Three kinds of lies: statistics, persuasion and propaganda

In returning to the topic of makeup advertising mentioned at the start of this chapter, it seems that the amplitude of jargon and statistics cases throughout Darwin-skeptic communications, as well as in some counter-creationist media, reveals what is likely an unexpected commonality between the Evolution Wars and the cosmetic industry. Yet in actuality the use of numerical data and complex specialized language for media advocacy has been a feature of persuasion efforts associated with a wide range of foci, extending from the marketing of pharmaceuticals to endorsing war efforts.122 Certainly, critics have long complained about the fast and loose use of statistics to sway audiences, with the adage that there are “three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies and statistics” being said to have originated in the 19th century, well before the advent of modern electronic media.123 Similarly, the application of Social Consensus, whether in the form of appeals to majority opinions or underdog stories, has also remained a perennial persuasion tool, utilized today as a conventional advertising technique. It is, therefore, not surprising that elements of these persuasion apparatus have also been identified in propaganda research of the 20th and 21st centuries. Associatively, the propaganda devices catalogued in Table 2.1 include the mechanisms described as Card-Stacking, Bandwagon, and Testimonials. These techniques were said to incorporate references to numerical facts or remarks about majority crowd support. As such, they engaged with the same kinds of persuasive schemas tied to Statistics and Technical Jargon as well as Social Consensus.124 With that intersection in mind, we will now pivot back to consider the total picture of persuasion in the Evolution Wars. It is in assessing the overarching persuasive profiles of Darwin-skeptic and proevolutionist media that we can then consider the prospective effects of such communications, and assess the central hypotheses laid out in the opening chapter of this book.

Notes

1 Sigmund S. Greenbaum, “Dermatoconjunctivitis Due to Lash-Lure, an Eyelash and Eyebrow Dye,” Journal of the American Medical Association 101, no. 5 (1933); Clyde E. Harner, “Dermato-Ophthalmitis Due to the Eyelash Dye Lash-Lure,” Journal of the American Medical Association 101, no. 20 (1933); R. C.

Jamieson, “Eyelash Dye (Lash-Lure) Dermatitis with Conjunctivitis,” Journal of the American Medical Association 101, no. 20 (1933); A. W. McCally, A. G. Farmer, and E. C. Loomis, “Corneal Ulceration Following Use of Lash-Lure,” Journal of the American Medical Association 101, no. 20 (1933); S. B. Forbes and W. C. Blake, “Fatality Resulting from the Use of Lashlure on the Eyebrow and Eyelashes,” Journal of the American Medical Association 103, no. 19 (1934).

  • 2 Jie G. Fowler, Timothy H. Reisenwitz, and Les Carlson, “Deception in Cosmetics Advertising: Examining Cosmetics Advertising Claims in Fashion Magazine Ads,” Journal of Global Fashion Marketing 6, no. 3 (2015): 197.
  • 3 Ibid., 198.
  • 4 Robert Levine, The Power of Persuasion: How We’re Bought and Sold (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2003), 33.
  • 5 David M. Boush, Marian Friestad, and Peter Wright, Deception in the Marketplace: The Psychology of Deceptive Persuasion and Consumer Self Protection (New York: Routledge, 2009), 70, 71.
  • 6 Richard F. Yalch and Rebecca Elmore-Yalch, “The Effect of Numbers on the Route to Persuasion,” Journal of Consumer Research 11, no. 1 (1984): 526.
  • 7 Ibid.
  • 8 Barry A. Hollander, “Newspaper Graphics and Inadvertent Persuasion,” Visual Communication Quarterly 1, no. 1 (1994).
  • 9 John Allen Paulos, Innumeracy: Mathematical Illiteracy and Its Consequences (New York: Hill and Wang, 1988), 51-52.
  • 10 John B. F. De Wit, Enny Das, and Raymond Vet, “What Works Best: Objective Statistics or a Personal Testimonial? An Assessment of the Persuasive Effects of Different Types of Message Evidence on Risk Perception,” Health Psychology 27, no. 1 (2008): 110.
