPE)" (edited by John Angus Campbell and Stephen C. Meyer) and "Intelligent Design Creationism (IDC) and its Critics" (edited by intelligent design critic Robert T. Pennock). Both are over 600 pages, with over 2 dozen articles both from the pro-intelligent design (ID) and pro-evolution viewpoints. It is the differences between DDPE (edited by pro-ID authors) and IDC and it Critics (edited by a pro-evolution author) which make DDPE a unique volume of far greater value.
1) As noted, both volumes have articles from both the pro- and anti-ID viewpoints. That's fine--in fact that is good! Dialogue and debate can only serve to make progress towards better understanding both intelligent design and evolutionary theoryin this issue. However, progress is best served when the playing fields are level.
Numbers-wise, DDPE has a more balanced presentation with about 43% of the articles from the "con" (i.e. pro-evolution side); in IDC and its Critics, only about 33% are from the "con" (i.e. pro-ID) side. That difference is minor, for the real story is told in how the articles are placed.
In IDC and its Critics, the articles from the "con" (i.e. pro-ID) side seemed like mere foils which were almost always then be clobbered to death by 1 to 5 articles from the pro-evolution side. Counter-rebuttal from design advocates seemed rare, and design advocates were rarely given the last word on any issue. In DDPE, the articles from the con side seemed to be genuine rebuttals which were left to stand for themselves. In fact, the entire last section of the book is almost entirely devoted to letting critics have their say. That comes at the end, meaning the pro-evolution authors are allowed to speak without immediate academic clobbering, as was typically done to the pro-ID authors in IDC and its Critics. With pro-ID editors, DDPE does allows for real discussion on a level playing field.
2) The "con" (i.e. pro-evolution) side in DDPE was represented by few old or dated articles that were being re-used, but rather seemed to include much genuinely new material. In IDC and its Critics, it seemed almost all the "con" (i.e. pro-ID) articles were older works from ID proponents, aged anywhere from 5 to 13 years, often from early in the ID movement when many objections had yet to be made, or good answers from ID proponents to certain criticisms had not been given sufficient time for gestation. Though not every article is new, DDPE stands in contrast because it contains a significant amount of novel material from both sides that is worth reading.
[...]
I'll readily admit my bias lies on the side of ID, but I must say that in DDPE, I appreciated arch-ID critic Massimo Pigliucci's article discussing the treatment of the origins of life in textbooks-an article that was not included in the "critics" section, but rather appeared to be part of a cooperative discussion of textbooks from both sides.
[...]
[...]
In short, I think the 2 volumes are comparable size, but their differences are very telling: DDPE treats its critics with academic respect and tries to give them a voice, [...]. I noticed a stark contrast between the way the two editors seemed to treat their critics.
DDPE is a volume of the highest academic standard that, [...] serves to give much academic credibility to this debate.

17 of 22 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars An Argument for "Teaching the Controversy", January 12, 2004

By A Customer

This review is from: Darwinism, Design and Public Education (Rhetoric & Public Affairs) (Hardcover)

Less than two decades ago, proponents of "intelligent design" (ID) set out to establish ID as a legitimate topic for scholarly debate and then as an alternative to a neo-Darwinian approach in biological research. They have made considerable progress on the first objective, less on the second. Meanwhile they have been drawn into noisy state and local controversies over the teaching of evolution in public schools. The ID movement, in its unfinished state, has thus come to the attention of journalists and politicians. It has become a thorn in the flesh of veteran defenders of evolution hardened by years of conflict with "scientific creationists." This compilation by Campbell and Meyer should help outsiders explore ID and sort out the ongoing confusion.
Having read a good many books and articles for and against ID as a basis for comparison, I have a positive impression of the Campbell/Meyer book. It is more readable than some others that contain an equivalent amount of semi-technical information. Its message: Questions about Darwinian theory raised by ID should be taught in science classrooms to stimulate critical thinking about science, education, and religion. At the outset, rhetorician John Angus Campbell sets the tone in "Why Are We Still Debating Darwinism? Why Not Teach the Controversy?" He and philosopher Stephen Meyer both contribute to Part I, on aspects of the public school questions. Part II critiques the way evolution has been taught. Part III lets proponents make their case for ID as a scientific alternative. Part IV gives critics of ID their turn, beginning with a clear analysis of ID's shortcomings by rhetorician Celeste Michelle Condit. Philosopher Michael Ruse and others weigh in, but ID pioneer Phillip Johnson gets the final word. The book is published in a Michigan State University Press series on "Rhetoric and Public Affairs," a series focusing on how public figures have gotten their ideas across in historic controversies.
This book is comparable in size and arrangement to Robert Pennock's "Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics." Some essays in both books sound familiar, written by "the usual suspects" plus a few new voices. The chapters in both are amply documented. With one prejudicial word in the title of each book ("Darwinism" and "Creationism," respectively) hinting at its attitude toward ID, the two books seem almost mirror images of each other.
I am not entirely impartial about the Campbell/Meyer book, since I am named in it as one of several persons who contributed to its editing. Before becoming an editor I was a practicing biochemist (hence a "methodological naturalist" or "metaphysical minimalist," though also a Christian believer). I could see that many questions in biology (whether genuine mysteries or merely unsolved problems) were papered over with words bearing no empirical meaning. Lacking confirmed mechanical details, "Evolution did it" seemed as empty scientifically as "God did it." Thinking about ID has helped clarify that similarity for me while awaiting those details. Meanwhile, words are what rhetoric is all about. I hope I have chosen mine with sufficient care.

