Explore Evolution: The Arguments For and Against Neo-Darwinism is a supplementary or enrichment biology textbook written by a group of intelligent design supporters and published in 2007. Its promoters describe it as aimed at helping educators and students to discuss "the controversial aspects of evolutionary theory that are discussed openly in scientific books and journals but which are not widely reported in textbooks." As one of the Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns to "teach the controversy" it aims to provide a "lawsuit-proof" way of attacking evolution and implying creationism / intelligent design without being explicit.
The book is co-authored by three Discovery Institute members, Stephen C. Meyer, Scott Minnich and Paul A. Nelson, as well as illustrator and creationist author Jonathan Moneymaker and Kansas evolution hearings participant Ralph Seelke. Hill House Publishers Pty. Ltd. ( Melbourne and London), headed by creationist and butterfly photographer Bernard d'Abrera, is the publisher of Explore Evolution.
Nick Matzke of the National Center for Science Education suggests that the name Explore Evolution might have been chosen with the intention of creating confusion. For example, Explore Evolution is also the name of a National Science Foundation grant program for museums in the United States launched in June, 2003.
This book replaces "Of Pandas and People", the supplementary textbook previously intended to introduce intelligent design to high school students. Discovery Institute fellows William A. Dembski and Jonathan Wells rewrote "Of Pandas and People" as a new 360-page college textbook called "The Design of Life".
Read more about Explore Evolution: The Arguments For And Against Neo-Darwinism: Promotion, Reaction
Famous quotes containing the words explore and/or arguments:
“Education must, then, be not only a transmission of culture but also a provider of alternative views of the world and a strengthener of the will to explore them.”
—Jerome S. Bruner (20th century)
“When I am convinced of any principle, it is only an idea which strikes more strongly upon me. When I give the preference to one set of arguments above another, I do nothing but decide from my feeling concerning the superiority of their influence.”
—David Hume (1711–1776)