  • 11 Joel Cooper, Elizabeth A. Bennett, and Holly L. Sukel, “Complex Scientific Testimony: How Do Jurors Make Decisions?” Law and Human Behavior 20, no. 4 (1996); Carolyn L. Hafer, Kelly L. Reynolds, and Monika A. Obertynski, “Message Comprehensibility and Persuasion: Effects of Complex Language in Coun-terattitudinal Appeals to Laypeople,” Social Cognition 14, no. 4 (1996).
  • 12 Michael D. Santos, Craig Leve, and Anthony R. Pratkanis, “Hey Buddy, Can You Spare Seventeen Cents? Mindful Persuasion and the Pique Technique,” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 24, no. 9 (1994): 762.
  • 13 Barbara Price Davis and Eric S. Knowles, “A Disrupt-Then-Reframe Technique of Social Influence,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 76, no. 2 (1999): 192.
  • 14 Bob M. Fennis, Enny H. H. J. Das, and Ad Th. H. Pruyn, “'If You Can’t Dazzle Them with Brilliance, Baffle Them with Nonsense’: Extending the Impact of the Disrupt-Then-Reframe Technique of Social Influence,” Journal of Consumer Psychology 14, no. 9 (2003): 280-81.
  • 15 Hélène Deval et al., “Effects of Confusion on Resistance to Persuasion,” Advances in Consumer Research 37 (2010): 543.
  • 16 Richard E. Petty and John T. Cacioppo, Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change (New York: Springer-Verlag, 1986), 96-101.
  • 17 Ibid., 212.
  • 18 See: Ibid., 96-101.
  • 19 Janetta Lun et al., “(Why) Do I Think What You Think? Epistemic Social Tuning and Implicit Prejudice,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 93, no. 6 (2007): 957, 58.
  • 20 Gretchen B. Sechrist and Charles Stangor, “When Are Intergroup Attitudes Based on Perceived Consensus Information? The Role of Group Familiarity,” Social Influence 2, no. 3 (2007).
  • 21 Elizabeth M. Perse, Media Effects and Society (Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2001), 115.
  • 22 Danny Axsom, Shelly Chaiken, and Suzanne Yates, “Audience Response as a Heuristic Cue in Persuasion,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 53, no. 1 (1987).
  • 23 Daniel W. Fleitas, "Bandwagon and Underdog Effects in Minimal-Information Elections,” The American Political Science Review 65, no. 2 (1971); Manfred Gartner, “Endogenous Bandwagon and Underdog Effects in a Rational Choice Model,” Public Choice 25 (1976): 83.
  • 24 David K. Levine and Thomas R. Palfrey, “The Paradox of Voter Participation? A Laboratory Study,” The American Political Science Review 101, no. 1 (2007).
  • 25 Neeru Paharia et al., “The Underdog Effect: The Marketing of Disadvantage and Determination through Brand Biography,” Journal of Consumer Research 37, no. 5 (2011).
  • 26 Ibid., 775.
  • 27 Ibid., 776.
  • 28 Ibid., 775.
  • 29 Frank Sherwin, “The Wax That Taxes Darwin,” Acts&Facts 38, no. 1 (2009): 12.
  • 30 “Frank Sherwin,” Institute for Creation Research, www.icr.org/frank_sherwin/.
  • 31 John D. Morris, “A Tectonic Origin for the Kingston Peak Formation,” Acts&Facts 38, no. 3 (2009): 6.
  • 32 Larry Vardiman, “New Evidence for Global Cooling,” Acts&Facts 39, no. 7 (2010): 13; “An Ice Age in Yellowstone National Park,” Acts&Facts 39, no. 12 (2010).
  • 33 Larry Vardiman and D. Russell Humphreys, “A New Creationist Cosmology: In No Time at All Part 1,” Acts&Facts 39, no. 11 (2010); “A New Creationist Cosmology: In No Time at All Part 2,” Acts&Facts 40, no. 1 (2011); “A New Creationist Cosmology: In No Time at All Part 3,” Acts&Facts 40, no. 2 (2011).
  • 34 See: Randy J. Guliuzza, “The Completed ‘Rest’ of the Lord,” Acts&Facts 38, no. 3 (2009); James J. S. Johnson, “The Graffiti of Judgment,” Acts&Facts 38, no. 4 (2009).
