We are 100% user-supported!
Without you, there is no RationalWiki!
|Goal: $5000||Donations so far: $3075|
Help and donate today!
Scientists Confront Creationism
|The divine comedy|
Scientists Confront Creationism is a collection of essays pertaining to creation science, published in 1984 by Norton Paperbacks. This is one of the first books to directly attack the arguments offered by creation science, rather than just discussing the veracity of evolution itself.
- George O. Abell Ph.D. astronomy: on the age of the Earth and creationists' common mischaracterization of the reliability of radiometric dating.
- C. Loring Brace Ph.D. anthropology: dismisses the idea that humans are "new" (like 6,000 years new) to the planet by providing mounds of anthropological evidence of civilizations older than 6,000 years.
- Stephen G. Brush Ph.D. theoretical physics
- John R. Cole Ph.D. anthropology
- Joel L. Cracraft Ph.D. biology
- Russell F. Doolittle Ph.D. chemistry: on debunking the "probability" argument.
- Frederick Edwords: administrator of the American Humanist Association.
- Laurie R. Godfrey Ph.D. anthropology: specifically addresses the creationist claim that gaps in the fossil records undermine evolution.
- Stephen J. Gould Ph.D. professor of geology: does what Gould does best: eviscerate creationist lies.
- Thomas H. Jukes Ph.D.: biochemistry on the then-new molecular evidence for evolution.
- Alice B. Kehoe professor of anthropology and expert on the cultures of pre-Columbian North Americans.
- John W. Patterson M.S. mining engineering: explains and debunks the chronic bad habit of creationists using the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics to "disprove" evolution.
- David M. Raup Ph.D. paleontology: retired department head of the University of Chicago Department of Geophysical Sciences and curator of the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, specifically debunks "Flood geology".
- Robert J. Schadewald: freelance science writer.
- Stephen D. Schafersman Ph.D. geology: debunks the common creationist canard that "evolution is based on unproven preconceptions" that lead to confirmation bias and flawed conclusions.