English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

In 1925, during the so-called ‘monkey trial’ in Dayton, Tennessee, Biblical creationists squared off against a high school teacher, John Scopes, who was charged with violating a state law that prohibited the teaching of evolution. Although the result was a public relations disaster, creationism has continued to gain strength, evolving new forms as it struggles to evade legal restrictions in the schools. The boundaries seem clear. In 1982, for instance, a federal court held in McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education that an Arkansas statute requiring ‘balanced treatment’—balancing, that is, “creation science” and “evolution science”—was unconstitutional. In 1987, that ruling was strengthened (p. 105) when the Supreme Court overturned Louisiana’s similar ‘Creationism Act” inEdwards v. Aguillard, ruling that “creation science was a thinly veiled version of creationism, and that teaching it would promote a particular religious view, and hence violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.” (p. 105) You might think it unlikely, then, that a school district would once more try to force the issue of teaching any form of creationism—yet that’s exactly what happened in Dover, Pennsylvania in 2004. A board dominated by Christian fundamentalists passed an amendment to the science curriculum, stating: “Students will be made aware of gaps/problems in Darwin’s theory and of other theories of evolution including, but not limited to, intelligent design.” (p. 13) “Intelligent design” (ID), the most recent version of antievolutionism, avoids mention of the Bible, but contends that life shows a specific type of “irreducible complexity” that cannot be produced by natural causes and must, therefore, have been caused by an “intelligent designer.” The argument dates back at least as far as 1802, when William Paley published his Natural Theology. If we found a watch upon the ground, Paley argued, we would conclude from its intricate structure and function that it had been shaped for a purpose and must have had a maker. So, too, must we infer a Maker of such complex structures as the vertebrate eye. These days, ID proponents point to cellular or molecular structures like the bacterial flagellum and the blood-clotting cascade—without, however, describing how the design occurs. As an explanation, one leading theorist offers, “At some point, a supernatural designer must get into the picture.” (p. 138; Slack quoting Behe) In Dover, high school teachers and parents objected when the school board directed that copies of an ID-based textbook were to be placed in classrooms as a “curricular supplement,” (p. 12) and that biology teachers must, before they taught anything about evolution, read to their students a prepared statement that included the following lines:

Gordy Slack, The Battle Over the Meaning of Everything: Evolution, Intelligent Design, and a School Board in Dover, PA