  • 35 Jeffrey Tomkins, "Human-Chimp Similarities: Common Ancestry or Flawed Research?” Acts&Facts 38, no. 6 (2009); “Ongoing Telomere Research at Odds with Human-Chimp Chromosome 2 Model,” Acts&Facts 40, no. 11 (2011); “First Phase Complete in Human and Chimp Genome-Wide DNA Comparison,” Acts&Facts 40, no. 12 (2011).
  • 36 Jeffrey Tomkins, “Evaluating the Human-Chimp DNA Myth - New Research Data,” Acts&Facts 40, no. 10 (2011): 6.
  • 37 Patricia L. Nason, “The Iron Grip of Darwinism on Education,” Acts&Facts 38, no. 2 (2009).
  • 38 Randy J. Guliuzza, “Consensus Science: The Rise of a Scientific Elite,” Acts&Facts 38, no. 5 (2009): 5; Lawrence E. Ford, “Science Education Roundup,” Acts&Facts 38, no. 7 (2009): 3; Henry M. Morris, “Evolutionary Arrogance,” Acts&Facts 38, no. 7 (2009 [2003]): 9; Henry Morris, III., “Creation by Evolution: Understanding the Theological Hazards of Bruce Waltke, Biologos, and the New Darwinian Evangelicals,” Acts&Facts 39, no. 6 (2010): 4; Henry M. Morris, “Biology and the Bible,” Acts&Facts 39, no. 11 (2010 [1999]): 4.
  • 39 R.D.S., “Letters to the Editor,” Acts&Facts 40, no. 9 (2011): 20; R.F., “Letters to the Editor,” Acts&Facts 39, no. 11 (2010): 20; J.E, “Letters to the Editor,” Acts&Facts 39, no. 5 (2010): 20; J.C., “Letters to the Editor,” Acts&Facts 39, no. 11 (2010): 20; S.F.S., “Letters to the Editor,” Acts&Facts 38, no. 10 (2009): 20; D.S., “Letters to the Editor,” Acts&Facts 38, no. 8 (2009): 20; L.T., “Letters to the Editor,” Acts&Facts 38, no. 11 (2009): 20; J. and N.H., “Letters to

Three kinds of lies 205 the Editor,” Acts&Facts 39, no. 7 (2010): 20; H.M.C., “Letters to the Editor,” Acts&Facts 39, no. 7 (2010): 20; P.L., “Letters to the Editor,” Acts&Facts 39, no. 4 (2010): 20; D.T., “Letters to the Editor,” Acts&Facts 39, no. 3 (2010): 20; M.K.S., “Letters to the Editor,” Acts&Facts 39, no. 6 (2010): 20; S.F., “Letters to the Editor,” Acts&Facts 40, no. 11 (2011): 20; G.S.K., “Letters to the Editor,” Acts&Facts 40, no. 6 (2011): 20; M.E, “Letters to the Editor,” Acts&Facts 40, no. 4 (2011): 20; R.S., “Letters to the Editor,” Acts&Facts 40, no. 3 (2011): 20.

  • 40 S.M., “Letters to the Editor,” Acts&Facts 40, no. 10 (2011): 20.
  • 41 Henry .Morris IV, “Gift Legacy,” Acts&Facts 38, no. 8 (2009): 21.
  • 42 Lawrence E. Ford, “2008: Laving the Groundwork for Growth," Acts&Facts 38, no. 1 (2009): 5.
  • 43 Henry Morris IV, “The Breadth and Depth of ICR Ministries,” Acts&Facts 39, no. 12 (2010): 21.
  • 44 John D. Morris, “The Creation Movement’s Firm Foundation,” Acts&Facts 40, no. 2 (2011): 9.
  • 45 Henry M. Morris, “Old-Earth Creationism,” Acts&Facts 38, no. 3 (2009 [1997]): 10; “Biology and the Bible,” 4; “Defending the Faith,” Acts&Facts 40, no. 4(2011 [1997]):'14.
  • 46 Morris, “Evolutionary Arrogance,” 9. (his italics).
