I try to avoid filling up this site with anti-creationism banter because other people do so much of a better job with that sort of blogging, and I like to focus on new things in anthropology. But since the National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine pooled their resources and minds together and put out a comprehensive 88 page book titled, “Science, Evolution, and Creationism” I feel obliged to share it with you. The book was put together in order to explain the overwhelming evidence in support of biological evolution, and slam the shortcomings in creationism thought, including “intelligent design.” From the description of the book,
“The book explores the many fascinating inquiries being pursued that put the science of evolution to work in preventing and treating human disease, developing new agricultural products, and fostering industrial innovations. The book also presents the scientific and legal reasons for not teaching creationist ideas in public school science classes.
Mindful of school board battles and recent court decisions, Science, Evolution, and Creationism shows that science and religion should be viewed as different ways of understanding the world rather than as frameworks that are in conflict with each other and that the evidence for evolution can be fully compatible with religious faith. For educators, students, teachers, community leaders, legislators, policy makers, and parents who seek to understand the basis of evolutionary science, this publication will be an essential resource”
You can read the full text of the book for free, chapter by chapter or download a free PDF of the Science, Evolution, and Creationism summary brochure. I can’t seem to find a free full text PDF of the entire book, but you can order 2 copies for $9 which ain’t a bad deal.
In other evolution news, John Hawks has a run down on 2008 predictions in physical anthropology. To add to one point he makes about three papers with new Ethiopian fossils coming out this year, I know of at least one major find that we’ve all been waiting to be published should be published in the near future. I’m really interested in the bonus prediction, the, “dramatic development in the problem of pre-2.0-million-year-old Homo,” point.