17 of 23 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Scaling the Mount Everest of assumptions made by dogmatic neo-Darwinians, December 7, 2005

By 

Matthew Paul Reves (Germany) - See all my reviews

This review is from: Darwinism, Design and Public Education (Rhetoric & Public Affairs) (Paperback)

It is refreshing that at least some healthy discussion has commenced regarding the literal plethora of misinformation on which most of the assumptions regarding Darwin's theory on the origin of the species are based. This book and others of its kind, though not exhaustive enough to tackle in only a single volume every aspect of the countless controversies surrounding Intelligent Design vs. Darwinism, nicely inspires interested parties to adhere to the principle of searching for truth, not simply accepting verbatim what mainstream academia has been promoting over the past century.

The fact is, most proponents of macro evolutionist theory, when thoroughly questioned, do not even know what it is, have never taken a biology course, nor could they explain the difference between natural selection itself (aka. adaptation, a phenomenon which can be empirically observed as occurring in nature) and the theory that entirely new species of living creatures make the quantum leap from a previous species to a complete other via the motor of natural selection (merely a theoretical model used to explain the broad variation of species, which is not able to be empirically proven through simple observation, only assumed through deduction).

One such lay proponent of neo-Darwinist theory has been busily flaming this very review board. His name is Tom Sullivan of York, Pennsylvania. Due to a sheer lack of understanding of what ID is and an absence of any semblance of objectivity, his reviews are absolutely useless to sincerely interested observers. Instead of simply objectively reporting on the content or value of books centering on the topic of Intelligent Design, he angrily resorts to hyperbole and slander, even basing one of his statements regarding "Christians" on a myth about the flat earth theory, which was maliciously created by proponents of Darwinism themselves, in an attack on organized religion at that time. This is the typical mindset in the world today, which, ironically, has always been the fearful reaction of anyone troubled by attacks on the status quo. This book, and others like it, are at least make a positive step toward dismantling such unhealthy attitudes and is a refreshing attempt at civility.

Even though such attempts may strike fear into the hearts of the likes of Patrick Sullivan, who has cut and pasted a nearly identical review onto this site concerning every single book in this series, the painful but necessary job of blowing over card houses is appreciated by some.

As mentioned above, what should be embarrassing to Mr. Sullivan (assuming he has any self respect) and to others like him is that they are not refuting Intelligent Design at all by slandering young-earth creationists or erroneously stating that Christians once believed the earth was flat.

Intelligent Design, in its principles, contains elements pertaining to the science of observation which are imperative to fields such as forensic science and archeology, to name only two. The proponents of Intelligent Design he and others like him attack cannot be lumped in with creationists in general, and doing so only demonstrates sheer ignorance, or bigoted dismissal, of the distinctions between these groups.

If our quest is to eventually obtain a presentation of truth that is as unbiased as possible, then, against the backdrop of advancements in technology which our information age brings with it, Darwin's theory must be revisited and critically analyzed on entirely new bases - if only to dispel misconceptions, poor assumptions, or worse - myths.

As far as the assertion is concerned that holding the earth to be flat was formerly required in order to ascribe to the Christian faith, here's an excerpt by Wells himself, refuting such claims:

"According to the standard story, Christians used to believe for biblical reasons that the Earth is flat. When modern science demonstrated that the Earth is actually a sphere, that belief became a legitimate target for ridicule. Now, since modern science has likewise demonstrated the truth of Darwin's theory (so the story goes), critics of Darwinism are just as silly as flat- Earthers.

But the story is totally false. It was pure fiction until it was turned into a phony historical claim by late-19th century Darwinists who used it to slander Christians.

The spherical shape of the Earth was known to the ancient Greeks, who even made some pretty good estimates of its circumference. Christian theologians likewise knew that the Earth was a sphere. The only two Christian writers who seem to have advocated a flat Earth were a 4th-century heretic, Lactantius, and an obscure 6th-century eccentric, Cosmas Indicopleustes.

The modern Flat Earth Myth originated with the 19th-century American writer Washington Irving. In his fictional History of the Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus (1828), Irving wrote that flat-Earth churchmen had opposed Columbus on the grounds that he would fall off the edge of the Earth if he tried to sail across the Atlantic. In actuality, Columbus's opponents knew not only that the Earth is a sphere, but also approximately how big it is. Since they (like Columbus) knew nothing about the Americas, it was quite reasonable for them to believe that a voyage to the Far East would not be a good investment.

The Flat Earth Myth remained clearly in the realm of fiction until Darwin published his Origin of Species in 1859. Then two of Darwin's followers presented it as actual history in books that defended Darwinism against imaginary attacks from ignorant Christians: John Draper's The History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science (1874), and Andrew Dickson White's A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (1896). The pseudo-historical propaganda of Draper and White has been thoroughly discredited by twentieth-century historians.

Apparently, however, Graur doesn't read much history. Instead, he unknowingly caricatures critics of Darwinism on the basis of a myth that the Darwinists themselves fabricated.

Now THAT's funny!"