  • 47 Lawrence E. Ford, “New Voices in Evolution Activism: From Madalyn Murray O’hair to Eugenie Scott,” Acts&Facts 38, no. 7 (2009): 5.
  • 48 Henry Morris, III., “An Inconvenient Truth,” Acts&Facts 39, no. 10 (2010): 21.
  • 49 John D. Morris, “The Creation Worldview and the Scopes Trial,” Acts&Facts 40, no. 1 (2011): 15.
  • 50 Henry Morris, III., “A Flood of Influence: The Impact of Henry Morris and the Genesis Flood in Modern History,” Acts&Facts 40, no. 2 (2011): 5.
  • 51 Henry M. Morris, “Creation & Resurrection,” Acts&Facts 39, no. 4 (2010 [1984]): 13.
  • 52 Henry Morris, III., “Issues Among Evangelicals,” Acts&Facts 38, no. 9 (2009): 22.
  • 53 Brian Thomas, “The Stones Cry Out: What Rocks and Fossils Say About the Age of the Earth,” Acts&Facts 40, no. 1 (2011): 17.
  • 54 Henry Morris IV, “Christian Heritage of Liberty,” Acts&Facts 39, no. 7 (2010): 21.
  • 55 Lawrence E. Ford, “Stand Up! Stand Up for Jesus!” Acts&Facts 39, no. 12 (2010): 3.
  • 56 Henry M. Morris, “The Vanishing Case for Evolution,” Acts&Facts 38, no. 2 (2009 [1986]).
  • 57 See: “Letters to the Editor,” Acts&Facts 38, no. 3 (2009); “Letters to the Editor,” Acts&Facts 40, no. 12 (2011).
  • 58 “Readers Respond - October-December 2011,” Answers 6, no. 4 (2011): 7.
  • 59 “Readers Respond - Januarv-March 2010,” Answers 5, no. 1 (2010): 7.
  • 60 Ibid., 7.
  • 61 Ibid.
  • 62 “Readers Respond - January-March 2011,” Answers 6, no. 1 (2011): 7.
  • 63 “Readers Respond - April-June 2010,” Answers 5, no. 2 (2010): 7.
  • 64 Ayn E. Crowley and Wayne D. Hoyer, “An Integrative Framework for Understanding Two-Sided Persuasion,” The Journal of Consumer Research 20, no. 4 (1994): 562.
  • 65 Mike Allen, “Comparing the Persuasive Effectiveness One- and Two-Sided Message,” in Persuasion: Advances Through Meta-Analysis, ed. Mike Allen and Raymond W. Preiss (Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, 1998), 96.
  • 66 Petty and Cacioppo, Communication and Persuasion, 78.
  • 67 Mark E., “New Zealand Closing on Australia?” Answers 5, no. 2 (2010): 7; David C., “Examining the Shroud More Carefully?” Answers 4, no. 3 (2009): 8; Paul A., “Evolution on Vacation - What Were You Thinking?” Answers 4, no. 3 (2009): 8.
  • 68 “Slaying the Dragon Myth,” Answers 6, no. 1 (2011): 10.
  • 69 Dale T. Mason, “The First Five Years: A Brief Report,” Answers 6, no. 3 (2011): 8.
  • 70 Dale T. Mason, “Foundations,” Answers 6, no. 3 (2011): 24.
  • 71 Dale T. Mason, “Cultivating a Vision,” Answers 6, no. 2 (2011); “Creation to Christ in Twenty Minutes,” Answers 5, no. 3 (2010); “Biblical Truths Across Continents: Just What the Doctors Ordered,” Answers 4, no. 3 (2009); “A Canvas for Creation,” Answers 5, no. 2 (2010); “Next Stop for Translations: Land of the Rising Sun,” Answers 4, no. 2 (2009); “Proclaiming the Creator in the Land of Many Gods,” Answers 4, no. 4 (2009); “Changing Lives in Latin America,” Answers 4, no. 1 (2009); “Preparing Hard Ground for Planting,” Answers 5, no. 3 (2010); “ ‘Alternative Universe’ Wins the Gold,” Answers 5, no. 1 (2010).
  • 72 Dale T. Mason, “Koreans for Creation,” Answers 4, no. 1 (2009); Pam Sheppard, “Building a Community for Discovery,” Answers 4, no. 1 (2009).
  • 73 Pam Sheppard, “Lord of the Ringmasters,” Answers 5, no. 1 (2010): 13.
  • 74 Pam Sheppard, “Sign of the Times,” Answers 5, no. 1 (2010): 9.
  • 75 Ken Ham, “Not Ashamed of a Biblical Starting Point,” Answers 5, no. 2 (2010): 47.
  • 76 Ken Ham, “Dinosaur Doubts Down Under,” Answers 6, no. 1 (2011): 12; “UK Schools Ok for Creation,” Answers 4, no. 3 (2009).
  • 77 Michael Farris, “Showing Children the Way,” Answers 6, no. 4 (2011): 78.
  • 78 Roger Patterson, “Intentional Teaching at Church,” Answers 5, no. 2 (2010): 16.
  • 79 Roger Patterson, “Generational Gaps,” Answers 5, no. 2 (2010): 10.
  • 80 Roger Patterson, “Many Christian Colleges Receive a Failing Grade,” Answers 6, no. 3 (2011): 20; Ken Ham, “Going, Going . . . Gone: Why Are Young People Walking Away from Our Churches?” Answers 6, no. 3 (2011).
  • 81 Patterson, “Many Christian,” 20.
  • 82 Ham, “Going, Going,” 124.
  • 83 Jason Lisle, “Exoplanets-Unpredictable Patterns,” Answers 6, no. 1 (2011): 46.
  • 84 Jonathan W. Jones, “Our Index Finger - Pointing to the Creator,” Answers 5, no. 4(2010): 71.
  • 85 Ibid., 73.
  • 86 Heather M. Brinson, “The Human Body - Wired for Extremes,” Answers 4, no. 4 (2009): 39, 40; Tommy Mitchell, “Our Suffering Savior: A Physician’s Perspective,” Answers 6, no. 3 (2011): 117.
  • 87 Jason Lisle, “Distant Starlight: The Anisotropic Synchrony Convention,” Answers 6, no. 1 (2011): 71; Danny Faulkner, “Galaxies - Unexplained Spirals,” Answers 6, no. 1 (2011): 56.
  • 88 Andrew A. Snelling, “Emeralds-Treasures from Catastrophe,” Answers 6, no. 4 (2011): 73; “Radiometric Dating: Making Sense of the Patterns,” Answers 5, no. 1 (2010); “Rubies & Sapphires: Sparkling Reminders of God’s Judgment,” Answers 5, no. 2 (2010).
  • 89 See: Paul F. Taylor, “Closing the Gap,” Answers 5, no. 4 (2010); Rand Hummel, “Is My Love for the Lord Real?” Answers 6, no. 3 (2011).
  • 90 Jonathan M., “Engineering at Its Finest: Bacterial Chemotaxis and Signal Transduction,” Center for Science and Culture, www.evolutionnews.org/2011/09/ engineering_at_its_finest_bact050911 .html.
  • 91 Ibid; Jonathan M., “Michael Behe Hasn’t Been Refuted on the Flagellum,” Center for Science and Culture, www.evolutionnews.org/2011/03/michael_behe_ hasnt_been_refute044801. html.
  • 92 Michael Behe, “Richard Lenski, ‘Evolvability,’ and Tortuous Darwinian Pathways,” Center for Science and Culture, www.evolutionnews.org/2011/04/rich ard_lenski_evolvability_an045921.html.
  • 93 Michael Behe, “Regulating DNA Repair Mechanisms,” Center for Science and Culture, www.evolutionnews.org/2010/1 l/regulating_dna_repair_mechanis 040801.html.
  • 94 Casey Luskin, “Critically Analyzing the Argument from Human/Chimpan-zee Genetic Similarity,” Center for Science and Culture, www.evolutionnews. org/201 l/09/critically_analyzing_the_argum051321 .html; Richard Sternberg, “Guy Walks into a Bar and Thinks He’s a Chimpanzee: The Unbearable Lightness of Chimp-Human Genome Similarity,” Center for Science and Culture, www.evolutionnews.org/2009/05/guy_walks_into_a_bar_and_think020401. html; Casey Luskin, “Scientists Say Intelligent Designer Needed for Origin of Life Chemistry,” Center for Science and Culture, www.evolutionnews. org/2009/07/scientists_say_intelligent_des022621.html.
