Further Debate
One way scientists have advanced the frontiers of human knowledge is through spirited, yet civil, debate about the meaning of publicly accessible evidence. Scientists often debate how best to interpret the available evidence. Controversy in science is nothing new. It’s not a distraction; it’s normal. Explore Evolution is part of the continuing debate over Neo-Darwinism. On this page, the authors of Explore Evolution along with other scientists continue the discussion by responding to questions, comments, and critiques related to issues covered by the textbook. Responses are organized in two ways: by major review, and by book section/topic.
Responses to Major Reviews
Response to the National Center for Science Education’s Review of Explore Evolution
- September 10, 2009
Response to Brian Metscher’s Book Review in Evolution & Development
- February 24, 2009
Responses Organized by Book Section/Topic
Preface and Introduction
The Creationism Gambit
- March 2, 2009
Evolution and Testability
- February 24, 2009
The “Fact” of Evolution
- February 24, 2009
The Definitions of “Evolution”
- February 24, 2009
When Did “Neo-Darwinism” Become a Dirty Word?
- February 23, 2009
A Mis-Aimed Critique of Inquiry Based Learning
- February 2, 2009
Double Standard on Textbook Treatments of Evolution
- February 2, 2009
Universal Common Descent
Fossil Succession
Malcolm Gordon and the Origin of Tetrapods
- February 24, 2009
Anatomical Homology
Anatomical Homology and Circular Definitions
- February 23, 2009
Molecular Homology
Reply to NCSE on Universal Genetic Code
- August 21, 2009
Molecular Phylogeny and Phylogenetic Trees
- February 24, 2009
Monophyly vs. Polyphyly and Christian Schwabe
- February 24, 2009
Embryology
Genetic Toolkits
- February 23, 2009
Haeckel, Darwin, and Textbooks
- February 23, 2009
Biogeography
The Creative Power of Natural Selection
No article retrievedA New Challenge: Molecular “Machines”
Special Studies
Natural Selection as Survival of the Fittest
What Fossils Can’t Tell You
Conclusion: The Nature of Dissent in Science
For Discussion on the Debate, visit:
