This Christian source provides a host of antievolution arguments with references to scripture. The arguments span beyond the scope of biological evolution, including information regarding several branches of science and theology. The ideas are created and supported by scholars and academics. This source is important for examining the creationist side of the argument, and analyzing the ways in which the two views can be reconciled in a way that maintains scientific literacy.

Despite the refutation of intelligent design as legitimate science by the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences and the National Academy of Sciences, eighteen states have suggested the introduction of antievolution legislation (as of 2005). In the wake of this movement, librarians, the ultimate guardians of knowledge, may face challenges of censorship by religious conservatives. Suppressing access to information is in direct conflict with democratic ideals. This article contains specific advice for librarians regarding the protection of diverse resources. Although the O'Sullivans write to a specific audience, their message is indicative of the relationship between censorship and literacy.

Conservative activists throughout history have sought to censor thinkers from Karl Marx to Friedrich Nietzsche to John Dewey. Why would Charles Darwin be any different? The religious conservative movement-what Apple deems "authoritarian populism"-is a threat to both education and culture, striking a particularly resonant chord in the evolution/creation debate. Crafting a linguistic façade known as "intelligent design" has allowed conservatives to covertly enter the scientific realm. Scientists, he argues, must assemble themselves, as the authoritarian populists have, in order to uphold the very best of science. Apple does a particularly exceptional job examining the psyche of the conservative alliance and its widespread cultural impact.

The teaching of such a controversial social issue as evolution in the classroom presents difficulties to instructors, both on personal and professional levels. Griffith and Brem examined fifteen Arizona biology teachers, pulling their experiences from focus groups, interviews, and surveys. The study contains a great deal of anecdotal information dealing with both internal and external influences on instructors' teaching methods. This research investigates a whole new realm of the issue as it pertains to literacy by looking directly at those who control the flow of information and those who influence it. However, the researchers make little conclusive headway, suggesting simply that instructors should be made more comfortable with the topic by having access to better information and resources. Ultimately, the personal experiences are telling of the political climate and social stressors.

This article responds to many of the existing creationist arguments by refuting them with scientific evidence, including substantiation from reputable sources. Kessler, chair of the department of physics at Illinois Wesleyan University, discusses his personal experiences with teaching college freshmen, including an astounding case in which a student who had received a 32 on his ACT dropped out of college on the advice of his minister. At the heart of the issue was a belief system that could not be reconciled with Kessler's instruction. The article also focuses on the backgrounds of the students and the ways in which their limited (sometimes nonexistent and often misinformed) research illustrates a lack of understanding of the scientific method and the nature of experimental data. In this way, the creationist student mindset can be examined in context of his/her belief system.

This article gives scope to the controversy over teaching evolution, for it pertains to biology education in the United Kingdom. Reiss notes that a recent trend in science education is to teach about doing science, which helps to reinforce and illustrate its universality and practical application. He proposes furthermore that science teachers should examine the connection between science and religion with their students, as this sort of all-encompassing objectivity is in keeping with the philosophy of science. In this manner, students may be more apt to engage science without feeling threatened by it. By teaching more about the nature of science and its methods, students will also come to understand the difference between scientific knowledge and other forms of knowledge. Reiss suggestions present an interesting way of "reaching across the aisle" without compromising the integrity of either side.

Kahle commentates on the opening of the $27 million Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky and its potential impact on the evolution/creationism debate. Despite the legal decisions of the past century, which have largely determined that creationism is religion and therefore has no place in the science classroom, Americans by and large uphold religious assertions over science, a tendency caused primarily by the continual endorsement of pseudoscience. The Kentucky Visitor's Bureau, a department supported by public tax dollars, lends credibility to the Creation Museum as a "walk through history . . . [that] will counter evolutionary natural history museums." Placing science and pseudoscience in the same realm, argues Kahle, is a mistake that may circumvent empirical science as a measure of truth.

Examining a specific legal decision in Pennsylvania regarding high school curriculum, the author examines yet another facet of the evolution debate-the students' voice. All too often, the rights of children are overlooked in the development of or debate over educational curriculum. Grover cites the Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) as recognizing children as competent and independent thinkers whose input is not only relevant, but also valuable. The focus of the paper is on children's rights and how they were neglected in Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District et al, although attention is paid to church state separation and science education. This source is particularly useful for examining the role of the child in the education arena-just because they are on the receiving end of the education continuum does not mean they do not have a role in the discourse. Their voices are perhaps the most important of all.

Clark turns to philosophy to assess the relationship between naturalism and supernaturalism. In a political sense, all debates must deal with the physical world, for that is all that we know. Religious doctrines are acceptable as moral implicates, but in order to extend universality in the public realm, the language cannot be theological. The issue is essentially linguistic; by using a common language grounded in empiricism, we can better tackle the issues at hand. Clark suggests that the best mode of pacifying these views is to turn toward empiricism, which is grounded in evidence rather than faith. There is no way to "prove" faith. However, it is important to guard against the threat of "totalitarian empiricism" in which uniformity replaces consciousness. We live in a pluralistic society, and so it is to remain. Extending this thinking to the evolution-creation debate can perhaps shed light on a very plausible and practical solution.

This particular survey reviews religious trends that have occurred between the period 1990-2008. This 18-year period provides an excellence examination of recent shifts in religiosity. Moreover, the source will provide a background from which to infer future trends in secularization, in addition to determining its implications on scientific literacy.

Adolescence is a period of great intellectual development that holds a lasting, lifelong influence. The authors examine the degree to which a school's religious affiliation and contextual teaching influence the development of adolescent belief systems and attitudes. The researchers find that the religious tenor of the school is incredibly influential in shaping student worldviews. Because religion and science are often viewed as diametrically opposed, I'd like to take this data a little further and ask, to what degree does this trend impede or facilitate scientific literacy?

Although most states include evolution as a essential part of a well-rounded education, legislative action is continually perverting science standards to a point where we must ask the question, "Do state science standards matter?" Between 2005 and 2006, 23 states have modified science curricula, which further obscures the issue. Bandoli surveyed close to 2,500 freshman college students from both Indiana and Ohio regarding their experiences in high school biology. Among the incredible statistical information assembled here, Bandoli found that over 90% of students regarded evolution as a strong scientific theory. Considering the fact that 66% of high school biology teachers either breeze over or snub the teaching of evolution, these results appear to suggest that students may actually be more open-minded and competent than their high school teachers. Not only does this raise the issue of teacher quality and objectivity, it also questions the relevance and validity of the antievolution movement.