  • 95 Jonathan M., “The ‘Junk DNA’ Paradigm Continues to Collapse as New Functions Are Discovered for Retrotransposons,” Center for Science and Culture, www.evolutionnews.org/2010/07/the_junk_dna_paradigm_continue036461.html.
  • 96 Jay W. Richards, “Are Chimps and Humans Really All That Much Alike?” Center for Science and Culture, www.evolutionnews.org/2010/02/are_chimps_ and_humans_really_a031631 .html.
  • 97 Sternberg, “Guy Walks Into a Bar and Thinks He’s a Chimpanzee.”
  • 98 Casey Luskin, “Recent Genetic Research Shows Chimps More Distant from Humans, Neanderthals Closer,” Center for Science and Culture, www.evolutionnews.org/2010/04/recent_genetic_research_shows034291 .html.
  • 99 Richards, “Are Chimps and Humans.”
  • 100 Richard Sternberg, “How the Junk DNA Hypothesis Has Changed Since 1980,” Center for Science and Culture, www.evolutionnews.org/2009/10/how_ the_junk_dna_hypothesis_ha026421.html.
  • 101 Casey Luskin, “A Partisan Affair (Part 6): False Claims About Science Education Policy in Edward Humes’ Pseudo-History of Kitzmiller, ‘Monkey Girl’,” Center for Science and Culture, www.evolutionnews.org/2009/01/a_partisan_ affair_part_6_false015161 .html.
  • 102 Anika Smith, “Darwin Day Poll Shatters Stereotypes: Democrats Favor Freedom to Discuss Evolution’s Strengths and Weaknesses More Than Republicans,” Center for Science and Culture, www.evolutionnews.org/2009/02/poll_ shatters_stereotypes_with016931 .html.
  • 103 Casey Luskin, “How the Science Teachers’ Lobby Keeps Its Constituents in the Dark on Evolution,” Center for Science and Culture, www.evolutionnews. org/201 l/03/how_the_science_teachers_lobby044471.html.
  • 104 Casey Luskin, “James Carville Wrongly Frames the Evolution Debate as a Democrat vs. Republican Issue,” Center for Science and Culture, www.evolu tionnews.org/2009/07/james_carville_flaunts_his_int023141.html.
  • 105 Smith, “Darwin Day Poll Shatters.”
  • 106 Glenn Branch, “‘Creationism Crusade’ in Church & State,” National Center for Science Education, http://ncse.com/news/2011/07/creationism-crusade-church-state-006779; “Darwin Day Resolution in Congress,” http://ncse.com/ news/201 l/02/darwin-day-resolution-congress-006494; “New Challenges for Evolution Education,” National Center for Science Education, http://ncse.com/ news/201 l/02/new-challenges-evolution-education-006510; “Too Many Teachers Ignore Evolution,” http://ncse.com/news/2011/01/too-many-teachers-ignore-evolution-006454.
  • 107 Branch, “Too Many Teachers Ignore.”
  • 108 Glenn Branch, “A New Gallup Poll on Evolution,” http://ncse.com/news/ 2010/12/new-gallup-poll-evolution-006373; “Polling Creationism in Canada,” National Center for Science Education, http://ncse.com/news/2011/03/polling-creationism-canada-006556; “Polling Global Evangelical Leaders on Evolution,” National Center for Science Education, http://ncse.com/news/2011/06/ polling-global-evangelical-leaders-evolution-006758; “Polling Evolution Down Under,” National Center for Science Education.
  • 109 Glenn Branch, “Polling Creationism and Evolution Around the World,” National Center for Science Education, http://ncse.com/news/2011/04/polling-creation ism-evolution-around-world-006634; “Polling Evolution in Three Countries,” http://ncse.com/news/2010/07/polling-evolution-three-countries-005708.
