Cole BleaseI was reading Edward Caudill’s Intelligently Designed: How Creationists Built the Campaign against Evolution (2013) recently. I won’t say a lot about it here, because I’ve just sent a review of it to a magazine, but I’ll quote my description of it: “Edward Caudill contends that his Intelligently Designed distinctively emphasizes ‘the use of enduring cultural myths and the dexterous employment of mass media’ ... in explaining the success of the creationist movement, and further proposes that the Scopes trial of 1925 established a template for the ensuing developments.” Caudill is a former journalist, now professor in the School of Journalism and Electronic Media at the University of Tennessee, so the emphasis on media is unsurprising. But I was surprised to see him writing, on p. 17, “In 1922, the U.S. Senate went so far as to debate, but eventually reject, legislation to outlaw proevolution radio broadcasts.” Really?

+ read

I don’t spend all of my time working at NCSE. Once in a while, I moonlight. The fruits of a moonlighting stint recently arrived: a chunky volume entitled 1001 Ideas that Changed the Way We Think (2013), edited by Robert Arp.

+ read
12.19.2013

In part 1, I related the prepublication history of Robert A. Moore’s “The Impossible Voyage of Noah’s Ark,” which originally appeared in Creation/Evolution 4:1 in 1983 and which, even thirty years later, is one of NCSE’s most frequently cited and used resources.

+ read

One of the most popular resources on NCSE’s website is Robert A. Moore’s “The Impossible Voyage of Noah’s Ark,” which originally appeared in Creation/Evolution 4(1):1–47 in 1983—which, indeed, was the whole of that issue.

+ read

James Bryant Conant

In part 1 of “Conant the Barbarian?” I was discussing a request to help with researching a quotation from James Bryant Conant—a professor of chemistry at and president of Harvard University, and a mover and shaker in the mid-twentieth-century American scientific establishment—which, supposedly, described evolution as “a fantasia which is neither history nor science.” Could a scientist of his eminence have said anything so barbarous?

+ read