  • 110 Glenn Branch, “Nsta Poll on Climate Change Education,” National Center for Science Education, http://ncse.com/news/2011/11/nsta-poll-climate-change-education-006941.
  • 111 “Inroads for the Ark Park?” National Center for Science Education, https:// ncse.com/news/2010/12/inroads-ark-park-006380; “Kentucky Academy of Science on the Ark Park,” National Center for Science Education, https://ncse. com/news/201 l/01/kentucky-academy-science-ark-park-006420; “Update on the Ark Park,” National Center for Science Education, https://ncse.com/news/ 2010/12/update-ark-park-006375.
  • 112 “Friends or Foes?” https://old.biologos.org/blog/friends-or-foes.
  • 113 Dennis Venema, “The Origin of Biological Information, Part 6,” BioLogos, https://biologos.org/blogs/dennis-venema-letters-to-the-duchess/the-origin-of-biological-information-part-6.
  • 114 David Ussery, “Is There an Edge to Evolution? Part 4,” BioLogos, https://biologos.org/blogs/archive/is-there-an-edge-to-evolution-part-4; Dennis Venema, “The Origin of Biological Information, Part 3: Csi on Steroids,” BioLogos, https://biologos.org/blogs/dennis-venema-letters-to-the-duchess/the-origin-of-biological-information-part-3-csi-on-steroids; “The Origin of Biological Information, Part 2: E. Coli vs. Id,” BioLogos, https://biologos.org/blogs/ dennis-venema-letters-to-the-duchess/the-origin-of-biological-information-part-2-e-coli-vs-id.; “Signature in the Synteny,” BioLogos, https://biologos.org/ blogs/dennis-venema-letters-to-the-duchess/signature-in-the-synteny.
  • 115 Pete Enns, “Genesis, Creation, and Ancient Interpreters: What About Angels?” BioLogos, https://biologos.org/blogs/archive/genesis-creation-and-ancient-inter preters-what-about-angels/; “Jesus and the Sea,” BioLogos, https://biologos. org/blogs/archive/jesus-and-the-sea; “Understanding Earth,” BioLogos, https:// biologos.org/blogs/archive/understanding-earth.
  • 116 LawrenceE.Ford,“TakingGodatHisWord,”Acts&Facts38,no.4(2009);“Creationist Board Chair Profiled,” http://ncse.com/news/2009/03/creationist-board-chair-profiled-004643; “What’s Next for Texas Science Standards?” (2009), http://ncse.com/news/2009/01/whats-next-texas-science-standards-004222.
  • 117 Robert Luhn, “Darwin in Danger? Top Evolution Stories of the Year,” National Center for Science Education, https://ncse.com/evolution/darwin-danger-top-evolution-stories-year.
  • 118 Glenn Branch, “Paleontologists Dismayed by Creation ‘Museum’,” National Center for Science Education, https://ncse.com/news/2009/06/paleontologists-dismayed-by-creation-museum-004877.
  • 119 Robert Luhn, “Eugenie Scott Wins Stephen Jay Gould Prize,” National Center for Science Education, http://ncse.com/evolution/eugenie-scott-wins-stephen-jay-gould-prize.
  • 120 Glenn Branch, “Arkansas Science Teachers Add Their Voice for Evolution,” http://ncse.com/news/2011/05/arkansas-science-teachers-add-their-voice-evolu tion-006687.
  • 121 “Darwin Day Approaches,” National Center for Science Education, http:// ncse.com/news/2010/01/darwin-day-approaches-005285.
  • 122 J. Lexchin, “Statistics in Drug Advertising: What They Reveal Is Suggestive What They Hide Is Vital,” international Journal of Clinical Practice 64, no. 8
  • (2010); Randal Marlin, Propaganda and the Ethics of Persuasion (Peterborough: Broadview Press, 2002), 66-67.
  • 123 Carroll Davidson Wright, “Statistics and Their Uses,” Neu/ York Times, January 25, 1896; T. Mackay, “National Pensions,” The National Observer, June 13, 1891.
  • 124 Marlin, Propaganda and the Ethics, 102-32.
 
Source
< Prev   CONTENTS   Source   Next >